From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 20:51:06 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A5B106564A for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:51:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204E38FC1A for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p06Kp1Pw017496; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:51:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <1BD6D137-8BBD-4EBE-A5B0-3B716B78BA08@mac.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:51:01 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <76C52A35-1C49-4720-A8E2-B9A383F6FCF2@samsco.org> References: <20110103220153.69cf59e0@kan.dnsalias.net> <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> <4D2602E8.6080609@bsdimp.com> <1BD6D137-8BBD-4EBE-A5B0-3B716B78BA08@mac.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.0 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: freebsd-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 20:51:06 -0000 On Jan 6, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >=20 > On Jan 6, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 >> On 01/05/2011 21:00, Scott Long 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. >>=20 >> Yes. I've been on the inside of a few of them, even seeing some = business case figures. These usually say that for the segment that = company X is going after for product Y can sell 1000 units to customer W = and another Z000 to the market as it emerges over the next 2 years. = 1000 units gets them $200k profit, development costs are $100k for = developer time, test time, etc. Z is large, so potential revenue form = this project is in the millions, with a guaranteed small initial profit. = Decision: go. >=20 > But one cannot ignore the fact that a compatibility layer allows = companies > to support FreeBSD at lower development cost by eliminating the native = port > and instead just focus on the qualifying their Linux support within = the > emulation layer. If decisions are purely cost/benefit, then a = compatibility > layer reduces the cost, hence increases the benefit so if FreeBSD is = at all > a consideration, it will be through emulation. >=20 > Is this what we want promote? >=20 > Also, the experience that you and Scott have may be biased. You won't = want > to work for a company that is inherently Linux centric, right? = Likewise, > Linux-centric companies may be more interested in hiring Linux hackers = and > not FreeBSD hackers, right? So, doesn't that mean that your experience = is > ipso facto biased towards the companies that would even consider = FreeBSD > to begin with? > What about those companies that couldn't care less about FreeBSD? = Those > for which cost and benefit are absolutes? > I very much doubt that they are going to invest in an entirely new OS = -- > in order to support it natively, when their Linux-centric development = teams > can do the same using emulation? >=20 > What I'm saying is this: do we really have an abjective view or are we > biased towards FreeBSD-friendliness simply because we are FreeBSD = hackers > discussing on a FreeBSD email list and working for companies that like > FreeBSD in some form or shape? >=20 > Are we therefore the right people to argue whether Linux KPI emulation = is > good or bad for FreeBSD in the long run? >=20 > I'm indecisive. It may be a damned if you do and damned if you don't > kind of scenario. If that's the case, I'd rather be damned without it = :-) >=20 There's a lot to this email that is silly, ignorant, and frustrating. = I'm bowing out of the discussion. Go on and build your walls around = FreeBSD and burn the bridges. Or don't. Scott