Subject: Re: unix define
To: (Johan Danielsson), Jaromir Dolecek <>
From: I presume I need no introduction. <>
List: current-users
Date: 06/15/1998 23:48:08
Johan Danielsson sez:
 * Jaromir Dolecek <> writes:
 * > I don't see any reason for not defining it under NetBSD. Or could
 * > you provide any ?
 * What assumptions can you make about a ``unix'' system?

For one, you can assume that "unix" systems more closely resemble one
another than a "unix" system would resemble, say, a Micro$haft Windoze
or MacOS environment.  There are certain fundamental things that can
be asserted such as the behaviours of certain system calls, the presence
of ioctl(), the semantics of open(), the presence of things like
<machine/ieeefp.h>.  You know, small insignificant things like that.


 * /Johan

America is quite possibly the only country to go from barbarism to
decadence without the requisite intervening period of civilisation.