On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 07:33:01PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > You may argue that, since the kernel has a workaround for this issue, > > > this is a moot point. But if some developer has a better idea for the > > > kernel heuristic, how can the new code be tested, if not on the real > > > hardware? > > > > > > > The problem with this story is that the purported reasons for supporting old > > architectures is to shake out bugs. How do the bugs get shaken out? By > > exercising shared, core functionality in distinctive ways. > > > > Idiosyncracies such as the above are not the type of thing that helps shake > > out core bugs. > > You've missed the point. > > These idiosyncracies must be stepped over, so that we can have working > platforms different from x86, to then go discover the core bugs! > > Luckily we have people in our group who support such other > architectures in our tree, to give us this capability. > > Let's face it. OpenBSD has this as a bug reducing mechanism > available, and most other systems do not anymore, having decided to > chase only the market-chosen architectures. It is a true many-eyes > "machined" solution. > > What other community has users who commonly run upstream software on > 64-bit big-endian strict alignment platform with register windows > adjusting the frames in odd ways, or 32-bit big-endian ones with mutex > alignment requirements, or a pile of other requirements. > > Quite frankly, I am not alone in being sick of people who don't use > emulators, stepping in to tell we should use emulators.
I do use emulators, specifically for ARM, because it's just easier for me. And one of my co-workers is a contributor to the Hercules emulator. > Finally, we have people who want to work on those architectures. You > prefer they quit? No, I don't prefer they quit. I donate to OpenBSD because you guys do the hard work. And the golden rule of open source is that he who does the work gets to make the decisions about how he's going to go about doing that work. So, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not questioning why you guys use so much power with old hardware. I'm not writing the code, so it's not my place to question. And while emulators might, arguably, be more efficient in some abstract sense, what matters is how the work is being done today. And if you say using real hardware is easier for your workflow, so be it. And, FWIW, I love the idea of a CD subscription service. I often end up forgetting to buy a CD. I upgrade most of my systems remotely (with a 13 year track record of never losing a machine--thanks!), so I never have to actually use the CD.
