* 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. -- Ed Schouten <ed_at_fxq.nl> WWW: http://g-rave.nl/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:07 UTC