Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:08:43 +0000
From:      Scott Mitchell <scott@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
To:        Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Licia <licia@o-o.org>, "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@u.washington.edu>
Cc:        advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, not-jordan-hubbard@nowhere
Subject:   Re: Let's nail some things down.
Message-ID:  <19981029100843.F9354@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <19981029161049.Q25247@freebie.lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Thu, Oct 29, 1998 at 04:10:49PM %2B1030
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810281808020.7221-100000@s8-37-26.student.washington.edu> <Pine.BSF.3.96.981028205707.13136A-100000@o-o> <19981029161049.Q25247@freebie.lemis.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 29, 1998 at 04:10:49PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 October 1998 at 21:00:15 -0600, Licia wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Jason C. Wells wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Greg Lehey wrote:
> >>> It's too early to cast them in stone.  In addition, we haven't looked
> >>> at the third category, the "not FreeBSD, but vendor supplies
> >>> installation aids for FreeBSD users".
> >>
> >> If the vendor built binaries for us and provides the install aids,then my
> >> vote is that that is still "Designed for".
> >>
> >> Now that you have mentioned it. Perhaps "Designed for" is a bit
> >> presumptuous. Any better ideas?
> >>
> >> "FreeBSD Native" is good but perhaps nerdy.
> >
> > Perhaps to cover all three major cases, there could be three labels?
> >
> > FreeBSD Native     : runs without emulation
> > FreeBSD Compatible : runs with emulation, no or trivial effort needed
> > FreeBSD Adaptible  : runs with emulation, non trivial work needed
> 
> A good start.  At least the categories are easy to understand.  We
> need to consider whether the words "native", "compatible" and
> "adaptable" create the same impression on a potential buyer as they do
> on us.  Any other ideas?

Sorry to step into this so late, but: I think anyone seeing one of these
logos on a box in a store probably isn't going to know or care about the
difference between 'native', 'compatible' and 'adaptable'.  They want to
know that it will run on their machine without any major screwing around.
I agree that there should be a separate higher level of certification for
vendors who bother to produce a FreeBSD-native version, but if something
requires more than (maybe) downloading a port to get it working, then does
it really deserve to be certified?

I suspect (although maybe I'm being unfair) that the kind of person who
cares about "Works with..." logos isn't the type to spend hours fiddling
around just to get a piece of software installed.

Just my 2p worth.

	Scott

-- 
===========================================================================
Scott Mitchell          | PGP Key ID |"If I can't have my coffee, I'm just 
<scott@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>   | 0x54B171B9 | like a dried up piece of roast goat"
QMW College, London, UK | 0xAA775B8B |     -- J. S. Bach.

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?19981029100843.F9354>