Categorize FAQs more

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 32 deletions

diff --git a/faq/posix_compatibility.mdwn b/faq/posix_compatibility.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 4490b7cb..00000000
--- a/faq/posix_compatibility.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2010, 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!meta title="POSIX compatibility"]]
-
-Is it favorable of rather a hindrance to be compatible to POSIX and similar
-standards?
-
-A lot of things in POSIX et al. are designed for [[UNIX]]-like systems with
-traditional monolithic [[kernel]]s.
-
-Thus, a [[microkernel]]-based system, as ours is, has to employ a bunch of
-detours, for example to implement the [[`fork` system call|glibc/fork]].
-
-On the other hand, (mostly) complying to these standards, made a really big
-body of software *just work* without any (or just trivial) [[hurd/porting]].
-Especially so for command-line programs, and libraries.
-
-But: a large part of today's user programs are not written according to POSIX
-et al. low-level interfaces, but against GNOME, GTK+2, and other high-level
-frameworks and libraries.  It may be a valid option to enrich these instead of
-striving for total POSIX compliance -- and the high-level programs (that is,
-their users) may not even notice this, but we would avoid a lot of overhead
-that comes with wrapping the [[Hurd interfaces|hurd/interface]] to be POSIX
-compliant.