Linux kernel compatability

Andrey Chernov ache at FreeBSD.ORG
Wed Jan 5 18:19:24 UTC 2011


On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:40:45PM -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> > I have heard this argument about the linuxulator and what we're
> > really talking about is slipping FreeBSD marketshare.  I don't share
> > the view that the linuxulator futhered this slip but rather my view
> > is that it allows us to stay relevant in areas where companies can
> > not justify an independent FreeBSD effort.  Adobe is a good example
> > of this.
> > 
> 
> It compounded the Adobe's reluctance to work on portable flash player.

I agree with Alexander even more. We don't need _any_ Linux emulator in 
the tree and even in the ports. Flash player is a good example of how 
Linux emulator is harmful: instead of sending tons of complaints to Adobe 
to force them to make native FreeBSD version, users tends to install Flash 
via emulator and got all its pain as result. 

BTW, I have nothing against having source level Linux compatibility in 
some places, because resulting binary will be FreeBSD one in any case, but 
I'm strongly against executable binary compatibility level. 

-- 
http://ache.vniz.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20110105/5d3af8e0/attachment.pgp


More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list