Path: utzoo!utgpu!tmsoft!spectrix!clewis From: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis (It's loose again!)) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Why DEC doesn't need an ABI Message-ID: <686@spectrix.UUCP> Date: 27 Jun 88 18:27:12 GMT References: <8185@ncoast.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris Lewis (It's loose again!)) Organization: Spectrix Microsystems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 21 In article <8185@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: | .... But I contend that DEC has no need |for a VAX ABI. |An ABI exists so that different manufacturers porting UNIX systems to a |particular processor can run the same programs, simplifying things for |applications developers. Now: it makes sense to do this for the plethora |of 80386 machines and 680x0 machines out there -- but for a VAX? Consider |that (a) DEC does not license the VAX processor for anyone else's use, and |(b) DEC sells the only true commercial VAX UNIX. Generally speaking I agree. If there is only one O/S vendor for a given machine, then that O/S vendor has the defacto ABI anywho. And I agree that most of the other versions of UNIX you mention aren't "commercial". But, what about HCR's SVR3 for VAXen? They've been shipping for several months now (I think). That I would consider "commercial"... -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, Phone: (416)-474-1955 UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis Moderator of the Ferret Mailing List (ferret-list,ferret-request@spectrix)