Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:1363 comp.sys.att:4054 comp.databases:1284 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!uport!plocher From: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.sys.att,comp.databases Subject: Re: 386 Unix (In)compatibilities Summary Message-ID: <429@uport.UUCP> Date: 20 Aug 88 06:11:58 GMT References: <802@vsi.UUCP> Reply-To: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) Distribution: comp Organization: Microport Systems, Scotts Valley, CA Lines: 16 In article <802@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes: >> 2) How does this relate to the whole ABI concept? > >To paraphrase someone who responded, ABI is planned compatibility--this >(uPort vs. 386/ix compatiblity) is just coincidence. Since the Microport V/386 code is based on (and is identical at the system call level) to the 386/ix code, the ABI is there by default (and design). This (386) feature *is* what ABI is all about - the ability to take a package from one 386 machine and run it on another one, even if the Unix OS was bought from another vendor. uPort vs. 386/ix compatiblity is there by DESIGN. -John Plocher Microport Systems