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. ScottReceived on Fri Apr 06 2007 - 13:42:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:07 UTC