Jump to content

Talk:FreeBSD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.52.154.34 (talk) at 01:00, 15 July 2013 (→favourite amongst ISPs during dot com bubble). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Compatibility to Linux

In the text, it is stated that most Linux software would run on FreeBSD without compatibility layer. How is that possible? As FreeBSD is based on NetBSD, I assume that it handles syscalls the same way, that arguments are passed via the stack (which actually should be slower as one has to use data bus to transfer data from the RAM), while on Linux, they are passed using the registers (eax/ebx/... or rax/rbx/...). How is then compatibility possible? Except for the POSIX standard and the ELF format, there is not that much similiarity, is it? --87.172.182.231 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was wrong. Of course, it is not based on NetBSD. --79.207.249.42 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some detail on how this works here. But basically, the kernel detects when its running a Linux binary and sets a pointer to the Linux the compatibility layer instead of the normal FreeBSD system call table. The compatibility layer knows to look for parameters in the registers instead of the stack. Jlenthe (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it is currently worded, the article states that Linux programs can "run" without the need for a compatibility layer. Then it goes on to say that FreeBSD provides a compatibility layer (an optional component of the OS installation) which allows Linux binaries to run. To me, it seems that the first sentence is contradicted by the second: either the Linux binary runs without any compatibility layer, or else the Linux binary able to run by virtue of the fact that a binary compatibility layer exists. Which is it? According to my understanding, the latter is true: Linux programs run on FreeBSD BECAUSE of the compatibility layer, not WITHOUT it.24.222.2.222 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I interpret https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/linuxemu.html as well. I'm not sure why User:Incnis_Mrsi reverted your changes. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sysinstall into FreeBSD#Installers?

I believe that Sysinstall is redundant with FreeBSD#Installers, and should be merged with into this page. sysinstall is inly used on FreeBSD, correct? Gigglesworth (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added "proposed merge" markup to both pages. Further discussion should be here only, per Help:Merging#Proposing_a_merger. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"regarded as reliable and robust"

I went to Google Books and search the source for "reliable", and then "robust". I wasn't able to verify the information "regarded as reliable and robust". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for it but couldn't find any sources so I've removed it. --Kondi (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedBSD

The TrustedBSD reference to DARPA claimed a citation was needed. I added "Under DARPA/SPAWAR contract N66001-01-C-8035 ("CBOSS")", and removed the "Citation Needed" bit. I assume that the contract number is adequate citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.182.235 (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

favourite amongst ISPs during dot com bubble

Hotmail was originally hosted on a mix of FreeBSD and Solaris: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotmail#Launch_of_Hotmail

Microsoft has made use of FreeBSD internally: http://betanews.com/2001/06/18/microsoft-we-use-freebsd/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.99.163 (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's a victory! Microsoft had a look on bsd when removing it from hotmail about 12 years ago... Ok, suppose you're the best fan of freebsd, and you acquire hotmail, running by that time on AngriestCoMostProprietaryAndTheWorstThingNotUnixOS. So, question is, do you realize that that system would run now your service long time after you purchased the service in any case, despite your fan level? If you do, then what your comment for? This is just ridiculous. When migrating they still used to run bsd. Amazingly! Who could even imagine that such a thing may happen! ... For every maker of the OS no matter corporate or comunity driven it is the very important principle - use what is made by himself. This is a prestige and reputation! I think freebsd project is hosted on the freebsd servers. And all fansites too. Why the same approach has to be wrong in the case of microsoft? Of course they have migrated to Windows and it is a normal thing. And of course this took some time. There is no any not ridiculous reason so actively point to this fact and moreover - include this in the article. This says nothing valuable about bsd, just about fans complexes.

77.52.154.34 (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kernel type

Shouldn't this be Monolithic instead of Modular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.42.112 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8.4 is not an 'unstable release'

The template 'latest preview software release' mistakenly lists FreeBSD 8.4 as unstable release. This clearly is wrong; 8.4-RELEASE is not 'unstable'. If we are to apply FreeBSD terminology, it is a release of the 'legacy' branch 8.x. Some people claim even that 8.x is (currently) more stable than 9.x. Please correct this. 84.50.246.19 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FreeBSD&oldid=564296967"