Henry Nelson wrote:
> >  	Of course we could create an i586 port, which would really
> >  	allow us to shake out the x86 shared code (but only if we
 
> Best idea I've heard yet.  Sounds like the most efficient in the long run.
> Perhaps use the name "intel" (of course Intel Corp might not allow this?)
> to avoid confusion.

That would also be a bad choice because "intel" means virtually nothing.
There's StrongARM, IA-64 and what not. In any case, it would give the
impression that AMD et al. were second rate or incompatible which is pretty
much BS. The terms "i586" (Pentium) and "i686" (Pentium Pro and newer) are
already understood and used. Yeah, the "i" stands for Intel of course...

> (Is there anyone bold enough to ask for _active_ development of a <90MHz
> pre-pentium?

Lucky! My i486 runs at 160 MHz. I don't think support for i486 is ultimately
necessary in GENERIC kernels but is it really a huge win to deprecate it?. I
use a custom kernel of course albeit the main performance issue would be a low
amount of RAM. The CPU itself is fast enough for a lot of tasks.

>  Many of us had to bite the bullet on NEC98s 5 years ago.

"Port for an Port" or what? ;)

-- 
Christian