Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!isis.cs.du.edu!bediger
From: bediger@isis.cs.du.edu (bruce allen ediger)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Mach-O and COFF
Message-ID: <1991Apr30.054735.7606@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: 30 Apr 91 05:47:35 GMT
Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Reply-To: bediger@isis.cs.du.edu (bruce allen ediger)
Distribution: na
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.)
Lines: 5
Disclaimer1: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of Denver
Disclaimer2: for the Denver community.  The University has neither control over
Disclaimer3: nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

I'm beginning to understand why one would prefer an executable file format
like Mach-O or COFF.  What I don't understand is why we need two of them.
It strikes me that COFF headers and Mach-O load commands contain similar if
not identical information about the executables layout on disk and in
memory.  Why not just use COFF?