-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The opposite would substantially cut into hardware sales at Sun....all business
all the time.

Peter DrakeUnderkoffler
Xinupro, LLC
617-834-2352



Mark.Donaldson AT cexp DOT com wrote:
> OK - here's the scoop - and the boss was wrong.
> 
> Solaris x86 & Sparc are "Source compatible" not "binary compatible".
> 
> Here's an InfoWorld verification:
> ===
> When it comes to app compatibility, Solaris isn't Java -- the binaries aren't 
> portable between architectures (though they remain portable from earlier 
> versions of Solaris on the same chip family, so you don't have to recompile a 
> Solaris 2.6 app). However, on the small apps I tested, the source code was 
> portable between 64-bit Sparc, 32-bit x86, and 64-bit x86. (InfoWorld, 4/2006)
> ===
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> -M
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donaldson, Mark - Broomfield, CO 
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:16 PM
> 
> Compatibility is the word from the bossman - no independant verification on 
> my part.  Maybe I better...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
>>It's not on the supported list but Sun says Solaris 10 x86 is binary =
>>compatible with Solaris 10 Sparc.
> 
> 
> Where does it say that they're binary compatible?
> 
> No version of Solaris x86 offers SPARC binary compatibility.
> 
> Both are binary compatible with older releases on the same architecture,
> but not with each other.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFEIv/sl+lekZRM55oRAj0PAJ9Qw6LAUsx8TYqAY9lUJqU+LgQfJwCeIW/F
C+cTOE5/3JjjSm+tP9hCegw=
=/dxE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----