AW: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

Christian Lahme lahme at
Thu Apr 10 11:07:02 EDT 2003

Dear Andreas,

Yes okay.. You´re right ... It´s the only way to do.. But we have to
know a timeline fot our discissions as hoster. If you say, you have to
have 30 days, then take these 30 days .. But tell us a time line. So we
can talk to our customers, how long they have to wait. Our problem is,
we´ve to tell to our customers and even YOUR customers that they have to
wait a time. But they are angry about it know, because nothing is done.
Okay not really nothing as we know, but this kids and gamers wouldn´t
understand because of the windows-servers.

So please be so kind, talk to your release manager, forcing a discission
to get a time line.


Christian Lahme
manager of technical operations 

---------------------------------------------------------------------                         4all-Networks GbR
eMail: lahme at                             Finkenweg 1
Phone:  +49 2161 / 829457
Telefax: +49 2161 / 829458                       41352 Korschenbroich
Inhaber:                             Andreas Lingott, Marcel Strerath
Gameserver & Webhosting: 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Fredriksson, Andreas [mailto:andreas.fredriksson at] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. April 2003 16:46
An: 'bf1942 at '
Betreff: RE: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09


we could easily release a dynamic executable but I suspect that this
forum and my mailbox would be full of "It doesn't work!" emails from
people not using up-to-date libraries.

We are not using gcc3.x primarily for speed; it's simply required to
deal with our code in a resonable manner. Version 2 compiles several
things wrong and needs lots of workarounds which we cannot accept in our

As machines out there are updated this will be less of a problem, but we
might need to release both dynamic and static executables in the
transition period.

I'll think something out, I hope :-)

Thanks for you input,

-----Original Message-----
From: Killing
To: bf1942 at
Sent: 4/10/2003 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

I understand your comments but if it where the case that it didn't run
under FreeBSD you could well be cutting of a significant portion of the
community, ourselves included. We get virtually daily requests for
BF1942 servers and the lack of Linux / FreeBSD support combined missing
config / command line options is killing our ability to effectively run
the servers.

I would hence strongly be against a statically linked exe if this where
the case. In my experience the keeping up with the bleeding edge GCC
causes more issues that its worth. The extra performance gains are
usually just not worth it as they are either so slight or in a number of
cases negative.

    Steve / K

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fredriksson, Andreas" <andreas.fredriksson at>
To: <bf1942 at>
Sent: 10 April 2003 15:06
Subject: RE: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09


I'm completely aware what the linux emulation does and how it works
under FreeBSD.

Our current problem is with a dynamically linked binary under any
operating system since we are using the very latest GCC and the std C++
libraries that accompany it. I'd say most current Linux installations
couldn't run our binary dynamically linked because of this since they
are using older C++ library installations.

This is why we are probably going for static linkage for the next

If this doesn't work on FreeBSD it isn't really a problem for us since
we are developing a Linux server binary firsthand--but as I said
earlier, time permitting we could provide the corresponding FreeBSD
binary in the future.


-----Original Message-----
From: Karl-Petter Åkesson
To: bf1942 at
Sent: 4/10/2003 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

Hi Andreas an everyone else,

I think you maybe missunderstood Sam Evans question. In FreeBSD there
exists a package
that let you run Linux binaries directly on your FreeBSD machine. It's
quite common for people to do. I've run the BF linux dedicated server
for some time on my FreeBSD machine for instance. I'm also aware of that

statically linked libraries can cause problems for us FreeBSD user when
we try to run Linux binaries. For instance look at the latest version of

where the statically linked libraries caused a lot of problems for
FreeBSD people. I do not know the exact nature of these problems since I

did not dig into it myself but I believe you can find more about it on
that forum.


Fredriksson, Andreas wrote:
> FreeBSD isn't within the current scope of our development, but given
> demand and when our releases have stabilized I don't see why we
> compile a native FreeBSD version given that it supports what we need
> haven't
> looked at it since early 4.x).
> The goal now is to produce a good Linux version.
> Regards,
> Andreas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Evans
> To: bf1942 at
> Sent: 4/9/2003 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Fredriksson, Andreas wrote:
>>Hi people,
>>I'm back at work now and atleast the fever is gone..
>>I haven't been working full-time with the linux port since I'm doing
> other
>>here as well, but here's a short rundown of what has happened.
>>- I have evaluated moving to completely static linkage of the server
> binary
>>  many reasons, but chiefly:
>>  1) DICE only needs to distribute and test for bugs in one version
>>  2) It allows almost everyone (kernel issues aside) to run the binary
>>  I think this makes sense given that most people will have a fairly
> new
>>  2.4.x atleast.
> I'm curious how this will affect folks who are running FreeBSD and
> Linux Compatibility mode?

More information about the Bf1942 mailing list