Linux kernel compatability

Peter Wemm peter at wemm.org
Wed Jan 5 21:35:21 UTC 2011


On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Andrey Chernov <ache at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
>> > I have heard this argument about the linuxulator and what we're
>> > really talking about is slipping FreeBSD marketshare.  I don't share
>> > the view that the linuxulator futhered this slip but rather my view
>> > is that it allows us to stay relevant in areas where companies can
>> > not justify an independent FreeBSD effort.  Adobe is a good example
>> > of this.
>> >
>>
>> It compounded the Adobe's reluctance to work on portable flash player.
>
> I agree with Alexander even more. We don't need _any_ Linux emulator in
> the tree and even in the ports. Flash player is a good example of how
> Linux emulator is harmful: instead of sending tons of complaints to Adobe
> to force them to make native FreeBSD version, users tends to install Flash
> via emulator and got all its pain as result.
>
> BTW, I have nothing against having source level Linux compatibility in
> some places, because resulting binary will be FreeBSD one in any case, but
> I'm strongly against executable binary compatibility level.

There's also the issue of the Linux folks using the API's as a
political tool.  The whole selective API exporting based on GPL status
etc is a whole can of worms.  I believe I've even read that they
consider merely using non-blessed APIs causes your code to be a
derivative of their GPL'ed code.

Thought should be considered for their reactions to us implementing an
API that they consider consumers of to be automatically become GPL'ed.

-- 
Peter Wemm - peter at wemm.org; peter at FreeBSD.org; peter at yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
"If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete
themselves upon execution." -- Robert Sewell


More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list