Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!se-sd!cns!dltaylor
From: dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga
Subject: Re: A3000UX applications
Keywords: What is ABI and are there any for the A3000UX
Message-ID: <889@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 9 Apr 91 22:13:09 GMT
References: <1522@ewu.UUCP> <2671@root44.co.uk>
Organization: NCR Corp. SE-San Diego
Lines: 26

In <2671@root44.co.uk> khh@root.co.uk (Keith Holder) writes:

>We have an Amiga in the office running Commodore's 1.1 version of System VR4
>and I would say that it is not ABI compliant. We also have various other 
>68030 machines running V.4 from Motorola and binaries taken from these machines 
And EXACTLY which System V.4 ABI CERTIFIED operating systems are you
running, and on which platforms?  Since I have been unable to get information
on ANY OTHER such systems available commercially in the U.S. (and I have been
to more trade shows, and in more reps offices than I care to count), I
wonder where you got them, and when they were CERTIFIED.

>employers who just so happen to produce a version of V.4 for the Motorola 68k.

And YOURS is CERTIFIED ABI?  Your companies products are consistantly
incompatible, even within an AT&T release version.  Thank (fill in blank)
that C= had more sense than to use YOU.  More often than not, I've cursed
Unisoft for putting out what I consider ABSOLUTE JUNK releases of V.3.

>Keith Holder, Systems Software Consultant, UniSoft Ltd.

It is possible that C= slipped up, and that the Amiga distribution of UNIX
is not ABI compliant, or that 2.0 will be cleaned up as a planned product.
However, unless you can document your statement, SHUT the #$#^%$# UP!

Dan Taylor
/* My opinions, not NCR's. */