From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 26 13:06:26 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id NAA04466 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 13:06:26 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA04459 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 13:06:22 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA04611; Sun, 26 Feb 95 13:59:35 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9502262059.AA04611@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD To: wmbfmk@urc.tue.nl Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 13:59:35 MST Cc: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, ernie@tinny.eis.net.au, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199502261414.PAA05049@nietzsche> from "wmbfmk@urc.tue.nl" at Feb 26, 95 03:14:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Basically any IBCS2 compliant UNIX, since they follow the standard, and > > the standard mandates shared library compatability if chared libraries > > are supported. > > > Why dont we make IBCS2 the standard binary format. Is it too much work, > or are there technical reasons (inferior format?) OK, this is a fair question. It's because standardization == stagnation. The entire point of being a research OS is that people are able to do research. The argument on standardization between *BSD is that people should be able to research in groups. If libraries themselves are not relatively trivial and unintersting objects to you once they work, then it's perfectly acceptable for you to blaze your own trail. The problem is that each of the *BSD projects effective mandates a trail for each given release. And if it's a different trail, then there are problems (like the one that started this particular thread). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.