Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:31:59 -0500 From: "Nikolas Britton" <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> To: "Ed Schouten" <ed@fxq.nl> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Do we need this junk? Message-ID: <ef10de9a0704060731l71186e1duea689617af407f4b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070406142326.GC6950@hoeg.nl> References: <ef10de9a0704050258l4ea754b3n99a1239a81b844a0@mail.gmail.com> <20070405103708.GC842@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <ef10de9a0704050839g7b873dabw5a5e211140781781@mail.gmail.com> <20070405.140109.39240822.imp@bsdimp.com> <ef10de9a0704060715s6b5957daq2fe8a465362e3446@mail.gmail.com> <20070406142326.GC6950@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/6/07, Ed Schouten <ed@fxq.nl> wrote: > * Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well based on the stats I've posted maybe it's time to split FreeBSD > > i386 into two platforms, one for embedded/legacy systems and one for > > modern systems? The needs for each type of system are diametrically > > opposed, and the modern ones make up the majority of deployed systems. > > Perhaps FreeBSD i786 or IA32, with the minimum target being a > > Willamette based Pentium 4, aka SSE2? > > So what's the practical advantage of that? That would only break stuff. > Compiling a kernel without these options practically does the same > thing. > Break what? The primary reason for doing this is optimization and simplification of support / development.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ef10de9a0704060731l71186e1duea689617af407f4b>