Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:20:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: mike@smith.net.au, rivers@dignus.com Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: LINUX emulation and uname(3). Message-ID: <199710101220.IAA08936@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This question should have been posted on the -emulation list, to where > it has been moved. That sounds great! Thanks... > > > I have a program, written for Linux, that uses the uname() information > > as part of its license check... > > > > Unfortunately, the check fails... the company indicates that the > > failure is due to incorrect uname() information. > > > > So - does the uname() call under Linux emulation claim to be a LINUX > > box? - or - does it claim to be a FreeBSD box... > > Does the application make a uname() call, or does it attempt to run a > 'uname' executable? It makes the uname() system call. > > > Which should it do? Seems to me, for accurate Linux emulation, it should > > claim to be Linux... > > Do you see a console message saying: > > linux_emul(%d): olduname() not supported > > ? If not, the Linux uname will return the contents of the kern.ostype > sysctl. Nope - I didn't see that on the console... Also, I've got a simple Linux program that calls uname() and prints the info... it claims to be FreeBSD. > > > - Opinions? - > > I am not sure that I agree that uname() should claim to be Linux when > we're not. Then again, perhaps we should use something more subtle to > indicate that we're a FreeBSD system. > > Why is this product so paranoid? They taylor their license key to a particular system... why; well, just because... who am I to say? - Dave Rivers -
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710101220.IAA08936>