> Soekris NET4501 are still in use, and they are based upon 80486 cores. > `Key' ISA devices such as wdc are still heavily tested as pcmcia or such > attachments on i386 and non-i386 platforms. Other devices such as > com(4), pckbc(4), still exist on many systems, even if they are no > longer on extension boards. Even boards such as ISA xl(4) or eg(4) > receive occasional testing several times a year.
I think I clearly implied that some of the 'Key' ISA devices would have to stay, when I said '99% of the ISA-related code'. I never said, ISA can cease to exist, nor that 486 support should be removed now. What you're suggesting is a small part of the ISA code in the tree. ...and note that I've been working on the pckbc code for the last couple of weeks, so I should be fully aware of it's existance. Don't worry, I won't bother you with any patches, I know you ignored the last one, even though I fixed it as you mentioned. > > > second, isa drivers receiving few, if any, attention, doesn't > > > mean they are no longer working. > > > > Where did I claim that, exactly? > > ``broken (as I suspected)'', followed by ``suffering bit-rot'' does not > exactly convey the idea of something in working condition, does it? Why is Alexey's HP Netserver running NetBSD, then? You've just had it pointed out to you in another post that there are dregs of the Token Ring support still in the GENERIC config - how many eyes are actually looking at this code? Who claimed that my repeat key patch broke something that was already broken? My comments of broken and suffering bit-rot don't apply to all ISA code, but certainly do to some of it. > > > 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. > > I remember very well ahc(4) being broken on older chips for a couple > releases because the developer in charge had difficulties getting the > code to work with all generations of the chip, but it got better after a > few years. There is no evidence the OP has ever tried OpenBSD again > after switching operating systems on his system. So that's one 486 user who doesn't care whether OpenBSD supports his system or not. See what I mean? > > > 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. > > So what? To me, you often sound like a troll. Miod, you seem like an all-right bloke, and I don't want to create bad feelings, but you're insulting me on a public mailing list, because I dare to bring up something you object to. Other people have been rude to me in private mail, because my views differ from theirs. This represents a small minority of the OpenBSD development community, I know, but if I was really just here to troll, why would I have posted so many patches and fixes in the two weeks that I have been subscribed? Why does it seem like everybody is obsessed with me on this mailing list at times? Ever since I joined, I have seen a flood of hits from OpenBSD based browsers in the logs for the nocrater.com site, even though it's off-line at the moment and re-directing everybody to the mobile site, which is making us look really unprofessional, I know, but I've been spending so much time contributing to this list that I haven't had time to fix it. I've also had private mails quizzing me as to who I am, (who cares, if I'm writing good code?), and general written abuse, mostly off-list. Get a life. -- Creamy