[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility)
|
From: |
Paavo Parkkinen |
|
Subject: |
Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility) |
|
Date: |
Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:27:26 +0300 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Wed, 26.10.2005 at 14:04 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> A API doesn't show how the actual system is implemented. Which is the
> interesting bit to understand.
With security related operations you can just ignore the
implementation and do something similar, but not with the Windows
APIs? Why?
Paavo
--
kremlin kanavien soppaa
- POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), William Grim, 2005/10/25
- Message not available
- Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), Justin Emmanuel, 2005/10/25
- Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/25
- Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/25
- Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), Justin Emmanuel, 2005/10/26
- Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/26
- Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility),
Paavo Parkkinen <=
- Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/26
- Re: Fwd: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), Paavo Parkkinen, 2005/10/27
Re: POSIX Layer, Stronger Chassis (Was: Re: Compatibility), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/25