Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!grr From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix Subject: Re: 5400 binary and 3100 binary, are they compatible both ways? Message-ID: <13379@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 23 Jul 90 21:35:10 GMT References: <1990Jul20.162904.3793@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <13337@cbmvax.commodore.com> Reply-To: grr@cbmvax (George Robbins) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 23 In article scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: > 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... > > 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 I should point out that DEC has been quite consistant in saying this, however when it come down to wasting ~150 M-byte of disk to serve an older version, or forking out $nK to special order 3.1D media which DEC hasn't otherwise seen fit to send me, then I'm reasonably happy to notice that it seems to work quite nicely. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)