I absolutely agree with Jordan on this point. I'm having an increasingly
hard time keeping our lab running FreeBSD over Linux due to pressure from
higher-ups who aren't in the technical trenches with me and who don't
understand the very good technical reasons I have for running FreeBSD
here. One constant sticking point is the linux compatibility module. The
higher-ups see the word "emulator" and all manner of warning messages go
off in their uninformed heads.
In a previous e-mail on this or a related thread I saw the term:
"Linux image activator"
or something close to this pass by. I think this term gave me a much
closer feeling to what I imagine is really going on the the "linuxulator"
than the term "emulator" and all its baggage. So we could name it the
"Linux image activator" or "Lin-Axe" or some such...
Tom
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> All of this would be true if your personal definition of "emulator"
> were the prevailing one, but that is unfortunately just not the
> case. :)
>
> When the average computing public thinks of an "emulator", they think
> of something like MAME or the SNES emulator. Even the more
> compute-minded folks tend to think of BOCHS or SIMOS when they hear
> the word "emulator" and I need only point to the majority of entries
> in /usr/ports/emulators in support of this. :-) In any case, my point
> is simply that we need to be careful in our use of terminology if we
> don't want to lend the majority the impression that our linux
> "emulation" code goes through the same sorts of gyrations that MAME
> does to run linux binaries. I do get questions at trade shows all the
> time about this, and I can state without reservation that none of the
> people asking about it share Marcel's definition of the term. :)
>
> - Jordan
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
