Slashdot Mirror
SkyOS Now Runs Linux Binaries Natively
Gunder123 writes: "A new (open source in the past, but not anymore) operating system, SkyOS, in its latest version can run Linux binaries unmodified, without the need of a recompilation, enriching its own application base this way. Their Linux emulation layer lies inside the SkyOS kernel, I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here. Their future plans involve also an emulation layer for Windows applications, pretty much what ReactOS tries to do for the last few years for the WindowsNT model."
I wonder if it's the spiffy GNU hello.c which includes its own email client.
Seriously, they only support a very small subset of calls thus far.
1. Write free software.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Future conversation...
Geek acolyte: Whatcha runnin'?
Elder Geek:I've got SkyOS emulating Slackware, with WINE layered over that so I can use all my l00t wArEz.
Acolyte:Cool! How'z Mozilla run on it?
Elder: Still a little buggy -- but imagine a beowulf cluster of these...
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
1. Gather underwear
2. ???
3. Profit!
1. Collect underpants.
...
"Linux" now runs Linux binaries natively, without even a recompile! It seems that those wacky "Linux" kernel guys have managed to emulate 100% of Linux system calls. It's really slick -- they just run the user-level code in the binaries natively and then dispatch to the right part of the "Linux" kernel when a trap occurs, via an advanced mechanism called the "system call table" which maps Linux system call numbers to "Linux" system calls. Word on the street is that nerds everywhere are ecstatic at being able to run their Linux binaries on their favorite "Linux" system.
---
I guess that running Linux binaries is a pretty good way to get some applications on your hobbyist operating system, but does this young, closed-source OS have anything to offer us besides the retro Amiga-esque GUI and an emulation layer for 6% of Linux system calls?
Big deal, I run Linux binaries on my NetBSD box all the time. Nothing new, nothing exciting. Move on.
I won't even elaborate on your GPL remark other than you need to lay off the crack pipe before you post.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Actually, adding native linix binary support was something I recommended to Microsoft years ago. Call it Winux. Implementation would be equivalent to the horribly lame OS/2 or POSIX subsytems.
.supported by the mighty MS. And finally, they could be sure that the Linux apps would run at a disadvantage because of the extra overhead in the translation layer. They could even charge a few bucks for Winux -- people would be lining up to pay for it. Just consider the success of the MKS toolkit & even Interix
Windows would gain the availability of many programs that do not have equivalents in the windows world (plus for MS users) Downside would be cost to support Winux (not large compared to cost of developing NT, linux is much less complicated then windows APIS). 98% of the Linux API is easily matched to the kernel, the 2% leftover would not be too challenging (e.g. cygwin or VMWare could be bribed into completing the job or licensing the base to MS)
The linux kernel & device drivers would not be supported directly by Winux, but by mapping to windows equivalents. Linux kernels and drivers would not be functional under Winux, but MS could build the most commonly needed drivers and document how to add your own. This would be way better than Interix because of the simple -- just copy the binaries around.
MS would be able to claim you could have you cake & eat it too, reduce the risk run Linux Apps and NT and don't get locked out of the use of Word & Excel. They could even claim the advantage of a O/S
Linux would gain exposure by Windows users. They would see advantages and disadvantages of Linux software firsthand without a major investment of time to install Linux, esp. the headaches of dual-boot setup to try. Many open source projects seem to have a Windows option, save time & stop supporting that since Winux would avoid the need for such. Finally, Linux lovers would still be able to say just how bad, unstable, limited, etc. Winux is and that any right-minded person would just use the real thing. And for the coup-de-grace, Linux viruses, trojans, etc. would then be able to bring down Window too.
True believers of either side could ignore the other side, flame about it, or even cooperate with it as suits them personally.
Consumers could buy MS and have a choice as to what kind of software they use.
This obviously made so much sense that it did not stand a chance.
Back in 1991:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Linux and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Back in 1985:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Windows and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
Back in 1983:
I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Macintosh and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.
OK, since my post was from a marginally-educated guess standpoint and you sound like you've actually had experience with the topic at hand, I guess I stand corrected.
But just this once!
Don't think I'll back down so easy next time! 8-)
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin