From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 13:16:21 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 03A02106566C; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:16:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scf@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.farley.org (mail.farley.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f0f:20:2::11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966448FC0A; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thor.farley.org (HPooka@thor.farley.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f0f:20:1::5]) by mail.farley.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p06DGJ60088940; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:16:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from scf@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:16:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Sean C. Farley" To: Andrey Chernov In-Reply-To: <20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net> Message-ID: References: <20110103220153.69cf59e0@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net> <20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mail.farley.org 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: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:16:21 -0000 On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Andrey Chernov wrote: > 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. >> >> 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 the tree and even in the ports. Flash player is a good example of > how Linux emulator is harmful: instead of sending tons of complaints > to Adobe to force them to make native FreeBSD version, users tends to > install Flash via emulator and got all its pain as result. Well, there have been some requests[1] sent to Adobe for a native version especially after running Flash through emulation. This is even after having to register to vote or attach a comment for the bug. It is the fourth most popular Flash bug. If anyone wants to vote for it, not just submit a comment to it, then I want to mention that two votes are (at least were) allowed per bug. I should ask some people at work to vote for it. > BTW, I have nothing against having source level Linux compatibility in > some places, because resulting binary will be FreeBSD one in any case, but > I'm strongly against executable binary compatibility level. While you may be correct, there are some items to note: 1. Wine has not stopped Adobe from providing Linux binaries. 2. Nvidia[2] provided a FreeBSD driver and binaries after people were attempting to run the Linux driver in emulation. Sean 1. http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FP-1060 2. Thank you, Nvidia! -- scf@FreeBSD.org