Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

Linux Compatibility Available for NetBSD PowerPC Ports 73

Posted by michael from the but-will-it-run-Word? dept.
Emmanuel Dreyfus writes "The Linux compatibility feature has been enabled on NetBSD PowerPC ports (macppc, prep, bebox, ofppc, and amigappc). This means it is now possible to run Linux binaries such as Netscape Communicator on these ports. More information is available at the NetBSD web site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Compatibility Available for NetBSD PowerPC Ports More

Linux Compatibility Available for NetBSD PowerPC Ports

Comments Filter:

  • Re:names (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    These people *do* have nothing better to do than port the OS.

    NetBSD is somewhat unique in that it's primarily a volunteer effort, and the OS itself is highly portable by design (anything can be ported if enough developers are thrown at it, as proved by OpenVMS for Alpha). The ports reflect what NetBSD users/developers actually use, so if you combine a skilled NetBSD developer with a UNIX-capable machine, and enough technical details about it, the result is a new port of NetBSD. :-)

    Apart from the ports, though, there are a lot of interesting things going on with NetBSD. UVM (the new NetBSD VM system), for instance, solves a lot of the memory-copy problems other people just hack around (by, for instance, creating new networking APIs that avoid copies). In NetBSD, it's done the right way, by the memory manager itself, rather than kludges above it.

  • Re:The real question... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Runs at 'Maximum Performance over a Large Number of Shifting Platforms'...
    a) Netscape
    b) That damn sector in Xen at the end of Half-Life
  • is why one would want to run Netscape Communicator on anything. It's unusably unstable on all platforms...I can't imagine how bad it is under emulation...
  • What the hell has this got to do with anything?

    Regardless of whether 50 or 50 million people use fooBSD, they're all damn fine operating systems. The code quality is much better than anything else out there, and that includes Linux.

    That said, I seriously doubt your figures. They seem highly pessimistic at best - how would Theo know how many people use his OS; there are dozens of mirrors and download statistics are misleading anyway; some people download but never install and others may mirror locally and install numeroud copies. Any figures about usage of a freely available OS are misleading at best.

    Don't like BSD? Don't use it. No skin off my teeth. In fact, there's a lot to be said for an OS which is hacked on by 100% of its user base.

  • That's emulation - though not in the original sense of the word. It's very much in the same way as Linux on Sparc supports SunOS binaries. Given that it's BSD, I'm guessing it was done better, but it's still "kernel emulation."
  • what the hell are you talking about?

    the fact that the application is being run under linux binary emulation has absolutely nothing to do with any potential buffer overflows in it.

    yes, there will be the possibility for a security hole if there was a security hole in the application, but they same problem could come up running that application under linux. you're no more or less at risk than you would be running any other application.

    should i now refuse to use any application anywhere because there might potentially be a buffer overflow?

  • Security (Score:1)

    by jjr ( 6873 )
    This is great as long as application that being used are not critical or ran as root. This could allow possible buffer overflow problems.
  • Er... No - it's just that the BSD distribs do pretty much everything via email lists. Go check out freebsd.org, openbsd.org, etc... Tons 'o mailing lists.
  • If you're looking for something more like NetBSD, why don't you, well, install NetBSD? Especially given this news, it seems like the obvious choice.
  • Not having tried the other distros I can't really give you an informed opinion as to which one I prefer. Though the ones I have heard of include:
    • Debian
    • LinuxPPC
    • SuSE
    • Yellow Dog
    • ROCK Linux
    The first four are referenced at PenguinPPC.org [slashdot.org], the last one is at RockLinux.org [rocklinux.org]. If you have the bandwidth and the time, I reckon it is probably worth trying them all and forming your own opinion.
  • Partly because there is software available in binary form that has not been ported to BSD. Though admitadly there is probably more value on the x86 platform, than on the PPC platform, where even a fair bin of binary only x86/Linux software has not been recompiled for this platform, or any other for that matter.

    Though the simple answer is because this way you only need one OS.

  • is why one would want to run Netscape Communicator on anything. It's unusably unstable on all platforms...I can't imagine how bad it is under emulation.. Well, at least you can say its feature consistant across all platforms ;-)
  • I think by "BeBox" they mean any PPC running BeOS, not specifically the Be Inc. BeBox. What I wouldn't do for one of those babies though. Honestly, BeOS is beautiful but I feel it is, sadly, doomed. The BeOS community is nstrong but it isn't commercially viable. Good for developers and graphics arts/video people. Not practical for Joe Random Gamer or Mr. Word Processor.. too bad.
  • Ziiiiing!
  • Will this enable NetBSD to run games such as Quake3?


    I took the blue pill !!!
  • Thanks. I just got NetBSD a couple weeks ago. Gonna load it on a PII 400.


    I took the blue pill !!!
  • adding a feature to software (provided it is not at the expense of other features) is *never* bad.

    besides, if Linux binaries run under *BSD, who cares if the BSD versions don't come out (like they ever did anyway)?

    -peeto
    a four-year NetBSD user
  • You can make your own ISO and distribute it to the world...
  • You could always try Linux From Scratch. Find out more about it on www.linuxfromscratch.org. There _is_ a PPC guide.
  • MOL relies on runtime patching of the linux kernel. This will take more than a binary compatability layer to port to another kernel.
  • Making it easier to run Linux binaries on BSD systems makes it that much less likely for software vendors to produce native BSD binaries.

    Why should they develop native apps when they run faster on *BSD with the Linuxator? If you check CD#2 in your FreeBSD CD set (the commercial demo one) many of the companies are supporting them for FreeBSD under the Linux compatability layer.

    I'd rather see the effort spent on 'Binary compatibility to run Linux apps' be used to encourage vendors to produce native BSD binaries.

    Already being done. LokiGames (LokiSoft?) is already doing that.

    Some might claim that this shows the technical superiority of BSD, but in my opinion Linux emulation is harmful to the future of BSD operating systems.

    It's not really emulation in a true sense. Most "Linux software" isn't "Linux software" but "Unix software" and compiles and runs on FreeBSD just fine. FreeBSD has Linux BINARY support, so if the source isn't available (StarOffice, VMWare, etc) you can still run your choice of programs. It doesn't do this via "emulation" but by translating Linux syscalls into FreeBSD syscalls where everything is executed natively.

  • I think you are correct. They type of thing will allow you to run LinuxPPC binaries on your NetBSD/PPC box, but the huge numbers of Linux/intel binaries are still incompatable, just as they are incompatible with the LinuxPPC distributions.

    Unfortuante, but not too suprising.

  • 1) If linux is "the unix defragger", why is there 180 [www.ldl.cx] seperate Linux distros?
    2) If you followed the workings of the X86open [telly.org] project. Their goal: A common Unix binary for X86 processors. Linux ELF was declared the winner.

    It will esculate the trend for developers to only write code for Linux (when writing *nix stuff of course).

    GOOD coders write code with portability in mind. What you are pointing out is there is a whole bunch of lazy/amature coders out there.

    Now, given BSD/SCO/Solaris/QNX/etc all can run 'linux programs' on X86, a vendor can opt to produce 2 shrink-wrapped binaries. One for Windows, and the other for 'linux' and have almost 100% of the X86 market. (and, with the LINE project, you could have just one binary.)

    For a company wanting to write once....they could. But the 'linux world' needs to declare SOMETHING a standard. LSB has proven to be useless due to infighting between the 180 linux versions. The simple solution: Point to an emulated environment and declare that the standard. (The famly wants to fight....go outside the family)

    but this is indicative of Linux taking over the *nix ma
    What, with the power of fragmentation?

  • yeah but this way we can say we can run more software. linux can't say 'yeah we can run BSD binary'
  • So what does that have to do with how many users use OpenBSD?

    and you can make your own ISO. mkfs.iso
  • Theo stated that there have been 7,000 cd's sold. I'm sure 9/10 people download it.
  • bash-2.04$ file kernel
    kernel: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386,
    version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses
    shared libs), not stripped

    It says its intel =P
  • I think by "BeBox" they mean any PPC running BeOS, not specifically the Be Inc. BeBox.

    No, they're referring [netbsd.org] to the PPC-based hardware that Be Inc. produced and sold for a short time. After all, NetBSD is its own OS, and doesn't care what other OS's your hardware might be capable of running.

    What I wouldn't do for one of those babies though. Honestly, BeOS is beautiful...

    For the most part, BeOS is strictly an x86 OS. It's been a few years now since a PPC-based machine has been manufactured with which BeOS is compatible.

  • The simple solution: Point to an emulated environment and declare that the standard. (The famly wants to fight....go outside the family)

    One such environment is Inferno http://www.vitanuova.com

    It's an abstracted OS with it's own graphical environment. Runs on plenty of systems and processors Win & Linux & plan9 for a start

    although targetted at embedded systems it really is a nice environment.


    .oO0Oo.
  • You're right... i was being an ass. Fight with the g/f... in the mood to bitch someone out... your post was at the top...

    my bad

  • You appear to have lost your "u" key, please locate it immediately ;) Seriously though, this just allows the linux apps (of which there are many for PPC, most things are not written in asm and are therefore (generally) easily portable) to work.
  • What would make a more interesting screen shot is a shot of the various seg fault messages on the OSes - whatever OS9 calls 'em, whatever OSX is going to say, Linux's "Segmentation fault (core dumped)" and Windows "General Protection Fault" after attempting to view a Java/JavaScript/CSS intensive site in each of the browsers...

    (I find Netscape lasts longer with JavaScript/Java turned off - and these were it's selling points, back in the day...)

  • Not to be a smartass, but if you are using Solaris, DGUX or HPUX there is an alternative browser which works great out of the box:

    MS Internet Explorer 5 for Unix

    I'm using it right now on my new Blade 100 and it is sweet! After 3 days of running, IE is using 4% of CPU and 20 MB of memory. Netscape on Linux would be using 200MB of ram by the time it crashed 2 1/2 days ago!

  • For the same reasons people choose to use BSD over Linux. Any 'linux vs bsd' search will give you answers.

    --
  • I'm right to think this is processer specific right? Linux ppc binaries will run on my netbsd ppc box. So there isn't any cpu emu going on.
    I'm still waiting for an irix compatability, so I can run netscape on my netbsd decstation ;)

  • Having a huge dick up one's ass doesn't affect one's spelling.

    Ranessin
  • iBCS2 is used to run SysV binaries not BSD binaries. FreeBSD also has an iBCS ABI which allows you to run SysV binaries. Note that SCO Unix is SysV.
  • Check in /usr/ports. For nearly every open source linux "binary" there is an equivelent application ported to allow compilation using `cc` under BSD. And if the source has truly been "gnu-ized" it will compile under `gcc`. Allowing you to run native Linux binaries lets you run closed source applications such as Netscape or Valve's Halflife Dedicated Server which can not be recompiled for BSD.
  • Duh. I didn't realize it was unclear that I was talking about binaries-compiled-for-the-intel-instruction-set-an d-the-Linux-kernel-with-glibc. If we're talking about running a particular application on PPC as opposed to on x86 processors, and if we accept "Intel" as a synonym for "x86", then I think "intel binary" is pretty comprehensible shorthand. Yes, if you're writing in a crossplatorm language all you need to do is recompile, but the whole purpose of this exercise is that the source is not available and so it is not possible to recompile and so it is necessary to have this compatibility layer.

    Hmm. Have I just been trolled? Fuck.

  • I guess the Java JDK is a pretty good reason for it, actually. If you go for that sort of thing.
  • What could this mean for Mac OS X, they might be able to support PPC/Linux applications now?

  • If you're looking for something more like NetBSD, why don't you, well, install NetBSD? Especially given this news, it seems like the obvious choice.

    well, you're right -- it is the obvious choice. i'm already running the m68k port on the "server" in my network, and enjoying it quite a bit. but with linux being such a buzzword these days, i'd rather like to get some hands-on with it as well.

    perhaps i'll take the advice of another poster and try the linux from scratch for ppc approach -- it'll probably be just as frustrating as it sounds, which is about perfect for me. masochism rocks.

    --saint
    ----
  • There must be some real demand for this feature. Several venders have started saying that they will be binary compatable with Linux (IBM says they are working on AIX to have this feature, Sun said something about device drivers if not more; I think there was an imbedded operating system with it too) and now the BSD's. It will esculate the trend for developers to only write code for Linux (when writing *nix stuff of course).

    I don't mean to start a flame war ... I am sure the BSD's are great, but this is indicative of Linux taking over the *nix market.
  • Most people only use Usenet for the binaries section. I don't think that counting the number of usenet posts for a particular OS can tell you how many people use that OS. Anyway, how does Theo know how many people use OpenBSD ? I respect the fact that he's the project leader, but how can he possibly know how many copies of downloads, downloads themselves, network installs, etc, have happened? He can't - however, granted that OpenBSD isn't a mainstream system like, say, FreeBSD - saying that there are only 36,000 FreeBSD users is almost certainly FUD, and backing it up with "usenet post ratios" is completely nonsensical. FreeBSD is widely used, although I think that soon people will begin looking at OpenBSD if the cryptography export issues with FreeBSD aren't sorted out.
  • to this, MacAddicts eagerly anticipating Mac OS X, like myself, say 'word'
  • This is great for NetBSD, which I run on my Intel Pentium laptop, but I think the emphasis should be on native ports on not using emulations. Applications running through emulations will always have one strike on them compared to native apps.
  • why not use Linux PPC instead?

    Because of the Linux in front of the PPC.
  • ...For all the neat PPC motherboards(perferably dual), to become available in retail.
  • Like it or not, you've got to admit one important thing: the ladies will roll over for a guy that uses BSD in a second. Common knowledge. Get used to it.
  • Bzzt... Wrong!

    The LSB stanard is almost complete. There are few modifications that are needed, and they're looking for people who can create a Logo for the LSB 1.0 (Read Nick's coloumn about it in Linux world web site)..

    Next time, Check before you post!
  • I wonder if this will run binaries of Mac-on-Linux [maconlinux.net]... Oddly enough, it may now be easier to run the binary of MOL than to port it to NetBSD! If anyone tries this, let us know!
  • Actually, there was a BSD syscall emulation for Linux at one point, but it has bit-rotted from lack of interest.
  • If Linux binaries runs just as well as "native" binaries, there isn't any advantage of getting native binaries any more. In fact, it would be best to stop thinking as the Linux ABI support as emulation, instead it becomes just another supported ABI.

    From another perspective: Is it a bad thing to have a JVM for BSD? It means people can release JVM binaries, instead of developing native BSD binaries.
  • iNTEL Hardware is mostly bilt for Windows, however Linux rns well enogh on it to make ports of poplar apps worthwhile. Linux was allso ported to Mac Hardware ( I.e. PowerPC ismostly Mac bt allso RS6000 andafew other boxes ).

    NetBSD is mostly aporteble OS ( As Oposed to the secre OpenBSD and the featurefll FreeBSD ). It runs well on the PPC bt isn't very poplar and has very few propriatery apps. Now with this port it will rn those Linx propriatery apps writen for the x86 architectre.

    In Other words. Wrong CPU, Wrong OS and Wrong software.

    The strange thing isthat it may still be morestable than some properly integrated platforms ( I.e. MS apps for Windows on iNTEL :)
  • I didn't know a Netscape Comunicator for Linux PPC existed. Mozilla yes ... but that's Open source and hence not seriusly afected by this anouncment.
  • saint,

    We recommend trying Debian/PPC. It's a project that we support through hardware donations, and we support the Debian effort. Go that way. It's tested, well-known, and it's... Debian. That says a lot, but hopefully it says good things to you.

    Good luck!

    Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
  • Right. That'll happen. We'll just roll over and die because, ohmygoodness, someone else made a UNIX variant for the PowerPC!

    This actually is a major step in the right direction for a vision that I have: the unification of UNIX on the PowerPC.

    This is Serious, so pay attention. ;-)

    Look at the platform right now. We have approximately five major OSes on PowerPC: Mac OS "Classic", Linux, BSD (which includes OS X, NetBSD, etc.), and AIX, IBM's UNIX.

    I honestly don't know the status of AIX; if someone could inform me, I'd appreciate it. I do know that a majority of the PPC machines that we running AIX are now either in the closet, landfill, or are running Linux/PPC.

    BSD will soon rise on PPC with OS X.

    The "Classic" Mac OS is the dominant player for consumer PPC systems. "Classic" (OS 7.x - 9.x) already runs under Linux/PPC, and may actually run better there than under OS X. (Unconfirmed; this is just what I have heard.)

    Now, the PPC makes up a sadly small portion of the market. But it's not going to go away. The TiVo is a Linux/PPC box. The briQ is a LinuxPPC box that'll fit in a drive bay. OS X hopefully will help Apple a bit.

    That said, we have a really good processor that's got three major OSes. Classic runs under just about everything, though BSD seems to be a sort of exception. Though that has/will change with OS X... (see how complicated it's getting?)

    Let me just cut right to my Vision:

    Global Compatibility for All UNIX Systems* on the PowerPC.

    * currently in use.

    It would help us if we could run an OS X app under LinuxPPC. It'd help them if they could run a LinuxPPC app under OS X. Apparently NetBSD can now run our apps, which makes things like Netscape (which we port; news on that soon), Applixware (guess who got that on Linux/PPC?), and Loki's PPC games theoretically possible to use under NetBSD.

    Now, can we go the other way? NetBSD apps under Linux/PPC? Is there a point to that? Shouldn't you just recompile and be done with it? Good questions, all of which need answers.

    The two platforms I would really like to get talking are OS X and LinuxPPC.

    If we could run OS X apps, perhaps with a native Carbon layer, or with a cleverly coded system to catch Carbon calls, and have Aqua calls go to X (as in X11...too many X's!!), that would be a major breakthrough for us.

    Perhaps they will soon be able to or already can run LinuxPPC apps on OS X. If we have that going both ways, there's a tremendous upside:

    It unites the PowerPC platform without falling on one OS, one company, to unite us.

    Look at the rest of the world. What are they running? Windows.

    There's a ton of Linux/x86 people now, too, which is good. But they're not Linux/PPC users.

    We can better face Windows, the x86 platform, and the many disconceptions about the PowerPC if we have a united platform.

    Together we stand, divided we fall.

    Those words never rang truer to me.

    Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
  • "Making it easier to run Linux binaries on BSD systems makes it that much less likely for software vendors to produce native BSD binaries. "

    And this is somehow bad? Gordon Bennet, "software vendors", can we not let them take over the linux luser-marketplace and keep the *BSDs Free instead? I *hate* this "software vendor" sponge ethic!
    ~Tim
    --
    .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
  • It's a f*cking conspiracy ;) Actually, I'm kinda surprised that there is a NetBSD port for the BeBox. Less than 2000 of them were made (and they sell for thousands even though they are only dual 133's at most). These people *do* have nothing better to do than port the OS. The BeBox was great hardware though. A little before my time, but one can appreciate the design.
  • Funny you should mention UVM, I just printed out the thesis of the guy who invented it. He used UVM to get his doctorate, and after reading about half of the 170-odd pages, I must say that its pretty cool. Some things are a little too BSD-ish for me (such as wasting perfectly good efficiency opportunities in order to keep pagetables throw-away-able) but hopefully, this will get implemented into Free/OpenBSD soon. If it works, then maybe the Linux guys will make a copy of it ;)
  • Well, BeOS R5 still runs fine on the BeBox. Besides, its not a primary machine kind of purchase. You'd buy a BeBox for the same reason you'd buy on old Amiga. It really was a beautiful machine. (Besides, it had a "GeekPort" how could you NOT like it?)
  • Everything I write will compile and run exactly the same on OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and Solaris.

    If only commercial application developers would write good, portable code, and if only freeware/shareware/GNU programmers would stop writing Linux-centric software.

    It's amazing how many unneeded Linuxisms I find in free software, from Makefiles that won't work without GNU make to install scripts that expect /bin/sh to be BASH. It's sad, really.

  • I'm told the SlackWare [slackware.com] folks have a port in progress, but it's not ready yet. If it were here, I'd say it's exactly what you want, but as it's not... why not give NetBSD a try?

    If you are really adventurous, though, you could also try Slackintosh [exploits.org] - it's an unofficial port from the slackware source tree. It has no installer - you will have to set up another linux/ppc distro to install it, but a very minimal install should work fine.


    "That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
  • Geee, this sounds so familiar. Do you cut and paste that shit everytime there is something positive about BSD? Next time, be fucking original! BSD is not dead. It's quite alive. Just because it's not the media buzzword, it doesn't mean that it's not doing well. I'm not going to say that BSD is bettter than any other OS, because those types of comments are as stupid as the bullshit you wrote. BSD has many strong features that make it appealing to advanced and seasoned Unix users. BSD users are the type that don't give a flying fuck about how many people use BSD, or how much money BSD companies are making, or if BSD is in all the weenie magazines. These are the users that care about quality, stability and usability. That's why they use BSD. I'm not saying that BSD users wouldn't like to have more public mention, because it's always nice to be noticed. I'm just saying that we don't measure our success on how many times we get somethin published in a magazine or how many users it has. People, if you're curious about BSD then give it a try. You might like it, or not. I for one was a Linux user and then moved on to BSD. I don't think I'll ever turn back.
  • Intel binary compatibility is quite another matter

    There is no such thing as an "Intel binary", if there were we could run windows apps on linux, vice versa, and whatnot.

    Granted the assembly language to run on x86 machines is quite differerent from that to run PPC, Alpha, Sparc and others (and much less efficient too), so you could have meant that the "Intel instruction set", but that's a different thing. Assuming you're writing in a cross platform language (C/C++/Java) like a normal person, going from Linux to Windows isn't any harder than Linux to MacOS, or Solaris or whatever, all you have to do is recompile.

    Although this qualifies as a commercial implementation, the instruction translation of which you speak is the basis of what Transmeta's doing with their code morphing [transmeta.com] stuff, but that's a bit offtopic.

  • I believe that FreeBSD users don't need to ask too many questions to be asked in USENET. FreeBSD is often installed by experienced sysadmins on the fully supported i386 achitecture for the sole purpose of running well-tested and well-documented server software.
  • I'm having a really hard time figuring out what you're trying to say, but as far as I can tell, you're completely wrong. You're right about this being obscure, since there are very few proprietary applications for Linux/PPC, but you say "Now with this port it will rn those Linx propriatery apps writen for the x86 architectre." As if. It's going to take a lot more than a compatibility layer to run x86 binaries on Linux/PPC. All that this will do is enable people to run
    • Netscape
    • Applix
    • Civilization: Call to Power
    • Myth II
    Intel binary compatibility is quite another matter, and I don't think anyone is working on it (non-commercially). So if I understand you correctly, this is much, much more obscure than you think.
  • If Linux could natively execute Windows binaries, would that cause any less of an effort to develop native Linux software? I think just about everyone that is opposed to native Linux execution on NetBSD is barking up the wrong tree. If you looked at it in retrospective, would the ability to natively execute Linux binaries on Windows halt the development of Windows software? Do the math.

  • Re:on the subject of linuxppc... (Score:3)

    by imac.usr ( 58845 ) on Sunday March 11, 2001 @05:11PM (#370453) Homepage
    Try either Yellow Dog [yellowdoglinux.com] or SuSE's PowerPC distribution [www.suse.de]. Both should support the same platforms that LinuxPPC supports.

    There's also a PowerPC version of Debian [debian.org] if you want to use apt-get (which, although I have never used it myself, is supposedly comparable to BSD's ports).

    Or, wait two weeks and swallow the blue pill [apple.com]....


    --

  • This is BAD for BSD. (Score:3)

    by Nonesuch ( 90847 ) on Sunday March 11, 2001 @08:16PM (#370454) Homepage Journal
    Making it easier to run Linux binaries on BSD systems makes it that much less likely for software vendors to produce native BSD binaries.

    I'd rather see the effort spent on 'Binary compatibility to run Linux apps' be used to encourage vendors to produce native BSD binaries.

    Some might claim that this shows the technical superiority of BSD, but in my opinion Linux emulation is harmful to the future of BSD operating systems.

  • Portable to OSX? (Score:3)

    by zaius ( 147422 ) <jeff&zaius,dyndns,org> on Sunday March 11, 2001 @05:39PM (#370455)
    So, since OSX is BSD-based, does this mean we can now get linux compatability on our OSX mac's?

    Then I could run netscape in 4 OS's at the same time (OSX, Mac OS9, Linux, and Winders, using VirtualPC or something like that)...

    That would make quite a screenshot... =)

  • Re:The real question... (Score:4)

    by kkenn ( 83190 ) on Sunday March 11, 2001 @05:40PM (#370456)
    As bad as Netscape is, it's maintained a lot better for Linux than it is for other UNIX platforms (at least on i386).

    You also seem to misunderstand the idea of Linux binary compatability -- it's not "emulation", the binaries run *natively*. The BSD kernel reconfigures itself to appear like a Linux kernel to the Linux binaries, and everything runs just as if it was on a Linux machine, on the bare hardware. Therefore Linux binaries run at full-speed, just like native BSD binaries. It's very cool - in fact, I'm typing this as we speak in a Linux mozilla daily build on my FreeBSD box.

    There's a good entry in the FreeBSD handbook about this if you're interested in more details.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close