Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 12:30:16 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, dmorrisn <dmorrisn@u.washington.edu> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, James Love <love@cptech.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Device Drivers for Linux and Intel's annoucement Message-ID: <19981003123016.W2176@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981002202119.040f7c30@mail.lariat.org>; from Brett Glass on Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 08:29:21PM -0600 References: <23307.907176696@time.cdrom.com> <4.1.19981002190913.040f3b60@mail.lariat.org> <36158AD6.811BD16E@u.washington.edu> <4.1.19981002202119.040f7c30@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, 2 October 1998 at 20:29:21 -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/2/98 -0700, dmorrisn wrote: >>> History has proven exactly the opposite. The introduction of Windows >>> application support in OS/2 actually accelerated its demise. If FreeBSD >>> starts billing itself as "a better Linux than Linux" it will fall into >>> precisely the same trap and will never catch up. >> >> That is a rhetorical fallacy. (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc -- "After >> this therefore because of this") > > No fallacy at all. It's been proven again and again that emulating another > OS that's more popular provides the ultimate disincentive to developers. > OS/2 is only one recent case in point. OK. So Linux is emulating UNIX, and is thus doomed. FreeBSD is UNIX, and thus OK. Right? > Look at it from the developer's point of view. Why EVER develop a native > FreeBSD version of any product if one can just do a Linux version? Good question. What reason can you think of? Since people are working towards one interface which would work not just for FreeBSD and Linux, but also for SCO and Solaris, it doesn't seem worth striving for. > So, FreeBSD's name never appears on the box. Why not? If they have a product that runs both on Linux and on FreeBSD (and SCO and Solaris), do you think they're not going to mention the fact? > Tech support for commercial products is unavailable when they run > under FreeBSD, while they're well supported under Linux. Linux gets > the mindshare and FreeBSD becomes known as an unsupported also-ran. > > I watched this happen with OS/2. I couldn't even get support for WINDOWS > apps running under OS/2, much less get native versions that were any > good. So how does that make it different from Windows? >> The reason OS/2 died was because IBM and Microsoft couldn't get along. >> That's why Microsoft cut them off. > > The Linux camp doesn't exactly get along with FreeBSD either. They trash > it constantly. In this comparison, you've missed the point that the problem was the OS/2 people (little system) who didn't get on with Microsoft (big system). I've voiced my opinion about the damage done by rabid people in the FreeBSD camp before. The fact is, you're still fighting the wrong fight. Linux isn't the enemy, Microslop is. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981003123016.W2176>