Xref: utzoo comp.sys.dec:932 comp.arch:7880 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!haven!vrdxhq!daitc!jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil From: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec,comp.arch Subject: Re: DECstation 3100 info. Message-ID: <278@daitc.daitc.mil> Date: 17 Jan 89 01:37:10 GMT References: <979@isieng.UUCP> <85330@sun.uucp> <558@oracle.UUCP> Sender: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil Reply-To: jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) Followup-To: comp.sys.dec Organization: Defense Applied Information Technology Center Lines: 27 In-reply-to: rbradbur@hqpyr1.oracle.UUCP (Robert Bradbury) In article <558@oracle.UUCP>, rbradbur@hqpyr1 (Robert Bradbury) discusses: Interfaces that support software portability Application binary interfaces These are two separate issues, distinct and different. Clearly one can be for the former without affecting one's views on the latter. Thus when Robert says We have dozens of people who do nothing but take many megabytes of source code, compile it on yet another UNIX box and spend weeks figuring out what that manufacturer did not manage to get right in his port of UNIX. he is arguing for the former, and when he says when we start to get really frustrated is when you release different versions of UNIX for the *SAME BOX* which cannot run the same binary programs. (Are you listening DEC? MIPSCO?) he is arguing against the latter. No, that's not a typo: he may think he's arguing for the latter, but the inability of machine architectures to specify program compatibility across OS releases turns his point against the latter. -- Jon --