* Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 05:32:15PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I dont know how you can find the situation of Alpha comparable, which is a > > legacy architecture for which no new CPU was manufactored in the past ~10 > > years. > > > > The negative effects of physical obscolescence cannot be overcome even by the > > very best of development models ... > > The maintainers of that architecture could at least continue to maintain it. > But that is not the case. Most newer syscalls are not available and overall > stability on alpha sucks (kernel crashed when I tried to start Xorg for > example) but nobody cares about it. Hardware is still around and there are > still some users of it. You are arguing why maintainers do not act as you suggest, against the huge negative effects of physical obscolescence? Please use common sense: they dont act because ... there are huge negative effects due to physical obscolescence? No amount of development model engineering can offset that negative. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
