Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:1397 comp.sys.att:4067 comp.databases:1301
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!oddjob!uxc!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.sys.att,comp.databases
Subject: Re: 386 Unix (In)compatibilities Summary
Message-ID: <315@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 88 04:49:31 GMT
References: <802@vsi.UUCP> <429@uport.UUCP> <819@vsi.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 15

In article <819@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes:
>In article <429@uport.UUCP>, plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
>> uPort vs. 386/ix compatiblity is there by DESIGN.

>I don't think the fact that both of your OS's are based on the same code
>is enough to call it an ABI, or even say the compatibility is there by
>design.

It is definitely the case that the compatibility is there by design.
We sell a tool that now runs on 386s, and it was important to us that
there was *ONE* V.3 for the 386.  (Of course, we also have to deal with
Dynix on Sequents and SunOS on RoadRunners, but BSD takes the pain out...)
Intel were closely involved in the 386 port of V.3, and were *very*
interested that applications developed on Brand X machines should run
on Brand Y machines.