Do we need this junk?

Ed Schouten ed at
Fri Apr 6 15:35:02 UTC 2007

* Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton at> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Ed Schouten <ed at> wrote:
> >* Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton at> wrote:
> >> Well based on the stats I've posted maybe it's time to split FreeBSD
> >> i386 into two platforms, one for embedded/legacy systems and one for
> >> modern systems? The needs for each type of system are diametrically
> >> opposed, and the modern ones make up the majority of deployed systems.
> >> Perhaps FreeBSD i786 or IA32, with the minimum target being a
> >> Willamette based Pentium 4, aka SSE2?
> >
> >So what's the practical advantage of that? That would only break stuff.
> >Compiling a kernel without these options practically does the same
> >thing.
> >
> Break what?

Renaming a platform is the root of all evil. Think about the big amount
of ports and source code that just check for $arch == "i386". That's the
reason the i386 port is still named i386, though it doesn't even support
i386 at all (got removed in 6.x).

> The primary reason for doing this is optimization and simplification
> of support / development.

Indeed. You'll simplify development, because half of the developers is
unable to run the bloody thing. Just run FreeBSD/amd64 if the legacy
bits upset you.

 Ed Schouten <ed at>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list