Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:07:33 -0500 From: Diane Bruce <db@db.net> To: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability Message-ID: <20110106140733.GA90903@night.db.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101051345530.89052@thor.farley.org> 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> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101051345530.89052@thor.farley.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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@FreeBSD.org db@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110106140733.GA90903>