[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:04:55AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:04:54 -0500
> Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.cx> wrote:
> > And not only 80386 needs this - There is the Sparc64 port which would
> > also benefit from this (http://www.debian.org/ports/sparc/#64bit). If we
> > had support for subarchtectures, not only would the ix86 mess be able to
> > be split in many flavors (i.e. strict 386, 486 and up, 686, or whatever
> > you fancy). And I am sure this can somehow help maintain the non-Linux
> > ports - NetBSD gives us the potential to bring Debian to _many_ new
> > platforms. 
> No it doesn't. I've yet to even hear of an architecture that NetBSD runs
> on but which Linux doesn't. They just have a different definition of
> "architecture" than us. (ie: our "hppa" may be three or four arches to
> the NetBSD kernel folk.)

There are a couple. I don't think most people care about any of them,
right now (and quite possibly never will, in the case of old VAXen,
for example).

In discussing it the other day, I actually found a concise way to
express one of the major reasons I choose to work on the port and find
it worthwhile:

NetBSD's motto is "Yes, it runs NetBSD".

NetBSD other motto is "correctness above all" (by comparison, OpenBSD is
"security above all", FreeBSD is "features above most", and Linux would
probably be "bleeding edge above most").

Sort of like Debian's release schedule is "when it's ready", and for the
same reasons.

Their -current is more or less like our unstable ("It may break, but people
always scream at us when it does so for any significant length of time").
They don't release fast (other than security patches), but they do have a
good history of their releases being rock-stable.
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>

Attachment: pgpm83SFnJliN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: