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

[Steve Getman]

Just my $.02 but I would think that Dice probably has somewhat limited
resources to devote to a *nix based server.  Given that assumption it
seems fair to say that they should go after the largest market possible. 
Granted there will be some people that get left out but if it works well
for the majority then I think it is worth it.

Steve

>
> Steve,
>
> 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 codebase.
>
> 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,
> Andreas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Killing
> To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> 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 dice.se>
> To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
> Sent: 10 April 2003 15:06
> Subject: RE: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09
>
>
>
> Karl-Petter,
>
> 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
> release.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl-Petter Åkesson
> To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> 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
> (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/emulators/linux_base/pkg-descr
> )
> 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
>
> TeamSpeak
> (http://www.teamspeak.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=d24767f46a633767982a
> b70319af5778&forumid=46)
> 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.
>
> /Kalle
>
> Fredriksson, Andreas wrote:
>>
>> FreeBSD isn't within the current scope of our development, but given
> enough
>> demand and when our releases have stabilized I don't see why we
> couldn't
>> compile a native FreeBSD version given that it supports what we need
> (I
>> 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 icculus.org
>> 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
>>
>>>things
>>>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
>>
>>>for
>>>  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
>>
>>>kernel,
>>>  2.4.x atleast.
>>
>>
>> I'm curious how this will affect folks who are running FreeBSD and
> using
>> Linux Compatibility mode?


-- 
Steve Getman
steve at lightcubed.com