Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:18:42 -0400 From: Glenn Sieb <ges+lists@wingfoot.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questionable statement in article Message-ID: <4116ED12.3000809@wingfoot.org> In-Reply-To: <4116906E.8060408@elvandar.org> References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <20040808202351.GV87690@submonkey.net> <41168DF7.2090601@wingfoot.org> <4116906E.8060408@elvandar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Remko Lodder said the following on 8/8/2004 4:43 PM: > But this only holds as long as code(bsd) > code(linux) to begin > with.... no? Do we know for a fact that code(bsd) > code(linux)? I > know I've been hard pressed to find software from vendors that was > marketed as being developed for BSD, as opposed to Linux or Solaris, > etc.... > > You dont see the point i think, BSD can execute it's own code, and > thus any software written for BSD itself, AND it has the power to > execute Linux code, so that makes > > BSD (BSD+Linux) vs Linux (Linux) > > And since there is at least one product more on BSD then for Linux it > is a correct statement.... I guess my point was lost as well... I don't see development happening (other than system development, such as the OS) happening in BSD. I don't see vendors saying "This product will run on BSD" I see "This product will run on RedHat Linux Enterprise Edition, etc etc" :-/ (Do not read me wrong--I love FBSD, and have been an instant convert since 2000 version 4.1 ;).. I just wish it was easier to find commercial applications that would run under it. Having to spend $2500 or whatever it was for RedHat Enterprise so I could run Oracle Collaboration Suite was just wrong on so many levels :-/ ) Best, G.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4116ED12.3000809>