Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:29:12 +0200 From: Joel Dahl <joel@automatvapen.se> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questionable statement in article Message-ID: <1092072500.561.38.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> In-Reply-To: <20040809120718.GY87690@submonkey.net> References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <41168DF7.2090601@wingfoot.org><41175240.5040709@wingfoot.org> <20040809114028.GA1619@sitetronics.com> <20040809120718.GY87690@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mon 2004-08-09 klockan 14.07 skrev Ceri Davies: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > > > Okay, this is getting really ridiculous, and the statement is false. It > > would be rather simple to figure out which syscalls FreeBSD was unable > > to translate and thereby make a certain piece of software fail to run on > > FreeBSD. For instance, there are certain socket options in Linux that > > are not avaialble on FreeBSD and cannot be emulated. Software that makes > > use of these options will _not_ run on FreeBSD. > > Firstly, I'll note that the article is talking about BSD, not FreeBSD. > > > A more accurate statement would be: > > > > FreeBSD_Compilable_Code + FreeBSD_Binaries + FreeBSD_Emulatable(Linux) > > > Binaries(Linux) > > > > You can't blindly make this statement, however, without first proving > > the following: > > > > Binaries(Linux) - FreeBSD_Emulatable(Linux) < FreeBSD_Compilable_code + > > FreeBSD_Binaries. > > > > Now, once you factor in the SVR4 compatibility and others, this > > statement gets exceedingly difficult to make. When somebody wants to > > audit the amount of binaries that will run on FreeBSD and get a number, > > let me know. > > Since SVR4 gets bundled on the right hand side of the equation above, > along with BSDI, IBCS2, Interactive Unix, SCO Unix, SCO Xenix, and > Solaris (this selection just from the i386 NetBSD port and excluding > other free BSDs), the statement becomes slightly easier to make, I > think. > > > Also, it's interesting to note that OpenBSD will do the same -- it has > > Linux syscall translation as well -- it will also run FreeBSD binaries. > > Does this mean that OpenBSD has a conceviably larger amount of binaries > > that will run on it than FreeBSD? > > Well, yes. > > Ceri Whoops, my intention was not to cause any hard feelings with my original question about the statement. I'm just trying to make our docs correct. :) As I see it, the statement can't be confirmed as true OR false, and should therefore be removed, if someone with commit privileges agree. To remove the "As a result, more software is available for BSD than for Linux." -part would be perfectly sufficient. :) -- regards, Joel Dahl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1092072500.561.38.camel>