From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Oct 2 20:12:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17945 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:12:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mailgw01.execpc.com (mailgw01.execpc.com [169.207.2.78]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA17934 for ; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:12:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fpawlak@execpc.com) Received: from darkstar.connect.com (fpawlak@ferengal-1-7.mdm.mke.execpc.com [169.207.128.7]) by mailgw01.execpc.com (8.9.0) id WAA21227; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:12:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from fpawlak@localhost) by darkstar.connect.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA11730; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:12:05 -0500 Message-ID: <19981002221204.C11661@execpc.com> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:12:04 -0500 From: Frank Pawlak To: Brett Glass Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Device Drivers for Linux and Intel's annoucement References: <23307.907176696@time.cdrom.com> <4.1.19981002190913.040f3b60@mail.lariat.org> <36158AD6.811BD16E@u.washington.edu> <4.1.19981002202119.040f7c30@mail.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981002202119.040f7c30@mail.lariat.org>; from Brett Glass on Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 08:29:21PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 08:29:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > At 07:24 PM 10/2/98 -0700, dmorrisn wrote: > >> History has proven exactly the opposite. The introduction of Windows > >> application support in OS/2 actually accelerated its demise. If FreeBSD > >> starts billing itself as "a better Linux than Linux" it will fall into > >> precisely the same trap and will never catch up. > > > >That is a rhetorical fallacy. (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc -- "After > >this therefore because of this") > > No fallacy at all. It's been proven again and again that emulating another > OS that's more popular provides the ultimate disincentive to developers. > OS/2 is only one recent case in point. > > Look at it from the developer's point of view. Why EVER develop a native > FreeBSD version of any product if one can just do a Linux version? > > So, FreeBSD's name never appears on the box. Tech support for commercial > products is unavailable when they run under FreeBSD, while they're well > supported under Linux. Linux gets the mindshare and FreeBSD becomes known > as an unsupported also-ran. > > I watched this happen with OS/2. I couldn't even get support for WINDOWS > apps running under OS/2, much less get native versions that were any > good. > > >The reason OS/2 died was because IBM and Microsoft couldn't get along. > >That's why Microsoft cut them off. > > The Linux camp doesn't exactly get along with FreeBSD either. They trash > it constantly. > > --Brett Brett, you are exactly on target. But I am afraid that you are just pissing against the wind. I like you, am convinced that there is an economic issue that is holding FreeBSD back in the market place. -- --Frank "At no time is the freedom of speech more precious then when a man hits his thumb with a hammer." --Marshall Lumsden To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message