Re: Do we need this junk?

On 4/6/07, Scott Sipe <cscotts_at_mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Nikolas Britton wrote:
>
> > On 4/5/07, Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com> wrote:
> >> From: "Nikolas Britton" <nikolas.britton_at_gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: Do we need this junk?
> >> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:39:41 -0500
> >>
> >> > On 4/5/07, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy_at_optushome.com.au> wrote:
> >> > > [-stable removed since it's not relevant there]
> >> > >
> >> > > On 2007-Apr-05 04:58:17 -0500, Nikolas Britton
> >> <nikolas.britton_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >Can anything in the list below be removed from CURRENT?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >legacyfree1# cd dev/
> >> > > >legacyfree1# grep -irsn isa ./ | grep -i include
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >legacyfree1# grep -irsn mca ./ | grep -i include
> >> > > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > Why do you believe anything in the list might need to be removed?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to also add that 6-STABLE should be the last branch to
> >> support:
> >> > 1. ISA / EISA
> >>
> >> Not going to happen.  Maybe EISA, but certainly not ISA, as machines
> >> made today still need it.
> >>
> >> > 2. PC98 Platform.
> >>
> >> What do you care?  I mean really, what do you care here.  There are
> >> Pentium II class machines that are perfectly good in this class of
> >> machines.  I have one and it runs just fine.
> >>
> >> > 3. i486
> >>
> >> So you want to kill all the soekris boxes?  Sorry, not going to
> >> happen.
> >>
> >> > 4. i586
> >>
> >> These machines still work, and are still popular in the embedded
> >> space
> >> due to their lower power consumption.
> >>
> >> Warner
> >>
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> I was just wanted to let you know, that whoever you thought called
> you a liar earlier, absolutely did not. They just said that they
> didn't trust that the bsdstats.org statistics were representative--
> which they're not.
>

What data do you have to back that claim up? Unless you have real
quantitative data to support your claims the bsdstats.org statistics
stand as an accurate representative sample of the population... i.e.
it's *1000% better the your sample size of one.

*made up number.