From: "Theo de Raadt" <deraadt@openbsd.org>
To: "Patrick Harper" <paianni@fastmail.com>
cc: "tech@openbsd.org" <tech@openbsd.org>
Subject: Re: Should 80MB of RAM be enough for kernel relinking on i386?
Comments: In-reply-to "Patrick Harper" <paianni@fastmail.com>
   message dated "Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:25:38 +0100."
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 15:31:46 -0600
Sender: owner-tech@openbsd.org

You've made a pretty big assumption there.

When we see something we don't think is important, we delete the
email and carry on with more important things.

You think hand-tuning this one paragraph is going to reduce the amount
of mail we delete because it doesn't matter?  It won't. 

A large number of inaccurate documentation problems in the world can be
solved by deleting the innacurate documentation rather than trying to fine-tune
it to be more accurate for the moment, until it becomes inaccurate again.
In truth, noone cares about this paragraph.   It has been perceveived as
a promise.  We don't need to make statements people perceive as promises.

Patrick Harper <paianni@fastmail.com> wrote:

> Because you might not wish to deal with people like me posting dmesg's 
> of absurdly deficient hardware on the lists. Putting minimum values up 
> means you can cast off everything you don't want to bother trying to 
> support as 'not worth your time', without anyone else having to 
> discover that it wasn't worth their time either.
> 
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, at 21:25, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > We don't list memory sizing for other architectures.  Why list it for i386?
> >
> > Why not delete the text?
> >
> > Because someone wants the truth?  You can't handle ....