Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:16:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: wes@softweyr.com (Wes Peters) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), pwiley@cadabra.com (Preston S. Wiley), brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), dscheidt@enteract.com (David Scheidt), kris@FreeBSD.ORG (Kris Kennaway), narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee (Narvi), dann@greycat.com (Dann Lunsford), chat@FreeBSD.ORG, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Emulation (Was: No port of Opera?) Message-ID: <200007120116.SAA18556@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <396752A6.ED719837@softweyr.com> from "Wes Peters" at Jul 08, 2000 10:11:18 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Without Linux compatibility, BSD wouldn't have enough of a desktop user > > > base for a company to even consider a native BSD port. The Linux > > > compatibility was created to draw in users. (i.e. BSD can do everything > > > Linux can, including run its binaries, plus this and this and this) > > > The more users BSD has, the more likely there will be a native BSD port. > > > > Given this theory, someone should be going balls-to-the-wall > > on SCO Xenix and UNIX and Solaris x86 emulations, even if the > > Linux emulation is broken in the process... > > You're right, except none of the above have ANY marketing momentum at this > time. SCO UNIX and Solaris x86 compatibility would get us some kick-ass > server apps, though. Given this theory, someone should be going balls-to-the-wall on Windows 2000 emulation, even if the SCO Xenix and UNIX, Solaris x86 emulation, and Linux emulation are broken in the process... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?200007120116.SAA18556>