Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:18:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: jlemon@americantv.com, rivers@dignus.com Cc: cracauer@cons.org, freebsd-emulation@freefall.FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: LINUX emulation and uname(3). Message-ID: <199710101218.IAA08913@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 10, 1997 at 10:49:40PM -0400, Thomas David Rivers wrote: > > I have a program, written for Linux, that uses the uname() information > > as part of its license check... > > > > Unfortunately, the check fails... the company indicates that the > > failure is due to incorrect uname() information. > > > > So - does the uname() call under Linux emulation claim to be a LINUX > > box? - or - does it claim to be a FreeBSD box... > > > > The Linux uname() call currently reports the FreeBSD info. I suppose > that this could be made into a sysctl if it really becomes a nuisance? > (see sys/i386/linux/linux_misc.c:linux_newuname for the implementation) > -- > Jonathan > Well - it was a nuisance in this case, as I was unable to run the particular Linux program I wanted to run... And, of course, you are right... I got a small program that simply calls uname() on Linux and ran it on FreeBSD - it reported the FreeBSD info... However, after reporting what I was doing, the company sent me a new license key (with the idea that "FreeBSD" would be returned in the utsname fields), which worked... It's just a bother for the various companies, and it means that our claim of being able to run Linux binaries isn't as complete as we may have wanted. Maybe a sysctl, so people could taylor it, is the right thing to do. In any event, I think a uname() call under Linux emulation should claim to be "Linux" and not "FreeBSD". So, the default should be "Linux"... - Dave Rivers -
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710101218.IAA08913>