From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Mar 23 8:51:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.naxs.com (mailman.naxs.com [216.98.64.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B586A1530B for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:51:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from aiarbuckle@naxs.com) Received: from naxs.com ([216.98.76.147]) by mailman.naxs.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-42723U8000L3500S0) with ESMTP id AAA179; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:50:53 -0500 Message-ID: <36F7C469.3FC14BAF@naxs.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 11:42:18 -0500 From: "Andrew I. Arbuckle" Organization: Donnkenny Apparel, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass Cc: Brett Taylor , advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD emulation for linux References: <4.2.0.32.19990322221248.03ebdf10@localhost> <4.2.0.32.19990323090422.03e70f00@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Sorry if I am getting in where I do not belong, but for my two cents worth (uninflated): I currently use OS/2, DOS 6.22, Win95 and a mainframe OS. I use OS/2 less and less, mostly due to emulation (always slower than native) and lack of good support for ongoing applications. I use DOS when I need speed and clean use of the intel processor. I use Windows for its applications, used thru-out the business world, thus necessary for communications. Experimenting with FreeBSD, and like so far. Thinking about Linux, because of the support it is gaining. With better emulation or applications I would have stuck with OS/2, without the bloat/cost of Wintel, I would stick with Windows. If FreeBSD can provide an alternative, I will switch to it and drop the rest (except the mainframe OS, that is where I work). Emulation is not my preferred method of using applications, but is an acceptable alternative to not being able to access at all, native is always better. Applications plus the ability to interpret data files from other OS's should be all that is needed with an OS that can perform like FreeBSD. (Of course, a really good GUI is advisable for the user group that includes the bulk of the computer user population, for most users buy the front end, not the OS.) Brett Glass wrote: > At 12:06 AM 3/23/99 -0700, Brett Taylor wrote: > > >Please define few. Would you like to tell all the people playing Quake or > >Doom that Linux emulation is useless (or who are using their machines as > >Quake servers)? Is it useless for people who want Acrobat Reader so they > >can see PDF files? Is it useless for people who want to use an HTML > >editor and choose asWedit? Is it useless for those who want to use Word > >Perfect? Is it useless for those who want to use Star Office? Oracle? > > It is not useless for them to do this. However, the fact that they are > buying the Linux versions of these products GUARANTEES that the vendors > who make them will have no motivation to do native ports. And for an OS > to be successful, it MUST HAVE NATIVE PORTS. Period. This is one of the > reasons for the demise of OS/2. > > >You're looking very selectively at the OS/2 story. They stopped being a > >viable desktop OS because they stopped emulating/couldn't emulate W95 > >apps. > > This is, again, because they had NO NATIVE PORTS. They were all dropped > once IBM embarked on its emulation strategy. All Microsoft needed to do > was make it impossible for IBM to continue to emulate Windows without > compromising its one strong selling point -- robustness -- and that was > it. Game over. Finis. Sayonara. But the game was lost when the emulation > went in. > > I know. I was there. > > >Face it - Linux is bigger. Companies will write their software for Linux > >until FreeBSD has the numbers to support a native port. > > Porting to FreeBSD will never be a palatable business proposition so long > as Linux emulation exists. Again, do your homework and ask the vendors. > > >We've been through this before and I didn't think it would be necessary to > >go over this again, but ... The ports for 2.2.8 are there, on CD or at > >Walnut Creek. Most of the current ports tree will still work under 2.2.8 > >(there are certainly exceptions). If people want newer versions, they are > >stuck w/ the fact that the ports tree has moved on and they may need to > >track the ports tree. They may also, if they are using an old release, > >regardless of how "old" it is, may have to do some work to get it to work > >right. No different than if a person using a Windows 3.1 app had to > >upgrade and the next version available is W95/8. > > Windows 3.1 was supported for a lot more than 6 months after Windows 95 came > out. The 2.2.8 ports are old and moldy and in some cases will let the skript > kiddies in. > > --Brett Glass > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message -- Andrew I. Arbuckle Work: (540) 228-6181 ext 251 Fax: (540) 228-6036 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message