From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 9 03:18:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A73916A4CE for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 03:18:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wingfoot.org (caduceus.wingfoot.org [64.32.179.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5B043D41 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 03:18:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ges+lists@wingfoot.org) Received: from localhost (localhost.wingfoot.org [127.0.0.1]) by wingfoot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18191F448F for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wingfoot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (caduceus.wingfoot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24066-03 for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ool-44c47f78.dyn.optonline.net [68.196.127.120]) by wingfoot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EBF1F446C for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4116ED12.3000809@wingfoot.org> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:18:42 -0400 From: Glenn Sieb User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626 Thunderbird/0.7.1 Mnenhy/0.6.0.104 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org References: <1091989450.570.2.camel@dude.automatvapen.se> <20040808202351.GV87690@submonkey.net> <41168DF7.2090601@wingfoot.org> <4116906E.8060408@elvandar.org> In-Reply-To: <4116906E.8060408@elvandar.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at wingfoot.org Subject: Re: Questionable statement in article X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 03:18:47 -0000 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.