home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.lang.c:16898 comp.unix.misc:4271
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca!mroussel
- From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
- Subject: Re: portable UNIX programs
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.184639.5217@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
- Followup-To: comp.unix.misc
- Keywords: binary port unix
- Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
- References: <1992Nov20.174744.29876@daimi.aau.dk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:46:39 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <1992Nov20.174744.29876@daimi.aau.dk> u920496@daimi.aau.dk
- (Hans Erik Martino Hansen) writes:
- >I have often wondered why software packages for Unix, was
- >distribuated as binary code. Why not distribuate it as
- >in a machine independant format. It is obvious that no software
- >company wants their source code accessable for everybody.
- >But if a standard was made for a sort of machine independent
- >pseudo assemblercode, which could be compiled on any
- >UNIX-installation then Unix became the true machine independent
- >operating system, which was intended in the first place.
-
- Isn't that what COFF is supposed to be about? (I don't know, I'm
- asking.)
-
- >If at the same time Unix became
- >a smaller system, it would suddenly become very competetive
- >to DOS/Windows, Machintosch and other microcomputer operating
- >systems. And perhaps in the end become the one and only OS.
-
- I have always wondered why people wanted that. When everyone is
- doing the same thing, there is little room for innovation. Besides,
- "one size fits all" never does.
-
- Marc R. Roussel
- mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
-
- P.S.: I have added comp.unix.misc to the Newsgroups line and redirected
- all followups there since I fail to see the relevance of this to
- the C programming language. If you disagree, you'll have to
- hand-edit the Newsgroups line.
-