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."
Just wondering why this OS isn't open source anymore...
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
from the SkyOS website:
>Emulation layers
>
>Linux
> 6% of all linux syscalls implemented
> Support for static linked ELF i386 binaries only
Well I guess any binary using any of the remaining
94% system calls will not work... hmmm....
than any other emulation (other than this is integrated in the kernel)? WINE runs Windows apps and I don't hear many complaints about license violations there.
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
one of the freedoms is the "freedom to read/modify and learn" from the source. If he is just learning from the source and reimplementing it, there is no problem.
Is wine in violation with microsoft copyright?
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
Who do they possibly hope to attact with this product? There's nothing very useful about buying an OS that can only emulate your preferred platform unless you actually like the OS more. It's like installing win2000 on a box and then running only DOS programs on it. Why not just install a simple dos? In this case, why not simply install one of the many... many forms of linux and run all of these programs directly.
It's interesting to read this kind of announcements... people are talking about ability to run Windows binaries under different operating systems. But the fact is that the most noticable thing for small operating systems is the ability to run Linux binaries. With Linux support the OS has more credibility with smaller effort than with supporting proprietary binaries.
I'm waiting that day when people will realize that the point isn't Windows. It's Linux (for example *BSD know this and have binary support for Linux).
My point is that it is waste of resources to even try to create binary compatibility/emulation/support for Windows. Today it's more important to have Linux support because it's more realistic to have someting actually working.
So the path SkyOS is heading to is right, but the final goal is wrong.
the point is, it's *his* waste of time.
Regardless of the licensing terms, this guy seriously doesn't expect to do anything truly useful with this OS.
Remember that Torvalds initially didn't use the GPL for the kernel.
Also note that Caldera has a 'distribution' that doesn't even use the kernel but rather reimplements a 'personality' -- I mean, even Unisys likes it !(I'm being sarcastic)
Understand, though, I am not criticising his intent -- he has an itch; he wants to scratch. At least he's pursuing his own muse.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
btw, if for some odd reason you have want to have a non-Linux OS but want to run Linux binaries on it, FreeBSD does a bang-up job.
If you think that you're really safe, click here. (Better not)
This space left intentionally blank.
I just want to point out that ReactOS is NOT just aiming for application compatibility (as is suggested by the submitter). We're also looking to support NT/2K/XP drivers and we're modelling the entire kernel and subsystems around the way NT works. Sure we'll do things differently where there won't be a huge compromise in compatibility and we can make something better.
- Jason
Things definitely are moving in this direction. I just read on the netbsd-discuss mailing list that those folks are considering abandoning the slow BSD-style stack-based kernel calls, in favor of the quick register-based kernel call syntax favored by Linux and Solaris. If they do that, most syscalls will differ only in call number from the ones in Linux.
-all dead homiez
Compare the immediate reaction of "did they violate GPL" with a absolutely no basis, in the face of the fact that it would be *more* difficult to get appropriate code from linux than from bsd, to the "wait and ask why" reaction to theft of bsd code by linux a couple of weeks ago.
Then let's all head down to the High Church of Emacs and sing the hymn, "GPL, GPL, uber alles" . . .
hawk
And all these emulations are very fast, because they are hooks to native OS functions. They aren't 100% emulation, like VMWare. I use Linux binaries daily on OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and I can hardly find any significant slowdown between a native BSD application, and the same application compiled for Linux, and run with emulation.
So can we imagine that Linux binaries could become a de facto standard for executables?
We would get something similar to Java, but yet more powerful (no tie to a specific language nor a specific API) . Ok, x86 binaries would only run on x86, but the same binary could run on 95% of the computers, regardless of their operating system. Any sort of application, low-level or high-level. GUI or daemon. And always fast, wrapping native system calls.
The nasty drawback is that people would release more closed-source software.
But OTOH, if you can take all your current applications and easily migrate to any operating system by just copying everything, including binaries, you can save a lot of time. You can also develop applications for customers even if you don't run a similar OS.
Would it be a dream, or a hell?
{{.sig}}