From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 5 18:19:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1360B1065672 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:19:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ache@vniz.net) Received: from vniz.net (vniz.net [194.87.13.69]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDBA8FC15 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vniz.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vniz.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p05HxQaR002209; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:59:26 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache@vniz.net) Received: (from ache@localhost) by vniz.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p05HxQGi002208; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:59:26 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:59:26 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov To: Alexander Kabaev Message-ID: <20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net> References: <20110103220153.69cf59e0@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:19:24 -0000 --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > > I have heard this argument about the linuxulator and what we're > > really talking about is slipping FreeBSD marketshare. I don't share > > the view that the linuxulator futhered this slip but rather my view > > is that it allows us to stay relevant in areas where companies can > > not justify an independent FreeBSD effort. Adobe is a good example > > of this. > >=20 >=20 > It compounded the Adobe's reluctance to work on portable flash player. I agree with Alexander even more. We don't need _any_ Linux emulator in=20 the tree and even in the ports. Flash player is a good example of how=20 Linux emulator is harmful: instead of sending tons of complaints to Adobe= =20 to force them to make native FreeBSD version, users tends to install Flash= =20 via emulator and got all its pain as result.=20 BTW, I have nothing against having source level Linux compatibility in=20 some places, because resulting binary will be FreeBSD one in any case, but= =20 I'm strongly against executable binary compatibility level.=20 --=20 http://ache.vniz.net/ --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk0ksX0ACgkQVg5YK5ZEdN2pEACcCdBV/hF5+ce8awcaA40s2qCA 0RAAn3S9ZsQAxxAyW+cZv6H0sr3c85Ne =vDbs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2--