cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S

[David O'Brien]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 12:00:31AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:50:07PM -0400, David Schultz wrote:
> > Yes, and very few of those folks are likely to want a relatively
> > large, non-realtime, monolithic, multi-threaded OS kernel, much
> > less a userland that even vaguely resembles a standard FreeBSD
> > installation.
> > 
> > Every time this issue comes up, someone points out that in fact,
> > FreeBSD still runs on the 80386 that they just threw out.
> > However, nobody ever presents an important reason for *wanting* to
> > run FreeBSD on an 80386.
> 
> The only reason I am not running FreeBSD on an 80386 is that the PSU in
> my 80386sx based computer gave up a few months ago (or at least
> something power-related did.) Until then I was happily running
> 4.10-stable on it and using it as a firewall/gateway.

The question isn't would someone want to run FreeBSD on an 80386.
The question is would one actually want to run RELENG_5 or 6-CURRENT on
an 80386 given how much a dog it will be.  I don't think the pro-80386
arguers have any idea how slow 5.3 is on a 80386.  I think you would have
quickly down-graded back to 4-STABLE on your 80386 after using 5.3 on it
for a week.  David Schultz summerized things nicely above.

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)