Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chari
From: chari@ut-emx.UUCP (chari)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: What NeXT *should* do next.
Message-ID: <26849@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 25 Mar 90 03:06:15 GMT
References: <1378@shelby.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: chari@emx.UUCP (Christohpher M. Whatlyey)
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 16

In article <1378@shelby.Stanford.EDU> lane@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Christopher Lane) writes:

>To provide for users of the new cube, users of NeXTStep on AIX and to users of
>the original cube, NeXT should take advantage of the elegance of the MACH
>object file format and store the executable code for both the 68030 and the
>RISC chip in separate TEXT segments, sharing common DATA, NIB, etc. segments
>and allow the same binary to execute on all three platforms.

You might have overlooked that fact that IBM uses the not so elegant
AIX not Mach so, the object files format is different. So, your
segment idea kind of loses there. Having the same binaries on the two
machines is pointless anyway. What standard medium exists by which one
could move files between the two machines?  IBM does not have an
optical with every machine and NeXT software does not come on tape.

Chris