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

[Mike Esler]

Poeple relying on any form of emulation to do the things they need/love
are eventually going to run into some turbulance.  It's just something
that you have to live with.  For example, some of us Transgaming
subscribers were burned more than one time when Valve started implemeting
anti-cheat routines in their servers.  People playing Half-life and
Counter-strike under Linux waited quite a long time (weeks) for
Transgaming to make WineX work again with Half-life servers.  In the end,
the solution was for Transgaming to work with Valve so that they could
make WineX work with current and future Valve updates.

While Valve actually did talk with some of the WineX developers (it's not
like the source to the anti-cheat code is public), Transgaming was
obligated to fix the issues.  Likewise, I believe it is up to the FreeBSD
people to make good on their claims that their OS can run Linux binaries,
not DICE's.





Karl-Petter Åkesson said:
> 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=d24767f46a633767982ab70319af5778&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?
>>
>>
>>


-- 

Mike Esler
mesler at themelee.org