From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Jul 8 15:31: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6162837B51A; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 15:31:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06419; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:30:48 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000708162010.050e5da0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:30:42 -0600 To: "Thomas M. Sommers" From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Emulation (Was: No port of Opera?) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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