Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 02:04:41 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Joseph Scott <joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu> Cc: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@nwlink.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: No port of Opera? (Was: ((FreeBSD : Linux) :: (OS/2 : Windows))) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000707212017.047f9f00@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007071219290.19763-100000@pebkac.owp.csus.e du> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000707095841.047c6ee0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:37 PM 7/7/2000, Joseph Scott wrote: > To some degree I agree with what you are saying. Historically >emulating/binary compat/etc has not solved the problem of increased use >for an OS. Somedays I really do miss OS/2, the only reason I'm not using >it now is because I got into FreeBSD :-) I used OS/2 as well. And in the end I dropped it because I could not get apps. Heck, mighty, cash-rich IBM couldn't PAY developers to port their work. In most cases, no non-recurring payment was sufficient incentive to get the developers to incur the recurring costs of support, inventory, and continued development for the OS. I know; I talked to the developers. The few that took IBM's money -- Borland was among them -- regretted doing so because the recurring costs swamped the payments they got. > In the long run, yes, native apps are the goal, and people are >pushing for that (BSDi, users who have purchasing power, etc). BSDi doesn't have a perceptible FRACTION of the clout or money that IBM had. And IBM failed. > That being said however, I'm not sure that I agree with your >conclusion above. Let's take the Opera example. If we took away Linux >binary compatibility do you think that it would make any difference? Yes. Then, 100% of the FreeBSD users who wanted to run Opera would be inaccessible to the company unless they did a port. Right now, they are steering users to emulation because they know they can. >My feelings are that if the Opera folks are strapped for resources for a >FreeBSD version, With sufficient incentive, they could make their code portable. Without an incentive, they'll make it Linux-specific. >they wouldn't suddenly run out and make a FreeBSD version >because we can't run it all, the needed additional resources would not >suddenly appear, Linux compat or not. The offer of N more customers, whose money and patronage they would ABSOLUTELY not get otherwise, would have more clout than it does now. I would still like to assemble a few hundred FreeBSD users to ask for a port, though I fear that with emulation that request may be ignored even so. >I know that you response is that we should be pushing a BSD >compatibility layer for other OS's. I think this is a neat idea, and >would certainly be neat to see, with the idea that it would help spread >the use of BSD. Unfortunately I do not have the skills needed to code >such a beast. The skills required to do it are more plentiful than are the ones needed to do the Linux emulation we have now. Why? Because more of us are familiar with the BSD API than the Linux one. More of us have been working with that code, those headers. And it's easy to pull the rest together by using the same hooks which Linux makes available for ITS emulations. (I believe that it does SVR4 and SCO.) Their code will show how to do it. > I believe that most people who do (and have the time) are >more interested in working on BSD directly. The emulation would, in many ways, *be* BSD as it would embody those parts of BSD to which users and programmers are most often exposed. >> It should matter to you, because it is the thing that most seriously >> threatens your ability to choose in the future. > > Doesn't this only matter if you are digging into the code or >redistributing it? For a normal end user, does this really matter? Yep, it does -- for the same reason that Microsoft's predatory tactics matter. Users don't feel the sting right away, but then wake up and find that they have no choice. It could happen here, too. If Linux becomes the only way to run desktop apps, then people will HAVE to abandon BSD. What's more, the GPL threatens the whole software world, not just BSD. The FSF is ever bit as predatory and destructive an empire as Microsoft. In the long run, it stands to be more so, since (unlike Microsoft) it does not care about making sales. It can gut EVERY market; it doesn't have to preserve some of them so that it can make money. It can slash and burn until nothing is left. Heck, do you know that the FSF even gets money from United Way, because it has misrepresented itself to the IRS as a CHARITY? >> Alas, FreeBSD's market share relative to that of Linux appears to be >> going DOWN, not up. And the situation vis-a-vis native ports is >> terrible: after three years, FreeBSD has LOST, not gained, native >> ports. This is a serious threat to the health of the platform. I've >> done what I could to promote the BSDs, and in fact have made some >> serious progress in this area (though certain folks -- ahem! -- still >> seem reluctant to acknowedge it). But emulation is the greatest thorn >> in FreeBSD's side as a platform. > > Hummmmm. I wonder if this is also a perspective thing. From >where I stand (which is a different place you do of course) FreeBSD has >been doing much better. For the moment, the absolute number of users is increasing. But its share is dwindling. And it is ultimately market share that drives both the availability of native ports and the long-term success of a platform. > I'm not sure to which products you are refering >that no longer offer native FreeBSD versions (probably something I don't >use I would guess). I know that BSDi is working hard with vendors to >encourage,assist,etc native ports. BSDi has very little clout. I cheered when they got us Applixware, because that was a real long shot and a big investment for them! But Applixware has plenty of competition, and many FreeBSD users are not supporting the cause and are running other office suites under emulation. So, the emulator threatens the continued availability of Applixware as a native port. > It's my understanding that you worked with O'Reilly to get the BSD >track going at the Open Source Con this month. Yes, I did. And I hear that it's the third most popular track, next to Perl and Linux! Kirk is doing his architecture tutorial, and that will pack 'em in. (Thank you, Kirk!) We even have Theo speaking. (He has thus far declined to sit on the "Future of BSD" panel, but HAS committed to give a talk of his own.) > As someone who went last >year and is going again this year I think this will be very good exposure >for BSD. I am certainly hoping so! More pushing is needed, however. I hope that the BSDi folks will work with me on this. (A few of their employees -- Jordan and Mike in particular -- seem to balk at working closely with me due to minor disagreements and/or my maverick status on these mailing lists. I'm aware that I'm calling for re-examination of previous established strategies and tactics, and that this rocks the boat a bit. However, I hope to convince them that I'm working for the good of the platform and am getting real results, and that therefore this re-examination is worthwhile.) --Brett 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?4.3.2.7.2.20000707212017.047f9f00>