From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 07:05:32 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 505BD106566C for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:05:32 +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 C49A08FC12 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:05:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vniz.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vniz.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0675Ul8026721; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:05:30 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache@vniz.net) Received: (from ache@localhost) by vniz.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p0675TPC026720; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:05:29 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:05:28 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov To: David Xu Message-ID: <20110106070528.GA26547@vniz.net> References: <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net> <20110106024403.GB22349@vniz.net> <8A69DE05-A433-4D40-8E63-8F06215606F2@samsco.org> <4D254909.5040604@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D254909.5040604@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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 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 07:05:32 -0000 On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:46:01PM +0800, David Xu wrote: > > > > I'm sorry, this simply hasn't been true in my experience. I've worked with companies that have decided to support FreeBSD, and I've worked with companies that have decided not to support FreeBSD. Emulation has never been used as an excuse to not support FreeBSD. It's purely a cost/benefit decision. > > > > Scott > > > > Vendor vs User, two sides. Here, if one is native, another > is emulation, people would run native version rather than emulation. Yes, I mean that case. Speaking in general, only one kind of emulation increases marketshare, it is big->small way. Say, Symbian emulation (small devices) for their desktop developer toolchaing on x86 (big device). But big->big way is pure nonsense. Moreover, if that way ever happens, the rule is: loser emulates winner, becoming even more loser than before (staying with its own originality instead is more winning strategy). And we need to not confuse emulation and hardware-supported virtualizations because such virtualizations is able to run full OSes (i.e. is kind of different machines). So, I am for emulation like Symbian and for virtualization like vmware, but not for Linux emulation. -- http://ache.vniz.net/