On 04/05/2016 08:48 AM, Xen wrote:
So the question is: does your distinction matter in practice? But there appear to also be issues with binary compatibility and library compatibility to begin with. I didn't make up that statement. I was referring to some thought expressed in that large online document that was recently linked to. The one that compared binary compatibility and backward-compatibleness of Linux versus other systems. I don't want to go into that now here.
You mean you don't want to get into the fruitless debate over whether Linux should of 2016/kernel-4.x series should be able to run non-ELF binaries such as the old SCO format? Well IIR the early IBM /360 machines ahd to have an 'emulation mode' (I think it was even in microcode!) to be able to run the old 1403 binaries, because the customers had such a large investment in 1403 code. Perhaps that once applied to the SCO->linux changeover. Hmm, I seem to recall something like that but I don't recall using it. But today, its not as if we are running 'compatibility mode so that we can run MS-Windows applications on our cell phones. Oh, wait a minute, yes there is WINE... Somewhere along the line one has to let go of the past. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org