Do we need this junk?

[Nikolas Britton]

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
off? Why?