From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 3 06:16:25 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 6BC4A37B404 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 06:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from octopus.com.au (octopus.com.au [61.8.3.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B761E43FA3 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 06:16:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from duraid@octopus.com.au) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by octopus.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E11D7ACB1 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 23:16:07 +1000 (EST) Received: by octopus.com.au (Postfix, from userid 1047) id 47A44D7AB1A; Sat, 3 May 2003 23:16:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from octopus.com.au (m061-029.nv.iinet.net.au [203.217.61.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by octopus.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6347D7AB01 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 23:16:01 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3EB3C118.6020203@octopus.com.au> Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 23:16:08 +1000 From: Duraid Madina User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030502 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.3 required=7.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA version=2.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 Subject: Re: Floppy Support 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: Sat, 03 May 2003 13:16:25 -0000 Peter Schultz wrote: > Is floppy support a bad crutch for FreeBSD? Yes, it is. Given that CDRs are generally cheaper than floppy disks, and that CDR drives are cheaper than some floppy disk drives, there's really no point to using floppies. As early as 1997, Intel declared their intention to deprecate the floppy, and they've basically done it (anyone bought a laptop lately?). Anyone who wants to use floppies to install/repair FreeBSD will probably be more than happy to use 4.8, or 5.0. Indeed, the only machine I have with a floppy disk drive (a Compaq deskpro XE 560) can't even boot FreeBSD 4.x, let alone 5.x (due to a broken BIOS). On the other hand, I am unable to easily install FreeBSD on my modern (6 month old) run-of-the-mill PC, because support for my hard drive controller was only checked in a couple of days ago, but thanks to floppy-related brokenness, I haven't been able to download a snapshot ISO image. Can anyone give a *good* reason why floppies should still be supported from this point onwards? Why should we make using a recent version of FreeBSD convenient for someone with a machine so old that it can't boot from CDROM (if memory serves, it was in 1995 that this feature became widespread) or with some other aversion to CDROM hardware, while making it more difficult for someone with recent hardware? This does appear to be what FreeBSD is doing. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) Puzzled, Duraid