Re: Regarding the ULTRIX and OSF1 compats

[Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>]

On 2019-03-16 11:50, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Le 16/03/2019 à 11:26, Johnny Billquist a écrit :
> > If the answer is that we remove the code, then indeed, the whole 
> > webpage is
> > incorrect, and we should change it to state that we do not try to be
> > interoperable, implementing many standard APIs, or care about other 
> > platforms.
>
> There seems to be some confusion here. Being "interoperable" doesn't mean
> "keeping unmaintained code that is so broken it can't even emulate a 
> dumbass
> mmap". (Thinking about SVR4 here.)

I don't see any confusion.

My question was about what NetBSD is about.

If we are serious about being interoperable, implementing many standard 
APIs, and care about different platforms, then buggy or broken code 
should be fixed. Or at worst left for someone else to fix later.

If we don't care about the interoperability, then indeed, we delete the 
code.

> If that's your definition of interoperable, then indeed, we used to be - 
> and
> still are a bit, actually - a very, very interoperable system.

Do you mean that deleting the code is your definition of interoperable?

> Regarding the web site, if my memory is correct, not too long ago we did 
> change
> the page to put less emphasis on the compat layers, but the changes were 
> backed
> out because one person wanted to keep the old version; if my memory is 
> correct,
> this person was John Nemeth.

I don't care who did what. I think it's time to maybe agree on what 
NetBSD is about. If people disagree, then either there should be an 
attempt at reaching a consensus, or else fork.

  Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol