Date: Sat, 25 Feb 95 14:23:34 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: ernie@tinny.eis.net.au, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD Message-ID: <9502252123.AA01078@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <15248.793733013@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 25, 95 09:23:33 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I am a bit new to all this. What uinx like systems have shared library
> > compatibility between them? I would have though static linked binaries would
> > have been enough. Can someone fill me in on some sucessful examples of this?
>
> I don't think there are currently any!
SCO. Dell. SVR3. SVR4 in backward compatability mode. x86 Solaris.
Microport. Interactive. Cubix. Intel. Altos. Unisys. UnixWare.
Basically any IBCS2 compliant UNIX, since they follow the standard, and
the standard mandates shared library compatability if chared libraries
are supported.
And this is just Intel UNIX. There's also DGUX, Sanyo/ICON, Motorolla,
Gould, and any other member of 88Open that uses Motorolla 88k processers.
There Arete and NCR and Unisys and Motorolla for 680x0 (x = {2,3}).
To those of you who are about to argue that Unisys and NCR are the
same machines, you have apparently never tried to write a tape driver.
To those of you who would claim Unisys' licence of SVR4 to be vanilla,
you have apparently never tried to write a multithreaded file system.
To not maintain binary compatability *including* shared images would
be folly.
People keep saying that "Linux is just as fragmented as BSD" when BSD
is attacked for two distributions (for the free variety). But I have
never heard of a binary compatability problem between say Slackware
and Yggdrasil.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502252123.AA01078>