From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 19 22:52:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B550416A4CE; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:52:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5857C43D41; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:52:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9JMqVtp013672; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:52:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.1/8.12.10/Submit) id i9JMqV9g013671; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:52:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:52:31 -0400 From: David Schultz To: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <20041019225231.GA13522@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20041019071102.GA49717@FreeBSD.org> <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> <200410191541.54269.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20041019215007.GA13217@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20041019220031.GA98675@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041019220031.GA98675@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:52:05 -0000 On Wed, Oct 20, 2004, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > > The only people that will seriously want to use i386 these days are > > > > the folks that build embedded systems. Those you have to build on > > > > some host then deploy to the target system. > > > > Yes, and very few of those folks are likely to want a relatively > > large, non-realtime, monolithic, multi-threaded OS kernel, much > > less a userland that even vaguely resembles a standard FreeBSD > > installation. > > > > Every time this issue comes up, someone points out that in fact, > > FreeBSD still runs on the 80386 that they just threw out. > > However, nobody ever presents an important reason for *wanting* to > > run FreeBSD on an 80386. > > The only reason I am not running FreeBSD on an 80386 is that the PSU in > my 80386sx based computer gave up a few months ago (or at least > something power-related did.) Until then I was happily running > 4.10-stable on it and using it as a firewall/gateway. Okay, so (a) your 80386 doesn't work anymore and (b) you still seem to be getting along fine without it. I maintain that it is still the case that nobody has presented a good reason why the 80386 is an important platform for future versions of FreeBSD. > If it was still working and support for FPU-less systems hadn't been > dropped I would have upgraded it to 5-STABLE eventually (along with my > main machine.) > Why would I want to use such an old machine? Easy - because I had it > and couldn't (and still can't) afford to buy a modern machine. > I am sure I am not the only one in that position. First of all, your 80386 (if it worked) would probably be much snappier running FreeBSD 3.X or 4.X or NetBSD 1.[2-5]. Second, you can purchase a Linksys gateway for $20, whereas a 386 would consume more than $20 of power in a few months. > > Nice. \me can't wait for the day when developers are no longer > > required to spend time and effort to support anything older than a PPro. > > That day will hopefully be far in the future. Personally I don't have > anything as modern as a PPro. Don't worry, it will be. I can dream, can't I?