Linux kernel compatability

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Jan 6, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jeff Roberson wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 6, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Is this what we want promote?
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> Hey Marcel,

Hi jeff,

First off: thanks for a perfect response. I know my experience in this
regard is limited and I really needed to hear a bit more details than
"in my experience", followed by a claim I couldn't validate.

> My view is that companies needing a platform will reject FreeBSD for lack of features or lack of marketing clout.  Linux has a stronger brand and people may want to advertise that association.  IB is one feature that has cost us users, as is virtualization, and perhaps some driver support.

I can relate to that. Virtualization is becoming the achilles' heel
within Juniper. I can hopefully share more on that in the near
future...

> I believe FreeBSD is an organization of principals and values that make it excellent.  I understand how this is a compromise and even I myself will tell you it is.  However, we need to keep in sight that we won't all get to continue doing what we love if we don't keep working to make it as appealing as possible.  We are in every way the underdog the underdog doesn't have the clout to dictate terms.

Agreed.

FWIW: I support what you've done on this basis.

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt at mac.com