Do we need this junk?

[Scott Long]

Ed Schouten wrote:
> * Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/6/07, Ed Schouten <ed at fxq.nl> wrote:
>>> * Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton at gmail.com> 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.

Scott