On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 09:58:17AM +0100, Oystein Viggen wrote:
> * [Jeroen Dekkers]
>
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 09:59:14PM +0100, Farid Hajji wrote:
> >> All in all, binary compatibility is a nice thing to have.
> >
> > If it's only used for running non-free software I disagree.
>
> I can se
* [Jeroen Dekkers]
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 09:59:14PM +0100, Farid Hajji wrote:
>> All in all, binary compatibility is a nice thing to have.
>
> If it's only used for running non-free software I disagree.
I can see no other reason. As you said, if it's free, we just recompile
it. Then we ca
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 09:59:14PM +0100, Farid Hajji wrote:
> All in all, binary compatibility is a nice thing to have.
If it's only used for running non-free software I disagree. For free
software you can simply recompile the software. The only really reason
I see is that you can have the same
inux (e.g. setiathome client for Linux).
Go figure!
They are three aspects of BSD's Linux compatibility:
1. {Free,Open and Net}BSD provide Linux binary compatibility through a
simple trick: They just provide besides their normal ABI the Linux
ABI as well. When a Linux binary generates a syscall(
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 09:23:15PM +0100, Oystein Viggen wrote:
> * [Wolfgang J?hrling]
>
> > might even introduce a security problem. Thus we would need to recompile
> > all programs anyway. I can't see the point of having binary
> > compatiblity then.
>
> If a user just wants to play Quake V
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 12:18:44PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Worse is the idea of what would happen if a GNU/Hurd binary were run
> on a GNU/Linux system. You can almost guarantee buffer overruns in
> that case.
Why?
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAI
* [Wolfgang Jährling]
> might even introduce a security problem. Thus we would need to recompile
> all programs anyway. I can't see the point of having binary
> compatiblity then.
If a user just wants to play Quake V or Duke Nukem Forever, he might not
need to care about PATH_MAX, as these prog
> Exactly. A harmless construct might even introduce a security
> problem. Thus we would need to recompile all programs anyway. I
> can't see the point of having binary compatiblity then.
Worse is the idea of what would happen if a GNU/Hurd binary were run
on a GNU/Linux system. You can almost
Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I doubt if binary compatibility with GNU/Linux is a good thing to
> have. It looks like we are then bound to the ABI and can't change it
> if we want to keep compatibility. There are also other problems, for
> example a program compiled on GNU/Linux coul
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 01:54:42AM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> And even if you hack all the header files, there's still inlined versions
> from things compiled for GNU/Linux one day when we have binary compatibility.
I doubt if binary compatibility with GNU/Linux is a good thing to
have. It lo
> I'm not arguing for Free Software only. One of the things I like best
> about us sharing a libc with Linux is that porting *should* be no
> harder than a recompile. Part of the Debian/Hurd porters work is to
> help remove any recompile barriers from thousands of programs.
Agreed.
> I feel tha
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 05:53:05PM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote:
> > My only questions is: Why would we want binary compatability? Every
> > OS/app that I can think of that used this as a selling feature (OS/2,
> > Wine, Win95 for Win 3.1 apps) failed miserably at the emulation
> > (unforseen gotchas
> > We _could_ use this Lites approach as well in the Hurd, to provide
> > binary compatibility to, say, Linux-Binaries.
>
> My only questions is: Why would we want binary compatability? Every
> OS/app that I can think of that used this as a selling feature (OS/2,
> Wine, Win95 for Win 3.1 apps)
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:49:00AM +0200, Farid Hajji wrote:
> CAVEAT: Theoretic discussion ahead! Comments welcome.
> We _could_ use this Lites approach as well in the Hurd, to provide
> binary compatibility to, say, Linux-Binaries.
My only questions is: Why would we want binary compatability?
CAVEAT: Theoretic discussion ahead! Comments welcome.
Under Lites/Mach, BSD binaries can be executed directly through
a technique known as dynamic relinking. See Helanders Lites thesis
for details.
We _could_ use this Lites approach as well in the Hurd, to provide
binary compatibility to, say, L
15 matches
Mail list logo
