[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003
patv at monmouth.com
Tue Nov 18 13:19:06 AEST 2003
Brantley Coile wrote:
>> 2. Will use coff executable format. May comply with Sys V ABI. The
>> latter is TBD.
> Please don't do that. There is no value in being Sys V ABI compliant and
> the original a.out work very well. I've used it for two and a half
> decades now, and still use it on Plan 9. There just needs to be magic
> numbers for the various formats. I would suggest looking at the
> 10Edition information for things that arn't as they currently are.
A large part of my decision is based on using the gcc tool chain. Since
coff is one of the binary formats, and it was a unix format, I thought
it would work here as well. I don't see a real need for the ABI, but
may do it if it is easy.
>> 8. 32I is the interim name. I would have preferred Unix version 7, but
>> can't for obvious trademark reasons.
> I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively
> disassociate a mark after the fact. If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS Unix
> I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue
> that it's not Unix 32V anymore.
I was one of many who represented DEC at the Open Group during Digital
UNIX certification. I'm familiar with unix branding, and I know I can't
use the unix trademark, at least not without a lot of rework to the
original source and a lot of money to go to TOG for testing.
Technically, there is new, original code being developed that will be
combined with the original code. This is a new product, even if the
original code was called unix. Only the VAX binary can still be called
I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the subject.
I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. -- Wilson Mizner
More information about the TUHS