On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 17:38 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
I would argue it's not a Linux binary - I know that's slicing words. Ok clarified version: "A Linux binary from 1996 of a similar complexity to typical binaries running on Windows at the same period stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux without some form of library emulation package". Quite a mouthful, which is why I didn't write it first time.
I call your bluff. How do you think Windows manages to do it? By osmosis?
*sigh*