Adam Thompson [athom...@athompso.net] wrote: > On 16-01-23 08:34 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > >I will add that one of the reasons we have support for all these museum > >pieces is that people can build their very own museum and run something > >interesting on it. But running on emulators doesn't really satisfy that > >goal. If there are, in fact, no museum pieces left in the world, we no > >longer need to supply an OS to run on them. > > Huh. Previous discussions had led me to believe that the OpenBSD project's > rationale for supporting all these various architectures was that it > ultimately resulted in much-higher-quality code because platforms like VAX > and SPARC64 acted as canaries for suboptimal coding practices? (Endian > issues, stack issues, framing issues, alignment issues, etc., etc., etc.) >
These are wonderful reasons, but OpenBSD requires real hardware to run on, emulators are secondary. There was just _one_ guy who was dedicated to maintaining development hardware, and even the GCC compiler, for OpenBSD/vax, and he's no longer dedicated to it. That leaves zero guys and gals left to maintain it. I don't see anyone stepping up here, only a few people who would like someone to maintain it for them! > Besides, I thought the run-on-everything-and-anything (including the > verging-on-absurd) was NetBSD's thing, not OpenBSD's? See > http://netbsd.org/ports/, make your own opinions on which platforms verge on > the absurd... > NetBSD doesn't actually run on many of these older platforms, hasn't been tested on real hardware, only emulators. That has been the case for years. It's not maintained. If OpenBSD provides a release for a particular architecture, it was actually booted and compiled on a real machine...and will work on your similar machine. Chris
