VMWare/Quake 3/Unreal Tournament on FreeBSD

There have been a spate of reports about the usefulness of FreeBSD's Linux ABI recently. First off, Daeron wrote in with the news that VMWare now runs on FreeBSD, thanks to the efforts of Vladimir Silyaev. Vladimir has a page up with instructions and caveats. Secondly, Jacob Hart has confirmed that the Unreal Tournament Demo works flawlessly. Finally, Mark van Woerkom has created FreeBSD ports skeletons for Linux Quake 3 Test.

Comments

Re:hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

Then perhaps Slashdot should make a Linux section and relegate all Linux articles to said section; until that time, however, until the time where no operating system news reaches the front page(and be honest, every trivial piece of Linux news does reach the front page), then BSD stuff has just as much right to occupy front page space as does Linux stuff.

Re:Why is this shite marked as "news"

[The Muffin Man]

Everytime the name "BSD" is mentioned, some morons feel the urge to tell us that Linux "rulez" or stuff like that. Hey, what's your problem?

I'm using FreeBSD on my server and Linux on my laptop and I'm happy with both of them. I want to read news about both these operating systems on Slashdot.

I don't need news about Star Wars, but - hey, no problem - I simply don't read them.

If you really think that BSD systems shouldn't be mentioned here, why don't you propose a poll in that direction?

Two more things:

1. In case you still didn't realize: This article IS in the BSD section.

2. What about a statement like "Why don't you Linux cats give it up? Windows rulez the know universe - and then some" two or three years ago?

NetBSD created the Linux emul subsystem...

[perry]

Just wanted to point out that NetBSD originated the Linux syscall emulator FreeBSD uses. By definition, we run anything they do in this stuff -- we created the code, after all. :)

What's needed now are native ports.

[Brett Glass]

It's nice for FreeBSD users that Quake, VMWare, StarOffice, and other products published as native binaries for Linux can run on the Linux ABI, but it may be bad for the platform in the long term. Vendors will simply say, "We don't need to support FreeBSD; just run the Linux version!" Such an approach would consign FreeBSD to being Linux's ugly stepsister -- potentially forever.

This has happened to other platforms. The Windows emulation in OS/2 virtually eliminated development of native OS/2 applications.

Another example: FreeBSD has a larger installed base than Solaris, and yet there are more native ports to Solaris than to FreeBSD. FreeBSD users should be concerned that this is a sign that the phenomenon mentioned above is starting to happen.

My take: FreeBSD users will have to bombard manufacturers with requests for native ports to overcome the negative effects of emulation.

--Brett Glass

Re:What's needed now are native ports.

[Chalst]

Thought provoking post, but I disagree with the pessimism. FreeBSD
and Linux appeal to different kinds of user: Linux appeals more to the
innovation hungry user, whilst FreeBSD appeals more to users who care
more about the robustness of the whole system.

I also think that free software is much more able to weather a decline
in fashionability: FreeBSD doesn't *need* to be the hippest OS on the
block for year in, year out incremental development to be
made by the people who value its strengths.

Re:What's needed now are native ports.

[Chalst]

Native ports will tend to `furnish themselves' when it comes to free software, so emulation is crucial really only for commercial software.

The rise of Linux means more and more free software is being written. For applications software like star office it is likely we will have to rely on emulation, but I don't really see what the issue is: it isn't harder to use shrinkwrapped software under an emulator than it is `native code'. I don't see why `mission critical' is an issue if one trusts the emulator.

Packages used to run other packages, like VMware, is a different matter: this I would like to see run native code.

Re:What's needed now are native ports.

[Mr. Protocol]

FreeBSD does not intend to displace Linux. It represents a choice in the market, not a competitor aiming to crush the competition. It is currently most popular among those who run large servers, and the tools for mounting large servers do run as native ports.

However, it is a strongly stated goal of FreeBSD to be binary-compatible with Linux to the greatest extent possible, and I think this article indicates that FreeBSD is far along the path to that goal. Again, the aim is maximum freedom of choice, which is why I believe that the FreeBSD camp sees the port of the Debian user-space software to a FreeBSD kernel as a good thing.

It is not that FreeBSD wants to displace Linux on the desktop. It is that FreeBSD wants to support those who want to run FreeBSD on their desktops, without penalizing them for choosing something other than Linux.

Re:What's needed now are native ports.

[edhall]

What's wrong with running the Linux version of software? You've got to drop Windows-think; we're not playing Microsoft's game here. It's not zero-sum. Linux is not BSD's enemy. To a large extent, a gain for one is a gain for all the free OSes.

Are companies like Yahoo going to move from FreeBSD to Linux just because the latter has more native apps? I doubt it. FreeBSD has a secure niche in the server market, and neither it nor the other BSD's show any signs of resting on their laurels. Let Linux claim the desktop--if it can do so before the whole concept of the desktop PC becomes an anachronism. BSD will still be there, humming away in the infrastructure.

OS/2 comparisons are meaningless. BSD doesn't have the full force of Microsoft seeding FUD about its emulation and actively trying to change ABI's from under it. BSD isn't charging developers a premium to develop for its platform. BSD can't hang ISV's out to dry like IBM did. Review your OS history: Windows emulation didn't kill OS/2--IBM did. It was a textbook case of a mainframe vendor making all the wrong moves for the desktop market despite their superior product.

Here's a thought experiment: if IBM had put the sourecode for OS/2 under the BSDL (before MS managed to squirm the Windows ABI out from under it), don't you think Windows would have been booted to also-ran status by other OS vendors, each building on the OS/2 code base and competing to be the best "better than Windows" OS? Free software has a wholly different dynamic than the commercial software world. It doesn't depend upon the welfare of a single corporate division for its continued existance.

As for this "negative effect of emulation," I fail to see any, unless you take the "Linux Uber Ales" contingent too seriously. Serious Linux folks are embarassed by those guys; I've seen little other than respect for BSD among the linux-kernel group, for instance, just as I see more and more respect for Linux among the BSD core team. (I subscribe to both of their mailing lists.) BSD is growing. Make it easier for those folks entranced by the Linux hoopla to try BSD, and it will grow even faster. Try to divide the BSD and Linux worlds too strongly, and you'll only hurt both. Emulation is an unmitigated Good Thing, since it helps put BSD on an equal footing with the media's darling Penguin without making alternative (read: non-MS) OSes more forbiding for vendors through unnecessary fragmentation.

-Ed

With 3DFX support?!

[Ledge Kindred]

Can someone clarify or point to a place I can find more info on the UTdemo stuff? I have a friend who is a BSD-devotee and would like to use some of the Linux software that uses GLIDE/3DFX but apparently the "/dev/3dfx" interface that most software uses nowadays is something he's never been able to get working under FreeBSD because you have to make a kernel module for GLIDE to access the hardware in non-root environments and that's a totally Linux-specific interface. Does this mean someone's "ported" the /dev/3dfx driver to FreeBSD or what?

-=-=-=-=-

VMware

[Chalst]

I am delighted to see that VM ware now works with FreeBSD: this was
the one piece of software that I really regretted not being able to
run under FreeBSD.

I suppose it is too early to hope that there is much user experience
of the port in terms of robustness?