Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:04:51 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> To: Jim Bryant <kc5vdj@yahoo.com> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Headsup! KSE Nay-sayers speak up! Message-ID: <20010827230451.A14269@freebie.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <3B8AB4F3.1000208@yahoo.com>; from kc5vdj@yahoo.com on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:00:35PM -0500 References: <XFMail.010827103921.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <p05101002b7b04870eb2b@[128.113.24.47]> <3B8AAEC6.7050302@yahoo.com> <200108272042.f7RKgnT24926@earth.backplane.com> <3B8AB4F3.1000208@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:00:35PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote: > > > Matt Dillon wrote: > > > :> and preferably on more than the i386 platform. If we are going to > > :> be serious about supporting more hardware platforms, then we have > > :> to start treating them more seriously when major changes like this > > :> come along. If we can't get some broader testing of this done in ... > That's about what I thought it would be... > > If the other archetectures are so flaky right now under FreeBSD, then maybe some people are barking up the wrong tree when it comes > to opposing KSE integration using the other archetectures as the crux of their argument. Sounds like they need to be kicking some > butts to catch up with the pack! > > Testing should be across the board, but I don't see any reason why, if the maintainers of the other archetectures are so behind on > other tasks that they can't have a seperate, later, 5.0-RELEASE for them. We shouldn't sacrifice intel functionality for timetable > slippage on the other archetectures, and honestly, that's how I'm reading the arguments against... Again, I could be wrong, but... You are. This is a far to simplistic (and IMHO quite rude) approach to the non-x86 work that has been done over time. > Of course, we could always end up like NetBSD, with a development cycle that makes FreeBSD's current cycle look fast, only because > of support for all of the different archetectures. No offense to the NetBSD'ers out there, NetBSD is a fine OS, but my point is > that FreeBSD is [or was] a different paradigm, primarily [but not exclusively] intel. You seem to have missed the advent of arm, sparc64, powerpc ports for FreeBSD. -- | / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands email: wilko@FreeBSD.org |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010827230451.A14269>