From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 26 17:01:08 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 4E7B416A4CE for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:01:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from thmailsite5.services.byworkwise.com (thmailsite1.services.byworkwise.com [217.28.130.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F4F43D31 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:01:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from alex@hightemplar.com) Received: from hydralisk (unverified [212.150.124.244]) by freenet.co.uk for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:48:27 +0100 From: Alex Keahan To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:50:38 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <34301.1088242340@critter.freebsd.dk> <20040626154320.BB2234AC30@fw.farid-hajji.net> <20040626161752.GA10846@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20040626161752.GA10846@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200406261950.38373.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: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:01:08 -0000 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"? Alex