Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 22:32:06 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org, advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Emulation (Was: No port of Opera?) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000706222258.046d9c00@localhost> In-Reply-To: <396559E2.45585B92@mail.ptd.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000706190244.0483ad70@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000706201218.04a99100@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:17 PM 7/6/2000, Thomas M. Sommers wrote: >Why does the absence of a native version, assuming the Linux version >works well under emulation, matter? Because, simply put, platforms live and die by the amount of NATIVE software that's available for them. Applications are always tuned for the platforms for which they are natively targeted. What's more, I know of no vendor (though perhaps there are a very few out there) that supports the use of its software under an emulation. This by itself is enough to drive serious users to a natively supported platform. It makes no difference if the emulation is actually SUPERIOR to the original. OS/2 ran some 16-bit Windows apps better than Windows 3.1 itself, and it didn't matter one bit; application vendors told me I was on my own if I revealed that I was running the product under Win-OS/2. I'm certainly not going to trust a mission-critical, or even important, application to emulation. I want to be able to get high-quality commercial software which has been compiled and tested for the native API and is supported on the platform I'm running. And that means native code. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000706222258.046d9c00>