From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 28 17:12:03 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA03523 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 17:12:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA03459 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 17:11:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA09633; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 18:03:04 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199602290103.SAA09633@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Quake's out, where's that Linux ELF emulation? To: jehamby@lightside.com (Jake Hamby) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 18:03:04 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, root@dihelix.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Jake Hamby" at Feb 28, 96 04:54:15 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > Just like OS/2 > claimed to be "a better DOS than DOS", why can't we make the (justified > once we get ELF) claim of "a better Linux than Linux?" Uh, OS/2 hasn't been very successful compared to DOS (or Win95). > Okay, granted. But as I said, if it already runs fine on FreeBSD through > binary emulation, then what do you gain by demanding a FreeBSD-native > port? Sure, it'd be nice, but I know I'd rather be able to run a Linux > version than have no version at all! Because it will have been regression tested on Linux but not on BSD. Because a commercial software vendor does not typically offer support for an OS running their product in an emulation environment. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.