Linux kernel compatability
Diane Bruce
db at db.net
Thu Jan 6 14:27:28 UTC 2011
Bleh! Bleh! what a rash of comments!
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 07:16:19AM -0600, Sean C. Farley wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Andrey Chernov 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
I have always found the linuxulator handy for converting the no-so-zealot
linuxer into trying FreeBSD. "You can continue to run your old binaries
for a time". Ditto for the extfs support.
> >>>really talking about is slipping FreeBSD marketshare. I don't share
...
> >>>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
Ok, if the linuxulator is trivial, easy to do sure. Run a linux binary.
The same way it would be nice to run an OSX binary, or a solaris binary,
or a whatever. OSX is problematical for the graphics of course, but for
plain ol' binaries, why not?
I might also point out that the earliest versions of Unix were capable of
running RT-11 binaries. (Thanks to UoT, hi Henry if you are reading!)
I believe it was done so the RT-11 dungeo.exe could be run on unix. ;-)
> >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.
But they don't even seem to care about the linux binary either. From what
I have been hearing, they still have problems with that one.
>
> Well, there have been some requests[1] sent to Adobe for a native
> version especially after running Flash through emulation. This is even
> after having to register to vote or attach a comment for the bug. It is
> the fourth most popular Flash bug.
Adobe was a bad example. I believe they only care about Windows and OSX.
I bet they get paid real money for that work.
...
> >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.
Provided it is useful as a bridge for users converting from linux
to FreeBSD or to prompt work on a native version, I think it is fine.
I think you are throwing out the baby with the h2o.
- Diane
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
More information about the freebsd-arch
mailing list