Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!caesar.cs.montana.edu!milton!milton.acs.washington.edu!tom From: tom@yang.cpac.washington.edu (Tom May) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Binary Compatibility Message-ID: Date: 16 Dec 89 19:25:53 GMT References: <338@denwa.uucp> Sender: news@milton.acs.washington.edu Organization: Center for Process Analytical Chemistry, U of Wash, Seattle Lines: 15 In-reply-to: jimmy@denwa.info.com's message of 16 Dec 89 02:29:54 GMT In article <338@denwa.uucp> jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: What I wonder is: Are they that different that software must be separately compiled for SCO, ISC, AT&T, ESIX...? I run both SCO Xenix and ISC Unix on my box (can't remember the versions, although they're both quite recent). ISC claims binary compatibility with Xenix (except for a few small things), and I was pleasantly surprised to find they were correct. I can mount my Xenix partition from ISC, include it in my path, and run all the tools I have acquired and compiled under Xenix (including GNU Emacs, although I haven't tried it with pty's and select(2)) no problem. In my case, this saves me lots of disk space and software installation time. -- Tom May tom@yin.cpac.washington.edu