Binary standards for UNIX

[Russ Tuck]

In article <497 at taux01.UUCP> yuval at taux01.UUCP (Gideon Yuval) writes:
>The new ABI standard, which is supposed to be the Unix standard for object-code
>distribution, is (a variation of) COFF for SPARC. How much hardware-indpendence
>is going to survive the changeover to ABI?

The hardware independence of source code and user skills under UNIX comes
from the availability of UNIX on most computers in the world.  This 
availability of UNIX stems largely from two facts: the source code 
implementation of UNIX is reasonably portable, and the source code is 
widely available.

Binary interface standards have a different purpose.  This is to gain
binary portability between different vendors' machines which use the same
CPU architecture.  This is less important for code you write than source
portability, since you can recompile your code without too much trouble.
It also doesn't affect user skill portability.  

What a binary standard *does* do for you is lower the cost and increase the 
selection of commercially available applications software.  It does this
by making it possible for software companies to distribute the same binary
release for multiple systems.  Fewer versions selling to more systems increases
volume and lowers unit costs.  The ABI for SPARC is just one of several
coming binary standards.  Similar efforts are underway for 386 and 68030 cpus.

A binary standard is just icing on the cake for UNIX.  Source-level standards 
are more important, because they apply to all machines, not just a subset 
built on a particular piece of hardware.  No one is advocating replacing a
source standard with a binary one, just adding binary standards where useful.

	Russ
----
Russell R. Tuck, III                   CSNET: tuck at unc
Computer Science Dept., Sitterson Hall ARPA:  tuck at cs.unc.edu
University of North Carolina           UUCP:  {ihnp4|decvax}!mcnc!unc!tuck
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175, USA        Phone: (919) 962-1755 or 962-1932