Supporting *unix* beyond Linux and Mac

[markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org (markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org)]

>
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org wrote:
>
>> As you probably know, I've been posting and asking for beta testers, I'm
>> developing a site that has a software component that must be run.
>>
>> I currently support Mac, Linux, and Windows. I'm pretty sure that *any*
>> variant of unix could be supported, but there are a lot, netbsd,
>> openbsd,
>> freebsd, etc.
>>
>> Does anyone have a good argument about which to support if I can only
>> support one?
>
> If you can only support one Unix environment, support Posix, since that is
> very widely supported and will rarely require you to make involuntary
> updates to your software to accomodate new versions.

There is no such thing as a POSIX operating system, i.e. I can't go out
and get the "POSIX" CD and install it. There is a posix specification that
Linux sort of looks like.

FWIW, the code is basically posix with the Windows/unix low level hackery
separated by #ifdef. The Windows command line code is built under MinGW.

>
> Admittedly, Linux is not 100% Posix compliant, but you may not be using
> the non-compliant features.

Oh, I'm definitely using non-compliant features. I could go on for hours
about how disgustingly broken Window's "select(...)" function is.
>
> Daniel Feenberg
>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
>> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>