Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:12:44 +0200 (MEST) From: Søren Schmidt <sos@sos.freebsd.dk> To: rivers@dignus.com (Thomas David Rivers) Cc: jlemon@americantv.com, rivers@dignus.com, cracauer@cons.org, freebsd-emulation@freefall.FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: LINUX emulation and uname(3). Message-ID: <199710101312.PAA07929@sos.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <199710101218.IAA08913@lakes.dignus.com> from Thomas David Rivers at "Oct 10, 97 08:18:06 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Thomas David Rivers who wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 1997 at 10:49:40PM -0400, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
> > > I have a program, written for Linux, that uses the uname() information
> > > as part of its license check...
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the check fails... the company indicates that the
> > > failure is due to incorrect uname() information.
> > >
> > > So - does the uname() call under Linux emulation claim to be a LINUX
> > > box? - or - does it claim to be a FreeBSD box...
> > >
> >
> > The Linux uname() call currently reports the FreeBSD info. I suppose
> > that this could be made into a sysctl if it really becomes a nuisance?
> > (see sys/i386/linux/linux_misc.c:linux_newuname for the implementation)
> > --
> > Jonathan
> >
>
> Well - it was a nuisance in this case, as I was unable to run the
> particular Linux program I wanted to run...
>
> And, of course, you are right... I got a small program that simply
> calls uname() on Linux and ran it on FreeBSD - it reported the FreeBSD
> info...
>
> However, after reporting what I was doing, the company sent me a new
> license key (with the idea that "FreeBSD" would be returned in the utsname
> fields), which worked...
>
> It's just a bother for the various companies, and it means that our claim
> of being able to run Linux binaries isn't as complete as we may have wanted.
>
> Maybe a sysctl, so people could taylor it, is the right thing to do.
> In any event, I think a uname() call under Linux emulation should claim
> to be "Linux" and not "FreeBSD". So, the default should be "Linux"...
NO, I think this is a bad idea. First off it _is_ not a Linux system,
second the next thing is you will have to report an os version. Now tell
me which of the bezillions Linux's versions are we going to call us then ?
And besides some programs uses this to tell other services which platform
they are running on, we dont want to advertise ourselves as Linux do we ??
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Søren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
Even more code to hack -- will it ever end
..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710101312.PAA07929>