Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:22:41 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Mark Blackman <mark.blackman@dircon.net> Cc: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>, Dann Lunsford <dann@greycat.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: No port of Opera? (Was: ((FreeBSD : Linux) :: (OS/2 : Windows))) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000707100722.047c45c0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20000707161729.A87356@diablo.dircon.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000706103005.00e05660@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000706103005.00e05660@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:17 AM 7/7/2000, Mark Blackman wrote: >umm... the alternative (no linux ABI) would mean no Opera whatsoever for >FreeBSD wouldn't it? If a native FreeBSD port can't be justified on market >size arguments at this moment, then I don't see why yanking the ABI is going >to change the relative importance of the "smallish" FreeBSD crowd. The Linux emulator (or ABI, which is really a more appropriate term) creates an incentive not to do a native port NO MATTER HOW LARGE THE MARKET BECOMES. This is what happened with OS/2. >FreeBSD has plenty of unique merits (i.e. killer server) independent of Linux >applications. OS/2 had *no* unique merits independent of its ability to run >windows apps Absolutely untrue. OS/2 was (and is, though it's almost no longer sold) light years ahead of Windows in stability, flexibility, architectural sophistication, and sheer power. >and note that OS/2 is still around if only in maintenance mode. It's darned tough to get a copy. The only folks who are still using it in any major way are Diebold, the ATM company. >There is plenty of enthusiasm for FreeBSD which will keep it users >banging on the doors for native ports. And not getting them. >See Applixware. I'm a huge >fan of Applixware and I'm dying for them to move to 5.0 on FreeBSD. The Applixware port required coaxing and subsidization. And the wonderful folks at Applixware are still grousing about sales volumes on the FreeBSD platform. I'm doing what I can to boost sales for them so that we GET a 5.0! >Any genuine UNIX vendor will create a FreeBSD native port, because >it *should* be easy. Even if it's easy, it's another SKU and more training for the support staff. Software companies will avoid both if there is ANY way to do so, especially on an OS which falls off the bottom of most companies' "short list" of platforms. >Opera is a windows development house and only did Linux for PR reasons. No, Opera is not a "Windows development house;" it's an HTML, Ecmascript, CCS, and XML development house. They're porting to Linux because they perceive demand there, and they are failing to support FreeBSD because of the ABI. I wish this were not so, but it is getting to be a CONSISTENT pattern among software developers: Linux yes, FreeBSD only under Linux emulation. >I'm sure that if you stepped up to the plate and said "I, Brett, will take your >Linux-specific code and turn it into beautiful generic UNIX code", we'd all >thank you for it. Know what? I did. Didn't even get a response. Again, a port will require them to have more more SKUs, more support training, and more support staff. All recurring expenses that can't be counterbalanced by the elimination of one non-recurring expense, especially when they can see a workaround (the ABI) that's trivially easy for them. Look, I'm not here to preach doom and gloom but rather to point out a serious and easily observed problem and offer a solution. The FreeBSD API and ABI must become a portable standard and be ported to Linux, so that the effects of this pheonomenon work FOR FreeBSD rather than against it. It's the only way out of the OS/2 trap. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000707100722.047c45c0>