Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:41:04 -0400 From: Laurence Berland <stuyman@confusion.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Frank Pawlak <fpawlak@execpc.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: You've lost it (was Re:No port of Opera? (Was: ((FreeBSD :Linux) :: (OS/2:Windows)))) Message-ID: <3967D830.F8F0E918@confusion.net> References: <54397.962948030@localhost> <Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2000 23:08:47 MDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20000706225433.0475b4d0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707004910.046d9ab0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000707211520.00d4a5d0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000708184514.04dbd220@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 04:40 PM 7/8/2000, Laurence Berland wrote:
>
> >So we must not let this happen to FreeBSD, we must have native
> >support!!! How do we get this? We implement the FreeBSD api on Linux,
> >so that people will write to FreeBSD instead. Great! But, let's think
> >for a second. If it's bad to use emulators, if it hurts your platform
> >of choice, then why on earth do you think that a Linux user would be
> >fooled into using FreeBSD emulation?
>
> Because they will mistake it for a feature.
At a bare minimum that's a naive assumption, and at worst it's an insult
to the intelligence of Linux users. Just because they don't prefer the
OS that you and I prefer doesn't mean they aren't smart enough to see
this as what it is. The only reason they would adopt this emulation is
if we can show them real gain through its use. If nothing else, this is
a chicken-and-egg problem. They wont want it until they can run FreeBSD
apps that dont have linux ports, which wont exist until they use the
FreeBSD emulator, which they won't get until the apps exist...
>
> >Which of course we know every Linux user wants to do. The cry of Linux
> >has always been "down with MS, up with FSF, and undermine
> >Linux!!!"...Oh, wait, they *don't* want to undermine themselves.
>
> They are much more fragmented than the FreeBSD community can be.
Fragmentation is irrelevant, you say using emulation undermines the
credibility of the host OS, and Linux users don't want to undermine
Linux any more than you want to undermine FreeBSD. Hence, they will not
use FreeBSD emulation. If, on the other hand, emulation is useful, then
they might use it. I think the linuxulator is pretty useful, but you
think it's bad.
>
> >Let's ignore for a second that you've told us to eliminate the
> >linuxulator, leaving us high and dry when that emergency arrives or
> >before your prophetic native ports pour forth from the sky,
>
> I have said nothing of the kind. You obviously haven't read my earlier
> messages, in which I have presented an exit strategy for emulation.
The closest reference to an exit strategy I could find in any of your
posts is "
3) Once the FreeBSD API is established as a general-purpose API for
UNIX-like OSes, drop the Linux emulation for good." which seems to be
utopian. Further, it implies that there will never be a situation where
such emulation is useful, in an emergency. I doubt there are tons of
people using the SVR4 emulation, but it's kept because it can prove
useful for emergerncies or with legacy software. Further, using your
own theories, we would have to eliminate the linuxulator or there'd
still be no reason to make bsd native ports instead of linux ones.
Given the larger user base linux has, a developer would probably still
develop natively for linux, as it allows more ppl to use the software
*without* an added package. Simply creating a FreeBSD emulator would
not be sufficient. The only way we'll get native ports from people who
simply cant find the resources to do both linux and bsd ports would be
to have a larger user base than linux. I'd love for that to happen, but
it's gonna take time, and we can't force it to occur prematurely by
*eliminating* a useful feature.
>
> >and continue my line of thinking...
>
> Which has now completely run off the rails, so what followed [Snip!]
> is unrelated to what I've said. . Please read what I have written
> before commenting.
>
I've gone back and read the portion of my email that you've snipped out,
and I don't see what about it is unrelated. If you can provide a motive
for linux users to prefer freebsd emulated software to native ports,
other than "Brett Glass says so" and "they'll think it's a feature," I'm
all ears.
> >PHK wrote, in an email a bit back:
> >"I un-subscribed from -hackers several years ago, because I could
> >not keep up with the email load. Since then I have dropped off
> >several other lists as well for the very same reason.
> >
> >And I still get a lot of email. A lot of it gets routed to /dev/null
> >by filters: People like Brett Glass will never make it onto my
> >screen, commits to documents in languages I don't understand
> >likewise, commits to ports as such. All these things and more go
> >the winter way without me ever even knowing about it."
>
> Talk about closed-minded!
>
> I'm afraid that this shows that PHK -- besides being rude -- may
> want to filter out any message containing ideas which are thought-
> provoking or which he does not already believe. Sad, as well as
> an unwarranted personal attack.
>
> --Brett
While I'm not sure which of your previous tirades caused PHK to black
hole you, I think that this thread might be as good a reason as any.
Most of your emails return to insulting the "close minded nature" of
people who disagree with you. Your answer to Jordan's reasoned emails
include some logical leaps, and professions of his "delusional" nature.
If you might answer things logically, and back up counterlogical
assertions with some sort of warrant, then you might be able to have a
real conversation. The fact that you appear to be unable to act in a
civilized manner is why you find yourself in the alienated position you
do. And I will repeat my earlier statement. "If you believe in this
cause, go write your FreeBSD emulator. Otherwise stop filling my
mailbox with nonsense."
I've said about all I have to say, so unless your reply to this makes
some real claims and discusses the issues, I'm done writing on this
thread.
--
Laurence Berland, Stuyvesant HS Debate
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Windows 98: n.
useless extension to a minor patch release for
32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a
16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor,
written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for
1 bit of competition.
http://stuy.debate.net
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?3967D830.F8F0E918>