Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:11:15 -0600 From: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, mjacob@feral.com, Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl>, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: Removing support for TurboChannel machines from -current Message-ID: <20010729171115.A75235@panzer.kdm.org> In-Reply-To: <3B6472CD.CA7AEF89@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 01:32:13PM -0700 References: <200107282113.f6SLDXJ02660@mass.dis.org> <3B6472CD.CA7AEF89@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 13:32:13 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Mike Smith wrote: > > > Let's not chase away someone who might take you up on your > > > offer in the future by deleting the existing code today. > > > > I disagree here. I'd much rather chase these hypothetical individuals > > away, or at least offer them a more useful and relevant alternative. > > The reductio ad absurdum of your argument is obvious: > > "So how about we do away with the x86 code, and let > them use Linux or Windows 2000, since there's more > software available for either of them?" > > > > What does diking out the code buy you, apart from less code > > > in a checked out source tree, a bigger Attic, and a large > > > CVSsup/CTM delta for everyone to have to swallow? > > > > It takes away the "moral high ground" perceived by persons such as > > yourself to perpetuate support for, or argue against changes which > > prejudice, obsolete, unused and irrelevant hardware. > > You mean like when Garret Wollman changed the routing code, > and didn't update the X.25 code or the ISODE code, and so > broke both of them? > > Or you mean like the Adaptec 1540/1542/1740/1742 were orphaned > for a long time, after the "CAM of Worms". Watch your examples. I think you mean the 1520/1522. The aha and ahb drivers were committed on September 15, 1998, along with the rest of CAM. Luoqi committed the aic(4) driver a little over a year later. (I'm glad someone decided to write it.) > I view this as a maintenance issue. > > This is really a wierd conversation to be having on the -alpha > list, considering the Alpha is all but dead itself, now that > Compaq has rolled over for Intel -- it is the epitomy, now, of > "obsolete, unused and irrelevant hardware". > > > > We don't support the TC machines. It's foolish to pretend > > otherwise, and simply makes for distractions at various levels. > > The code should go. > > The code is not used unless it's optioned in; why dike out > something which is harmless? I don't see you getting a "moral > high ground" out of the act, I just see you attacking the size > of the potential user base for FreeBSD. FWIW, I've got a borrowed (the owner doesn't want it back) DEC 3000/120 box. At one point a couple of years ago, I started work on an esp driver for CAM, but never got around to finishing it. Anyway, I guess my take on this whole thing is I would rather leave the TC code in the tree, just in case I or someone else come along and feel like making it work. (The box boots diskless just fine, it's just the SCSI controller that isn't supported.) I don't feel too strongly about it, though, I can always run NetBSD on the box. Ken -- Kenneth Merry ken@kdm.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010729171115.A75235>