Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:2294 comp.os.linux.misc:12721 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!news.uoknor.edu!ns1.nodak.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.clark.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!daffy!uwvax!shorty.cs.wisc.edu!jimr From: jimr@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux Date: 10 Apr 1994 13:43:14 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. Lines: 21 Message-ID: <2o8vpi$kqb@spool.cs.wisc.edu> References: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net> <CnInLE.Fo4@hippo.ru.ac.za> <2o0psuINN3h5@bonnie.sax.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: shorty.cs.wisc.edu In article <2o0psuINN3h5@bonnie.sax.de> j@uriah.sax.de (J Wunsch) writes: >Well, the illusion of binary compatibility is one of the biggest >fairy-tales in the U**x history. Programs can (and should be) >compatible at the C source level. This is what C has been made >for. > >From a friend using some SVR4, running a SCO version of WordPerfect >there: he lost his edited text since WP attempted to store it to >an inode > 65535:-(, since SCO knows only of 16 bits of inode numbers. >iBCS2 in practice. 99 % compatible is incompatible. I think you may be missing the important fact that the reason we want the emulators is because we *don't* have access to the source code. MS Word for Windows cannot be purchused in a "Here is the source, compile it yourself" form, but rather binary. That binary is only relased for MS Windows. So we have no legal way to get the source, don't want to run DOS, and the company will not support us, what choice is left? Emulators of course. 99% is better then 0%. Jim