From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 9 17:28:45 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F5E16A4CE for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:28:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from av9-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (av9-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.185]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA8343D46 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:28:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joel@automatvapen.se) Received: by av9-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 73C5D3849F; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:28:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.102]) by av9-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C8338035; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:28:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [212.181.194.97] (t5o55p97.telia.com [212.181.194.97]) by smtp3-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9BD37E49; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:28:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Joel Dahl To: Ceri Davies In-Reply-To: <20040809120718.GY87690@submonkey.net> References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <41168DF7.2090601@wingfoot.org><41175240.5040709@wingfoot.org> <20040809114028.GA1619@sitetronics.com> <20040809120718.GY87690@submonkey.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1092072500.561.38.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:29:12 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questionable statement in article X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:28:45 -0000 Mon 2004-08-09 klockan 14.07 skrev Ceri Davies: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > > > Okay, this is getting really ridiculous, and the statement is false. It > > would be rather simple to figure out which syscalls FreeBSD was unable > > to translate and thereby make a certain piece of software fail to run on > > FreeBSD. For instance, there are certain socket options in Linux that > > are not avaialble on FreeBSD and cannot be emulated. Software that makes > > use of these options will _not_ run on FreeBSD. > > Firstly, I'll note that the article is talking about BSD, not FreeBSD. > > > A more accurate statement would be: > > > > FreeBSD_Compilable_Code + FreeBSD_Binaries + FreeBSD_Emulatable(Linux) > > > Binaries(Linux) > > > > You can't blindly make this statement, however, without first proving > > the following: > > > > Binaries(Linux) - FreeBSD_Emulatable(Linux) < FreeBSD_Compilable_code + > > FreeBSD_Binaries. > > > > Now, once you factor in the SVR4 compatibility and others, this > > statement gets exceedingly difficult to make. When somebody wants to > > audit the amount of binaries that will run on FreeBSD and get a number, > > let me know. > > Since SVR4 gets bundled on the right hand side of the equation above, > along with BSDI, IBCS2, Interactive Unix, SCO Unix, SCO Xenix, and > Solaris (this selection just from the i386 NetBSD port and excluding > other free BSDs), the statement becomes slightly easier to make, I > think. > > > Also, it's interesting to note that OpenBSD will do the same -- it has > > Linux syscall translation as well -- it will also run FreeBSD binaries. > > Does this mean that OpenBSD has a conceviably larger amount of binaries > > that will run on it than FreeBSD? > > Well, yes. > > Ceri Whoops, my intention was not to cause any hard feelings with my original question about the statement. I'm just trying to make our docs correct. :) As I see it, the statement can't be confirmed as true OR false, and should therefore be removed, if someone with commit privileges agree. To remove the "As a result, more software is available for BSD than for Linux." -part would be perfectly sufficient. :) -- regards, Joel Dahl