From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 27 08:00:05 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id IAA03035 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 08:00:05 -0700 Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.20.4]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA03030 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 08:00:02 -0700 Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id JAA04706; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:58:55 -0500 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199509271458.JAA04706@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Subject: Re: Solaris x86 To: uttt@fang.cs.sunyit.edu (Tom T. Tran) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:58:54 -0500 (CDT) Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199509271401.KAA13023@fang.cs.sunyit.edu> from "Tom T. Tran" at Sep 27, 95 10:01:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > With all the talk of SCO compatability and Linux compatability I was > wondering if perhaps Solaris x86 might be on the horizon. I'm curious as to > whether or not having the system call wrappers for Linux and SCO bring us > any closer to having Solaris x86 binary compatability. FreeBSD does not support a significant number of the "value added" features of Solaris (I don't care to dicker over details but I will just hold up Sun's threads implementation as a great example) - and, to date, the few Solaris applications that I would want to run on FreeBSD tend to require these things. We could, I suppose, shoot to try to support a subset of the functionality.. Fortunately, Sun has done us all a great service by playing the game entirely differently from everyone else :-) Eccccch. The thought of trying to support Solaris binaries gives me the willies. :-) ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Software Engineer, UNIX/Network Hacker, Etc. 414/362-3617 Marquette Electronics, Inc. - R&D - Milwaukee, WI jgreco@mei.com