Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
oudalally574211dImagine if way back in the day Microsoft had decided that their future OS builds had been based on Xenix rather than DOS.
All windows platforms could have been underpinned by a Unix platform. I wonder what new and original ways they would have found to break it.
oudalally574211d@Voxera Actually, the POSIX compliancy came from the Inteix platform which Microsoft bought out.
Xenix was essentially a licensed version of System 7 from Bell Labs, but they couldn't license the name. It was a really nice OS too, very slick but took ages to install (I only ever did it one on an 8086 using 5 1/4" floppies. That was tedious...)
The POSIX compliance in NT was actually a really slick implementation. We played with it for a brief period when trying to see if we could port a unit trust admin system to Windows from SCO, but didn't bother persisting as it would have been a lot more work than we first anticipated.
oudalally574210d@Voxera Tbh, I'm not sure why they didn't base their environment on Xenix, but I suspect that they didn't have the rights to make extensive modifications to it.
It would be a very different ecosystem for Microsoft's applications now if they'd chosen Xenix as the underpinning for their modern OS's though.
As it would be if they hadn't priced CP/M out of the market place.
Your Job Suck?
Take a quick quiz from Triplebyte to skip the job search hassles and jump to final interviews at hot tech firms
Get a Better Job