Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:01:37 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [comp.os.linux.announce] xpdf 0.6 - a PDF viewer for X Message-ID: <6495.847994497@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:16:02 PST." <328B7E02.6076@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You´ve got a point..but someone asked me once "Well if I wanted to use > Linux´s binaries why not just use Linux from the start?". Because the OS is about a lot more than just running certain commercial applications? If your friend doesn't understand the difference then perhaps he _should_ be running Linux. :-) > to expect from BSD code, but there is a point there: how do Linux´s > binaries perform under FreeBSD? Although Linux´s code is freely > available, I wouldn´t expect the same speed of a native Linux. Actually, I've received multiple reports now that many Linux binaries perform *better* under FreeBSD. Don't forget that we're not exactly emulating an instruction set here, just providing compatability for certain system calls and linking against a different set of libraries. Other than that, x86 code is x86 code. > No doubt Linux´s emulation is important, but does it mean we should > start using Linux´s netscape instead of BSDI's or an eventual FreeBSD > native? Should WC ship Acrobar Reader for Linux on it´s Fbsd CD? If they were the only thing available, sure! The fact that the BSDI version of Netscape runs more "out of box" than the Linux one is the reason most people choose it, and if the Linux version were more plug-n-play then perhaps some people would select it instead. I know that for awhile, before the BSDI version ran Java applets, many people did. All things being equal, you should select the binary based on what services it provides for you, not the OS it was compiled for. And if the Adobe Acrobat reader is freely redistributable then yes, we probably should put it on the FreeBSD CDs. :) > be able to run Linux´s binaries, but all UNIX´s are so similar > (specially if FreeBSD finally becomes POSIX) that it shouldn´t be > difficult to maintain a version for several platforms. Yes I agree we This is a common mistake that many software engineers make. :-) Providing a version for several platforms is *an enormous pain in the ass* for any product of size, and it has very little to do with how hard the binaries were to generate. The software has to be tested, and tested each and every time a new version comes out. Tech support people need to be trained, testers need to be furnished with FreeBSD machines, the MIS department needs to learn about FreeBSD so that they can support these machines, the documentation needs to be ammended and/or customized for the OS, etc etc etc. It's for very good reason that many software companies won't port to a new platform unless you can either promise them significant sales or have something close to $1 million to pay them for the port. For a large corporation with literally thousands of checklist items and a dozen departments involved with any release of their software, it is far from trivial. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6495.847994497>