From owner-freebsd-chat Wed May 5 18:33:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from bytor.rush.net (bytor.rush.net [209.45.245.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E350015172 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 18:33:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lynch@rush.net) Received: from localhost (lynch@localhost) by bytor.rush.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27815; Wed, 5 May 1999 21:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 21:31:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat Lynch To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: James Howard , jgrosch@MooseRiver.com, Brett Glass , jmutter@netwalk.com, "Viren R. Shah" , Steve Kargl , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PCWeek article by Anne Chen -- Comments In-Reply-To: <37654.925939627@zippy.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I've always described it to students and friends as "System Call Translation" (which I guess technically its not that either) -Pat ___________________________________________________________________________ Pat Lynch lynch@rush.net Systems Administrator Rush Networking "Wow, everyone looks different in Real Life (tm)"- Nathan Dorfman meeting people at FUNY "Suicide is painless, switching to NT isn't."- Unknown ___________________________________________________________________________ On Wed, 5 May 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > The fundamental problem is that "emulation" is the wrong word here but > people use it anyway. What FreeBSD offers isn't "Linux emulation", > it's "Linux binary compatibility." The dividing line may seem thin, > but "Emulation" conjures up all kinds of visions of the binary > actually being emulated through some tortuous series of extra steps > rather than a binary simply calling a different syscall table (not an > extra one, just a *different* one). > > Be sure and try to make that point in any interviews you do; I do. > [And I'm sure Brett has something to say about this, but I don't care. :)] > > - Jordan > > > On Wed, 5 May 1999, Josef Grosch wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 10:50:37PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > > > > It does reflect the weaknesses in the current marketing and promotion > > > > of FreeBSD. In particular, the article mentions the lack of native > > > > application support. (Running Linux binaries under emulation isn't > > > > acceptable to the IT crowd; the platform must be SUPPORTED by the > > > > application vendor.) > > > > I've been using FreeBSD for years and have no objection to running Linux > > programs in emulation mode. However, I have seen this by IT people > > before. Maybe it would be more advantagous to rephrase it as "Native > > Linux Binary" support or something similar just to catch those in IT who > > aren't bright enough to understand what that means. > > > > Jamie > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message