From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Feb 24 20:56:35 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id UAA06160 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:56:35 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA06153; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:56:34 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Terry Lee <terryl@CS.Stanford.EDU>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Feb 95 19:21:20 PST."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.950224191419.21399H-100000@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> 
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:56:33 -0800
Message-ID: <6152.793688193@freefall.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Huh?  I'm sorry, but I guess I'm missing something here.  I thought that 
> is was a high priority to keep NetBSD and FreeBSD and BSDI as binary 
> compatible as possible.  Does this mean that future apps that use the 

*static* binary compatible, yes.  If you want something to run on all
the *BSDs, link it static.  Otherwise all bets are off.

In other words, compatility will have to take some conscious effort -
it won't come purely for free.

					Jordan