On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:34:09PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> 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.
I see. I guess that makes sense, although I don't see support for 4.x
dropping until sometime in 2003 (speaking in terms of the FreeBSD
Project, not necessarily commercial shops like BSDI).
> 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.
Well, Warner, I've never done embedded systems. So, tell me, do they
actually use any C++ code in embedded systems? C++ has a rather high
overhead as far as disk space & memory goes. I would imagine that 99%+
of embedded systems do not use C++ code except perhaps for a very small
amount of the code.
--
wca
#include <std/disclaimer.h>: Not speaking for FreeBSD, just myself.
PGP signature
