Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:09:29 -0300 (ADT) From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> To: mike allison <mallison@konnections.com> Cc: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu, jkh@time.cdrom.com, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Commercial, Non-Hacker CD Distribution - A thought Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.970419160713.4592Q-100000@thelab.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <335A73EF.7CEC3527@konnections.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, mike allison wrote:
> Joel Ray Holveck wrote:
>
> >
> > Why is a BSD-specific port so important?
> >
>
>
> Because there are some fundamental differences with what will run on BSD
> and what will run on Linux when the dust settles.
>
> Applixware on Linux expects certain libraries which only some
> distributions or configurations might have. Thus ApplixWare, though
> theoretically designed for Linux, might only run on SOME linux....
>
> That's the way I see it...
Agreed...the other aspect is that if a product is compiled/ported
to BSD, it will make use of certain optimizations in BSDs libraries.
I read an article awhile back in Open Systems(tm) that talked about
Windows emulators and the major problems with them, even on Intel platforms...
mainly, the operating system has to 'decode' each line of the program and
translate it to an equivalent call in the 'native operating system', which
slows down how the program runs....
So, StarOffice for Linux running under Linux would most likely be
'faster' then being emulated under FreeBSD
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.970419160713.4592Q-100000>