this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
409 points (83.0% liked)

Unixporn

15521 readers
11 users here now

Unixporn

Submit screenshots of all your *NIX desktops, themes, and nifty configurations, or submit anything else that will make themers happy. Maybe a server running on an Amiga, or a Thinkpad signed by Bjarne Stroustrup? Show the world how pretty your computer can be!

Rules

  1. Post On-Topic
  2. No Defaults
  3. Busy Screenshots
  4. Use High-Quality Images
  5. Include a Details Comment
  6. No NSFW
  7. No Racism or use of racist terms

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zeth0s 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How can it be? It's oo. Not saying you're wrong. Honestly curious

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Zeth0s 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks, this explains:

The Windows NT POSIX subsystem did not provide the interactive user environment parts

So the interactive part, the shell itself, is not compliant. That is why I was confused

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am not a greybeard expert with deep bash history, but I though the posix compliant aspect of PowerShell was a very recent, though apparently not perfect, achievement even if "technically" NT was POSIX compliant by some specific definition in 1993.

[–] Zeth0s 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As far as I understand, these are posix requirements https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18

Powershell is not compliant with that document even now in the interactive part. Wsl2 is, as one can istall a standard Linux shell

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

bruh

That was Windows NT and was done for C builds so that Microsoft could compete for US government contracts