OK, but it makes sense to me that for certain applications, it makes sense
to utilize the old hardware since it is still readily available and cheap.
In particular, why not install FreeBSD on i386 for use in routers?  In
many cases there is a negligible performance advantage from using faster
CPU's.  Sure, we can build our own kernels for such applications, but if
there is an i386 kernel available, it's a plus for FreeBSD in my opinion.
Otherwise I would be inclined to try to put together a "distribution" of
FreeBSD optimized for low-end systems.  But I suspect PicoBSD already
fits that requirement.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Will Andrews wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 09:16:14AM -0500, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
> > Wont this make installing using sysinstall a bit hard? I know the generic
> > kernel includes all the CPU lines, so that all cpu's are recognized... so
> > are you going to just take this line out of the generic kernel, and have a
> > special kern.flp disk with a generic kernel that only has the i386 support
> > in it?
> I don't think it's worth the effort.  By the time 5.0-RELEASE goes out,
> the 386 will have been around for over 10 years (actually I think it has
> already reached that point and gone beyond).  There are not likely to be
> many more installs of FreeBSD on 386's, let alone 5.x installs.
> People who *really* want to install 5.x on a 386 can generate their own
> kernel and such.
> -- 
> wca

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to