From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 9 20:29:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E2516A4CE for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:29:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from lakemtao01.cox.net (lakemtao01.cox.net [68.1.17.244]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC1143D21 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:29:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eqe@cox.net) Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([68.110.209.157]) by lakemtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20031210042933.HYEJ23168.lakemtao01.cox.net@[192.168.0.101]> for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:29:33 -0500 From: Eriq Lamar To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20031210035325.GA34845@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200312092243.02269.eqe@cox.net> <20031210035325.GA34845@dragon.nuxi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Dark Ronin Message-Id: <1071030635.14355.7.camel@merlin> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:30:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: why support alpha?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:29:35 -0000 On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 22:53, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 10:43:02PM -0500, eqe@cox.net wrote: > > Isn't alpha dead? Why bother supporting them in 5.2 it seems like wasted > > energy. Yes people still use it but for them there is 4.9 which works > > fine. You could better serve the freebsd community by focusing on the > > future of computing like amd64, great dual support, better drivers, etc. > > and most people know this, so why not let alpha die. I personally like > > alpha but it has no future. > > > What is the purpose of this email?!? 1. why not read the message body I think I explained it in plain english. > So what's your point? 2. for my point read 1.