Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Dutch Ingraham]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:57:59PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Mar 2017, ropers wrote:
> > > Was 32-on-64 compatibility somehow easier to achieve on the Linux side? 
> > > Or did they just keep throwing code and more code at the problem because 
> > > they felt they really, really had to have this? It's that kind of idle 
> > > curiosity. If nobody's interested in explaining or hearing this 
> > > explained, then sorry for the noise.
> > 
> > There's (at least) three parts to such compat for the kernel:
> > 
> >  1) the low-level kernel<->userspace boundary handling.
> > A 32-bit process has a different pmap, adding code and requiring the 
> > uvm layer to indirect or test which is in play for its operations. The 
> > syscall/trap interface is quite different too; amd64 is so much 
> > nicer for syscall entry and %fs/%gs handling than i386.  You don't 
> > want that shit in your nice 64bit kernel!
> > 
> >  2) ABI mapping
> > So you called some syscall and it has the result to copy out to 
> > userspace.  Oh wait, which ABI is this process using, the 64bit ABI 
> > that matches the kernel's structure layouts or a completely different 
> > ABI that requires checking for overflow and then repacking structures 
> > to match the 32bit ABI?  Yay, we get to think about that every time we 
> > do copyin/copyout!  Let's see, 490 calls to those two functions in 119 
> > files (not counting sys/arch/*).  OSes that support this tend to 
> > introduce an abstraction layer to reduce the number of those that are 
> > needed, but that's still cognitive load.
> > 
> >  3) interprocess handling
> > a) 64bit -> 32bit
> >You weren't really planning on having gdb64 and gdb32, so at least 
> >ptrace() has to be capable to letting a 64bit process manipulate a 
> >32bit process.  Go look at FreeBSD's sys/kern/sys_process.c for 
> >example and examine the COMPAT_FREEBSD32 blocks.  They've done it, 
> >obviously, but it's not simple, beautiful code.  A comment like
> > 
> >  * This CPP subterfuge is to try and reduce the number of ifdefs in
> >  * the body of the code.
> > 
> >is a warning that feature is costing you a chunk.
> > 
> > b) 32bit -> 64bit
> >Maybe you ban 32bit ptrace() of 64bit processes (most do IIRC), but 
> >you still want 32bit processes to be able to use sysctl(KERN_PROC) 
> >and see 64bit processes
> > 
> > 
> > Implementations have jumped through all those hoops, but at what cost in 
> > complexity and security holes, and there *have* a been a bunch!  A google 
> > search for "security hole in 32bit compat" immediately turned up this 
> > article:
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/406466/
> > 
> > Adding "FreeBSD" or "NetBSD" to the search turns up hits for them too.  
> > This stuff is *hard* and the benefit is...?
> > 
> > Nope, don't want it.
> 
> Thanks Philip.
> 
> By the way the history of OS compat in *BSD is interesting.
> 
> Chris Torek built his LBL sparc code to the SunOS ABI.  It was
> incomplete.  But enough to bring the system up.
> 
> I pulled his sparc code into NetBSD.  At the time NetBSD was
> transition and even extending the machine-independent system call API
> in the not-yet-released 4.4BSD-lite2, rather than having every
> architecture contain it's own table.
> 
> Torek's API wasn't good enough to handle structures which needed
> modification on the way to/from kernel/userland, so I created the idea
> of a zone on the stack where arguments could be tweaked before being
> passed on.
> 
> Thus was born the first real compat layer.  Compat HPUX was created
> very soon, then compat for SCO Unix, some FreeBSD compat, and then
> Linux compat which was far nastier because their socket system calls
> had been added in a really adhoc fashion.
> 
> There's another problem Philip hasn't brought up.
> 
>   4) The people who rely on the compat layers don't care enough to
>  maintain it.  The people who work on the mainline system don't
>  care about the compat layers because they don't use them.  The
>  cultures aren't aligned in the same direction.  Compat layers
>  rot very quickly.

Although I don't use compat, this is incredibly interesting information
from both Phillip and Theo.  Thanks to both of you.

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Theo de Raadt]

> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017, ropers wrote:
> > Was 32-on-64 compatibility somehow easier to achieve on the Linux side? 
> > Or did they just keep throwing code and more code at the problem because 
> > they felt they really, really had to have this? It's that kind of idle 
> > curiosity. If nobody's interested in explaining or hearing this 
> > explained, then sorry for the noise.
> 
> There's (at least) three parts to such compat for the kernel:
> 
>  1) the low-level kernel<->userspace boundary handling.
> A 32-bit process has a different pmap, adding code and requiring the 
> uvm layer to indirect or test which is in play for its operations. The 
> syscall/trap interface is quite different too; amd64 is so much 
> nicer for syscall entry and %fs/%gs handling than i386.  You don't 
> want that shit in your nice 64bit kernel!
> 
>  2) ABI mapping
> So you called some syscall and it has the result to copy out to 
> userspace.  Oh wait, which ABI is this process using, the 64bit ABI 
> that matches the kernel's structure layouts or a completely different 
> ABI that requires checking for overflow and then repacking structures 
> to match the 32bit ABI?  Yay, we get to think about that every time we 
> do copyin/copyout!  Let's see, 490 calls to those two functions in 119 
> files (not counting sys/arch/*).  OSes that support this tend to 
> introduce an abstraction layer to reduce the number of those that are 
> needed, but that's still cognitive load.
> 
>  3) interprocess handling
> a) 64bit -> 32bit
>You weren't really planning on having gdb64 and gdb32, so at least 
>ptrace() has to be capable to letting a 64bit process manipulate a 
>32bit process.  Go look at FreeBSD's sys/kern/sys_process.c for 
>example and examine the COMPAT_FREEBSD32 blocks.  They've done it, 
>obviously, but it's not simple, beautiful code.  A comment like
> 
>  * This CPP subterfuge is to try and reduce the number of ifdefs in
>  * the body of the code.
> 
>is a warning that feature is costing you a chunk.
> 
> b) 32bit -> 64bit
>Maybe you ban 32bit ptrace() of 64bit processes (most do IIRC), but 
>you still want 32bit processes to be able to use sysctl(KERN_PROC) 
>and see 64bit processes
> 
> 
> Implementations have jumped through all those hoops, but at what cost in 
> complexity and security holes, and there *have* a been a bunch!  A google 
> search for "security hole in 32bit compat" immediately turned up this 
> article:
>   https://lwn.net/Articles/406466/
> 
> Adding "FreeBSD" or "NetBSD" to the search turns up hits for them too.  
> This stuff is *hard* and the benefit is...?
> 
> Nope, don't want it.

Thanks Philip.

By the way the history of OS compat in *BSD is interesting.

Chris Torek built his LBL sparc code to the SunOS ABI.  It was
incomplete.  But enough to bring the system up.

I pulled his sparc code into NetBSD.  At the time NetBSD was
transition and even extending the machine-independent system call API
in the not-yet-released 4.4BSD-lite2, rather than having every
architecture contain it's own table.

Torek's API wasn't good enough to handle structures which needed
modification on the way to/from kernel/userland, so I created the idea
of a zone on the stack where arguments could be tweaked before being
passed on.

Thus was born the first real compat layer.  Compat HPUX was created
very soon, then compat for SCO Unix, some FreeBSD compat, and then
Linux compat which was far nastier because their socket system calls
had been added in a really adhoc fashion.

There's another problem Philip hasn't brought up.

  4) The people who rely on the compat layers don't care enough to
 maintain it.  The people who work on the mainline system don't
 care about the compat layers because they don't use them.  The
 cultures aren't aligned in the same direction.  Compat layers
 rot very quickly.

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Philip Guenther]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017, ropers wrote:
> Was 32-on-64 compatibility somehow easier to achieve on the Linux side? 
> Or did they just keep throwing code and more code at the problem because 
> they felt they really, really had to have this? It's that kind of idle 
> curiosity. If nobody's interested in explaining or hearing this 
> explained, then sorry for the noise.

There's (at least) three parts to such compat for the kernel:

 1) the low-level kernel<->userspace boundary handling.
A 32-bit process has a different pmap, adding code and requiring the 
uvm layer to indirect or test which is in play for its operations. The 
syscall/trap interface is quite different too; amd64 is so much 
nicer for syscall entry and %fs/%gs handling than i386.  You don't 
want that shit in your nice 64bit kernel!

 2) ABI mapping
So you called some syscall and it has the result to copy out to 
userspace.  Oh wait, which ABI is this process using, the 64bit ABI 
that matches the kernel's structure layouts or a completely different 
ABI that requires checking for overflow and then repacking structures 
to match the 32bit ABI?  Yay, we get to think about that every time we 
do copyin/copyout!  Let's see, 490 calls to those two functions in 119 
files (not counting sys/arch/*).  OSes that support this tend to 
introduce an abstraction layer to reduce the number of those that are 
needed, but that's still cognitive load.

 3) interprocess handling
a) 64bit -> 32bit
   You weren't really planning on having gdb64 and gdb32, so at least 
   ptrace() has to be capable to letting a 64bit process manipulate a 
   32bit process.  Go look at FreeBSD's sys/kern/sys_process.c for 
   example and examine the COMPAT_FREEBSD32 blocks.  They've done it, 
   obviously, but it's not simple, beautiful code.  A comment like

 * This CPP subterfuge is to try and reduce the number of ifdefs in
 * the body of the code.

   is a warning that feature is costing you a chunk.

b) 32bit -> 64bit
   Maybe you ban 32bit ptrace() of 64bit processes (most do IIRC), but 
   you still want 32bit processes to be able to use sysctl(KERN_PROC) 
   and see 64bit processes


Implementations have jumped through all those hoops, but at what cost in 
complexity and security holes, and there *have* a been a bunch!  A google 
search for "security hole in 32bit compat" immediately turned up this 
article:
https://lwn.net/Articles/406466/

Adding "FreeBSD" or "NetBSD" to the search turns up hits for them too.  
This stuff is *hard* and the benefit is...?

Nope, don't want it.


Philip Guenther

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Jacob L. Leifman]

On 11 Mar 2017 at 15:47, ropers wrote:

> On 11 March 2017 at 15:18, Stuart Henderson  wrote:
> 
> > On 2017/03/10 23:56, ropers wrote:
> > > On 10 March 2017 at 01:30, Stuart Henderson 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > (And unlike Linux, 32-bit OpenBSD binaries won't run on OpenBSD/
> > > amd64)
> > >
> > >
> > > Is there a technical reason for that?
> > > I'm not trying to demand anything here; just curious.
> > >
> > > This is NOT intended to be a "but teh Linux does X, so should we, so
> > > why can't we" whine.
> > > I'm merely ignorantly interested in a "what are they doing, what's
> > > OpenBSD doing" kind of way.
> >
> > I think that even just adding basic support would be complicated and
> > likely error-prone. Is there anything it would actually be useful for?
> >
> 
> Personally, I'm really just asking out of technical curiosity.
> This is not about whether I'd ever actually want or feel I'd need to run
> 32-bit OpenBSD binaries on OpenBSD/amd64.
> 
> Was 32-on-64 compatibility somehow easier to achieve on the Linux side?
> Or did they just keep throwing code and more code at the problem because
> they felt they really, really had to have this?
> It's that kind of idle curiosity. If nobody's interested in explaining or
> hearing this explained, then sorry for the noise.
> 
> 

If you examine a typical 64-bit Linux installation, you will notice 
that it contains duplicate sets of most libraries and even many of the 
drivers -- one x86_64 and the other i586. On disk, the packages for the 
latter are almost always the exact same ones as those installed on a 
pure 32-bit Linux. So in essence the 64-bit Linux is like two OS 
running simultaneously. I am guessing that this is facilitated by the 
Linux's micro-kernel approach -- in oversimplified terms, their kernel 
is little more than a traffic cop at a docking terminal and all the 
drivers and libraries are "modules" communicating through a rather 
complex but broadly accommodating API that does not discriminate 32-bit 
vs. 64-bit. In contrast, OpenBSD uses monolithic kernel (and unlike 
FreeBSD it no longer even supports LKM) where all the communication 
paths have been streamlined and a decision is made upfront whether they 
are based on 32-bit or 64-bit architecture.

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[ropers]

On 11 March 2017 at 15:18, Stuart Henderson  wrote:

> On 2017/03/10 23:56, ropers wrote:
> > On 10 March 2017 at 01:30, Stuart Henderson 
> > wrote:
> >
> > (And unlike Linux, 32-bit OpenBSD binaries won't run on OpenBSD/
> > amd64)
> >
> >
> > Is there a technical reason for that?
> > I'm not trying to demand anything here; just curious.
> >
> > This is NOT intended to be a "but teh Linux does X, so should we, so
> > why can't we" whine.
> > I'm merely ignorantly interested in a "what are they doing, what's
> > OpenBSD doing" kind of way.
>
> I think that even just adding basic support would be complicated and
> likely error-prone. Is there anything it would actually be useful for?
>

Personally, I'm really just asking out of technical curiosity.
This is not about whether I'd ever actually want or feel I'd need to run
32-bit OpenBSD binaries on OpenBSD/amd64.

Was 32-on-64 compatibility somehow easier to achieve on the Linux side?
Or did they just keep throwing code and more code at the problem because
they felt they really, really had to have this?
It's that kind of idle curiosity. If nobody's interested in explaining or
hearing this explained, then sorry for the noise.

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2017/03/10 23:56, ropers wrote:
> On 10 March 2017 at 01:30, Stuart Henderson 
> wrote:
> 
> (And unlike Linux, 32-bit OpenBSD binaries won't run on OpenBSD/
> amd64)
> 
> 
> Is there a technical reason for that?
> I'm not trying to demand anything here; just curious.
> 
> This is NOT intended to be a "but teh Linux does X, so should we, so
> why can't we" whine.
> I'm merely ignorantly interested in a "what are they doing, what's
> OpenBSD doing" kind of way.

I think that even just adding basic support would be complicated and
likely error-prone. Is there anything it would actually be useful for?

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Jiri B]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:23:12AM +0100, Stefan Wollny wrote:
> For the very reason I use OpenBSD: Confidentiality.

Wouldn't running closed source Linux binaries on OpenBSD conflict
with your trust? Those binaries cannot be pledge etc...

IMO it's better if we would have a "VMM bootloader" which would support
running any OS. At least VMM has better security design than compat_linux
had.

j.

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2017-03-09, Stefan Wollny <stefan.wol...@web.de> wrote:
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. März 2017 um 09:43 Uhr
>> Von: "Stuart Henderson" <s...@spacehopper.org>
>> An: misc@openbsd.org
>> Betreff: Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run
> again???
>>
>> On 2017-03-07, Stefan Wollny <stefan.wol...@web.de> wrote:
>> > at home this is the way I go, too. But I have to travel to my client's
>> > place (by train!) and when working in the evening in the hotel room like
>> > tonight (as I have to leave the office building by 8 pm at the latest)
>> > it is somewhat inconvenient to take a second laptop with me.
>>
>> Is qemu any good for this or is it too slow?
> I am not at all familiar with qemu but doesn't this imply to run Win* on my
> OpenBSD-system?
> NEVER, EVER!

It's a machine emulator with BIOS etc. It's sometimes used with
a separate hypervisor like KVM to run VMs, but also emulates CPUs
in userland (which looks rather like a VM but slower).

(Though TBH I'd probably prefer recent Windows over Linux for this..)

>> Additionally, while the answer to "is there any chance" is no, the
>> answer to "any chance 32-bit Linux binaries will run on OpenBSD/amd64"
>> would be "hell no".
>:-D
> Is it correct then to imply that 64-bit binaries might run?

No, there was never any compat with other OS binaries in OpenBSD/amd64.
(And unlike Linux, 32-bit OpenBSD binaries won't run on OpenBSD/amd64).

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Stefan Wollny]

Am 03/09/17 um 21:55 schrieb Marc Espie:
...
> In my opinion, there's more chance vmm will eventually be mature
> enough to run a virtual linux machine than the return of userland
> linux emulation.
> 
This is what I am hoping for - it is just this particular piece of
software that I need from time to time. Anything else I can achieve with
what OpenBSD offers (or more precisely: what the OpenBSD-devs kindly
provide).

But who knows - maybe some future version of LibreOffice (or any other
free/open program) is good enough to meet my requirements (in particular
formats).

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Stefan Wollny]

Am 03/09/17 um 22:44 schrieb bofh:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Stefan Wollny  wrote:
> 
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have to live up to my obligations - and one of them is to be able to
>> work with M$-Word docs. I used to do this with SoftMaker's office suite,
>> but since Linux-compat is gone I am stuck with LibreOffice which is just
>> a PITA.
>>
> 
> If you have Internet access, why not use Google Docs or one of the other
> web based apps?
> 

For the very reason I use OpenBSD: Confidentiality.

The financial industry takes 'confidentiality' quite serious - if you're
in a weak position. ;-)

Technically I may be the 'owner' of the documents but legally it is my
client. And being just a self-employed mini-business I cannot engage a
big legal dept to discuss any implications that may arise from using
web-/cloud-based office solutions.

Nevertheless: Thank you for bringing such a solution up.

Best,
STEFAN

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[bofh]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Stefan Wollny  wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I have to live up to my obligations - and one of them is to be able to
> work with M$-Word docs. I used to do this with SoftMaker's office suite,
> but since Linux-compat is gone I am stuck with LibreOffice which is just
> a PITA.
>

If you have Internet access, why not use Google Docs or one of the other
web based apps?

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Marc Espie]

To clarify, from what I remember, killing linux compat was not
a political decision per-se ("emulation is bad").

Rather, it is that the emulation was 32 bits-only, and more and
more out-of-date so completelely useless, and also not really
very maintained, so it amounted to more code with possible nasty
bugs and holes, on a subsystem that wasn't useable anymore.

It is very unlikely it will come back, because it would require
someone to do a lot of work to actually make it useful.

In my opinion, there's more chance vmm will eventually be mature
enough to run a virtual linux machine than the return of userland
linux emulation.

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Stefan Wollny]

> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. März 2017 um 09:43 Uhr
> Von: "Stuart Henderson" <s...@spacehopper.org>
> An: misc@openbsd.org
> Betreff: Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run
again???
>
> On 2017-03-07, Stefan Wollny <stefan.wol...@web.de> wrote:
> > at home this is the way I go, too. But I have to travel to my client's
> > place (by train!) and when working in the evening in the hotel room like
> > tonight (as I have to leave the office building by 8 pm at the latest)
> > it is somewhat inconvenient to take a second laptop with me.
>
> Is qemu any good for this or is it too slow?
I am not at all familiar with qemu but doesn't this imply to run Win* on my
OpenBSD-system?
NEVER, EVER!

>
> Otherwise the easiest way at present is probably to dual-boot or boot
> Linux from a USB stick, or run it on a remote system.
Shorthandedly this is my way to get the job done: Installed Linux on a
USB3-Stick with dd-comand from iso. Runs acceptably fast. Just need to switch
from BIOS to UEFI.

The only thing I noticed: Working at some distance to the WLAN access point
with OpenBSD I have a connection but not with Linux though using the same
hardware (iwm0).
Another good reason to stick with OpenBSD and donate (already I miss the
anticipation of receiving another set of CDs).

>
> Additionally, while the answer to "is there any chance" is no, the
> answer to "any chance 32-bit Linux binaries will run on OpenBSD/amd64"
> would be "hell no".
:-D
Is it correct then to imply that 64-bit binaries might run?

>
> > Yes - I will (again) contact SoftMaker trying to persuade them to
> > provide an OpenBSD-version of their office suite. But they seem to have
> > none with some decent Unix/OpenBSD-knowledge, just Linux. Sigh...
>
> They'll need a new binary for every OS uodate, and a different one for
> 32/64 bit. While I'd love to see it (I paid for softmaker office and prefer
> it over libreoffice or MSWord), I think this is unrealistic.
>
Yupp - I know why I asked here. I've used it on OpenBSD until Linux-compat was
gone and everytime I tried to work with LibreOffice since I missed Softmake's
office tools even more.
(BTW - if the city of Munich had chosen to use Softmaker's office with LiMux I
bet there would habe been less complaints about compatability with
M$-documents. My 2c.)

Just to be clear: LibreOffice is accaptable as long as it is LibreOffice
only!

Even though I am aware of the implications that come with an OpenBSD-version
for Softmaker I will still ask - sometimes one has to try the unrelistic to
make a progress. ;-)
(As they support Mozilla's Thunderbird I hope they will at least listen before
saying NO.)

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2017-03-07, Stefan Wollny  wrote:
> at home this is the way I go, too. But I have to travel to my client's
> place (by train!) and when working in the evening in the hotel room like
> tonight (as I have to leave the office building by 8 pm at the latest)
> it is somewhat inconvenient to take a second laptop with me.

Is qemu any good for this or is it too slow?

Otherwise the easiest way at present is probably to dual-boot or boot
Linux from a USB stick, or run it on a remote system.

Additionally, while the answer to "is there any chance" is no, the
answer to "any chance 32-bit Linux binaries will run on OpenBSD/amd64"
would be "hell no".

> Yes - I will (again) contact SoftMaker trying to persuade them to
> provide an OpenBSD-version of their office suite. But they seem to have
> none with some decent Unix/OpenBSD-knowledge, just Linux. Sigh...

They'll need a new binary for every OS uodate, and a different one for
32/64 bit. While I'd love to see it (I paid for softmaker office and prefer
it over libreoffice or MSWord), I think this is unrealistic.

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Marc Peters]

Am 03/07/17 um 23:32 schrieb Stefan Wollny:
> at home this is the way I go, too. But I have to travel to my client's
> place (by train!) and when working in the evening in the hotel room like
> tonight (as I have to leave the office building by 8 pm at the latest)
> it is somewhat inconvenient to take a second laptop with me.
> 

Have you considered Office 365? I used it to do my works Travel Expense,
because they are only providing an Excel File with a ton of Macros. Had
to upload it to OneDrive to open it, but it worked quite well.

Marc

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Leighton Sheppard]

Hi,

I use Word Online on my OBsd laptop, which does help. I appreciate that
requires an Office 365 subscription which may not make it a palatable
option.


Regards,
Leighton
-Original Message-
From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of
Andre Ruppert
Sent: 08 March 2017 05:39
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run
again???

Softmaker doesn't support any of the BSDs - they've done it years ago
for FreeBSD but the customer's interest was too little.

Am 07.03.17 um 23:52 schrieb Damian McGuckin:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Stefan Wollny wrote:
>
>> Yes - I will (again) contact SoftMaker trying to persuade them to
>> provide an OpenBSD-version of their office suite. But they seem to have
>> none with some decent Unix/OpenBSD-knowledge, just Linux. Sigh...
>
> I would buy SoftMaker on OpenBSD.




Andre Ruppert

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which
had a name of smime.p7s]

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Andre Ruppert]

Softmaker doesn't support any of the BSDs - they've done it years ago
for FreeBSD but the customer's interest was too little.

Am 07.03.17 um 23:52 schrieb Damian McGuckin:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Stefan Wollny wrote:
>
>> Yes - I will (again) contact SoftMaker trying to persuade them to
>> provide an OpenBSD-version of their office suite. But they seem to have
>> none with some decent Unix/OpenBSD-knowledge, just Linux. Sigh...
>
> I would buy SoftMaker on OpenBSD.




Andre Ruppert

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which 
had a name of smime.p7s]

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[bytevolcano]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 09:52:39 +1100 (AEDT)
Damian McGuckin  wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Stefan Wollny wrote:
> 
> > Yes - I will (again) contact SoftMaker trying to persuade them to
> > provide an OpenBSD-version of their office suite. But they seem to
> > have none with some decent Unix/OpenBSD-knowledge, just Linux.
> > Sigh...  
> 
> I would buy SoftMaker on OpenBSD.

If SoftMaker only supplies binaries, they probably won't bother with
OpenBSD because with every release of OpenBSD, there has been a
compatibility break, and applications that work on OpenBSD 5.9 will not
work on OpenBSD 6.0.

OpenBSD is fine for open-source software where you can just recompile
the binaries for the new OpenBSD release, is no good for binary-only
software.

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Damian McGuckin]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Stefan Wollny wrote:


Yes - I will (again) contact SoftMaker trying to persuade them to
provide an OpenBSD-version of their office suite. But they seem to have
none with some decent Unix/OpenBSD-knowledge, just Linux. Sigh...


I would buy SoftMaker on OpenBSD.

Regards - Damian

Pacific Engineering Systems International, 277-279 Broadway, Glebe NSW 2037
Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here
Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Stefan Wollny]

Am 03/07/17 um 22:50 schrieb Damian McGuckin:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> 
>> Regarding your task at hand:
>>
>> If you want to run MS Word, your best bet is running MS Windows.
>> If you want to run binary-only Linux software, your best bet is
>> running Linux.  Ideally, on dedicated hardware that is not
>> connected to the Internet.
> 
> We use OpenBSD for crucial server infrastructure, Linux for some
> end-user applications, and have a Windows Machine to which anyone can
> connect with an RDP client like 'rdesktop'. We use Windows Terminal
> Server if lots of people need a Windows system.
> 
> Regards - Damian
> 
> Pacific Engineering Systems International, 277-279 Broadway, Glebe NSW 2037
> Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted
> here
> Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present
> employer
> 
Hi Damian,

at home this is the way I go, too. But I have to travel to my client's
place (by train!) and when working in the evening in the hotel room like
tonight (as I have to leave the office building by 8 pm at the latest)
it is somewhat inconvenient to take a second laptop with me.

Yes - I will (again) contact SoftMaker trying to persuade them to
provide an OpenBSD-version of their office suite. But they seem to have
none with some decent Unix/OpenBSD-knowledge, just Linux. Sigh...

Best,
STEFAN

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Stefan Wollny]

Am 03/07/17 um 22:43 schrieb Ingo Schwarze:
> Hi,
> 
> Stefan Wollny wrote on Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:01:49PM +0100:
> 
>> ANY chance that there will be a way to run Linux binaries again?
> 
> Usually, i'm wary of making definite statements about the future,
> but in this case, a clear "NO" semms like a very safe bet.
> 
> Syscall compat layers cause maintenance effort, risk of bugs, and
> provide absolutely no benefit with respect to the project goals.
> So even if somebody would submit a perfect, clean implementation
> and credibly volunteer to maintain it, i don't think it would stand
> a chance of getting committed.
> 
> 
> Regarding your task at hand:
> 
> If you want to run MS Word, your best bet is running MS Windows.
> If you want to run binary-only Linux software, your best bet is
> running Linux.  Ideally, on dedicated hardware that is not
> connected to the Internet.
> 
> Some people run such systems they need for special non-Internet
> tasks in virtual machines.  I wouldn't recommend that, though.
> Separate, physically disconnected hardware is safer and faster.
> If you create documents for paying clients, buying the required
> hardware is likely to quickly amortize - or if not, you have
> worse problems with your business model than the choice of the
> operating system best suited to each of your tasks.
> 
> Yours,
>   Ingo
> 

Hi Ingo,

thanks for your quick reply - I am aware of the good reasons to abandon
Linux-compat - not going to question this. Nevertheless tonight I need
to work on a 50+ pages Word-doc and the only tool at hand is LibreOffice
which ... .

Using "Windoof" is not an option for me - it feels like my system
getting cancer. SoftMaker's Linux-based Word-clone is a proven good and
acceptable alternative as it's compatibility with Word (in particular
with formats) is exceptionally good (closed source with a decent price
and page 49 IS page 49!

Will it eventually be possible to run a Linux system with OpenBSD's
vmm(4)? Even though this might be considered to be just a "second class"
solution to my quest - it would allow me to stay with OpenBSD, only
going the Linux-way for specific tasks inside.

Best,
STEFAN

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Karl Pettersson]

One alternative, for production of Word documents, might be to use
Pandoc for converting from a lightweight markup language to DOCX. There
is no OpenBSD package for Pandoc, and building it OpenBSD can be tricky,
but I have succeeded with GHC 7.10.3 (wxallowed has to be enabled on
home and tmp). You might still need access to a system with Word,
however, for working with document templates, previewing documents, and
render some elements such as tables of contents.

Regards,
Karl P

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:01:49PM +0100, Stefan Wollny wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> I have to live up to my obligations - and one of them is to be able to
> work with M$-Word docs. I used to do this with SoftMaker's office suite,
> but since Linux-compat is gone I am stuck with LibreOffice which is just
> a PITA.
> 
> As at the end of the day I have to deliver results in a form my clients
> wants and pays for; switching to e.g. LaTeX is not an option (= is not
> paid).
> 
> "If you only have a hammer, every task looks like a nail!" - I will have
> to use a Linux Live-CD system to deliver shorthandedly. But I'd really
> prefer to stick to OpenBSD on my main production system. ANY chance that
> there will be a way to run Linux binaries again? (On my own risk, of
> course!) With search engines I only found outdated information.
> 
> Either which way, any hint is welcome.
> 
> Best,
> STEFAN

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Damian McGuckin]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Ingo Schwarze wrote:


Regarding your task at hand:

If you want to run MS Word, your best bet is running MS Windows.
If you want to run binary-only Linux software, your best bet is
running Linux.  Ideally, on dedicated hardware that is not
connected to the Internet.


We use OpenBSD for crucial server infrastructure, Linux for some end-user 
applications, and have a Windows Machine to which anyone can connect with 
an RDP client like 'rdesktop'. We use Windows Terminal Server if lots of 
people need a Windows system.


Regards - Damian

Pacific Engineering Systems International, 277-279 Broadway, Glebe NSW 2037
Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here
Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi,

Stefan Wollny wrote on Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:01:49PM +0100:

> ANY chance that there will be a way to run Linux binaries again?

Usually, i'm wary of making definite statements about the future,
but in this case, a clear "NO" semms like a very safe bet.

Syscall compat layers cause maintenance effort, risk of bugs, and
provide absolutely no benefit with respect to the project goals.
So even if somebody would submit a perfect, clean implementation
and credibly volunteer to maintain it, i don't think it would stand
a chance of getting committed.


Regarding your task at hand:

If you want to run MS Word, your best bet is running MS Windows.
If you want to run binary-only Linux software, your best bet is
running Linux.  Ideally, on dedicated hardware that is not
connected to the Internet.

Some people run such systems they need for special non-Internet
tasks in virtual machines.  I wouldn't recommend that, though.
Separate, physically disconnected hardware is safer and faster.
If you create documents for paying clients, buying the required
hardware is likely to quickly amortize - or if not, you have
worse problems with your business model than the choice of the
operating system best suited to each of your tasks.

Yours,
  Ingo

Re: Please: Is there ANY chance that Linux binaries might run again???

[Luis Coronado]

I believe that the short answer is no, but devs will know for sure.

-l

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Stefan Wollny  wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I have to live up to my obligations - and one of them is to be able to
> work with M$-Word docs. I used to do this with SoftMaker's office suite,
> but since Linux-compat is gone I am stuck with LibreOffice which is just
> a PITA.
>
> As at the end of the day I have to deliver results in a form my clients
> wants and pays for; switching to e.g. LaTeX is not an option (= is not
> paid).
>
> "If you only have a hammer, every task looks like a nail!" - I will have
> to use a Linux Live-CD system to deliver shorthandedly. But I'd really
> prefer to stick to OpenBSD on my main production system. ANY chance that
> there will be a way to run Linux binaries again? (On my own risk, of
> course!) With search engines I only found outdated information.
>
> Either which way, any hint is welcome.
>
> Best,
> STEFAN