Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 01:14:17 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Zippy <seth@freebie.dp.ny.frb.org> Cc: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Netscape browser Message-ID: <20561.921834857@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:08:41 EST." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9903182359220.23743-100000@freebie.dp.ny.frb.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Tough sell, considering 1) Linux's press of late (the heads of software > companies read the trades and WSJ and see Linux all over the place > lately, but no mention of FreeBSD), and 2) Jordan's assertion that vendors > should port to Linux instead of FreeBSD if they've only got resources for > one. Maybe his stance would change if there were a FreeBSD emulator? I think it's kind of strange to envision a world where ISVs were suddenly persuaded to jump on the FreeBSD bandwagon just because Linux could now emulate its binaries. In real life I'd more expect to hear "FreeBSD already emulates Linux binaries, so why wouldn't we just build for the platform with the greatest numbers and let FreeBSD run that? It runs Linux stuff, right? Why would anybody want to do the opposite?" I can't think of any really good counter-arguments for this that any suit worth his pinstripes would believe. My "stance" on this is nothing more than simple pragmatism in action. There's no point in trying to get vendors to do native ports when FreeBSD is so far off their radars that it's a struggle just to get them to not go so hog-wild with their (inevitable) Linux ports that they don't run under emulation. Even getting them to put FreeBSD somewhere in the copy of their linux advertising blurbs (saying it's supported under emulation) is a serious chore, and that one's a total "gimme" as far as potential sales are concerned. How receptive do you think they're going to be to a native port under such circumstances? Not very, I'll tell you, and I do ask this frequently of ISVs, just as a checklist item, and I usually end up checking the "No" box with little hope of an immediate reversal on the decision. "Critical mass" from a market-interest perspective seems to be about 2-3 million users. We're not quite there yet and, by my best estimates, we need to basically just double in size to start registering on these radar screens. At our current rate of growth, we might just make that target sooner than people think. In any case, the PR value of having working native ports is certainly substantial but I still don't understand how some of the previous posters in this thread could consider FreeBSD's Linux emulation a "bad" thing from a PR perspective when you just imagine the outcry that would arise from not being able to use the growing number of Linux apps. Proposing that these ISVs would all just suddenly port their apps to FreeBSD if FreeBSD didn't run the Linux apps at all also truly strains credulity when you consider the other significant mitigating factors, such as a Linux user base some 7X the size of FreeBSD's or the sheer attention it's been receiving in the press (managers make decisions based on what they read or see on TV, ok?). If we didn't have Linux emulation, a lot of RealAudio (5.0), Mathematica and Fortran 90 users, to name but a few of the growing list of examples, would be forced to drop FreeBSD entirely or stick with whichever version last supported Linux emulation. I would also expect them to express rather loud displeasure over this, saying it was time to switch to Linux since we obviously couldn't run their apps anymore and clearly had the Big Head about running Linux binaries for some purile reason or another. It would be very very negative PR indeed. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20561.921834857>