Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:41:05 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com>, terry@lambert.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, root@dihelix.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Quake's out, where's that Linux ELF emulation? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960229103926.9652A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199602290103.SAA09633@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Just like OS/2 > > claimed to be "a better DOS than DOS", why can't we make the (justified > > once we get ELF) claim of "a better Linux than Linux?" > > Uh, OS/2 hasn't been very successful compared to DOS (or Win95). At least RDBMS vendors liked it - most of them had versions running on OS/2 and still do, no matter that they also support Windows NT now.. > > > Okay, granted. But as I said, if it already runs fine on FreeBSD through > > binary emulation, then what do you gain by demanding a FreeBSD-native > > port? Sure, it'd be nice, but I know I'd rather be able to run a Linux > > version than have no version at all! > > Because it will have been regression tested on Linux but not on BSD. > > Because a commercial software vendor does not typically offer support > for an OS running their product in an emulation environment. > > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. > Sander
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960229103926.9652A-100000>