svn commit: r41051 - head/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu
Marc Fonvieille
blackend at FreeBSD.org
Sun Apr 16 16:05:19 UTC 2017
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:52:43PM +0000, Dru Lavigne wrote:
> Author: dru
> Date: Tue Feb 26 16:52:43 2013
> New Revision: 41051
> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/doc/41051
>
> Log:
> Initial pass through chapter which does some tightening, modernizing, and fixes "you" and &os;.
> This chapter still needs a lot of testing and modernization. The ulink/xref tags need further review as well.
>
> Approved by: gjb (mentor)
>
> Modified:
> head/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu/chapter.xml
>
Hello,
I used my time-machine to read an old commit :-)
- <para>So why is it sometimes called <quote>Linux
- emulation</quote>? To make it hard to sell FreeBSD!
- Really, it is because the historical implementation was done
- at a time when there was really no word other than that to
- describe what was going on; saying that FreeBSD ran Linux
- binaries was not true, if you did not compile the code in or
- load a module, and there needed to be a word to describe what
- was being loaded—hence <quote>the Linux
- emulator</quote>.</para>
- </sect2>
- </sect1>
-</chapter>
+ operations, signal delivery, and System V IPC. The only
+ difference is that &os; binaries get the &os;
+ <emphasis>glue</emphasis> functions, and &linux; binaries get
+ the &linux; <emphasis>glue</emphasis> functions. The &os;
+ <emphasis>glue</emphasis> functions are statically linked into
+ the kernel, and the &linux; <emphasis>glue</emphasis>
+ functions can be statically linked, or they can be accessed
+ via a kernel module.</para>
+
+ <para>Technically, this is not really emulation, it is an
+ <acronym>ABI</acronym> implementation. It is sometimes called
+ <quote>&linux; emulation</quote> because the implementation
+ was done at a time when there was no other word to describe
+ what was going on. Saying that &os; ran &linux; binaries was
+ not true, since the code was not compiled in.</para>
+ </sect1>
The last sentence seems misleading from here.
I could understand the original version, but the new sentence seems
weird for me.
What about something like:
"Saying that FreeBSD ran Linux binaries was not true, until the Linux
support code has been compiled in or the module loaded." ?
Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
--
Marc
More information about the svn-doc-head
mailing list