From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 9 20:15:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DBD16A4CE; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:15:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from shrike.submonkey.net (cpc2-cdif3-6-0-cust204.cdif.cable.ntl.com [81.103.67.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D522443D5A; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:15:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from setantae@submonkey.net) Received: from setantae by shrike.submonkey.net with local (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1BuGXt-000JBu-7h; Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:15:01 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:15:01 +0100 From: Ceri Davies To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20040809201501.GE87690@submonkey.net> Mail-Followup-To: Ceri Davies , John Baldwin , freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org, Joel Dahl References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <20040809120718.GY87690@submonkey.net> <1092072500.561.38.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <200408091339.40069.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Rsp728Nwk8twChKq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200408091339.40069.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-PGP: finger ceri@FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: Ceri Davies cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Questionable statement in article X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 20:15:03 -0000 --Rsp728Nwk8twChKq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:39:40PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday 09 August 2004 01:29 pm, Joel Dahl wrote: > > 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= =2E It > > > > would be rather simple to figure out which syscalls FreeBSD was una= ble > > > > to translate and thereby make a certain piece of software fail to r= un > > > > 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(Lin= ux) > > > > > Binaries(Linux) > > > > > > > > You can't blindly make this statement, however, without first provi= ng > > > > the following: > > > > > > > > Binaries(Linux) - FreeBSD_Emulatable(Linux) < FreeBSD_Compilable_co= de + > > > > 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 num= ber, > > > > 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 binar= ies. > > > > Does this mean that OpenBSD has a conceviably larger amount of bina= ries > > > > 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. :) >=20 > FWIW, it seems to me that the statement has more downside potential ("FRE= EBSD=20 > LIES ON ITS WEBSITE, FILM AT 11" (if we are ever caught out on it b/c, in= =20 > fact, there are Linux binaries that FreeBSD doesn't run or at least run w= ell)=20 > than upside. I've discussed this with Devon offlist - how do people like this patch? Index: article.sgml =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D RCS file: /home/ncvs/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/article.sg= ml,v retrieving revision 1.12 diff -u -r1.12 article.sgml --- article.sgml 8 Aug 2004 13:43:54 -0000 1.12 +++ article.sgml 9 Aug 2004 20:13:07 -0000 @@ -529,9 +529,11 @@ =20 - BSD can execute Linux code, while Linux can not execute BSD - code. As a result, more software is available for BSD than for - Linux. + BSD can execute most Linux binaries, while Linux can not execute = BSD + binaries. Many BSD implementations can also execute binaries + from other UNIX-like systems. As a result, BSD may present an + easier migration route from other systems than + Linux would. Ceri --=20 It is not tinfoil, it is my new skin. I am a robot. --Rsp728Nwk8twChKq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBF9tEocfcwTS3JF8RAjEjAJ90iwvn6C6Gp4HE/ZcZl5Rxi2J6QACgia0T gdQM+OmcZKxJqUlFm3ASIXU= =a1Fu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Rsp728Nwk8twChKq--