Re: Regarding the ULTRIX and OSF1 compats

> On Mar 16, 2019, at 11:29 AM, Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> On 2019-03-16 19:25, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 6:43 AM, Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Make it work - don't remove it.
>> That's rich.  With some of the things we're talking about, "make it =
work" (or "keep it working") is a very resource-intensive proposition.
>> Hey, I have an idea... since you care so much about it, why don't YOU =
step up and "make it work" / "keep it working".
>> Seriously, at some point, those who care about these things so much =
need to be putting in the effort to keep them going.  It's completely =
unfair to others working on the rest of there system to place the entire =
burden on them, especially when we're talking about things that are, by =
their nature, niche applications that require special resources.
>=20
> Fair enough viewpoint.
> To which my response is, then state this openly and clearly. And then =
people can decide if they want to run NetBSD or if they should look =
elsewhere.
>=20
> As for me personally, yes, I am certainly guilty of mostly making =
noise, and few contributions. I used to do a bit more, but mostly on VAX =
specific stuff. But since other were making changes all the time, making =
the VAX port less and less usable, I instead stopped trying to fix =
things. So maybe I should just leave/fork/whatever. That is I guess, the =
way I should view all of this.

The NetBSD project even publicly states on the ports page =
(https://www.netbsd.org/ports/) that some platforms are more equal than =
others, and that it's the responsibility of those who care deeply about =
a non-Tier 1 platform to keep it in tip-top shape.  This is not an =
unreasonable position.

And, we're also extremely lucky that the Tier 1 platforms have a fair =
bit of overlap with several Tier 2 platforms...  For example, if evbarm =
is working well, then it's fairly reasonable to assume that the Tier 2 =
ARM platforms work pretty OK as well, since a significant amount of code =
for 32-bit evbarm platforms is shared with Tier 2 ARM platforms.

The same can be said for evbmips and evbppc.

Fun fact: a Tier 2 platform is included in regular automated regression =
testing.  It's not like the Project isn't making an effort here.

But, consider your VAX example... even though there is a very good =
emulation environment available for VAX, the project is partially =
hamstrung by factors not necessarily under its control, e.g. the quality =
of compilers available for the VAX.  As I recently discovered while =
trying to do my own due diligence widely testing a set of cross-platform =
changes, C++ exceptions don't work on the VAX at all right now, so the =
ATF tests can't be run.  Perhaps someone who cares deeply about the VAX =
ought to fix the situation.  But if no one steps up, then it's fair to =
assume that no one in fact cares deeply about the VAX[*], and thus =
spending human productivity on it is not the best allocation of =
resources.

[*] Don't get me wrong, I really like the VAX, and I would like to see =
support for it live on.  But it's not the hill I'm willing to die on =
(historically, I personally have more of my own human productivity =
invested in things that have a 68030 or 68040 inside, and I'm not really =
even willing to go to the mat for m68k, either... though a usable =
simulator that actually emulated a real machine correctly might get me =
to at least consider it... no, please, offers of hardware will not be =
considered...)

-- thorpej