Talk:86open

"Linux ELF" ?
Is there really such a thing as "Linux ELF", as opposed to the ELF that predates the existence of Linux? Shouldn't this just be "ELF"? --NapoliRoma 13:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) :No response on this -- in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to remove the "Linux" modifier.--NapoliRoma 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to continue to research this before editing.--NapoliRoma 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Linux ELF" distinction is important. You are correct that the ELF format is part of the UNIX System V spec (which predates Linux), however ELF format alone is not sufficient to guarantee binary compatibility, which was the goal of 86open.  See Q18 in the 86open FAQ (referenced in the article).  As an example, Linux and SCO OpenServer ran on the same hardware and used ELF as the native binary format, yet lxrun was required to run Linux binaries on OpenServer.  That's because ELF is really just a wrapper.  Saying "Linux ELF" carries implications about what's inside the wrapper: specifically, Linux-style system calls, shared library names, etc.  Unfortunately, "Linux ELF" is not well-defined, and it's constantly changing, so it can't really be called a standard.  However, due to Linux's popularity, pretty much every UNIX-like OS of the era that ran on PC hardware had some form of "Linux ELF" compatibility, which is why 86open cited it as the "de facto" standard, making the group's efforts irrelevant.  Do you think this should be clarified in the article?  -- 69.109.211.82 00:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An anonymous user keeps changing the "outcome" from "Linux executable in ELF format" to simply "ELF". I've reverted this a couple of times and pointed the user to the talk page but the latest change back to ELF states "talk says nothing" in the edit summary so apparently he or she didn't understand or read this thread. So, what to do ? I'll make the change back to "Linux executable in ELF format" again. I would think that the cited reference at http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/1999072600605PS would be enough to establish this fact. Deciding to standardize on ELF is not enough to provide a binary format specification that would run on all x86 based Unix/Linux. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or see "The86open Project - FINAL UPDATE", already cited in the article. Sentence one, from the 86open chair:
 * "'Unix-on-Intel players agree on a common binary (It's the Linux ELF format)'"
 * Note that I started the thread above, having the same question as the anon editor, but was able to find and add the citations from the 86open chair that made it clear what the actual decision was.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

When did it end?
It ran from 1997 til when? It sounds like a special interest group that ran for a year, but the article makes it sound more like a consortium which was supposed to last forever. Gronky 10:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability
In response to the notability tag added today I've added several references. These include a Linux Today article, an announcement of 86open by Bruce Perens on the Debian announce mailing list, the declaration of Ulrich Drepper in the SCO vs IBM lawsuit, and a discussion of 86open and  ELF on Groklaw.

Is 86open notable ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Computing
I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)