From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 11:40:08 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 23AFC1065670 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:40:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mail.cksoft.de (mail.cksoft.de [IPv6:2001:4068:10::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6A48FC17 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2726741C705 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:40:06 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cksoft.de Received: from mail.cksoft.de ([192.168.74.103]) by localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mAfFx4r4ISby for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:40:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 939E241C6FC; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:40:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C294448F3 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:37:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:37:04 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: arch@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20110106113536.O14966@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <20110103220153.69cf59e0@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net> <20110106024403.GB22349@vniz.net> X-OpenPGP-Key: 0x14003F198FEFA3E77207EE8D2B58B8F83CCF1842 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: 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 11:40:08 -0000 On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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? You people know that a lot of linux tools are ported to freebsd? I mean there is a glibc for FreeBSD out and (soon to be) in an official Linux distribution release. > And I suppose part of the answer to that question is, it would > not be acceptible to the Linux folks. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Going to jail sucks -- All my daemons like it! http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html