From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan  6 04:00:55 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3565A106564A;
	Thu,  6 Jan 2011 04:00:55 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4AEB8FC12;
	Thu,  6 Jan 2011 04:00:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by pooker.samsco.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0640pNw007328;
	Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:00:51 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110106024403.GB22349@vniz.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:00:51 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A69DE05-A433-4D40-8E63-8F06215606F2@samsco.org>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031017110.1450@desktop>
	<20110103220153.69cf59e0@kan.dnsalias.net>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031859290.1450@desktop>
	<20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1101041030120.1450@desktop>
	<20110105124045.6a0ddd1a@kan.dnsalias.net>
	<20110105175926.GA2101@vniz.net>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1101051413070.1450@desktop>
	<D3E4F3D4-55FD-48B5-B175-CF152B9B3AE4@samsco.org>
	<20110106024403.GB22349@vniz.net>
To: Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.0 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on pooker.samsco.org
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 04:00:55 -0000

On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 05:17:21PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
>>> We have not been marginalized in this space because we have an =
emulator. We just don't have the marketshare in many areas.  If =
anything, these emulators improve our marketshare.
>>=20
>> I agree entirely.  Companies look at marketshare and ability to turn =
more revenue than costs (i.e. profit).  Like Jeff, I've had my share of =
dealing with companies who have made a conscious to support or not =
support FreeBSD based on those factors.  Petitions and letters sound =
great on Slashdot, but don't work in the real world.  Emulation =
increases marketshare.
>=20
> Emulation decreases our marketshare, presenting us like=20
> not-so-good-but-trying Linux clone, so, for this reason alone, every=20=

> serious company will put its money on Linux product running on real =
Linux=20
> instead of thinking about porting it into FreeBSD.
>=20

I'm sorry, this simply hasn't been true in my experience.  I've worked =
with companies that have decided to support FreeBSD, and I've worked =
with companies that have decided not to support FreeBSD.  Emulation has =
never been used as an excuse to not support FreeBSD.  It's purely a =
cost/benefit decision.

Scott