> I'm not arguing for Free Software only. One of the things I like best
> about us sharing a libc with Linux is that porting *should* be no
> harder than a recompile. Part of the Debian/Hurd porters work is to
> help remove any recompile barriers from thousands of programs.
Agreed.
> I feel tha
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 05:53:05PM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote:
> > My only questions is: Why would we want binary compatability? Every
> > OS/app that I can think of that used this as a selling feature (OS/2,
> > Wine, Win95 for Win 3.1 apps) failed miserably at the emulation
> > (unforseen gotchas
> > We _could_ use this Lites approach as well in the Hurd, to provide
> > binary compatibility to, say, Linux-Binaries.
>
> My only questions is: Why would we want binary compatability? Every
> OS/app that I can think of that used this as a selling feature (OS/2,
> Wine, Win95 for Win 3.1 apps)
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:49:00AM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote:
> CAVEAT: Theoretic discussion ahead! Comments welcome.
> We _could_ use this Lites approach as well in the Hurd, to provide
> binary compatibility to, say, Linux-Binaries.
My only questions is: Why would we want binary compatability?
