From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jul 6 19: 5:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D8937BA7B; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:05:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id TAA32161; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:05:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:05:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: "Preston S. Wiley" Cc: Brett Glass , David Scheidt , Narvi , Dann Lunsford , chat@FreeBSD.org, advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Emulation (Was: No port of Opera?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Preston S. Wiley wrote: > > All of this would be a waste of effort compared to writing a *BSD* emulator > > that would run on many platforms and get us more native ports. Making a > > better Linux emulator is counterproductive. The better Linux emulation is > > on BSD, the less likely it is that FreeBSD will get native ports of key > > applications. > > Without Linux compatibility, BSD wouldn't have enough of a desktop user > base for a company to even consider a native BSD port. The Linux > compatibility was created to draw in users. (i.e. BSD can do everything > Linux can, including run its binaries, plus this and this and this) > The more users BSD has, the more likely there will be a native BSD port. Hokay, I have no desire to be subjected to this argument another time..Brett, if you or anyone else feel compelled to reply please remove my name from the CC list. Thanks. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message