Is there any difference between executable binary files between distributions?

Question

As all Linux distributions use the same kernel, is there any difference between their executable binary files?

If yes, what are the main differences? Or does that mean w

Answer 1

All Linux ports (that is, the Linux kernel on different processors) use ELF as the file format for executables and libraries. A specific ELF binary is labeled with a single architecture/OS on which it can run (although some OSes have compatibility to run ELF binaries from other OSes).

Most ports have support for the older a.out format. (Some processors are new enough that there have never existed any a.out executables for them.)

Some ports support other executable file formats as well; for example, the PA-RISC port has support for HP-UX's old SOM executables, and the μcLinux (nonmmu) ports support their own FLAT format.

Linux also has binfmt_misc, which allows userspace to register handlers for arbitrary binary formats. Some distributions take advantage of this to be able to execute Windows, .NET, or Java applications -- it's really still launching an interpreter, but it's completely transparent to the user.

---

Linux on Alpha has support for loading Intel binaries, which are run via the em86 emulator.

It's possible to register binfmt_misc for executables of other architectures, to be run with qemu-user.

In theory, one could create a new format -- perhaps register a new "architecture" in ELF -- for fat binaries. Then the kernel binfmt loader would have to be taught about this new format, and you wouldn't want to miss the ld-linux.so dynamic linker and the whole build toolchain. There's been little interest in such a feature, and as far as I know, nobody is working on anything like it.