"Noah Slater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 07/12/2007, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Uh no. POSIX does not lay out what it means to be a "type of operating >> system". It lays out what _interfaces_ must be there for certain >> degrees of POSIX compliancy. It does not require the embodiment of >> those interfaces to run under the name "operating system". > > I consider that to be a good enough definition of "operating system"
A recipe for apple pie is not a definition of apples. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
