3 ms·
> If static linking, the calls into the kernel might have changed or data read from /etc, /dev or other type of expectations from target OS. No, Linux takes bi
by 4ad 9y ago
> If static linking, the calls into the kernel might have changed or data read from /etc, /dev or other type of expectations from target OS.
No, Linux takes binary compatibility seriously. I can run statically linked binaries from 1992 on a modern system just fine.
- pjmlp 9y agoI doubt it very much, specially since ELF was not even a thing in 1992 distributions with kernel versions still in the 0.x.y range. ELF was being slowly introduced in 1994, with Slackware 2.0 being one of the first distributions to support it. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1059 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1059 So I really really doubt you can pick a static executable compiled against kernel 0.x.y, using a.out format and execute it in Ubuntu 16.04 LTS as example. Actually, I just need to take the dust out of my Walnut Creek CD's to prove my point.
- 4ad 9y agoYou can run a.out executables on Linux just fine. Not sure if Ubuntu ships with a.out support or not, but that is really irrelevant.
- pjmlp 9y agoNice how you avoided the issue of running code targeted for 0.98.1 (latest kernel release in 1992) against kernel 4.4.z. Not to mention how disparate the file system structure, including device drivers, of something like Yggdrasil Linux 1.0 is compared with modern distributions. As I said, easily verified by dusting off Walnut Creek CD's and picking a random binary from them.