From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 02:53:22 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 BC7D1106566C for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 02:53:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717A68FC15 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 02:53:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id p062rLSW011146; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:53:21 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:53:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:53:21 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Andrey Chernov In-Reply-To: <20110106024403.GB22349@vniz.net> Message-ID: References: <20110103220153.69cf59e0@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net> <20110106024403.GB22349@vniz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Scott Long Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 02:53:22 -0000 On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 05:17:21PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: >>> We have not been marginalized in this space because we have an >>> emulator. We just don't have the marketshare in many areas. If >>> anything, these emulators improve our marketshare. >> >> I agree entirely. Companies look at marketshare and ability to turn >> more revenue than costs (i.e. profit). Like Jeff, I've had my share >> of dealing with companies who have made a conscious to support or not >> support FreeBSD based on those factors. Petitions and letters sound >> great on Slashdot, but don't work in the real world. Emulation >> increases marketshare. > > Emulation decreases our marketshare, presenting us like > not-so-good-but-trying Linux clone, so, for this reason alone, every > serious company will put its money on Linux product running on real Linux > instead of thinking about porting it into FreeBSD. Has anyone asked, instead of putting Linux shims into FreeBSD, why aren't FreeBSD shims put into Linux? If the FreeBSD ABI/KPI is supposedly more stable than Linux, then wouldn't it make more sense to do it that way? And I suppose part of the answer to that question is, it would not be acceptible to the Linux folks. -- DE