October 8th, 2006, 06:59 AM
What exactly does "Binary Compatible" mean?
I was looking at the descriptions of several Operating Systems (and toy Operating Systems) and things like UnixLite is said to be "binary compatible" with Linux, and CentOS is "binary compatible" with Red Hat applications, etc.
But what the deuce does "binary compatible" mean? I can't figure it out for the life of me!
Thanks for the help!
"The Texan turned out to be good-natured, generous and likeable. In three days no one could stand him." Catch 22
by Joseph Heller.
Buddies? I have no buddies...
Give the BSD daemon some love (proud FreeBSD user)
October 8th, 2006, 09:57 AM
I am probably wrong, but this would be my view:
We use different "high level languages"...........COBOL, ALGOL, FORTRAN, C, C+ and so on?........ they would generally be in hexadecimal?
At the bottom line, all boxes speak binary? like 0 and 1.............
So, I would imagine that when it gets to machine code the languages are compatible?
This might seem like a trivial or trite response, but please remember that with assembly language, the processor matters as well?
October 8th, 2006, 11:49 AM
It usualy means that binary packages of one system should work on the other..
In the case of the centos / redhat it should mean that redhat .rpm packages should install and work on a centos install..
In the case of unixlite I think it means big fat 'static' linux binaries should install and run on it..
Does that still make sense ?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI.
When in Russia, pet a PETSCII.
Get your ass over to SLAYRadio
the best station for C64 Remixes !
October 9th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Jinxy's explanation is right on the money. I've used RedHat RPM packages on CentOS with success in the past.
Our scars have the power to remind us that our past was real. -- Hannibal Lecter.
Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful. -- John Wooden