From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 01:45:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB77016A4CE; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:45:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815D943D2D; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:45:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 0EC22148D7; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:45:23 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:45:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: David Schultz In-Reply-To: <20041019215007.GA13217@VARK.MIT.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG cc: John Baldwin cc: "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:45:24 -0000 On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, David Schultz wrote: > Yes, and very few of those [embedded systems] folks are likely to want > a relatively large, non-realtime, monolithic, multi-threaded OS kernel, > much less a userland that even vaguely resembles a standard FreeBSD > installation. I think it's fair to ask, are there any such people (e.g. using FreeBSD on embedded systems)? I mean, my background includes a lot of embedded systems work so I'm biased towards it, but there is also no point in trying to optimize FreeBSD for a null set of users. (That's what the ports tree is for. Hey, don't throw that 386 box at me!) > \me can't wait for the day when developers are no longer required > to spend time and effort to support anything older than a PPro. How much of the source base has code specific to that case? Well, in some ways, all of this is probably just jumping the gun on a wider discussion of what we want 6.x to be. I'm hoping that that will start fairly soon after 5.3 goes out the door ... mcl