From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 9 18:44:56 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 F3E8D16A4CE for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 18:44:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.speakeasy.net (mail1.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA31943D5A for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 18:44:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 2671 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2004 18:44:55 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 9 Aug 2004 18:44:55 -0000 Received: from 10.50.40.208 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i79IiDtN076097; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:44:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:39:40 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <20040809120718.GY87690@submonkey.net> <1092072500.561.38.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> In-Reply-To: <1092072500.561.38.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408091339.40069.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Ceri Davies 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 18:44:56 -0000 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 <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org