From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 14:27:28 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624D01065672; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 14:27:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from db@db.net) Received: from diana.db.net (diana.db.net [66.113.102.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453948FC14; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 14:27:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from night.db.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by diana.db.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCAD2282A; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:07:21 -0700 (MST) Received: by night.db.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 34B3C5CA3; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:07:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:07:33 -0500 From: Diane Bruce To: "Sean C. Farley" Message-ID: <20110106140733.GA90903@night.db.net> References: <20110103220153.69cf59e0@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Andrey Chernov Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 14:27:28 -0000 Bleh! Bleh! what a rash of comments! On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 07:16:19AM -0600, Sean C. Farley wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Andrey Chernov wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > >>>I have heard this argument about the linuxulator and what we're I have always found the linuxulator handy for converting the no-so-zealot linuxer into trying FreeBSD. "You can continue to run your old binaries for a time". Ditto for the extfs support. > >>>really talking about is slipping FreeBSD marketshare. I don't share ... > >>>not justify an independent FreeBSD effort. Adobe is a good example > >>>of this. > >> > >>It compounded the Adobe's reluctance to work on portable flash player. > > > >I agree with Alexander even more. We don't need _any_ Linux emulator > >in the tree and even in the ports. Flash player is a good example of Ok, if the linuxulator is trivial, easy to do sure. Run a linux binary. The same way it would be nice to run an OSX binary, or a solaris binary, or a whatever. OSX is problematical for the graphics of course, but for plain ol' binaries, why not? I might also point out that the earliest versions of Unix were capable of running RT-11 binaries. (Thanks to UoT, hi Henry if you are reading!) I believe it was done so the RT-11 dungeo.exe could be run on unix. ;-) > >how Linux emulator is harmful: instead of sending tons of complaints > >to Adobe to force them to make native FreeBSD version, users tends to > >install Flash via emulator and got all its pain as result. But they don't even seem to care about the linux binary either. From what I have been hearing, they still have problems with that one. > > Well, there have been some requests[1] sent to Adobe for a native > version especially after running Flash through emulation. This is even > after having to register to vote or attach a comment for the bug. It is > the fourth most popular Flash bug. Adobe was a bad example. I believe they only care about Windows and OSX. I bet they get paid real money for that work. ... > >BTW, I have nothing against having source level Linux compatibility in > >some places, because resulting binary will be FreeBSD one in any case, but > >I'm strongly against executable binary compatibility level. Provided it is useful as a bridge for users converting from linux to FreeBSD or to prompt work on a native version, I think it is fine. I think you are throwing out the baby with the h2o. - Diane -- - db@FreeBSD.org db@db.net http://www.db.net/~db