From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Nov 6 16:40:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01068 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:40:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from allegro.lemis.com (allegro.lemis.com [192.109.197.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01062 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:40:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@freebie.lemis.com) Received: from freebie.lemis.com (freebie.lemis.com [192.109.197.137]) by allegro.lemis.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA01748; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:09:50 +1030 (CST) Received: (from grog@localhost) by freebie.lemis.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) id LAA00937; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:09:49 +1030 (CST) Message-ID: <19981107110949.M499@freebie.lemis.com> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:09:49 +1030 From: Greg Lehey To: Frank Pawlak , Jamie Lawrence Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux References: <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com> <4.1.19981102162944.00cc6ec0@mail.netconstruct.com> <19981106165913.B13675@cityip.co.za> <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com> <19981106181037.A4027@quark.execpc.com> <3.0.5.32.19981106162525.00bb5330@204.74.82.151> <19981106183256.A4148@quark.execpc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <19981106183256.A4148@quark.execpc.com>; from Frank Pawlak on Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 06:32:56PM -0600 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog Organization: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-41-739-7062 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Friday, 6 November 1998 at 18:32:56 -0600, Frank Pawlak wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 04:25:25PM -0800, Jamie Lawrence wrote: >> 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). > > Fair enough, but you miss my point that if they are going to roll their > own Linux distro, why wouldn't they start with a superior platform to > begin with. Then again, perhaps this is all moot. They're not trying to sell a complete Oracle solution, they're trying to reach a market. I'd guess that doing their own Linux distribution was an afterthought when they discovered (and fixed) deficiencies in the Linux kernel. Given Linux's fragmented approach to distributions, this could save them a lot of headaches even if they didn't have to fix the kernel. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message