Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:34:09 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu>, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: I386_CPU Message-ID: <200101180634.f0I6Y9s43405@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:16:18 EST." <20010117191618.K1761@puck.firepipe.net> References: <20010117191618.K1761@puck.firepipe.net> <200101160947.f0G9lKs11014@mobile.wemm.org> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101160915000.18917-100000@rac5.wam.umd.edu> <20010116092843.A1858@puck.firepipe.net> <20010117162115.C7752@sydney.worldwide.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010117191618.K1761@puck.firepipe.net> Will Andrews writes: : Of course. But of these people, which really need 5.x's features over : 4.x? Plus they can still compile I386_CPU by itself, which I'm sure : they already do to keep the kernel size as small as possible. That's a red herring. The new features thing is what I mean. If I were creating a product, I'd want one that is supported. So even if I don't *NEED* a feature in 5.x, I might migrate my product to 5.x so that I can continue to get bug fixes and leverage more support than I can get with an older rev. One of the 5.x features might well be a new compiler. I don't see that sort of thing being back ported to 4.x at this point. That's one of the big reasons that we're 4.x based right now rather than 3.x based, despite 4.x's slightly larger memory footprint. That and 4.x's much better c++ compiler. So it isn't as simple as you are trying to paint it. Warner 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?200101180634.f0I6Y9s43405>