Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.micro Subject: Re: Re: Binary Compatibility 80286 Message-ID: <2380@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 10:43:32 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2380 Posted: Thu Oct 24 10:43:32 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 04:46:10 EDT References: <248@omen.UUCP> <10764@ucbvax.ARPA> <175@maynard.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 23 Xref: watmath net.unix:6020 net.unix-wizards:15425 net.micro:12478 > Everyone seems to be missing the point here. No, we're not. Those of us who think of UNIX as an operating system and not as a marketplace appreciate its freedom from machine architectural constraints. Source-level portability, which is the best that can be achieved across all UNIX implementations, does not imply that a software house has to ship sources to customers. More likely, the software house merely needs to compile their sources into the appropriate binary for the target machine and ship off the binary. This need not even imply running the particular target systems; cross-targeted software generation systems can be used. I routinely compile code for my DMD on a host with a totally different architecture. There is no more reason to insist on binary standards for the mass market than there is to insist that all ball-point pen refills be interchangeable. Multiple brands can coexist, and the ones that prove popular will receive wide support. I think this is known as the free market principle.