DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2007-01
Re: machine/platform separation
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
but why wouldn't we use the default
name for the default platform?
At least 'i386' sucks as platform name. It's not true anymore that all
IA32 (yes, that's the CPU arch name Intel actually uses these days) CPUs
live in PC machines, and picking 'i386' as name for the machine with a
PC BIOS and an IA32 CPU is just confusing baggage. What would you name
the EFI+IA32 machine? efi386? mac386 (hah, wait 'til other manufacturers
start shipping IA32 boxen with EFI firmware)? And the (hypothetical?)
case of OFW+IA32?
for one, i am absolutely opposing the
creation of a platform "pc64". this will be amd64.
What about EFI+AMD64? I can sorta live with CPUnames ia32 and amd64, but
not arch/machine/platformnames i386 and amd64. Those names do NOT cover
the actual arch/machine/platform. I am sure you agree that naming
machines 'i386' is stupid in retrospect.
Ofcourse, the rest of the world is still retarded, and we need to deal
with that. But going for 'i386' and 'amd64' is basically going for the
lowest common denominator. Sure, it's 'common practice', a 'de facto
standard', but it's WRONG.
Thomas E. Spanjaard
Description: OpenPGP digital signature