XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On 20 Nov 2025 15:26:00 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:   
      
   > WSL1 made sense for Windows because Windows had no real POSIX layer   
   > to protect, so Microsoft could bolt on a syscall-translation shim   
   > without breaking anything.   
      
   That’s a pretty lame description, let’s face it.   
      
   > macOS is in a different situation. Its BSD/Mach stack and POSIX APIs   
   > are used all over the system. Trying to bolt Linux syscalls and   
   > semantics onto that -- with Linux's interface differences, device   
   > models, virtual file system, event notification system, namespaces,   
   > and so on -- isn't a "minor difference," and it would risk breaking   
   > actual macOS software.   
      
   No it wouldn’t. Think of how BSDs are able to offer Linux   
   compatibility; macOS is supposedly derived from BSD, isn’t it? So why   
   can’t it do the same?   
      
   > And yes, Apple (and MS) pulling in open source pieces to do that is   
   > completely normal.   
      
   The market leader doesn’t need to pay attention to compatibility with   
   also-ran competitors: it does the leading, they do the following, not   
   the other way round.   
      
   The fact that both Microsoft and Apple feel the need to pay a great   
   deal of attention to Linux compatibility shows that they are no longer   
   the market leaders; they are now having to follow where Linux is   
   leading.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)