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

g8 at the.whole.net g8 at the.whole.net
Fri Apr 11 01:58:26 EDT 2003


It's not emulation, it's binary compatibility.  And FreeBSD should most
definately be considered as it's used in a great deal of datacenters by a
great deal of hosting providers.  This is not a matter of claims of what
can be run (no where is it claimed that everything runs without issue)
however this is a matter of understanding a userbase and their needs.

-g8

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Mike Esler wrote:

> 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?
> >>



More information about the Bf1942 mailing list