Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:25:25 -0800 From: Jamie Lawrence <jal@ThirdAge.com> To: Frank Pawlak <fpawlak@execpc.com>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981106162525.00bb5330@204.74.82.151> In-Reply-To: <19981106181037.A4027@quark.execpc.com> References: <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com> <4.1.19981102162944.00cc6ec0@mail.netconstruct.com> <19981106165913.B13675@cityip.co.za> <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:10 PM 11/6/98 -0600, Frank Pawlak wrote: >Your answer provides some very useful information, but raises a question >that I have been pondering for some time. As I understand it, Oracle >has stated that they will support Linux where it is running their >database product, and possibly will release their own distro of Linux. >Given the server process short comings and the relative immaturity of >the Linux code compared to FreeBSD, why would they want to port to and >support an inferior OS, when for the some resource expenditure they could >do the same on BSD? Economics. Software companies port to market share, not technical excellence. You may as well ask why they ported to NT (although there are other considerations there... mainly externalities of the market share issue). -j To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19981106162525.00bb5330>