On Jan 14, 2011, at 19:31 , Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > >> The final architecture on which we use sysinstall, ia64, is currently unsupported, because I don't know how to set up booting on those systems -- patches to solve this are very much welcome. > > Don't let this stop you. I'll work with you on this after the dust > has settled. Just out of random curiosity. Seriously. Exactly why, short of "of course it runs", in which case NetBSD is --> way, why are we even trying to handle ia64 as a platform, regardless of tier, when it is patently obvious that it is going absolutely _nowhere_ in terms of a viable platform? I ask the question in all seriousness. Ports/Packages, well, a decent amount of them won't work on anything less than (i386|amd64) but that's nothing new. But even spending time building them for, what, the <200 (I'm being generous) folks that run FreeBSD/ia64. We _have_ a 64-bit platform. It's /amd. The fact that even as we speak, random chip manufacturers are banging out new P4/Xeon processors conforming to this standard, years after they had a vague chance to steal the server market, indicates that this line is dead. _dead_. DEAD. At least I can pick up a box for <$50 from ebay and run /sparc64 on it. Say the same for /ia64? Didn't think so. Nuke it. From orbit. With extreme prejudice. -aDeReceived on Sat Jan 15 2011 - 05:58:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:10 UTC