Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 17:06:34 -0400 From: "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org, advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Emulation (Was: No port of Opera?) Message-ID: <396797DA.9D3CAEA7@mail.ptd.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000706190244.0483ad70@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000706201218.04a99100@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000706222258.046d9c00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000708105237.0448ca90@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > > At 10:43 PM 7/7/2000, Thomas M. Sommers wrote: > > >Brett Glass wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > >If that is generally true, then the existence of Linux binary support > >will not deter vendors from porting to FreeBSD, because customers will > >not be using their products with the Linux layer. > > Two problems: > > 1) It may not be generally true (though IMHO it should be). If it's not generally true, then it's not an argument against Linux binary support. > 2) Whether it is true or not, developers will use it as an excuse > not to do a port to another platform. If it's being used as an excuse, then developers will just find some other way to rationalize not porting to FreeBSD. I think the main flaw in your argument is that even if Linux support does provide a reason not to port to FreeBSD, it does not follow that the absence of such support will cause those missing ports to be made. There are too many other factors at work, such as limited development resources. 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?396797DA.9D3CAEA7>