Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!olivea!apple!agate!shelby!neon!cm-next-9!grd
From: grd@cm-next-9.Stanford.EDU (glen diener)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Running a 2.0 client on a 1.0 server
Message-ID: <1991Jan19.222353.12004@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 19 Jan 91 22:23:53 GMT
References: <1991Jan17.165853.8248@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <SCOTT.91Jan17170122@mcs-server.gac.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: CCRMA, Stanford University
Lines: 30

In article <SCOTT.91Jan17170122@mcs-server.gac.edu> scott@mcs-server.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes:
>In article <1991Jan17.165853.8248@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> francisr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Rob Francis) writes:
>	Has anyone tried this?  We've brought one up and haven't had
>   any problems yet.  Does anyone forsee any problems?
>
>I don't know what you want, exactly, but in the public interest:
>
>1.0 executables run fine under 2.0, so long as they weren't excessive
>	in going underneath the OS.  Example of excessive?  XNeXT.
>1.0 programs will, in general, compile under 2.0 fairly well.  A
>	couple changes have been made in include files, which will

----stuff deleted----
>Of course, it is hard to see why one would go back to 1.0 once at
>2.0, but I'm sure reasons will show up.  I've not seen anything
>nearly bad enough to warrent moving back yet, though . . .
>--
>scott hess                      scott@gac.edu
>Independent NeXT Developer	GAC Undergrad
><I still speak for nobody>
>"Tried anarchy, once.  Found it had too many constraints . . ."
>"Buy `Sweat 'n wit '2 Live Crew'`, a new weight loss program by
>Richard Simmons . . ."

Note that you cannot run a 2.0 netboot client from a 1.0 netboot
server: the 2.0 client will get a copy of the 1.0 mach kernal,
and its 2.0 init will die...

glen diener
grd@ccrma.stanford.edu