> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:09:14 -0400
> From: Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:13, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:20:27 -0400
> >> From: Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com>
> >>
> >> These isa devs are already disabled and not particularly popular among
> >> our users.  affected: tcic, sea, wds, eg, el
> > 
> > The reason these devices are disabled is probably that their probe
> > routines are destructive.  So the fact that they are disabled doesn't
> > necessarily mean that they don't work properly.
> > 
> > I don't think maintaining these drivers is currently a huge burden on
> > us.  But decoupling them from the build will almost certainly lead to
> > some degree of bitrot.
> Perfection is achieved when there's nothing left to take away. :)
> It's not so much that we spend time maintaining the source, but I do
> spend time compiling it. And I have to download it (3 times!) every
> time I install a new snapshot. Cumulatively, I've probably spent hours
> of my life waiting for these drivers' bits to go from here to there. I
> will selfishly claim that if I save five minutes of time this year by
> not compiling these files, that right there is more benefit than
> retaining support.
> I targeted disabled devices figuring they were least likely to be
> missed, but I honestly question the utility of any of these ISA
> network and SCSI drivers. They're going to be slow as shit. Besides,
> at this point, due to adding so many new drivers (kernel size has
> more than doubled in last ten years) the minimum RAM requirement is
> basically past ISA only machines. The segment of machines that lack
> PCI but support 32M or more of RAM is very narrow. And unlike sparc or
> vax, I don't think running OpenBSD on some ancient 486 is historically
> interesting.

Probably true.  I'm not necessarily opposed.  Although it would make
me sad if we didn't run on a machine that some other OS would still

Reply via email to