From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 27 00:05:07 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 3651A16A4CE; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:05:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD3E43D4C; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:05:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5R016Ih037024; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:01:06 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:01:23 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20040626.180123.125464951.imp@bsdimp.com> To: tjr@freebsd.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20040626161752.GA10846@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <1088262414.59825.8.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.com> <20040626154320.BB2234AC30@fw.farid-hajji.net> <20040626161752.GA10846@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cpghost@cordula.ws cc: current@freebsd.org cc: alex@hightemplar.com 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: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:05:07 -0000 In message: <20040626161752.GA10846@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> Tim Robbins writes: : 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. Unless there's someone actively maintaining it and can confirm that it still works, it is a big drag on our time. If someone is actively using the things, and can make sure things stay working, that would be different. As near as I've been able to see, no such person exists. Feel free to prove me wrong. Warner