From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: What *doesn't* work under linux
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 09:15:38 GMT
Okay, I have read the FAQ and discovered what works (GNU stuff, X,
TeX, etc). I also know that some things aren't there yet (tape devices
and the rest). What I want to know is, is there any software that people
just *can't* get up and running under Linux? I ask this because there
is stuff I am interested in running (I don't have a system yet) but it
isn't on the 'runable list'. This means nothing of course, I am just
curious to see if there is a 'not-runable' list.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: Re: What *doesn't* work under linux -- a real answer
Date: 4 Dec 92 22:50:17 GMT
amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>What I want to know is, is there any software that people
>just *can't* get up and running under Linux?
Based on comments here and what I know about Linux, the biggest
problem is going to be with code that departs from the core of
"standard" Unix. Typical problems are
specific System V features: semaphores, messages, shared memory,
recent Unix system facilities present in only some versions, e.g.
mmap (Sun shared memory), streams modules
It looks to me like the most serious problem is likely to be with
commercial applications that use shared databases. This is what the
system V facilities were invented for. You could fake a lot of them
with a complete implementation of mmap, but I don't know when that
will be available. I've heard rumors of people working on some of the
system V facilities, but haven't heard anything about it.
From: email@example.com (Rich Braun)
Subject: SysVr4 ABI (was Re: What *doesn't* work under linux)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 13:54:32 GMT
I'm just dipping into this newsgroup now, and found that it's easy to
get a "#" prompt staring at me once the boot disks are downloaded.
But the distribution packages all look rather overwhelming and in a
constant state of change, so it's not all that appealing except as a
"real programmer's" hacking system.
So what I really want to know on this thread is:
Does/will Linux support the USL SysVr4/386 ABI?
If it could run the same binaries as all the USL clones (e.g. at our
workplaces), then us home users' lives would be much easier.
From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Subject: Re: SysVr4 ABI (was Re: What *doesn't* work under linux)
Date: 6 Dec 92 15:04:43 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (Rich Braun) writes:
> Does/will Linux support the USL SysVr4/386 ABI?
It does not. I might, but Linus has little or no documentation about
it. Is such documentation available for free, or as a book?
As a feature, I can understand it, but I still think binary
compatibility is rather unpleasant as a thought, especially when
coupled with backwards compatibility.
Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi (finger email@example.com)
MS-DOS, you can't live with it, you can live without it.