5 ms·

People are still using i386? I'd assume even if they are, it's such a tiny minority that it shouldn't be an excuse to hold everyone else back.

by jrs95 9y ago

zaarn 9y ago
Linux supported i386 until 2012, I think in this context it is more likely to refer to pre-Pentium 86 CPUs though (I'm not certain on that) I've seen i386 multiple times to also refer to any x86 Arch.
- dmm 9y ago
  i386 in this context refers to 32bit intel x86 cpu architecture in general and generic pc compatibles specifically. OpenBSD currently runs on 486s and better: > All CPUs compatible with the Intel 80486 or better,[0] [0]https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html
tsmarsh 9y ago
One of OpenBSDs sweet spots is turning old hardware into useful, secure, reliable, network infrastructure. i386 might not be as popular as it was on 'normal' OS, but I wouldn't be surprised if OpenBSD had a lot of people still using it.
raimue 9y ago
OpenBSD supports a wide variety of hardware platforms, including machines with Alpha, PA-RISC, and SPARC64 processors. On each of them, the base system is able to compile itself. If rustc cannot even build itself on i386, what kind of support can we expect for other platforms with an even smaller user base? On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability is one of their main "selling" points. Furthermore, that would also mean to lose the developers that are interested in these alternative platforms and probably chose OpenBSD because of the platform support. Furthermore, such developers are usually not only contributing to platform-specific parts, but also to system utilities and ports. For the full list of platforms, see https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html
- masklinn 9y ago
  > On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability They… don't need to? That rustc can't compile itself on i386 doesn't mean you can't ship a rustc for i386, it just means you have to cross-compile it.
  - _jal 9y ago
    Addressed in the article. > In OpenBSD there is a strict requirement that base builds base.
  - raimue 9y ago
    I see it as part of portability that you do not need to use any external system for bootstrapping. Imagine as a developer who compiles base from source you had to find another system only to compile rustc and then transfer it to your machine. And you would not have to do this only once, but for every compiler bug fix coupled with the overall rapid evolution of Rust. I think many in the OpenBSD community would oppose such an approach, even without further considering other aspects such as security implications.
    - clort 9y ago
      This is the case IIRC with Android - even though I want to build it for a 32-bit ARM architecture, I can't build it on anything but 64-bit. I guess the vast majority of Android systems cannot even compile Android! https://source.android.com/setup/requirements https://source.android.com/setup/requirements
    - masklinn 9y ago
      > I see it as part of portability that you do not need to use any external system for bootstrapping. You always need an external system for bootstrapping, you're not assembling the base C compiler with which you're compiling everything else. At one point you need to obtain a compiler from somewhere else.
      - 9y ago
DCKing 9y ago
OpenBSD is a perfectly servicable operating system on an old Atom board I have (nice router!), and on i386 only Core Duo iMacs/Macbooks long abandoned by Apple. These will be perfectly good machines to use for a long time, and it's really great you can get up to date support on these systems from this great project. Obsolete means different things to different people. I'm a big fan of what Rust promises, but the solution is not that OpenBSD changes its policies or that OpenBSD drops i386. Rust should become self hosting on i386.
mfukar 9y ago
There's significant infrastructure in place that uses i386. It used to be fairly popular, I'm sure you can google it.
rubyfan 9y ago
Theo would say, if you think so then get to writing code instead of commenting about it. These aren’t just philosophical comments, the implications for him and OBSD devs is to spend massive time developing these things. Dropping a supported platform and taking on a huge investment of effort needs serious justification.
jlgaddis 9y ago
Yep: $ uname -a OpenBSD hostname 5.9 GENERIC.MP#6 i386

People are still using i386? I'd assume even if they are, it's such a tiny minority that it shouldn't be an excuse to hold everyone else back.

by jrs95 9y ago

People are still using i386? I'd assume even if they are, it's such a tiny minority that it shouldn't be an excuse to hold everyone else back.

zaarn 9y ago

Linux supported i386 until 2012, I think in this context it is more likely to refer to pre-Pentium 86 CPUs though (I'm not certain on that) I've seen i386 multiple times to also refer to any x86 Arch.

dmm 9y ago
i386 in this context refers to 32bit intel x86 cpu architecture in general and generic pc compatibles specifically. OpenBSD currently runs on 486s and better: > All CPUs compatible with the Intel 80486 or better,[0] [0]https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html

tsmarsh 9y ago

One of OpenBSDs sweet spots is turning old hardware into useful, secure, reliable, network infrastructure. i386 might not be as popular as it was on 'normal' OS, but I wouldn't be surprised if OpenBSD had a lot of people still using it.

raimue 9y ago

OpenBSD supports a wide variety of hardware platforms, including machines with Alpha, PA-RISC, and SPARC64 processors. On each of them, the base system is able to compile itself. If rustc cannot even build itself on i386, what kind of support can we expect for other platforms with an even smaller user base? On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability is one of their main "selling" points. Furthermore, that would also mean to lose the developers that are interested in these alternative platforms and probably chose OpenBSD because of the platform support. Furthermore, such developers are usually not only contributing to platform-specific parts, but also to system utilities and ports. For the full list of platforms, see https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html

masklinn 9y ago
> On a project such as OpenBSD they cannot suddenly drop platforms and only support amd64 as portability They… don't need to? That rustc can't compile itself on i386 doesn't mean you can't ship a rustc for i386, it just means you have to cross-compile it.
- _jal 9y ago
  Addressed in the article. > In OpenBSD there is a strict requirement that base builds base.
- raimue 9y ago
  I see it as part of portability that you do not need to use any external system for bootstrapping. Imagine as a developer who compiles base from source you had to find another system only to compile rustc and then transfer it to your machine. And you would not have to do this only once, but for every compiler bug fix coupled with the overall rapid evolution of Rust. I think many in the OpenBSD community would oppose such an approach, even without further considering other aspects such as security implications.
  - clort 9y ago
    This is the case IIRC with Android - even though I want to build it for a 32-bit ARM architecture, I can't build it on anything but 64-bit. I guess the vast majority of Android systems cannot even compile Android! https://source.android.com/setup/requirements https://source.android.com/setup/requirements
  - masklinn 9y ago
    > I see it as part of portability that you do not need to use any external system for bootstrapping. You always need an external system for bootstrapping, you're not assembling the base C compiler with which you're compiling everything else. At one point you need to obtain a compiler from somewhere else.
    - 9y ago

DCKing 9y ago

OpenBSD is a perfectly servicable operating system on an old Atom board I have (nice router!), and on i386 only Core Duo iMacs/Macbooks long abandoned by Apple. These will be perfectly good machines to use for a long time, and it's really great you can get up to date support on these systems from this great project. Obsolete means different things to different people. I'm a big fan of what Rust promises, but the solution is not that OpenBSD changes its policies or that OpenBSD drops i386. Rust should become self hosting on i386.

mfukar 9y ago

There's significant infrastructure in place that uses i386. It used to be fairly popular, I'm sure you can google it.

rubyfan 9y ago

Theo would say, if you think so then get to writing code instead of commenting about it. These aren’t just philosophical comments, the implications for him and OBSD devs is to spend massive time developing these things. Dropping a supported platform and taking on a huge investment of effort needs serious justification.

jlgaddis 9y ago

Yep: $ uname -a OpenBSD hostname 5.9 GENERIC.MP#6 i386