Subject: Re: Binary releases and 64 bit off_t
To: None <email@example.com>
From: William J Coldwell <billc@iceCuBE.cryogenic.com>
Date: 04/05/1994 04:05:35
>That should be "off_t". I think "off_ty" happened when I hit y at the
I think it became subliminal to have your name it it at some point. Good
>> 1) My stance on this is based on the fact that what we have works, and
>>that adding something like this could change it. [...] I want this marked
>>as a base
>Well, -current is, by nature, constantly changing, and it will continue
Right, that's not the problem. I expect those that are up and running can go
off and get the -current stuff.. I'm concerned with those that are more than
willing to run NBSD, but can't because of our own self-imposed restrictions.
>> When we're still getting unexplained panics, and reliability problems,
>>we're going to add in low level changes? I'm all for Rambo hacking, but we
>>need to make sure that the newbie user isn't a casualty of this.
>I'm not sure here wether you're pro- or anti- off_t changes here.
I am neither because I really don't care whether future kernels have it or
not (He's waffling!). What I do care about is that there isn't a -stable, a
solid working base that gets the problems that we are having fixed, before
something major is added (incidently I was bitten by the syserrorlist being
changed, compiling IRC.. thought it was pretty strange). Basically, we don't
have something that we can say "Yep, burn this puppy on CDROM, and ship it."
or "Hey Fred, here's 10 disks for a special NetBSD-Amiga distribution for
ya!", and this is a stage that I really really want to see happen.
>> 2) Thinking that most every CPU with an MMU has an FPU, is not reasonable.
>Note that I didn't say it was OK, just that it wasn't as bad an
>assumption on the Amiga as for other plaforms (like the 386, where
>almost nobody has 387's, and many 486's are 486sx's)
My mistake, I took it that way.
>>I can see no reason why someone >with the adequate CPU, memory, and
>>harddrive space shouldn't be allowed to >run NetBSD on an A1000, just
>>because they don't have an FPU.
>I agree. I also see no reason why someone with large drives shouldn't
>be allowed to use them as well :-). (Heck, percentagewise the no-FPU
>minority is shrinking while the big-disk minority is growing!)
I respectfully disagree, and I've stated why, but let's not beat a dead FPU.
I'll toss in the idea of thinking about the # of 2000s, 500s and 1200s out
there, to the 3000s and 4000s. Again, I'm advocating the low-midend Amiga
user here, the one with the 100-300M drive, on the souped up Amiga 500 with
the 1084 monitor who wants to dabble in "unix". I think we have "power
users" covered with the current kernels.
William J. Coldwell - billc@iceCuBE.cryogenic.com - Cryogenic Software