Do we need this junk?
lists at jnielsen.net
Thu Apr 5 18:51:20 UTC 2007
On Thursday 05 April 2007 11:39:41 am Nikolas Britton wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au> wrote:
> > [-stable removed since it's not relevant there]
> > On 2007-Apr-05 04:58:17 -0500, Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton at gmail.com>
> > >Can anything in the list below be removed from CURRENT?
> > >
> > >legacyfree1# cd dev/
> > >legacyfree1# grep -irsn isa ./ | grep -i include
> > ...
> > >legacyfree1# grep -irsn mca ./ | grep -i include
> > ...
> > Why do you believe anything in the list might need to be removed?
> I'd like to also add that 6-STABLE should be the last branch to support:
> 1. ISA / EISA
> 2. PC98 Platform.
> 3. i486
> 4. i586
> 98.83% of us have at least a i686 and 62.6% of us have at least a i786
> (SSE2) processor.
> Arch Break Down
> i386 5586 94.02%
> amd64 305 5.13%
> sparc64 30 0.50%
> x86 Break Down:
> i486 30 0.074%
> ??? 51 0.125%
> i586 404 0.995%
> i686 14724 36.230%
> i786 25431 62.576%
> Tot: 40640 100%
> data provided by bsdstats.org
Age alone is a lousy reason to drop support for any given piece of hardware.
In fact, I consider the fact that it will install & run on whatever
secondhand hardware you might happen to run across to be a major selling
point of FreeBSD. As long as it's inclusion doesn't hamper advancements in
other areas and there is someone to maintain it, support for more hardware
new or old is always a good thing IMO. If you don't want to use it, take it
out of your kernel config. The point of GENERIC is to cover as many different
hardware setups as is reasonable, with emphasis on storage and network
devices (without which it's difficult if not impossible to bootstrap or
update a system). If you don't want to use the support then build a custom
kernel without it. (But you don't lose much by leaving it alone.)
The numbers on bsdstats.org, while useful in demonstrating that there are _at
least_ a given number of machines using certain hardware, should probably not
be relied upon at this point for any other conclusions, especially regarding
the (unknown but certainly a majority) portion of machines that are not
In any case, patches speak louder than words. If you wanted to work on
producing a highly functional legacy-free kernel tree (which maybe you are,
for your unspecified new architecture mentioned in another thread), I'm sure
that your work would not be ill-received.
More information about the freebsd-current