Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:32:56 -0600 From: Frank Pawlak <fpawlak@execpc.com> To: Jamie Lawrence <jal@ThirdAge.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Message-ID: <19981106183256.A4148@quark.execpc.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981106162525.00bb5330@204.74.82.151>; from Jamie Lawrence on Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 04:25:25PM -0800 References: <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com> <4.1.19981102162944.00cc6ec0@mail.netconstruct.com> <19981106165913.B13675@cityip.co.za> <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com> <19981106181037.A4027@quark.execpc.com> <3.0.5.32.19981106162525.00bb5330@204.74.82.151>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 06, 1998 at 04:25:25PM -0800, Jamie Lawrence wrote: > At 06:10 PM 11/6/98 -0600, Frank Pawlak wrote: > > >Your answer provides some very useful information, but raises a question > >that I have been pondering for some time. As I understand it, Oracle > >has stated that they will support Linux where it is running their > >database product, and possibly will release their own distro of Linux. > >Given the server process short comings and the relative immaturity of > >the Linux code compared to FreeBSD, why would they want to port to and > >support an inferior OS, when for the some resource expenditure they could > >do the same on BSD? > > Economics. > > Software companies port to market share, not technical excellence. > You may as well ask why they ported to NT (although there are other > considerations there... mainly externalities of the market share > issue). > > -j Fair enough, but you miss my point that if they are going to roll their own Linux distro, why wouldn't they start with a superior platform to begin with. Then again, perhaps this is all moot. Frank To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981106183256.A4148>