considering i386 as a tier 1 architecture

[Richard Yao]

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 at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at 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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 901 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20130401/a255d9ed/attachment.sig>