| To: | ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: linus.linux.sgi.com |
| From: | Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx> |
| Date: | Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:25:00 -0600 |
| Cc: | davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com, ralf@uni-koblenz.de, ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, adevries@engsoc.carleton.ca, richard@infopact.nl |
| In-reply-to: | <199901181040.CAA33736@oz.engr.sgi.com> (ariel@oz.engr.sgi.com) |
| References: | <199901181040.CAA33736@oz.engr.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com |
> The binary compatibility FUD is ironic considering > that they have broken binary compatibility as well as source > compatibility so many times in their history (m68k -> SPARC > SPARC - x86, SunOs -> Solaris) believe me I know since I've > been a Sun customer and an ISV. You forgot the breakage in the various Solaris 2.n->2.n+1 At least the 2.4->2.5 was painful for me Miguel. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | SGI/Linux press, ralf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: SGI/Linux press, ralf |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: linus.linux.sgi.com, Ariel Faigon |
| Next by Thread: | Re: linus.linux.sgi.com, Eric Kimminau |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |