On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Alexander Pyhalov <a...@rsu.ru> wrote:
> Hello. > > We currently support (in some way) 32-bit systems. We avoid shipping > 64-binaries in default path or use isaexec for such things. > But do we really need it? I haven't seen PC (not speaking about server) > without 64-bit CPU for at least 8 years. > There are still 32-bit systems around - even new systems in the low-power or "embedded" space. And looking at older equipment, there's still a fair amount of 32-bit kit that's viable. Dropping support for 32-bit systems will allow us to port Oracle sources > easier. Potentially, this solves time_t overflow. We could think about > largefile support less. > > What are the cons of keeping support for 32-bit systems? I don't see much. > If you see them, please, speak now. > > I'm inclined to make changes, breaking 32-bit systems only after next ISO > snapshot. Of course, 32-bit libraries will be preserved. > I don't see much of a driver to drop 32-bit support. I see little practical benefit, and there will be a small fraction of the potential user population that you will drive away - I can't see the point in doing that when you want to encourage all the users you can get. And areas in which you're *different* from, say, Oracle are to be taken advantage of. I had this debate in my mind about Tribblix, and came very firmly down on the side of keeping 32-bit support. At least for now. Looking elsewhere, Ubuntu serves as a good guide. I don't recall an official decision, but as I recall they might think again about dropping 32-bit support in 2016. I think I would personally be more conservative than that. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
