Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:40:28 +0200 From: "Devon H. O'Dell" <dodell@sitetronics.com> To: Glenn Sieb <ges+lists@wingfoot.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questionable statement in article Message-ID: <20040809114028.GA1619@sitetronics.com> In-Reply-To: <41175240.5040709@wingfoot.org> References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <20040808202351.GV87690@submonkey.net> <41168DF7.2090601@wingfoot.org> <20040809084817.GW87690@submonkey.net> <41175240.5040709@wingfoot.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Glenn Sieb <ges+lists@wingfoot.org> scribbled: > Ceri Davies said the following on 8/9/2004 4:48 AM: >=20 > >I'm assuming you failed math. >=20 > Thanks--love you too! 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. Simply, there's no way to verify the statement and it should be viewed as false. All Linux binaries will _not_ run on FreeBSD and the statement: code(FreeBSD) + code(Linux) is therefore moot. This is assuming all Linux binaries will work on FreeBSD (and also ignores the fact that it's only the binaries that FreeBSD will run -- there is certainly less code written for FreeBSD than there is for Linux -- take a look at the patchfiles in ports some day). Glenn: They're making the assumption that all Linux binaries will work on 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. 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? Until this statement can be quantified, I think the best solution is to just take out the assumed / subjective / non-factual content and place something that is known to be true. Ceri: The last post was rather uncalled for. Should I assume the same of you because your proof was invalid? These kinds of pissing contests are really what's getting FreeBSD in a lot of trouble these days. --=20 Kind regards, Devon H. O'Dell | dodell@sitetronics.com Key: 4D3D8CA7 | IRC: dho@freenode/dho@efnet --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBF2Kr9y+/hU09jKcRAupzAJ9AlzFzZinGeNF6S2Eo1uol3PJa7ACdGv1r u39Giq2voxRXn8uhx2CylXI= =/GrF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --82I3+IH0IqGh5yIs--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040809114028.GA1619>