NetBSD’s Linux emulation doesn’t run a Linux kernel on a virtual machine; it runs Linux binaries on a NetBSD kernel. Linux emulation let you run plenty of useful programs that won’t run natively under NetBSD, such as Sun’s 1.4 Java Runtime Environment and JDK. Read the rest of the article here.
Implementing Linux emulation on NetBSD
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
All of the open source BSDs have this, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly. I’n not entirely sure about Darwin, but I doubt it would be hard for the folks at Apple to do so if it doesn’t.
The BSDs don’t stop at Linux compatability either, they have compat modules for quite a few different Unixes. Fantastic stuff for sure. I’ve not yet had Linux compat fail to run any binary only Linux software I’ve tried on any BSD.
I hear in some cases FreeBSD can even run Linux programs faster than Linux itself.
Maybe in 2.4, but in 2.6, linux’s speed is equal to or greater than bsd’s.
Maybe in 2.4, but in 2.6, linux’s speed is equal to or greater than bsd’s.
At?
I had a Quake3 Urban Terror Server that I ran on a FreeBSD machine using the Linux server binary. Not only was it faster running on FreeBSD, but it was more stable too. That was some time ago however.
I hope Apple develops this in their distro. so that we can see Linux Enterprise Applications on Xserve.
how many binary linux ppc packages do you see being distributed though?
i don’t use linux on ppc, so maybe there are more then i think.
i’m not bashing ppc, i happily run OS X on ppc, but most of the linux software i want, i can get the source and compile. the few binary apps i have for x86 linux (folding, quake) don’t have equivelent linux ppc binaries.
“the few binary apps i have for x86 linux (folding, quake) don’t have equivelent linux ppc binaries.”
Which version of Quake? Quake I and Quake II were GPLed thus there’s a chance you’re able to get the client compiled on your PPC system. I haven’t tried though, but since it got ported to MIPS and Alpha i’d say it is portable. You still need some proprietary data (ie. artwork) too.
Maybe it is in Fink…
I meant software such as DB2 … Although, Quake would be fun.
At? Desktop performance for starters, and, most crucially, SMP. There used to be a day when you could *possibly* claim that FreeBSD *might* run the *occasional* binary faster, but now it’s not even worth the effort to try.
Millions of people and thousands of developers are hammering on Linux to improve performance, and it has REALLY shown in kernel 2.6. In just about every area, it’s significantly far ahead of FreeBSD now.
Hey, I love FreeBSD and it’s a great OS, but making such claims is zealotry. Linux 2.6 is an amazing piece of work and really pushes the boundaries for OSS OS development.
Hi
This line seems to mean that you can run I386 binaries on an alpha, albeit as emulation. Is that truly correct?
“Linux executables can be run in emulation mode on Alpha, ARM, i386, m68k, and PowerPC systems. Both a.out and ELF executables are supported. ”
This is a huge feature if this is correct
yes. it does raise the bar. even freebsd’s vm has pulled out ideas from it. nothing wrong except that it was the other way around till recently
Indeed it would be a huge feature if this is correct, however I highly doubt it is. What they probably mean is that on FreeBSD/Alpha you can run Linux/Alpha binaries. On i386 this makes a lot of sense, cause there are a lot of companies that distribute Linux binaries, however on other processors it’s quite rare. On Alpha, the only binary package I ever used (in Linux) was the Compaq C Compiler.
This line seems to mean that you can run I386 binaries on an alpha, albeit as emulation. Is that truly correct?
You’re confused. Only the Linux kernel is emulated (and it’s emulation, not simulation), so of course the arch of the binaries have to match the arch of the host.
Let’s not start flame – but I’ve made VolanoMark benchmark with:
– Linux 1.4.2 JDK running on FreeBSD 5.2.1;
– Native 1.4.2 JDK running on FreeBSD 5.2.1;
– Linux 1.4.2 JDK running on Linux 2.6.3.
The fastest was Native 1.4.2 running on FreeBSD and on second place – Linux 1.4.2 JDK running on FreeBSD.
It was Dell PowerEdge with 2×2.8 Xeons.
“I hope Apple develops this in their distro.”
It’s rumored for Tiger. (Darwin 8?)
>All of the open source BSDs have this, FreeBSD,
>NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly. I’n not entirely sure
>about Darwin, but I doubt it would be hard for the
>folks at Apple to do so if it doesn’t.
Darwin has a Mach kernel, which is somehow quite different from those BSDs. I doubt if Darwin can use any exist linux compat layer.
Millions of people and thousands of developers are hammering on Linux to improve performance, and it has REALLY shown in kernel 2.6. In just about every area, it’s significantly far ahead of FreeBSD now.
Hey, I love FreeBSD and it’s a great OS, but making such claims is zealotry. Linux 2.6 is an amazing piece of work and really pushes the boundaries for OSS OS development.
MAybe Linux is faster (should be A LOT faster since that is truly native) but on the other hand, consider that 2.6 is still experiemental and BSD simply isn’t called stable when actually being experimental. Take that into account please….
This topic is about NetBSD and *not* FreeBSD.
The article mentions direct rendering support and this is one area where BSDs clearly lag behind. Has anyone read the mailing lists if there is some development currently under work to get better NetBSD support for the advanced features in various video cards?
wouldn’t it have been better to call the article “enabling linux emulation on netbsd”?
it doesn’t seem to go into any detail on how to implent it
This topic is about NetBSD and *not* FreeBSD.
The topic is Linux “emulation” on NetBSD, not whining about what’s on topic and what’s not. It’s silly to think that complaining is any more on topic than talking about FreeBSD.