From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 26 17:22:29 2004 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 4BBCB16A4CE for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:22:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from robbins.dropbear.id.au (113.a.008.mel.iprimus.net.au [210.50.86.113]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6447F43D48 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:22:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au) Received: by robbins.dropbear.id.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 76D394214; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:24:44 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:24:44 +1000 From: Tim Robbins To: Alex Keahan Message-ID: <20040626172444.GA11527@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <34301.1088242340@critter.freebsd.dk> <20040626154320.BB2234AC30@fw.farid-hajji.net> <20040626161752.GA10846@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <200406261950.38373.alex@hightemplar.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200406261950.38373.alex@hightemplar.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headed for history 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, 26 Jun 2004 17:22:29 -0000 On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 07:50:38PM +0300, Alex Keahan wrote: > On Saturday 26 Jun 2004 7:17 pm, Tim Robbins wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 05:43:20PM +0200, Cordula's Web wrote: > > > > > > - Numerous third-party applications for SCO and Solaris/x86 > > > > > > (e.g. backup solutions) > > > > > > > > > > Maple V for Solaris/x86. > > > > > > > > Is something wrong with Maple for Linux? (Which is up to version 9.5, > > > > looks as if.) > > > > > > No license. Gatuitously dropping backward compatibility support for > > > commercial software is rude, to say the least... Where was that old > > > Solaris/x86 HDD now?. Yuck. :-( > > > > No, it's realistic. Maintaining SVR4/i386 compatibility is not a good use > > of developer resources considering how few people use it. > > What happened to "if it ain't broken, don't axe it"? The kernel's internal interfaces change; security bugs are discovered. Someone has to keep the code up to date, and the people who end up doing the work are *not* the people who advocate keeping the code around. Tim