Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!umich!umeecs!hela!hela.iti.org!scs From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix Subject: Re: 5400 binary and 3100 binary, are they compatible both ways? Message-ID: Date: 23 Jul 90 15:51:05 GMT References: <1990Jul20.162904.3793@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <13337@cbmvax.commodore.com> Organization: Industrial Technology Institute Lines: 25 In article <1990Jul20.162904.3793@Neon.Stanford.EDU> farhad@CS.Stanford.EDU (Farhad Shakeri) writes: > When I installed our 3100s I just NFS mounted the /usr form > out 5400 to save time and space. All of the binaries on > the 5400 were fine and we never had any problem with them. but > the moment I and other users tried to use these binaries: > X11R4 binaries, gnuemacs, tcsh, MH... they all acted > strange... grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes: >I'm doing essentially the same thing with a 3100 and a 5800 with >3.1c and haven't noticed any problems of this sort. Hmm . . . DEC went out of their way to tell us *not* to run Ultrix 3.1c binaries on 3100s -- they didn't know of any problems, just said it hadn't been tested. Our experience between 3100s and 5810s has been 100% binary compatability. If we could compile and run it on one, the binary would work on the other. It's been a real plus to use a 3100 as a test bed for new software development. Lets us shake the bugs out in live use before putting it on the 5810 to screw up all the users. :-) Another local site with a 5400 and 3100s reports no problems with interoperability.