From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 1 05:41:08 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 D70CFFFA; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:41:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894A1B64; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:41:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hz11so2043273vcb.37 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:41:02 -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=azqr0HtDAA9x6f0IZpGYSI+n/GmPmiywAMzHvbV0vhs=; b=ysCSodKZD4bKYiLgpwYEDs18I+SYIyXEsRvp3gpoYnGGA0ndPGMRlEDwNQ9Z77EZ9p ZeFt+lv+SnkUSvD/jyk2zxbDnsZTeQWSc++N3dkUL+a/05T59X4yTgKlXRFUQs4izdbv CF/jHZbG4kaXscbmWlu5hUSCV5YaaG6BBmiXmYOiOgaaFQsSnVPa7pNi+FX64VtHNFsk I/6+0XZqIHIZfEchqP6WfhJnAD0c0biR65PN+/UUxS5namZA4tlVDS4xnEwTkzoKKWxV hmlY8aY+5DDEiEfGR5kIbhcVpM3bi3VHh4QMKrbuRQH40VTc06YBE25l0uv2+xgVfyBQ aX1w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.140.18 with SMTP id g18mr8263838vcu.54.1364794862694; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:41:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.132.203 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:41:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:41:02 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: considering i386 as a tier 1 architecture From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk 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 05:41:08 -0000 On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 9:48 PM, 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 > This idea is really very good . The FreeBSD Project man power , for me , is wasted to maintain a branch that it is NOT necessary to make it a first class branch . 1 Giga Bytes , and even 2 Giga Bytes memory chips are disappearing from the computer shops slowly . At present , there is NO any processor which is ONLY 32-bits . Not only the Windows Server , if I am not remembering incorrectly , new regular Windows ( desk top , etc. ) versions will drop 32 bits branches : They only supply 64 bits versions . By concentrating on 64 bits ( amd64 ) branch and work toward distributed processing and high performance computing for super or clustered computers or graphics chips ( cards ) is much more useful than working on 32 bits version . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk