From owner-freebsd-current Mon Aug 16 12:44: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from helmholtz.salk.edu (helmholtz.salk.edu [198.202.70.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4602114CAC for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:44:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bartol@salk.edu) Received: from eccles.salk.edu (eccles [198.202.70.120]) by helmholtz.salk.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA25187; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:43:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Bartol To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Marcel Moolenaar , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linuxulator: emulation? [was: Q: Extending the sysctl MIB...] In-Reply-To: <71135.934829653@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I absolutely agree with Jordan on this point. I'm having an increasingly hard time keeping our lab running FreeBSD over Linux due to pressure from higher-ups who aren't in the technical trenches with me and who don't understand the very good technical reasons I have for running FreeBSD here. One constant sticking point is the linux compatibility module. The higher-ups see the word "emulator" and all manner of warning messages go off in their uninformed heads. In a previous e-mail on this or a related thread I saw the term: "Linux image activator" or something close to this pass by. I think this term gave me a much closer feeling to what I imagine is really going on the the "linuxulator" than the term "emulator" and all its baggage. So we could name it the "Linux image activator" or "Lin-Axe" or some such... Tom On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > All of this would be true if your personal definition of "emulator" > were the prevailing one, but that is unfortunately just not the > case. :) > > When the average computing public thinks of an "emulator", they think > of something like MAME or the SNES emulator. Even the more > compute-minded folks tend to think of BOCHS or SIMOS when they hear > the word "emulator" and I need only point to the majority of entries > in /usr/ports/emulators in support of this. :-) In any case, my point > is simply that we need to be careful in our use of terminology if we > don't want to lend the majority the impression that our linux > "emulation" code goes through the same sorts of gyrations that MAME > does to run linux binaries. I do get questions at trade shows all the > time about this, and I can state without reservation that none of the > people asking about it share Marcel's definition of the term. :) > > - Jordan > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message