Duncan Barclay wrote:
I have in my archives some code from the "person" who usually brings up
the logical name stuff (the code implements them).
However, there is also this snippet:
PS: if you need the changes to namei() for variant symbolic links,
ask me nicely, and I
Anyone remember the old Pyramid OSX 'universe' command?
In the mid-80s, when the "System V" versus "BSD" dichotomy was in
full bloom, Pyramid delivered a system with two "universes" available.
A user could specify 'universe bsd' and work in a pure BSD environment;
'universe att' placed you in a
Anyone remember the old Pyramid OSX 'universe' command?
Yes, I do. It was very evil. :)
The way Apollo solved this problem was much more elegant and general
purpose and one of my favorite soapbox topics: Variant symlinks.
Rather than using the "universe" concept for getting at a different
On 25-May-00 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Anyone remember the old Pyramid OSX 'universe' command?
Yes, I do. It was very evil. :)
The way Apollo solved this problem was much more elegant and general
purpose and one of my favorite soapbox topics: Variant symlinks.
Gosh is that the
I have in my archives some code from the "person" who usually brings up
the logical name stuff (the code implements them).
AIE. OK, I think this thread will probably die in *record*
time now. I'm certainly running for the hills as we speak. :-)
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send
James Howard wrote:
Since I mention it, does anyone know the major differences between SCO's
new SVR5 (Unixware 7) and traditional SVR4 implementations? Going to
SCO's website all I get is market-speak.
As I've been told it was named SVR5 to mark inclusion of enterprise-level
features (and
On the other hand, the FreeBSD kernel is superior than that of Linux.
Yes, and FreeBSD is also superior to every Linux distribution I have
seen. Although SuSE is pretty good.
And my penis is _SO_ much larger than yours. Large penises are _ALWAYS_
better, of course.
-MB
To Unsubscribe:
Perhaps we should go just a bit further with that approach and make
things _write_ into that hierarchy first as well, e.g. if you run
/compat/linux/bin/bash and then install something with rpm, it will
install (as far as it's concerned) into /usr/bin, /usr/lib, etc. but
really be chrooted
1. You can run /compat/linux/bin/bash and then you in a sort of
Linux/FreeBSD directory mix. The root directory looks just like your
FreeBSD root, but changing to a directory that is in /compat/linux, like
/bin, will put in the linux tree of this directory, but changing to a
directory that
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 12:07:06AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
There used to be a linux-devel port which did exactly this. Don't
know what became of it, however..
[hawk-billf] /home/billf cat /usr/ports/devel/linux_devtools/pkg/COMMENT
Packages needed for doing development in Linux mode
On Wed, 24 May 2000, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On 24-May-00 Mohit Aron wrote:
Yes, that looks promising. That'll possibly enable one to install rpms
easily on FreeBSD.
You can try this too..
rpm --ignoreos --root /compat/linux --dbbath /var/lib/rpm --nodeps
--replacepkgs foo.rpm
:Or:
:
:/compat/linux/bin/bash
:rpm
:
:Running Linux-based installers directly in the FreeBSD environment can
:Cause Problems(tm), particularly if they're shells scripts that make
:assumptions.
:
:Doug White| FreeBSD: The Power to Serve
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Hi,
I apologize beforehand if this topic has already been discussed at
length here or elsewhere.
More and more commerical sites are providing software packages that contain
binaries for Linux. While FreeBSD does provide Linux emulation, this is often
flaky and breaks down more often
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is definately a matter of opinion.
First of all, FreeBSD's kernel can use both the Linux and FreeBSD
interfaces at once. Although it might be possible to remove the FreeBSD
interfaces, then all you have are the Linux ones - it sounds like a
That sounds a lot like the DaemonLinux project:
http://synack.net/daemonlinux/
Except it appears to have died stillborn.
And not without reason. Their proposal aimed to replace FSF utilities with
BSD equivalents - I don't think they are considering the kernel as a utility.
I
We already have a pretty complete implementation of the Linux kernel ABI -
most of the problems with running Linux binaries on FreeBSD comes from
userland stuff: missing libraries, etc. It's not "Linux emulation" - see
http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/x18949.html
Yes, which is why I'd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here's a Slashdot article about Debian/FreeBSD. It has links and a LOT of
angry comments :).
http://slashdot.org/bsd/99/11/23/1939210.shtml
-- Dan Feldman
Hacker, webmaster and computer connoisseur
Out of sight, out
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 08:56:18PM -0500, Mohit Aron wrote:
Hi, I apologize beforehand if this topic has already been discussed at
length here or elsewhere.
More and more commerical sites are providing software packages
that contain binaries for Linux. While FreeBSD does provide Linux
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Mohit Aron wrote:
Yes, which is why I'd rather use GNU utilities running on FreeBSD than spend
hours figuring out how to make a Linux binary work. As someone pointed out,
Debian is making some effort in this direction. I'll check that out.
Oh I see, you're looking for a
In article local.mail.freebsd-hackers/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you
write:
We already have a pretty complete implementation of the Linux kernel ABI -
most of the problems with running Linux binaries on FreeBSD comes from
userland stuff: missing libraries, etc. It's not "Linux emulation" - see
I think you need to keep in mind that FreeBSD is more than just the
kernel, in contrast to Linux. The tight integration and control of all
of the userspace tools makes system management much easier IMHO with
FreeBSD than any Linux distribution I have used. This is especially true
when you
First of all, FreeBSD's kernel can use both the Linux and FreeBSD
interfaces at once. Although it might be possible to remove the FreeBSD
interfaces, then all you have are the Linux ones - it sounds like a loss
in functionality to me. Second, the Linux emulator is actually extremely
good
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Mohit Aron wrote:
And not without reason. Their proposal aimed to replace FSF utilities with
BSD equivalents - I don't think they are considering the kernel as a utility.
I don't really any benefit from this.
The binaries being distributed for Linux make use of Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The thing is, using Linux applications on Linux isn't all that easy. There
definately needs to be a better packaging system, but that won't happen
anytime soon.
On the other hand, commercial apps usually have very precise instructions
as to what
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Mohit Aron wrote:
Well, I'm not about to give up FreeBSD running on my desktop, but at times
it is frustrating to not being able to use so much stuff out there that's
meant to work for Linux but doesn't work for FreeBSD for one small reason
or another. I think the user
On the other hand, commercial apps usually have very precise instructions
as to what one should do. If you're a little creative you can generally
break the rules to get these to run on FreeBSD. For instance, I installed
StarOffice by timing the length of the binary first-stage installer
But seriously, I think the problem can be fixed with a more transparent
interface for Linux programs. Rather than requiring Linux libraries to be put
in /compat/linux, it would be much easier if everything could be put in
/usr/lib. Which probably means having the SAME interface as Linux.
On 24-May-00 Mohit Aron wrote:
But seriously, I think the problem can be fixed with a more transparent
interface for Linux programs. Rather than requiring Linux libraries to be
put
in /compat/linux, it would be much easier if everything could be put in
/usr/lib. Which probably means
Perhaps we should go just a bit further with that approach and make
things _write_ into that hierarchy first as well, e.g. if you run
/compat/linux/bin/bash and then install something with rpm, it will
install (as far as it's concerned) into /usr/bin, /usr/lib, etc. but
really be chrooted
On 24-May-00 Mohit Aron wrote:
Yes, that looks promising. That'll possibly enable one to install rpms
easily on FreeBSD.
You can try this too..
rpm --ignoreos --root /compat/linux --dbbath /var/lib/rpm --nodeps
--replacepkgs foo.rpm
I did this to install Linux gtk libs a while ago and
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Mohit Aron wrote:
I believe even to make netscape plugins (for Linux) work, you need to
use the linux version of netscape - not the FreeBSD one (at least this
used to be true some time back). All these nifty things really scare
any new users away from FreeBSD.
You can't
: But seriously, I think the problem can be fixed with a more transparent
: interface for Linux programs. Rather than requiring Linux libraries to be put
: in /compat/linux, it would be much easier if everything could be put in
: /usr/lib. Which probably means having the SAME interface as
32 matches
Mail list logo
