On 04/01/2013 12:48 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing this email to discuss the i386 architecture in FreeBSD. > > Computers are getting faster, but also more memory intensive. I > can not find a laptop with less than 4 or 8 GB of RAM. Modern > browsers, such as Firefox, require a 64bit architecture and 8GB of > RAM. A 32 bit platform is not enough now a days on systems with > more than 4 GB of RAM. A 32 bit core now is like 640K of RAM in > the 1990s. Even in the embedded world ARM is going 64 bit with > ARMv8. > > Secondly, the i386 port is unmaintained. Very few developers run > it, so it doesn't get the testing it deserves. Almost every user > post or bug report I see from a x86 compatible processor is running > amd64. When was the last time you booted i386 outside a virtual > machine? Often times the build works for amd64 but fails for i386. > > Finally, others are dropping support for i386. Windows Server 2008 > is 64 bit only, OSX Mountain Lion (10.8) is 64-bit only. Users > and downstream vendors no longer care about preserving ancient > hardware. > > I hope this email is enough to convince you that on this date we > should drop support for the i386 architecture for 10.0 to tier 2 > and replace it with the ARM architecture as Tier 1. > > -- > Eitan Adler > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >
Eitan, Your arguments against 32-bit are undermined by your statement that FreeBSD should replace i386 with ARM. ARM is a 32-bit architecture While there is a 64-bit version of ARM in development, there are a few issues to consider. First, none of the compilers in base support it. Second, every market that uses ARM is fine with 32-bit hardware. Many intentionally use older versions of ARM (such as ARMv5) specifically because such chips are cheaper, more power efficient and get the job done. ARMv8, the 64-bit version of ARM, is only necessary in Intel's territory, which is an area where ARM is attempting to expand. There is no reason to think that 32-bit ARM will be phased out in existing applications. In addition, the idea that others are dropping support for 32-bit hardware is somewhat exaggerated. Wikipedia states that Microsoft Windows Server 2008 runs on IA-32, which is a synonym for 32-bit x86. In addition, Apple hardware is traditionally 64-bit. They only had 32-bit support because of a brief stint with Intel's 32-bit only Yonah chip during the Intel transition. I see no problem with demoting i386 to Tier 2 status. The committers' guide specifically states: > Architectures reaching end of life may also be moved from Tier 1 > status to Tier 2 status as the availability of resources to continue > to maintain the system in a Production Quality state diminishes. Additionally, while it is true that ARM's important is increasing, you do not make a cohesive argument for ARM's promotion to Tier 1 status. The committers' guide does suggests that there must be at least 2 Tier 1 architectures, but it is not clear to me that architecture should be ARM: > Tier 1 embedded architectures must be able to cross-build packages on > at least one other Tier 1 architecture. On that note, I imagine that this would be a decision for the FreeBSD core team to make. I am not a FreeBSD committer, so what I think probably does not carry much weight with them.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
