On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:05:47PM +0000, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > In fact, to everybody else who is reading this, doesn't it just point out
> > that 486 support is, effectively, already broken, (as I suspected),
> > because the devices that typically go with machines of that era are
> > suffering bit-rot in the tree?
> Absolutely not. First, 80486 support is not broken (but an FPU is
> required);

You mis-understand, I am fully aware that the CPU itself is fully
supported - my point was that it's likely that any 486 as a whole
is more than likely to contain hardware that has issues which are
going un-noticed because people are not using the code.

> second, isa drivers receiving few, if any, attention, doesn't
> mean they are no longer working.

Where did I claim that, exactly?

> Ever heard of `if it ain't broke, don't
> touch it'?

Well, maybe Alexey would have been happy for somebody to touch his
SCSI driver and fix it, why don't you do it for him?  Somebody
broke it almost 20 releases ago, and guess what, from what I can
gather it's still broken.

So, if it IS broken, DO fix it.

> Or are you just trolling for the sake of it?

I didn't expect that from you, frankly.  Other people have been
rude to me off-list, but I thought you were above that.

Really, this community has an attitude problem - and you *need*
more developers, believe me, you shouldn't be trying to scare
them away.


Reply via email to