Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:30:42 -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:  <4.3.2.7.2.20000708162010.050e5da0@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <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
At 03:06 PM 7/8/2000, Thomas M. Sommers wrote:

> 
>> 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.

I should have made myself more clear. It may not be generally true
that FreeBSD users will avoid running the Linux binary under
emulation. And every one that DOES run the Linux under emulation
provides a sixfold reward to the developer for NOT doing the port:

a) S/he saved the trouble of creating a new SKU;
b) S/he saved the expense of stocking inventory of that SKU;
c) S/he saved the non-recurring cost of engineering the port;
d) S/he can devote scarce engineering resources to a different port
   (i.e. to a platform where emulation was not available);
d) S/he saved the recurring costs associated with supporting the port;

and 

e) S/he saved the recurring costs associated with marketing the port.

>If it's being used as an excuse, then developers will just find some
>other way to rationalize not porting to FreeBSD.

See the six factors above.

>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. 

I did not say that the absence of such support would cause the ports
to be made. One still must conquer what Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
called the "applications barrier to entry."  However, without an
emulator, market forces would have their chance to work in favor of 
the port as the installed base increased. Having emulation 
short-circuits them.

>There are too many other factors at work, such as limited development
>resources.

Indeed; see above. It doesn't sound as if we disagree here.

--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?4.3.2.7.2.20000708162010.050e5da0>