From owner-freebsd-advocacy Sat Jul 8 9:54:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0EF37C0B8; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 09:54:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04518; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 10:53:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000708105237.0448ca90@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 10:53:55 -0600 To: "Thomas M. Sommers" From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Emulation (Was: No port of Opera?) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org, advocacy@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <3966B177.805696E4@mail.ptd.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000706190244.0483ad70@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000706201218.04a99100@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000706222258.046d9c00@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 10:43 PM 7/7/2000, Thomas M. Sommers wrote: >Brett Glass wrote: >> >> I'm certainly not going to trust a mission-critical, or even important, >> application to emulation. I want to be able to get high-quality >> commercial software which has been compiled and tested for the native >> API and is supported on the platform I'm running. And that means native >> code. > >If that is generally true, then the existence of Linux binary support >will not deter vendors from porting to FreeBSD, because customers will >not be using their products with the Linux layer. Two problems: 1) It may not be generally true (though IMHO it should be). 2) Whether it is true or not, developers will use it as an excuse not to do a port to another platform. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message