Do we need this junk?
nikolas.britton at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 18:36:32 UTC 2007
On 4/6/07, Scott Long <scottl at samsco.org> wrote:
> 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.
Where is this coming from? I'm trying to debate some of the issues
with FreeBSD and the only thing you've added to this thread is fuck
More information about the freebsd-current