Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:00:32 +1000 From: Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Solaris Compat? Message-ID: <1233007232.41990.18.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <497DF6A1.3020508@telenix.org> References: <1232945177.32181.27.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20090126130242.F69204@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <497DF6A1.3020508@telenix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...), > >> but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and > >> Solaris? > >> > >> Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm > >> wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types. I tried > > > > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe > > don't want to make FreeBSD binary. > > > > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product. > > They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please respect their rights! > > > > PS. Of course it's nonsense what they do, but again it's their right to > > do stupid things > > I really, really dislike the notion that any company, in the selfishly sheer > pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should > be able to do, giving that it's within the limits of the law. Not allowing one > to view many sites ISN'T within the moral control of any company, as long as you > don't violate laws in doing it. Telling me that I should respect some idiot > being able to tell me what I should or should not do with my own personal > equipment (again, as long as you stay legal) is is the worst sort of moral > cowardice. > > If you look at what Adobe is doing, they're making it obviously clear that they > don't care about you using their tools, they only don't want you to use the > operating system of your choice. And you want me to respect that, right? > Sheesh! Why is it you use FreeBSD? Isn't it obviously clear that MicroSoft > doesn't want you to? > > As long as you stay within the letter of the law, don't be so pusillanimous as > to allow *any* company to dictate your free speech. As long as you stay within > the law, then Free Speech is precisely what this all comes down to, and my > rights to use whatever operating system I care to. Same as it's Adobe's right > to refuse to support such a choice, which I agree with. But they can't tell me > what I can do on my own. > > If I misunderstood you, above, then I apologize, but if I correctly read your > meaning, then I'm sure my personal rights are important enough to me, to stay > the course here. As I said before, I didn't want to start an argument, and Adobe now don't care what system you use: just that they will only support those systems designated. If you can get linux flashplayer working on FreeBSD then thats cool- just don't go whinging to them about how to do it or fix it if it doesn't work. My interest here is that they HAVE supported Solaris (Sun's influence has finally swayed them) which, unless I'm very much mistaken, is a closer relative of FreeBSD than linux. Any further thoughts on this front?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1233007232.41990.18.camel>