Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:13:25 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Ed Schouten <ed@fxq.nl> Subject: Re: Do we need this junk? Message-ID: <46166395.9090000@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <ef10de9a0704060731l71186e1duea689617af407f4b@mail.gmail.com> References: <ef10de9a0704050258l4ea754b3n99a1239a81b844a0@mail.gmail.com> <20070405103708.GC842@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <ef10de9a0704050839g7b873dabw5a5e211140781781@mail.gmail.com> <20070405.140109.39240822.imp@bsdimp.com> <ef10de9a0704060715s6b5957daq2fe8a465362e3446@mail.gmail.com> <20070406142326.GC6950@hoeg.nl> <ef10de9a0704060731l71186e1duea689617af407f4b@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nikolas Britton wrote: > On 4/6/07, Ed Schouten <ed@fxq.nl> wrote: >> * Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@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? The primary reason for doing this is optimization and > simplification of support / development. Your input on the development process of FreeBSD has been received and will be filed for future consideration. Thank you for your concern. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46166395.9090000>