Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:13:56 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu, brett@lariat.org, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD emulation for linux Message-ID: <36F9D424.2397F563@softweyr.com> References: <199903250136.SAA12426@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > >There is a market for FreeBSD native binaries. This can be stated
> > >as fact, given that people buy binaries (including Linux binaries)
> > >to run on FreeBSD. But how do you size this market?
> >
> > By getting the vendors to count it. What this has to do with a
> > FreeBSD emulator in Linux is completely beyond me.
>
> You have to subtract out FreeBSD users using Linux binaries from
> the FreeBSD native binary market size.
No, you use the count of the FreeBSD users using Linux binaries to
convince them it's time to support a native FreeBSD version if the
numbers warrant it. I thought that was obvious. It *is* obvious
to everyone on the planet but you and Brett Glass.
> > >You may damn the source, but Brett's OS/2 analogy is apt.
> >
> > This is exactly what I disagree with; the OS/2 analogy is not apt
> > regardless of the source. OS/2 died for a number of reasons, not
> > the least of which was that IBM marketed it horribly and delivered
> > a non-working system for the first several major releases.
>
> Let's divorce that little "and" as "necessary but not sufficient".
> So your posit is that FreeBSD is being marketed better than OS/2 was?
My posit is that FreeBSD hasn't been marketed at all yet, so we cannot
yet tell if it will be successful. The differences between FreeBSD
and OS/2 are so large I don't think there are any lessons to be learned
there at all.
FreeBSD marketing is starting to pick up the pace, but I worry about
that personally. I've never needed much in the way of commercial
applications, and am pretty much happy to wait for developments like
GNOME and AbiWord, and support whoever I need to make sure they work
well on FreeBSD as they reach maturity.
OS/2 failed for it's own unique set of reasons, and I personally don't
think it would have failed so spectacularly if IBM had been able to
get the Win32 subsystem working EVER. They also could have simply
bought their way into the vendors of choice, the way Caldera did in
the Linux market.
> > >I personally think that a FreeBSD emulation layer for Linux, and
> > >other OS's, is important for FreeBSD, from a marketing standpoint.
> >
> > I personally think a FreeBSD emulation layer for Linux is a huge waste
> > of time, because I strongly doubt you will get Linus to put it in the
> > kernel, nor will you ever convince any of the major distributors --
> > i.e. RedHat and nobody else these days -- to put it in their distribution.
>
> That's rather irrelevent, even if I think you're wrong. Large portions
> of the Linux kernel are distributed as kernel modules, and as the recent
> Red Hat articles point out, all Red Hat cares about is units shipped.
And I still doubt you'll get them to ship a FreeBSD compatibility module.
I see them being interested in that about 43.7 decades after hell freezes
over.
> > >From a technical standpoint, Solaris and SCO are implementing Linux
> > >emulation as well. The Linux ABI looks to be gaining momentum as
> > >the cross-x86 UNIX ABI. This is technically very bad.
> >
> > And there is not a damned thing we can do about it, because this decision
> > is being made by EXACTLY the sort of people who'd be running FreeBSD
> > instead of Linux if they had any sense at all. Cogito ergo Doh!
>
> I don't understand your statement. Why would the Solaris and SCO
> employees dwho made the decision to write the Linux ABI code be
> running FreeBSD?
Because FreeBSD is a better system than SCO, Solaris x86, or Linux. For
just about anything you care to name. If they were picking the ABI on
technical merit, they'd obviously pick the FreeBSD API to run on, due
to the quality of the system and the entirely reasonable price. Since
the decision is not being made for reasons of technical merit, any
discussion of technical merit is a moot point.
> > So, what do you do? Get some talented FreeBSD hackers willing to keep
> > up with the shifting sands of the Linux ABI as well as possible, point
> > out to people that most Linux apps run on FreeBSD too, so they're not
> > risking much, and do an effective job of advocacy in getting the vendors
> > to decide which side of the open source bread the butter is on.
>
> This limits you to a zero sum game the size of the Linux market.
Geez you're being obtuse. It limits you to the size of the Linux +
FreeBSD + anything else that will run the Linux ABI market. Since that
seems to be the ABI of choice these days, you're attempting to play into
the largest UNIX application market possible, not some half-baked crock
that doesn't exist yet.
There is no zero-sum game, or any other such B-school hogwash in the
computer industry. The potential market for EVERY word processor ever
created is exactly the number of living human beings old enough to
write words on the planet, given sufficient quality, features, and
marketing. Anything less than THAT is failure. Are Bill Gates and I
the only two people on the planet who understand this simple concept?
> > The one point you and Brett have missed the entire time: it doesn't
> > matter one whit whether the app is a Linux or FreeBSD binary, as long
> > as it runs reliably and solves the user's problem.
>
> And here's the one point that you and Jordan have missed the entire
> time:
>
> It doesn't matter one whit TO THE USER whether the app is
> a Linux or FreeBSD binary, as long as it runs reliably and
> solves the user's problem.
>
> It doesn't matter one whit TO THE USER whether they are
> running the app on a Linux or a FreeBSD system.
>
> But it matters a hell of a lot to FreeBSD whether the app
> is a Linux or FreeBSD binary, in terms of gaining critical
> mass
No, it doesn't, not if they're willing to say it's a Linux *and*
FreeBSD app. That's been the point of this entire argument, which
you've consistently missed, so now I'll ram it down your throat:
It doesn't matter one damn bit what the bits in the ELF header say,
because most users cannot tell the difference between one and the
other, it matters only that it runs on FreeBSD and says it runs on
FreeBSD on the fucking box.
Do you get it now?
> And it matters a hell of a lot to FreeBSD whether the app
> is running on a Linux or a FreeBSD system.
And so what we're trying to do is find the highest-percentage shot at
getting those applications to run reliably on FreeBSD, and to mention
FreeBSD in the materials advertising the applications.
Which do you think is more likely to happen: asking vendors to port
their working Linux apps to some highly speculative FreeBSD emulator
for Linux, or basically handing them a done deal for another 1.5
million potential users with ZERO effort required on their part, other
than sticking a logo we supply them with on their web page, product
box, etc? Which would YOU do?
> > Getting vendors to
> > *test* their apps on FreeBSD under emulation, and bug-fix THAT, is by
> > far enough of a win for us. We should be concentrating on THAT effort
> > rather than developing software for Linux that nobody, not a single
> > Linux OR FreeBSD user, is ever going to use.
>
> Demonstrate success at this, and I may be willing to join your
> bandwagon caliming that the number of native FreeBSD apps in the
> future is irrelevent.
So far, we've got ONE. They're waiting for US to deliver the required
marketing materials, and I'm working on that, with assistance from
several others here. Of course, so far we've asked exactly ONE, so
we're hitting 100% so far.
Why don't YOU go ask someone? It can't hurt, the worst they can do is
say "No." They can't take away your birthday.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36F9D424.2397F563>