From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (cthulhu.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.2]) by neteng.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id JAA84066 for <linux-archive@neteng.engr.sgi.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:21:20 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com>
Received: (from majordomo-owner@localhost)
	by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF)
	id JAA25798
	for linux-list;
	Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:20:39 -0800 (PST)
	mail_from (owner-linux@relay.engr.sgi.com)
Received: from sgi.com (sgi.engr.sgi.com [192.26.80.37])
	by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF)
	via ESMTP id JAA35819;
	Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:20:35 -0800 (PST)
	mail_from (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx)
Received: from metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx [132.248.29.92]) 
	by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam:
       SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary
       systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email
       from the Internet.) 
	via ESMTP id MAA06189; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:20:34 -0500 (EST)
	mail_from (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx)
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
	by metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA20930;
	Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:25:00 -0600
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:25:00 -0600
Message-Id: <199901181725.LAA20930@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
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)
Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com
X-Windows: The defacto substandard.
References:  <199901181040.CAA33736@oz.engr.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk


> 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.

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:25:00 -0600
Message-ID: <199901181725.LAA20930@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
In-reply-to: <199901181040.CAA33736@oz.engr.sgi.com> (ariel@oz.engr.sgi.com)
Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com
References: <199901181040.CAA33736@oz.engr.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
To: ariel@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com
Cc: davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com, ralf@uni-koblenz.de, linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, adevries@engsoc.carleton.ca, richard@infopact.nl
Message-ID: <19990118172500.yc1kJ_gLp1pCqkpA6lxM6e94VXGAVCd-oLLzfGzlX84@z>


> 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.