On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:55:37PM -0600, Adam Thompson wrote: > On 16-01-23 08:34 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > >I will add that one of the reasons we have support for all these museum > >pieces is that people can build their very own museum and run something > >interesting on it. But running on emulators doesn't really satisfy that > >goal. If there are, in fact, no museum pieces left in the world, we no > >longer need to supply an OS to run on them. > > Huh. Previous discussions had led me to believe that the OpenBSD project's > rationale for supporting all these various architectures was that it > ultimately resulted in much-higher-quality code because platforms like VAX > and SPARC64 acted as canaries for suboptimal coding practices? (Endian > issues, stack issues, framing issues, alignment issues, etc., etc., etc.)
sparc != sparc64 Theo builds regularly sparc64 snapshots. > > Besides, I thought the run-on-everything-and-anything (including the > verging-on-absurd) was NetBSD's thing, not OpenBSD's? See > http://netbsd.org/ports/, make your own opinions on which platforms verge on > the absurd... > > -Adam > -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
