On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:00:35PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
> Matt Dillon wrote:
> > :> and preferably on more than the i386 platform.  If we are going to
> > :> be serious about supporting more hardware platforms, then we have
> > :> to start treating them more seriously when major changes like this
> > :> come along.  If we can't get some broader testing of this done in


> That's about what I thought it would be...
> If the other archetectures are so flaky right now under FreeBSD, then maybe some 
>people are barking up the wrong tree when it comes 
> to opposing KSE integration using the other archetectures as the crux of their 
>argument.  Sounds like they need to be kicking some 
> butts to catch up with the pack!
> Testing should be across the board, but I don't see any reason why, if the 
>maintainers of the other archetectures are so behind on 
> other tasks that they can't have a seperate, later, 5.0-RELEASE for them.  We 
>shouldn't sacrifice intel functionality for timetable 
> slippage on the other archetectures, and honestly, that's how I'm reading the 
>arguments against...  Again, I could be wrong, but...

You are. This is a far to simplistic (and IMHO quite rude) approach to the
non-x86 work that has been done over time.

> Of course, we could always end up like NetBSD, with a development cycle that makes 
>FreeBSD's current cycle look fast, only because 
> of support for all of the different archetectures.  No offense to the NetBSD'ers out 
>there, NetBSD is a fine OS, but my point is 
> that FreeBSD is [or was] a different paradigm, primarily [but not exclusively] intel.

You seem to have missed the advent of arm, sparc64, powerpc ports for FreeBSD.

|   / o / /  _          Arnhem, The Netherlands         email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte   

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

Reply via email to