From owner-freebsd-advocacy  Sun Jul  9 14: 6:42 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Received: from bishopston.net (h91.reverse.bishopston.net [24.68.200.91])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 84D3237BF55; Sun,  9 Jul 2000 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jamie@bishopston.net)
Received: (from jamie@localhost)
	by bishopston.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA97669;
	Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:06:34 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from <jamie>)
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:06:34 +0100 (BST)
From: Jamie Jones <jamie@bishopston.net>
Message-Id: <200007092106.WAA97669@bishopston.net>
To: jamie@bishopston.net, rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in
Subject: Re: Emulation: eg WordPerfect (was Re: No port of Opera? (Was: ((FreeBSD : Linux) :: (OS/2 : Windows))))
Cc: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, brett@lariat.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG,
	davids@webmaster.com, dkelly@hiwaay.net
In-Reply-To: <20000710022721.A4192@physics.iisc.ernet.in>
Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


> So why worry about running linux binaries under FreeBSD, something
> which works an order of magnitude better than wine?  If one can get
> companies to support that officially, that certainly looks like a big
> gain to me.  Aiming to remove linux compatibility is not only
> unrealistic but extremely undesirable.  

If the product is officially supported, then that is a big plus. If a
product *is* supported under emulation completely, wouldn't it be easier
for the company to release a FreeBSD version too, so that they don't end
up supporting the emulator in the process ? :-)

Anyway, although you aren't actually impying this, I'd just like to point
out that I'm *not* in favour of removing the Linux emulation - my point is
that I'd be more likely to part cash for a native version than the Linux
version.

Cheers,
       Jamie



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