Re: Does Microsoft lie about the Linux features?
From: Erik Funkenbusch (erik_at_despam-funkenbusch.com)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:03:07 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>>Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>> You're referring to the situation where Microsoft used a field in the
>>>>Kerberos standard that was explicitly reserved for vendor specific
>>>>extensions in the standard. The complaint was that Microsoft didn't
>>>>document the extension at first.
>>>Does that mean that alternative versions of Active Directory services
>>>are available now, and those programs (say MS CRM) that claim to
>>>require AD really don't?
>>I don't know of any alternative versions of AD. Even if there were, I
>>don't understand your logic. If my program requires glibc6, does that
>>mean if you create something compatible with glibc6 that my program no
>>longer requires it?
> Programs written for unix-like operating systems don't require 'glibc6',
> they require a standard C library and if they are written correctly you can
> recompile them under a different vendors's OS version.
Then explain why there are so many dependancies in makefiles for a file
> Consider, for example, how
> many programs written for unix will run under Cygwin/windows simply because
> it provides the standard functions and environment.
Cygwin provides glibc. There is a version of gcc that uses Microsoft's
CRT though, called mingw.