Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 05:30:14 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability Message-ID: <20110106023014.GA22349@vniz.net> In-Reply-To: <4D24E5B6.8060904@feral.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031017110.1450@desktop> <20110103220153.69cf59e0@kan.dnsalias.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031859290.1450@desktop> <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101041030120.1450@desktop> <20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net> <AANLkTinOQFXzP_S%2BRLaJnqPAszAgs1Z7DPaRj6DywT1V@mail.gmail.com> <4D24E5B6.8060904@feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 01:42:14PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote: > >> 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. > > >=20 > Hmm. Well, that's a non-starter. Storage vendors provide tools for Linux= =20 > and Windows. That's it. Those tools have to be used on FreeBSD.=20 > Therefore, binary execution of such tools, and the infrastructure to=20 > support that, is pretty much mandatory. Minimal Windows required to run storage configuration tools may run just=20 =66rom USB flash drive, you don't need to infect FreeBSD just for that. --=20 http://ache.vniz.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110106023014.GA22349>