Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:51:01 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability Message-ID: <76C52A35-1C49-4720-A8E2-B9A383F6FCF2@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <1BD6D137-8BBD-4EBE-A5B0-3B716B78BA08@mac.com> 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> <8A69DE05-A433-4D40-8E63-8F06215606F2@samsco.org> <4D2602E8.6080609@bsdimp.com> <1BD6D137-8BBD-4EBE-A5B0-3B716B78BA08@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 6, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >=20 > On Jan 6, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 >> On 01/05/2011 21:00, Scott Long wrote: >>> 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. >>=20 >> Yes. I've been on the inside of a few of them, even seeing some = business case figures. These usually say that for the segment that = company X is going after for product Y can sell 1000 units to customer W = and another Z000 to the market as it emerges over the next 2 years. = 1000 units gets them $200k profit, development costs are $100k for = developer time, test time, etc. Z is large, so potential revenue form = this project is in the millions, with a guaranteed small initial profit. = Decision: go. >=20 > But one cannot ignore the fact that a compatibility layer allows = companies > to support FreeBSD at lower development cost by eliminating the native = port > and instead just focus on the qualifying their Linux support within = the > emulation layer. If decisions are purely cost/benefit, then a = compatibility > layer reduces the cost, hence increases the benefit so if FreeBSD is = at all > a consideration, it will be through emulation. >=20 > Is this what we want promote? >=20 > Also, the experience that you and Scott have may be biased. You won't = want > to work for a company that is inherently Linux centric, right? = Likewise, > Linux-centric companies may be more interested in hiring Linux hackers = and > not FreeBSD hackers, right? So, doesn't that mean that your experience = is > ipso facto biased towards the companies that would even consider = FreeBSD > to begin with? > What about those companies that couldn't care less about FreeBSD? = Those > for which cost and benefit are absolutes? > I very much doubt that they are going to invest in an entirely new OS = -- > in order to support it natively, when their Linux-centric development = teams > can do the same using emulation? >=20 > What I'm saying is this: do we really have an abjective view or are we > biased towards FreeBSD-friendliness simply because we are FreeBSD = hackers > discussing on a FreeBSD email list and working for companies that like > FreeBSD in some form or shape? >=20 > Are we therefore the right people to argue whether Linux KPI emulation = is > good or bad for FreeBSD in the long run? >=20 > I'm indecisive. It may be a damned if you do and damned if you don't > kind of scenario. If that's the case, I'd rather be damned without it = :-) >=20 There's a lot to this email that is silly, ignorant, and frustrating. = I'm bowing out of the discussion. Go on and build your walls around = FreeBSD and burn the bridges. Or don't. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?76C52A35-1C49-4720-A8E2-B9A383F6FCF2>