From owner-freebsd-advocacy Sun Mar 21 14:10:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CEC14DA8 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:10:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA15028; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 15:10:01 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990321150512.03f85d40@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 15:09:48 -0700 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Netscape browser Cc: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <52175.921875299@zippy.cdrom.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 12:28 PM 3/19/99 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >In real-life, just having FreeBSD emulation for Linux by no >means gets people to suddenly rush to produce FreeBSD binaries >because, as I said before, the incentive just isn't there and it isn't >there because of NUMBERS, nothing that you or I can change overnight. In real life, it would make it possible to amend the now-realistic advice you give to applications vendors: to target Linux and hope they run on FreeBSD under emulation. This is a horrible message! Each vendor who follows this path is likely NEVER to do a native implementation for FreeBSD. It's necessary to be able to say, "target FreeBSD and run on Linux, too," not the reverse. Otherwise, you are practicing "anti-advocacy." What's more, targeting Linux with a FreeBSD emulator is easier than targeting FreeBSD with a Linux emulator. Why? Because more people here are intimately familiar with the FreeBSD ABI than the Linux ABI. The Linux emulator is a harder task AS WELL AS a dangerous one. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message