From owner-freebsd-advocacy Sun Jul 9 1:36:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from wantadilla.lemis.com (wantadilla.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5095437B696; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 01:36:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from grog@wantadilla.lemis.com) Received: (from grog@localhost) by wantadilla.lemis.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15771; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:06:13 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from grog) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:06:13 +0930 From: Greg Lehey To: David Schwartz Cc: Brett Glass , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Emulation (Was: No port of Opera?) Message-ID: <20000709180613.I14455@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000709004740.049f9740@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: Organization: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog X-PGP-Fingerprint: 6B 7B C3 8C 61 CD 54 AF 13 24 52 F8 6D A4 95 EF Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sunday, 9 July 2000 at 1:11:02 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >> At 12:31 AM 7/9/2000, David Schwartz wrote: > >>> If it's in fact easier to officially support the Linux >>> version on FreeBSD, then that will provide a great stepping stone >>> for getting to real FreeBSD support. Later, with a proven customer >>> base and demonstrated interest, a business case can be made for >>> improving FreeBSD support. >> >> Unfortunately, David, they won't know which users are running FreeBSD, and >> therefore will not be able to quantify that customer base. It is therefore >> unlikely that their marketers will be able to make a case for the native >> port. >> >> --Brett > > While I think that this could potentially happen, I don't think it's > inevitable. A lot hinges on how vocal and visible the FreeBSD crowd is. > > Let's consider a case where it might matter. You have to make a few > assumptions, or it doesn't even matter: > > 1) The company has a Linux build. (Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether or > not FreeBSD has Linux emulation.) > > 2) They don't [yet] have a native FreeBSD build. (Otherwise, it doesn't > matter whether or not FreeBSD has Linux emulation.) > > 3) The Linux build works on FreeBSD under emulation. (Otherwise, it doesn't > matter whether or not FreeBSD has Linux emulation.) > > Now think about what happens given that these three things are true. Having > the Linux version being used on FreeBSD can only increase the number of > people talking about the product and FreeBSD. > > Now, two things are possible: > > 1) The non-native build works perfectly under FreeBSD. (In which case, > except for OS bigotry, there is no reason to have a FreeBSD-native version.) > > 2) A native build would work significantly better. (In which case, the only > reason for the company not to make a native build is if it doesn't justify > the improvement (in which case, they _shouldn't_ make one just to make the > FreeBSD crowd happy), or it does (in which case, if they're smart, they'll > make one.) *sigh* I had intended to keep out of this, but I must say I like your analysis. I'd like to add that we're not really talking about Linux vs. BSD here, we're talking about ABIs. At a time when even the commercial vendors are talking about adopting the Linux ABI, and I recently received a book on SUS2 from the OpenGroup which included an (uninstallable) copy of Deviant Linux, it seems remarkably head-in-the-sand to say that we should ignore this particular ABI because it was written for our "competitor". Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message