Do we need this junk?

Scott Long scottl at
Fri Apr 6 15:42:45 UTC 2007

Ed Schouten wrote:
> * 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.

Better yet, there are plenty of hobby OS's like DragonFlyBSD that have
taken deliberate steps to remove "useless bits".  I suggest Nikolas
dictate development practices to them instead of us.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list