4 ms·
>abandoning the Linux syscall table layer Assuming you mean linux(4), http://man.freebsd.org/linux http://man.freebsd.org/linux, it's absolutely not abandoned:
by trasz 4y ago
>abandoning the Linux syscall table layer
Assuming you mean linux(4), http://man.freebsd.org/linux http://man.freebsd.org/linux, it's absolutely not abandoned: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Linuxulator https://wiki.freebsd.org/Linuxulator; it recently got a proper ARM64 support for example.
>"Linux jails" or something like that
https://wiki.freebsd.org/LinuxJails https://wiki.freebsd.org/LinuxJails
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoAwesome! Looks like they've picked up speed with it, that's great to see. Not sure if the abandonment was originally a misperception on my part or whether they picked it up again, maybe pulling code in from SmartOS? Either way the wiki says compatibility is up to 4.4 on CURRENT and 3.2 on STABLE. Still a ways to go, but that's sounding like I might have to give FreeBSD a go again!
- trasz 4y agoYeah, thanks to Dmitry returning to work on it, and FreeBSD Foundation sponsoring me, and other developers stepping in to fix something that annoyed them, and Alex tracking down Steam situation and doing epic work on tracking FreeBSD bugs and Linux idiosyncrasies. Note that the reported kernel version doesn’t mean much, and we could probably bump it to 5. What matters is individual syscalls, and a nice thing about the state of Linux is that because it’s so fragmented, almost every non-portable syscall has a portable fallback.