Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:39:40 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Cc: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> Subject: Re: Questionable statement in article Message-ID: <200408091339.40069.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1092072500.561.38.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <20040809120718.GY87690@submonkey.net> <1092072500.561.38.camel@dude.automatvapen.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 09 August 2004 01:29 pm, Joel Dahl wrote:
> 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. :)
FWIW, it seems to me that the statement has more downside potential ("FREEBSD
LIES ON ITS WEBSITE, FILM AT 11" (if we are ever caught out on it b/c, in
fact, there are Linux binaries that FreeBSD doesn't run or at least run well)
than upside.
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200408091339.40069.jhb>