DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2007-01
DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2007-01
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: machine/platform separation

From: "Thomas E. Spanjaard" <tgen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:51:58 +0000

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]