Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: vfork | Date | Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:24:17 -0800 | From | Ed Hall <> |
| |
Albert D. Cahalan writes:
> Being "portable" is relative. One may choose "all x86", "all BSD", > "all 64-bit Linux", "all big-endian 32-bit SysV" or even "all Win32". > To varying degree, most people don't give a damn.
Sightly off-topic: As one of those "64-bit Linux" types, I'd be happy with just "all Linux" portability. Even though Linux has existed on 64-bit CPU's for three years, now, programmers feel it's quite OK to assume that a "long" or a "char *" is 32 bits.
More to the point, divergences POSIX should be noted. Linux has never claimed to be SysV, BSD, or (heaven forbid) Win32. But it claims POSIX compliance, so it can be quite useful to note differences (even happy ones) from that standard.
As someone who has seen the hubris of numerous Unix vendors in assuming that portability isn't their problem--especially when it comes to documentation--it pains me when Linux folks take a similar tack. Looked at from the perspective of someone coming to Linux from elsewhere in the Unix world, your attitude looks downright hostile. Such attitudes belong on Slashdot, not here.
-Ed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |