From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 1 05:48:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8AB2CD; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:48:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpaasial@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6702C18; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn17so1276457wib.4 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:48:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=k2ypdD9bWkASjyRd/I1ciEZY+JlceNNpc0sayriixCA=; b=G1PI4Efs5fQ+DHi8VhEVVtcK742gnnB4cfh2N/ppi6DWXHItwtax7n2W/zddFt6TNa jJkBAY0yEK5WDstQmNRpMPS/NyoaEcZV1KT/Q3tohTlpj/VLuq+/vfYvyOM93Qnufpy7 I1rL356L0KDWwaiJH99OmyzQ8hEEC9UIVmiyJM7mAva0LtvpbGNBoSXvXWuVBf9tdHJq 3V5T8gGO/CSkTCTBGnKFyfdy8P2ZFyA0lyo5zCET0Cb0/jIrKSM8iVooEwZofDVt8vmm LzsZyWRNJaYPOFgR+7iAO7KlJSr+Z4SiqtTmHWuv1YEWKIeFEsVG1cUD4qjK0RSSJB+R IU6g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.73.6 with SMTP id h6mr8172558wiv.27.1364795306989; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:48:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.139.72 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:48:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 08:48:26 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: considering i386 as a tier 1 architecture From: Kimmo Paasiala To: Eitan Adler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: FreeBSD Hackers , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 05:48:28 -0000 I think the only ones who are going to object are the users of embedded hardware. Some of them are still using CPUs that are only i586 equivalent. Personally I support the notion. -Kimmo On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:48 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-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >