From owner-freebsd-advocacy Fri Mar 19 13: 5:48 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 519C115208 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:04:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.6) id OAA28144; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:04:13 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990319134858.03fd24e0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:56:16 -0700 To: Mark Diekhans From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Netscape browser Cc: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199903192017.MAA19634@osprey.grizzly.com> References: <4.1.19990319114734.00b794b0@localhost> <4.1.19990319103804.00a8ec60@localhost> <4.1.19990319114734.00b794b0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 12:17 PM 3/19/99 -0800, Mark Diekhans wrote: >>a few changes you'll need to make -- plus more testing. So >>it's better to target FreeBSD. Your app will still run on Linux >>perfectly well via the emulator." > >No, it will not. The user most likely doesn't have the emulator, some action >will have to be take to get it installed and running on their system. Since >it is almost certainly more than a LKM (libraries, etc), this >is not an easy thing to manage. Why would a Linux vendor include a FreeBSD >emulator unless the demand generated by the apps only being available for >FreeBSD was there? Because the incremental cost of putting it on the disk is roughly zero, and every user who has to call in and ask how to load it explicitly represents a potential support call and hence an expense. The user might even give up and SWITCH to FreeBSD if the Linux vendor is not helpful. Hence, it is in the Linux vendor's best interest to include the emulator. >It seems to be a opportunity to spend precious resources pursing a >real long shot when there are many things that have a higher probability >in producing good results. It's not a long shot at all; it's really the biggest chance FreeBSD has to leverage the success of Linux. Linux emulation, by contrast, was the long shot -- and in fact a very bad strategy. He who emulates, suffocates. >A practical strategy for application development would be just that: >a development environment that lets a single source generate native >binaries for both Linux and *BSD. Not that I am proposing this, >as it will still need market pressure to get it adopted and >incure costs for support and manufacturing. The emulator could be part of that scheme. The object would be to have the binary be a FreeBSD binary rather than a Linux binary. >>Only if FreeBSD emulation >>is available on Linux can we capture that first port. > >How do we make it available on Linux? Requiring the application >vendor to include it on their CD-ROM adds a large support cost. >They would need strong market pressure to do this. Again, get it into the mainstream Linux distributions. >In my personal experience, Linux emulation has been one of the best faetures >in terms of promoting FreeBSD to individual users. Alas, every time you do that, FreeBSD gets another strike against it in the eyes of application developers. Remember: the popularity of a platform depends on the number and variety of apps targeted explicitly for it. History has shown that very little else matters. If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message