Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ur-tut.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tuba From: tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger) Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.micro Subject: Re: Binary Compatibility 80286 Message-ID: <201@ur-tut.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 17:21:59 EST Article-I.D.: ur-tut.201 Posted: Thu Oct 31 17:21:59 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 06:03:24 EST References: <248@omen.UUCP> <10764@ucbvax.ARPA> <2143@amdahl.UUCP> Reply-To: tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger) Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center Lines: 22 Xref: watmath net.unix:6122 net.unix-wizards:15558 net.micro:12555 In article <2143@amdahl.UUCP> andrew@amdahl.UUCP (Andrew Sharpe) writes: >Uh, excuse me, but Mr. Forsberg neglected the *approved* version >of UNIX System V/286; the one that has passed port acceptance. I've always wondered what "approved" and "port acceptance" mean in practice. Suppose Alan writes code, Bill ports it to new hardware, Alan "approves" the port, Bill sells the ported code to Charlie, and Charlie discovers some behavior of B's ported code that differs from the behavior of Alan's original code. Is Alan obliged to fix Bill's code to Charlie's satisfaction? If Bill advertises Alan has "approved" his port, is Charlie entitled to Alan's support as well as Bill's? -- -- Jon Krueger UUCP: ...seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tuba BITNET: TUBA@UORDBV USMAIL: University of Rochester Taylor Hall Rocheseter, NY 14627 (716) 275-2811 "A Vote for Barry is a Vote for Fun"