Re: mutexes, locks and so on...

[Jonathan Perkin <sketch%netbsd.org@localhost>]

* On 2010-11-12 at 16:26 GMT, Johnny Billquist wrote:

> What? That NetBSD no longer supports most of the architectures it used to?

Unless you've redefined the meaning of 'most' I think that's a pretty
wild and inaccurate claim.

> Maybe it's time to change the "of course it runs NetBSD" to "is it
> an x86? Then it also runs NetBSD in addition to Linux, FreeBSD and
> OpenBSD, not to forget Solaris and Windows".

Why do you and mouse have this insatiable appetite to focus on x86?  Seems
quite disrespectful to the many people who continue to improve and add
support for platforms to NetBSD which aren't x86-based.

Personally I think there is huge merit to having an off-shoot of an older
NetBSD which can still be developed for older systems like VAX, and have
advocated for this in the past.

After all, are you really interested in the features NetBSD is adding over
time?  Which parts of -current are you dying to run on the VAX which makes
you angry at the suggestion of dropping support for it?  Lua?  Rump?  NPF?
ATF?  Modules?  My guess, actually, is that the vast majority of new code
going into NetBSD is things you would advocate against anyway as they do
not make sense for your architecture.

Create a fork (forks are good!), rip out all this bloat we've been adding
for the past N years, merge in bits you do like, and concentrate on
keeping things small, fast, and suited for your systems.  Everyone wins.

However these discussions always end up with wild accusations (e.g. your
'no longer supports most' statement above) and go nowhere.  It would be
nice if someone would prove me wrong this time.

-- 
Jonathan Perkin                                     The NetBSD Project
http://www.perkin.org.uk/                       http://www.netbsd.org/