Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:53:53 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, Zippy <seth@freebie.dp.ny.frb.org>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Netscape browser Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.02.9903191025510.22761-100000@fly.HiWAAY.net> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990319083523.03f7c470@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Brett Glass wrote:
# Jordan, it's ESSENTIAL. Companies determine the amount they'll invest
# in a platform by looking at NATIVE app sales for that platform. As
# has been said elsewhere in this now-bifurcated thread, a sale of a
# Linux binary for a FreeBSD box counts as a Linux install. Having
# been heavily involved with OS/2 Warp, I can state this unequivocally:
# emulating a more popular platform forecloses opportunities to get
# native apps.
And to use the same argument that I get from the Linux folks here
when I say they can run Linux binaries under emulation on FreeBSD,
"Why would I want to run an emulated binary if I can run it on the
real thing?". [1] Let's face it the market for Linux is there and
at least in the minds of many the market for FreeBSD is not. Why
would a company write a native FreeBSD binary (for a market that
doesn't exist) so the market that does exist can run it under
emulation? [2]
Your FreeBSDulator for Linux idea will only work if we convince
them there is a market for FreeBSD and that more people will want
to use FreeBSD than Linux. This is the reason that despite all
its warts the Linuxulator is probably our best best right now.
They develop a product for what they believe to be a safe bet and
get an additional smaller market via emulation for free.
What we should be focusing our effort on is getting them to realize
that the market for FreeBSD *is* there. We do that by making them
take note that when we use the Linux version of their product we do
so via Linux emulation under FreeBSD. When we have enough people
using their product under FreeBSD, then we turn the tables, unveil
your FreeBSDulator, and announce that since their biggest market is
FreeBSD they should have a native FreeBSD version. The big plus
it that with your FreeBSDulator they get to keep the Linux market
too and make their biggest market happy by having native apps.
# FreeBSD, though, has a golden opportunity that OS/2 didn't have. You
# couldn't get Windows to emulate OS/2 (it simply didn't have the
# architecture), but you CAN get Linux to emulate FreeBSD.
#
# Making FreeBSD a "universal API" would also be very palatable to
# companies like Sun and SCO, which are now grudgingly working on
# supporting Linux as a binary format and don't really want to. They'd
# jump at a chance to use an API that ISN'T part of a movement whose
# stated purpose is to wipe them out.
#
# --Brett
[1] This is a rhetorical question so please don't respond to me or
the list with a long list of the reasons why. I think we all
know a few reasons why, but they are really not salient to the
issue at hand.
[2] Another rhetorical question.
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?Pine.OSF.4.02.9903191025510.22761-100000>