Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.micro
Subject: Re: Binary Compatibility 80286
Message-ID: <2464@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 26-Oct-85 08:30:26 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2464
Posted: Sat Oct 26 08:30:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Oct-85 07:33:24 EST
References: <248@omen.UUCP> <10764@ucbvax.ARPA> <2143@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.unix:6049 net.unix-wizards:15470 net.micro:12503

> Uh, excuse me, but Mr. Forsberg neglected the *approved* version
> of UNIX System V/286; the one that has passed port acceptance.

See, that's the problem with trying to establish binary standards:
who sets the standard?  In this case, the only two logical choices
are AT&T and Intel, and in spite of AT&T's efforts, the package
vendors did their own thing(s).

I don't know all the details, but I suspect the AT&T system used
COFF and the Xenix system used Microsoft's proposed object file
format; the two are of course different.  (Incidentally, after
working with COFF for a while, I found it to be insufficiently
portable.  I haven't evaluated Microsoft's proposal.)  And common
object file format is only a small part of establishing binary
compatibility.