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."

Comments

not all syscalls implemented

[kbroom]

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....

gotta love hello world!

[soboroff]

"It's already possible to execute linux/i386 compiled programms. Simple linux-native applications like 'Hello World!!!' are running now on SkyOS without compiling!"

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.

How is it different...

[NinjaPablo]

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.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source business plan:

1. Write free software.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:GPL violation

[TheMMaster]

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?

Probably not a violation

[CmdrTroll]

My friend worked on the Linux binary compatibility for SCO Unixware a little while back. I asked him about the licensing implications of the effort at the time, and he told me that there were a couple of main points that kept them out of trouble:

• Limiting the emulation environment to Linux kernel syscalls was very safe legally and quite trivial. Why? You can't copyright or patent an interface. And the Linux syscall interface, while symantically slightly different from other Unices, does essentially the same thing as other Unices. Support for Linux sysctls and other oddball features was not considered, mostly because the only software that used Linux sysctls and other oddball features were the system startup scripts. For the most part, applications used the standard file, process control (fork, exec, getpid, ctime), and socket syscalls, and making a translation layer for those was cake.
• libc posed a bit of a potential problem because it is GPL. Fortunately, there is nothing keeping SCO or anyone else from bundling GPL software with their product, as long as they ship the source too and don't like closed-source binaries against the GPL libraries. Sun ships 'less' and GNOME with Solaris now, and nobody's talked about suing them for it.
• Statically linked binaries were ideal. They didn't need libc, the Linux loader, or any supporting files at all to run those things. All they needed was kernel support for Linux ELF files (which are a skewed version of standard ELF - check out the specs sometime). No problem there.

In all likelihood, the Linux ABI will become a standard for all non-Microsoft x86 operating systems. It is simple and legal to implement, and very robust and powerful.

-CT

It's a waste of time, but...

[twilight30]

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.

ReactOS not just going for app compatibility

[JasonFilby]

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

Re:GPL violation

[harlows_monkeys]

Wine was written by people without access to windows source code. SkyOS's linux-emulation layer was written by people with access to linux source code. Therefore, it is far more likely that code was 'borrowed' in writing this emulation layer

That's completely backwards. When writing an emulation layer (I speak from experience...if you ever ran a System V 286 binary on a System V 386 Unix or an SCO Xenix 286 binary on a Systemv V 386 Unix, you were using the emulation layer Darryl Richman, Carl Hensler, and I wrote when we worked at Interactive), you do not want to use actual code from the OS you are emulating. That code doesn't work like your OS works (if it did...you wouldn't need an emulation layer...you'd just need some argument munging and other trivial stuff).

The hard thing about an emulation layer is finding out just what the thing you are emulating does. An emulation layer has to not just follow the written spec (if there is one), but also has to implement the same bugs as the thing you are emulating, and follow the same choices where there was leeway in the spec, or you might break binary compatibility.

When emulating something that is open source, like Linux, you have the documentation you need: the source code. You read it to find out what the real behaviour is, and then implement that in a way that fits in with the way your OS works. It simple is almost never going to be faster to rip the actual code and try to use it.

When emulating a closed source thing like Windows, however, finding out the actual behaviour you need to emulate (remember...gotta match the actual behaviour, not just what the spec says) can take much experimenting and disassembly. It is much more temping (because it can actually save a lot of time), to rip some DLLs from Windows, and cobble together a framework to run them under your system.

So, just from a "what might developer's do" point of view, it is actually more likely a Windows emulation project would use parts of Windows they should not use than a Linux emulation project would use parts of Linux they should not use.

and for that matter

[hawk]

If one is going to jump immediately to conclusions, the *more reasonable* question is whether they used BSD code, which would be legal--because that would be a more reasonable way to handle the emulation.

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

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Arandir]

...operating systems that are not Free as in speech.

It's statements like that which make the rest of the world suspect we are a brainwashed cult just waiting for the Koolaid to arrive.

The right to free speech is a right that belongs to the speaker, and not to the listener. Linux is a manifestation of Linus Torvald's free speech. SkyOS is a manifestation of its authors' free speech. Any OS is a product of its authors' free speech. You have your own right of free speech but it is not predicated upon the existance of any operating system.

It would make sense to say that you only want operating systems that are "Free Software", or operating systems that are "Open Source", or operating systems that grant you specific permissions. But to say that you only want operating systems that are "free as in speech" is a non sequitur. It only makes sense if you have undergone the GNU Indoctrination Protocols, as it is not a sensible English phrase.

(considering that most Slashdot readers are openly hostile toward non-Linux Free Software operating systems, like OpenBSD, I think the original supposition was a correct evaluation of the Slashdot attitudes)

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Arandir]

"Free as in speech" means "allowed to do whatever you want with it".

Someone should arrest and jail your High School civics teacher for fraud.

"Free Speech" means speech that is unrestricted. In the context of western civilization is usually refers to the legal right to speak without legal hinderances, particularly with regards to political opinion, though it also covers non-political expressions of a creative, commercial or mundane nature.

"Free Software" may indeed mean "allowed to do (almost) whatever you want with it". But that is NOT what "Free Speech" means.

In regards to software, there are two kinds of "speech" available. The first is the "speech" of actually creating the software. The second is the "speech" of modifying and/or redistributing the first kind. The first kind is a legal and unalienable right. Unfortunately, the second is not an unalienable right, but a granted priviledge. Despite the existance of the first ammendment to the US Constitution, you are not allowed to take the political writings of Richard Stallman and modify them for redistribution. You are not allowed to take the New York Times and republish it as the Yonkers Yodeler.

The right to your own speech is unalienable and protected by law. The right to someone else's speech is not. By equating Free Software with Free Speech, you are asserting that the ability to modify and redistribute someone else's creative works is an unalienable right that should be enforced by law. But that is not how rights work. A right is something that you POSSESS. It is not something that you TAKE from someone else.