Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 13:42:14 -0800 From: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability Message-ID: <4D24E5B6.8060904@feral.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinOQFXzP_S%2BRLaJnqPAszAgs1Z7DPaRj6DywT1V@mail.gmail.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >> 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. > Hmm. Well, that's a non-starter. Storage vendors provide tools for Linux and Windows. That's it. Those tools have to be used on FreeBSD. Therefore, binary execution of such tools, and the infrastructure to support that, is pretty much mandatory.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D24E5B6.8060904>