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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46166395.9090000>