Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:48:38 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: grog@lemis.de Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Where is the documentation for ibcs2? Message-ID: <199511261948.MAA15284@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199511261355.OAA13704@allegro.lemis.de> from "Greg Lehey" at Nov 26, 95 02:55:28 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> What is the name of the man page for ibcs2? > > > > There isn't one. There doesn't need to be one. > > I strongly disagree. BSDI has found the need to write two separate > man pages (ibcs2(5) and sco(1)), and the information contained there > is very useful. At the very least, you need to tell people how to > enable it (yes, I did know about the entry in /etc/sysconfig; that's > where I came in), and how to run a COFF executable, even if it's > trivial. BSDI needs one because they have to enable it explicitly. FreeBSD can set the value in the /etc/sysconfig to "YES" at install time because FreeBSD supports LKMs. > > I think I need to > > rephrase my answer: > > > > You use "modload", whose man page is "modload(8)" to load it. You > > don't have any other options regarding IBCS2: you only have the option > > of loading it or not loading it. > > Options aren't the only think to document. How about limitations and > bugs? What are the limitations and bugs in FreeBSD itself? Not very documented, and more important that similar documents for IBCS2. > How do I know how to enable the emulation? At install time, when it asks you about it. > How do I run the program? Just start it by name? Yes. > Do I need to say "ibcs2 vi", or will it be enough just to write "vi"? Do I need to type "run foo" or just "foo"? >I tried vi with the SCO version and got: > > === root@freebie (/dev/ttyp0) /allegro/usr/sco/usr/bin 16 -> ./vi > Abort trap It apparently won't run. > === root@freebie (/dev/ttyp0) /allegro/usr/sco/usr/bin 17 -> ibcs2 vi > modload: error initializing module: File exists You are now typing things at random. A bad idea for root (you must have been root to get that particular error message). > Well, it appears that I need to run it as "ibcs2 vi". But what's this > modload problem? I have enabled Or have I done it wrong after all? Tell me: what must you do to enamle running of FreeBSD binaries? You must install. What must you do to run FreeBSD binaries? You type their name. The questions are divisible. What makes you believe (incorrectly) that you would need to type "ibcs2 <binary name>" to run a binary? > I'm an experienced computer person, and quite honestly the lack of > documentation (coupled, admittedly, with a lack of interest in SCO > software) is enough that I'm prepared to give up. Who is going to use > this stuff if they run into trouble and can't even be certain they've > started it properly. How does it work? I agree that there is a lot of missing "theory of operation" documentation for lots of the kernel. Execution classes are one such beastie. The VM is another. But if you expect Joe Schmoe to be able to make it work without asking questions on -questions at this point if Joe Schmoe didn't have things handled for him in the install, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps the right tree is http://www.freebsd.org. Or the source code, which is provided free of charge. Or the installation software that should have created the missing devices for you. Or the fact that to use an SCO shared binary, you must first own a copy of SCO to get the shared libraries. And you must know enough about how SCO uses shared libraries to get them moved over. And you must know general theory of operation of execution classes. And let me tell you, a simple (or even a complex) man page will sure as hell not cover it, especially without doing what Linux did and supplying our own IBCS2 shared libraries, etc. So who will use it? People who have this information already, people willing to dig it out of the sources, or people willing to ask questions of people who already know these things. > How do I go about finding out what's wrong here? Ask. > > Typically, you don't document things that don't have parameters, options, > > or other controls. > > Speak for yourself. From my point of view, this is completely wrong. Are we talking "typically" (like I thought) or "ideally"? If "typically", then feel free to write man pages to make yourself right. "Typically" means in the common case, and if we pick a case at random (oh, say, IBCS2?) and examine it, we find the documentation unwritten except as source code. > > Things like IBCS2 are binary: they either are or > > are not loaded. > > > > If you don't want to load it as a module (why not? It's an easy thing > > to do), then you can statically compile it. Look at /sys/i386/conf/LINT, > > at the bottom of the file: > > I can't see any reason not to load the module either. Memory. You should be asked on install. One problem is that the install configuration is not very reentrant. So fix it, you have the sources. Tell me, how is your hypothetical IBCS2 user, who will be using IBCS2 based apps, not system components like "vi" going to *load* his software without IBCS2 install tools? I know the answer to this one: they will do it by playing computer and running the install script by hand. Try Lotus 1-2-3 this way some day: I have. The software is incomplete. You are incorrectly equating the kernel components (which are to be optioned at install time, if done correctly) with a full IBCS2 environment. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511261948.MAA15284>