Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!dali!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!shelby!unix!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhc!edwardm
From: edwardm@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: What NeXT *should* do next.
Message-ID: <680025@hpcuhc.HP.COM>
Date: 27 Mar 90 02:55:19 GMT
References: <1378@shelby.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 19

lane>  lane@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Christopher Lane)
clari> chari@ut-emx.UUCP (chari)

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

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

But the first poster's (lane's) would allow a single program file to work
on both a 68030-based NeXT and a Risc-based NeXT...