Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Well, to be fair, he's right. 32-bit is only interesting in the embedded space. If you're running a "real" operating system, there is almost zero cost to running a 64-bit processor instead nowadays.

I'd go further than him, though. OpenBSD has limited resources. Those resources are better deployed on security enhancements which filter out to other operating systems that support less common architectures.




"Embedded" is too vague to use for this. Tons of STB's have SOC's with MIPS cores and Linux kernels (and uclibc). The cost could be the cost of the transistors used up by the CPU cores that could go to valuable functions like codec support. The cost could be RAM interface circuitry. The cost could be a dozen things and Linux is adopted in this category of system. It's almost like OpenBSD is defining itself as too good for use in economical, workaday products. I'm sure that would be a misunderstanding by me.


The cost of an SoC is almost insensitive to the size of the CPU core. Only RAM and Flash matter.

I'm not joking, here's an STM32F103VGT6 (Arm Cortex M3--not even an A-series which you normally use to run Linux). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:STM32F103VGT6-HD.jpg

Note that this is a little flash heavy (1MB) but pretty mainstream with RAM (96KB).

The RAM and flash absolutely DWARF the core. You could double the size of the core (32 to 64 bit), and that would still be true.

The writing is on the wall for 32-bit on anything running a "real" operating system.


The OpenBSD project will not (cannot) prevent you from developing your own mips32 port.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: