Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:58:33 -0600 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BSDInstall: merging to HEAD Message-ID: <E173EC03-1A94-493B-A70F-D5171CCCCB33@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <7029F1A3-87A2-4203-840C-48B712EA70B8@mac.com> References: <4D309563.1000404@freebsd.org> <7029F1A3-87A2-4203-840C-48B712EA70B8@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 14, 2011, at 19:31 , Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Jan 14, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > >> The final architecture on which we use sysinstall, ia64, is currently unsupported, because I don't know how to set up booting on those systems -- patches to solve this are very much welcome. > > Don't let this stop you. I'll work with you on this after the dust > has settled. Just out of random curiosity. Seriously. Exactly why, short of "of course it runs", in which case NetBSD is --> way, why are we even trying to handle ia64 as a platform, regardless of tier, when it is patently obvious that it is going absolutely _nowhere_ in terms of a viable platform? I ask the question in all seriousness. Ports/Packages, well, a decent amount of them won't work on anything less than (i386|amd64) but that's nothing new. But even spending time building them for, what, the <200 (I'm being generous) folks that run FreeBSD/ia64. We _have_ a 64-bit platform. It's /amd. The fact that even as we speak, random chip manufacturers are banging out new P4/Xeon processors conforming to this standard, years after they had a vague chance to steal the server market, indicates that this line is dead. _dead_. DEAD. At least I can pick up a box for <$50 from ebay and run /sparc64 on it. Say the same for /ia64? Didn't think so. Nuke it. From orbit. With extreme prejudice. -aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E173EC03-1A94-493B-A70F-D5171CCCCB33>