Re: svn commit: r41051 - head/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu
Marc Fonvieille <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.cvs.doc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:52:43PM +0000, Dru Lavigne wrote: > Author: dru > Date: Tue Feb 26 16:52:43 2013 > New Revision: 41051 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/doc/41051 > > Log: > Initial pass through chapter which does some tightening, modernizing, and fixes "you" and &os;. > This chapter still needs a lot of testing and modernization. The ulink/xref tags need further review as well. > > Approved by: gjb (mentor) > > Modified: > head/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu/chapter.xml > Hello, I used my time-machine to read an old commit :-) - <para>So why is it sometimes called <quote>Linux - emulation</quote>? To make it hard to sell FreeBSD! - Really, it is because the historical implementation was done - at a time when there was really no word other than that to - describe what was going on; saying that FreeBSD ran Linux - binaries was not true, if you did not compile the code in or - load a module, and there needed to be a word to describe what - was being loaded—hence <quote>the Linux - emulator</quote>.</para> - </sect2> - </sect1> -</chapter> + operations, signal delivery, and System V IPC. The only + difference is that &os; binaries get the &os; + <emphasis>glue</emphasis> functions, and &linux; binaries get + the &linux; <emphasis>glue</emphasis> functions. The &os; + <emphasis>glue</emphasis> functions are statically linked into + the kernel, and the &linux; <emphasis>glue</emphasis> + functions can be statically linked, or they can be accessed + via a kernel module.</para> + + <para>Technically, this is not really emulation, it is an + <acronym>ABI</acronym> implementation. It is sometimes called + <quote>&linux; emulation</quote> because the implementation + was done at a time when there was no other word to describe + what was going on. Saying that &os; ran &linux; binaries was + not true, since the code was not compiled in.</para> + </sect1> The last sentence seems misleading from here. I could understand the original version, but the new sentence seems weird for me. What about something like: "Saying that FreeBSD ran Linux binaries was not true, until the Linux support code has been compiled in or the module loaded." ? Please correct me, if I'm wrong. -- Marc _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-doc-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"