Gingernate@programming.dev to Unixporn@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoIm going to get banned for thisprogramming.devimagemessage-square120fedilinkarrow-up1547arrow-down1104
arrow-up1443arrow-down1imageIm going to get banned for thisprogramming.devGingernate@programming.dev to Unixporn@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square120fedilink
minus-squareZeth0s@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·1 year agoThanks, 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
minus-squarePowerCrazy@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down5·edit-21 year agoI 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.
minus-squareZeth0s@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-21 year agoAs 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
Thanks, this explains:
So the interactive part, the shell itself, is not compliant. That is why I was confused
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.
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