| All Forums |
Register |
Login |
Search |
Subscriptions |
My Profile |
Inbox |
| Tool Warehouse |
FAQs |
Resources |
Help |
Member List |
Address Book |
Logout |
|
|
| Users viewing this topic: none |
|
Login  |
|
|
 MKS - Oct. 9, '02, 3:54:39 PM
|
|
|
arorlik
Posts: 10
Joined: Oct. 2, '02,
Status: offline
|
I' ve been researching SFU and MKS toolkit as interoperability tools for an upcoming project and am trying to determine the main differences between the two. It seems the main difference is the extensive amount of APIs that MKS has. I' ve found a few articles that also mention using MKS in conjunction with SFU. Does anyone have any knowledge of MKS and how it compares with SFU?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: MKS - Oct. 24, '02, 10:27:49 AM
|
|
|
zjdrew
Posts: 7
Joined: Jul. 14, '02,
Status: offline
|
The MKS NuTCracker stuff is a set of libraries that live on top of Win32. Because it lives on top of Win32, an app written with their libraries has full access to Win32, but it also subject to the limitations of Win32. (E.g. no case-sensitive filesystem access, fork() has some peculiarities, etc.)
The Interix stuff is built on a separate subsystem that is parallel to Win32. The Interix subsystem is built on top of the native NT APIs, not Win32; Interix apps can' t make Win32 calls, but they are not subject to many of the Win32 limitations. (Case-sensitive filesystem, real fork(), etc.)
Each is useful in its own way. Some apps may port easily with one; other apps will port more easily with the other.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
|
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
Printable Version
