Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!mouse From: mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: NeXT questions Message-ID: <1991Mar20.125440.17013@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> Date: 20 Mar 91 12:54:40 GMT References: <208@gouche.UUCP> Organization: McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines Lines: 28 In article , ersys!drin@nro.cs.athabascau.ca (Adrian Smith) writes: > grant@gouche.UUCP (Grant Munsey) writes: >> 4) Is the NeXT impl of 4.3bsd fairly faithful...will I finally be >> able to compile programs from the net without the SYSVizeing >> them? > Seems to be fairly faithful - I haven't had any problems. > (Contradictions welcome :-) ) Well, you don't need to SysVize things. But it is *not* 4.3. To begin with, any program that expects to meddle with a.out files (for example, undump, or my symbol-table patchers) will need to be overhauled - and I don't mean just recompiled. NeXT's Mach uses a completely different format for executables. They have *no adb*. I don't know *what* possessed them to do away with it, but they did.... They've even done away with the loader-defined symbols _etext, _edata, and _end that UNIX has had since the dark ages. Other than that...no, I haven't found anything terribly non-UNIXish about it. :-) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu