Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:15:01 +0100 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Questionable statement in article Message-ID: <20040809201501.GE87690@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <200408091339.40069.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <20040809120718.GY87690@submonkey.net> <1092072500.561.38.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <200408091339.40069.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Rsp728Nwk8twChKq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:39:40PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> 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=
=2E It
> > > > would be rather simple to figure out which syscalls FreeBSD was una=
ble
> > > > to translate and thereby make a certain piece of software fail to r=
un
> > > > 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(Lin=
ux)
> > > > > Binaries(Linux)
> > > >
> > > > You can't blindly make this statement, however, without first provi=
ng
> > > > the following:
> > > >
> > > > Binaries(Linux) - FreeBSD_Emulatable(Linux) < FreeBSD_Compilable_co=
de +
> > > > 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 num=
ber,
> > > > 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 binar=
ies.
> > > > Does this mean that OpenBSD has a conceviably larger amount of bina=
ries
> > > > 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. :)
>=20
> FWIW, it seems to me that the statement has more downside potential ("FRE=
EBSD=20
> LIES ON ITS WEBSITE, FILM AT 11" (if we are ever caught out on it b/c, in=
=20
> fact, there are Linux binaries that FreeBSD doesn't run or at least run w=
ell)=20
> than upside.
I've discussed this with Devon offlist - how do people like this patch?
Index: article.sgml
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
RCS file: /home/ncvs/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/article.sg=
ml,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -r1.12 article.sgml
--- article.sgml 8 Aug 2004 13:43:54 -0000 1.12
+++ article.sgml 9 Aug 2004 20:13:07 -0000
@@ -529,9 +529,11 @@
</listitem>
=20
<listitem>
- <para>BSD can execute Linux code, while Linux can not execute BSD
- code. As a result, more software is available for BSD than for
- Linux.</para>
+ <para>BSD can execute most Linux binaries, while Linux can not execute =
BSD
+ binaries. Many BSD implementations can also execute binaries
+ from other UNIX-like systems. As a result, BSD may present an
+ easier migration route from other systems than
+ Linux would.</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</sect2>
Ceri
--=20
It is not tinfoil, it is my new skin. I am a robot.
--Rsp728Nwk8twChKq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFBF9tEocfcwTS3JF8RAjEjAJ90iwvn6C6Gp4HE/ZcZl5Rxi2J6QACgia0T
gdQM+OmcZKxJqUlFm3ASIXU=
=a1Fu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Rsp728Nwk8twChKq--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040809201501.GE87690>