Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:32:06 -0600
From:      Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
To:        "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net>
Cc:        chat@FreeBSD.org, advocacy@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Emulation (Was: No port of Opera?)
Message-ID:  <4.3.2.7.2.20000706222258.046d9c00@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <396559E2.45585B92@mail.ptd.net>
References:  <4.3.2.7.2.20000706190244.0483ad70@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000706201218.04a99100@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:17 PM 7/6/2000, Thomas M. Sommers wrote:

>Why does the absence of a native version, assuming the Linux version
>works well under emulation, matter?

Because, simply put, platforms live and die by the amount of NATIVE
software that's available for them.

Applications are always tuned for the platforms for which they are 
natively targeted. What's more, I know of no vendor (though perhaps 
there are a very few out there) that supports the use of its software 
under an emulation. This by itself is enough to drive serious
users to a natively supported platform. It makes no difference if the
emulation is actually SUPERIOR to the original. OS/2 ran some 16-bit 
Windows apps better than Windows 3.1 itself, and it didn't matter
one bit; application vendors told me I was on my own if I revealed
that I was running the product under Win-OS/2.

I'm certainly not going to trust a mission-critical, or even important,
application to emulation. I want to be able to get high-quality
commercial software which has been compiled and tested for the native
API and is supported on the platform I'm running. And that means native 
code.

--Brett Glass





To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000706222258.046d9c00>