Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 9th Sep 2012 22:58 UTC
Mac OS X "A little more than an year ago I wrote my rant post The Linux Desktop Experience is Killing Linux on the Desktop and for the first time in 8 years I wasn't a desktop Linux user anymore. I spent about a month wrestling with Windows 7, but let's face it - Windows is ill suited for professional Ruby programmers like me (and it's ill suited for most programmers, except maybe Java & .Net I guess). Anyways, it was never my intention to stick with Windows - I was just doing my Mac due diligence. Now with 1+ year of OSX usage I'd like to share a few things about my experience thus far with you."
Thread beginning with comment 534757
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Windows is ill suited...
by moondevil on Tue 11th Sep 2012 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Windows is ill suited..."
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

"Windows is no different than other commercial operating systems.


Except Windows sucks balls with POSIX semantics while most other operating systems, commercial or not, doesn't.
This makes a big difference for most things that aren't .Net or Java. Sure, you can do it but it's not much fun. I've done Python on Windows and I'd rather not.
Don't even get me started on the fun that is fskcing around with cygwin or even trying to build stuff from source. Breeze on Linux/BSD, not so much on Windows.
"

There are commercial operating systems that are even less compliant with POSIX than Windows is.

It would help if people would write portable code to start with, instead of trying to run POSIX everywhere.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There are commercial operating systems that are even less compliant with POSIX than Windows is.


Well I am presuming we're talking about mainstream stuff here, not niche operating systems with even smaller market share than Linux/BSD.

It would help if people would write portable code to start with, instead of trying to run POSIX everywhere.

POSIX is portable to pretty much every mainstream OS except Windows. Heck, the purpose of POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is to be portable and it's not exactly difficult to implement. MS just don't care enough to do it even remotely well.

Edited 2012-09-12 03:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

POSIX is portable to pretty much every mainstream OS except Windows. Heck, the purpose of POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is to be portable and it's not exactly difficult to implement. MS just don't care enough to do it even remotely well.


Except when the OS decides to interpret what POSIX says in another way. Ever managed to make a serious POSIX application work across Mac OS X, DG-UX, HP-UX, Aix, Solaris, BSD and GNU/Linux without a single #ifdef?

If you add the POSIX compatibility layer via the "Add/Remove features" panel Windows ends up also having quite some compatibility.

As for doing it well, it does not bring them money, so why should they care?

If Apple had decided otherwise and taken BeOS as their new Mac OS X, you would also be bashing Mac OS X POSIX compatibility.

Reply Parent Score: 3

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

It would help if people would write portable code to start with, instead of trying to run POSIX everywhere.


And what system interface should we write this portable code against? A lot of the APIs present in POSIX are pretty lean and pretty basic; the POSIX file API has, what, eleven major entry points*? You're either saying that people shouldn't open files, handle strings or allocate memory in "portable code", or you're saying that there's some smaller, simpler, more portable API than POSIX that we should be using.



* fopen, fclose, fread, fwrite, fprintf, fscanf, fgets, fgetc, fputc, ftell, fseek; yes, there are obviously more, but those eleven will cover most of your common desktop use-cases.

Edit: I is not can kount.

Edited 2012-09-14 21:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2