Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!hc!pprg.unm.edu!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!mcdchg!ddsw1!ddsw1.MCS.COM!karl From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Why unix doesn't catch on Message-ID: <[2282.13]karl@ddsw1.comp.ibmpc;1> Date: 4 Apr 89 21:00:07 GMT References: <3177@imagen.UUCP> Lines: 32 >Response 12 of 12 (2282) by bright at Data on Tue 4 Apr 89 2:24 >[Walter Bright] >Unix suffers from two killer problems: >1. Lack of media compatibility. Well, perhaps. This is lessening FAST. This also depends on what you mean by compatibility as well. I can't mount a disk file system from another machine some of the time, but I can _always_ write a disk volume on floppy with tar, cpio, or afio that can be read across the machines. >2. Lack of binary compatibility. > Can't compile on one unix and run on another, even if the > hardware is the same. Source code compatibility simply isn't > good enough. NONSENSE. With the current releases I can compile on Xenix or UNIX (AT&T- derived), and run it on the same platform under the different system versions unchanged. This encompasses SCO Xenix, Interactive 386/Ix, Microport, AT&T, Bell Technologies, and ENIX (Everex). That's all of 'em for the '386 system environment. Across processors is another matter entirely, but that's not reasonable to expect -- after all, since when can you run a 68020 binary on anything other than a 68xxx series processor? Under ANY operating system? Xenix will also run all '286, '186, and 8086 binaries compiled on previous versions of SCO (or other) Xenix's. No binary compatiblity? Where have you been? ---- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]