Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mot.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!mnetor!mot!fred From: fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.micro Subject: Re: Re: Binary Compatibility 80286 Message-ID: <419@mot.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 14:32:43 EST Article-I.D.: mot.419 Posted: Tue Oct 29 14:32:43 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 21:21:17 EST References: <248@omen.UUCP> <10764@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ 85282 Lines: 25 Xref: utcs net.unix:6062 net.unix-wizards:14870 net.micro:12198 > Anyone worrying about binary compatability for UNIX programs has > totally missed the point. > > Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU Another reader/submitter alternatively suggested that System V, to be a standard, had to address binary compatibility. OK, here's my comment: I believe AT&T have publicly stated that UN*X System V is, at present, a source level standard. Without questions, a source level standard is very important to developers/programmers. Moreover, without this, a binary standard is very difficult (but not impossible) to create. So, src lvl std comes first. Binary compatibility is not to be sniffed at. See the IBM and compatibles PC S/W market -- gobs of off-the-shelf stuff. Unfortunately, the history and nature of the beast make Un*x binary compatibility much trickier. /usr/group, at least temporarily, abandoned its attempts, and P1003 is also putting this off. -- << Generic disclaimer >> Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") @ Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ UUCP: {seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4!btlunix}!mot!fred ARPA: oakhill!mot!fred@ut-sally.ARPA Telephone: +1 602-438-3472