Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:24:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) Cc: freebsd-emulation@freefall.FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: LINUX emulation and uname(3). Message-ID: <199710110324.UAA16064@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199710110256.QAA19979@pegasus.com> from "Richard Foulk" at Oct 10, 97 04:56:30 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> No. > > If it runs under Linux it should run under the emulator. Good emulation > is fully bug compatible. > > Remember the various DOS emulators. They emulate many bugs and undocumented > features. When you type `VER' they respond with `MS-DOS Version 5.00', > not `FreeBSD ...' Technically, you are missing the distinction between an emulator and a simulator here. It actually *is* DOS running, just not directly in contact with the glass... > The intent is to run software. Without prejudice. The emulator should > not become a software critic. Agreed. However, consider the uname() thing as a marketing mandate: it doesn't have to make sense for it to still have to be that way. This is actually the first complaint I've ever heard about it... unless you count the complaints about NetScape running on FreeBSD being counted as Linux and therefore exagerating the Linux market share at the expense of underreporting the FreeBSD market share. I heard a *lot* of those complaints before the change (see the CVS log for the file). This is very much on the order of an external machine interface more than an emulator interface. The only reason it even came up is because someone's license manager didn't expect FreeBSD (most likely because of all that underreporting making it seem to be an insignificant market...). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710110324.UAA16064>