From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 9 21:44:19 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 62DB716A4CE for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:44:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from just.puresimplicity.net (just.puresimplicity.net [140.177.207.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976F543D09 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:44:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hemi@puresimplicity.net) Received: from just.puresimplicity.net (localhost.puresimplicity.net [127.0.0.1])hBA5iEFm058887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:44:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from hemi@just.puresimplicity.net) Received: (from hemi@localhost) by just.puresimplicity.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id hBA5iEE3058886; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:44:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from hemi) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:44:14 -0600 From: Josh Tolbert To: eqe@cox.net Message-ID: <20031210054413.GA58841@just.puresimplicity.net> References: <200312092243.02269.eqe@cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312092243.02269.eqe@cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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 05:44:19 -0000 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. > > BTW to all the alpha people don't flame me flame compaq and dec for > selling it to them!! > > Sign, > Eriq lamar Why support 386/486/586? Intel (AMD, others as well) aren't really doing much to further those versions of the architecture along, so why bother continuing to support them? Why bother supporting the lower-end UltraSPARCs, considering Sun will probably drop support for them a few versions (if not the next version) of Solaris down the road? Hell, why don't we stop supporting PS/2 peripherals, since the trend for input devices seems to be moving towards USB? You're going with a slippery-slope type argument. If everyone went with your train of thought FreeBSD itself would be a lot more limited than it is today. It would only run on the current platforms that have a future. Are all of your machines i686 or better? A lot of people have put a lot of effort in to making the Alpha port of FreeBSD what it is today. You're doing those that have contributed to the Alpha port (and FreeBSD in general, cause I'm certain some of the things written for Alpha have found their way in to the other platforms) an extreme disservice by saying they are wasting their time keeping up the Alpha port. People work on what they like to do for FreeBSD. If people want to keep working on the Alpha port, that's great. No, there's not a lot of future left for the architecture. The writing is on the wall, but some would say the same thing for sun4u. However, there's still lots of Alpha users running FreeBSD (as evidenced by this list) and the continuing Alpha development for FreeBSD. If you don't want to do any more Alpha development, don't. Just don't tell everyone else the work they are doing is basically pointless. To the rest of the list: sorry, I probably got a bit out-of-line... Josh -- Josh Tolbert hemi@puresimplicity.net || http://www.puresimplicity.net/~hemi/