Re: GCC withdraw

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Ian Lepore <ian_at_freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 07:39 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I had a long, rambling reply to this that corrected many of the factual
> errors made in it. But why bother. You have your world view, it doesn't
> match what people are doing today and this mismatch is going to cause
> people pain and suffering in the embedded world far beyond what you think.
> And you've shown an extreme reluctance to accept that your world view isn't
> quite right, and listen to people. This makes me sad, but I recognize a
> lost cause when I see it.
> >
> > Do whatever the fuck you want, but it won't make your arguments right.
> And it won't keep me from saying I told you so when your optimistic
> timelines don't come to fruition, or the people processors you dismiss as
> being too weak to run a full FreeBSD (despite the fact they are doing it
> today) complain about the needless pain they are going through.
> >
> > Warner
>
> Actually, I have to put a +1 on this.  I also had a long reply full of
> reality-based refutations of various "facts" from this thread, and I
> also just deleted it because clearly the discussion has become
> pointless.


I don't really have any skin in this game; the vendor I work for uses x86
hardware, and we're not ready to be running on FreeBSD 10 yet.  But as an
"old guy" I really don't see why we'd change the plan of record so late.
 Nor do I think prioritizing ports over the base system on alternate
architectures is the right play -- there's a lot of vendors who use FreeBSD
on !x86.  And there's a lot of vendors who don't use very many ports.

And there's a lot of vendors putting money into the FreeBSD foundation, and
into the hands of FreeBSD committers, to make it better.  Vendors who,
while it would be painful to switch, do have a choice of which OS to build
their product around.

Just my 2c.  Actual value may differ.

Cheers,
matthew