Linux Letting Go: 32-bit Builds On the Way Out (theregister.co.uk) 378
An anonymous shares a report on The Register:Major Linux distributions are in agreement: it's time to stop developing new versions for 32-bit processors. Simply: it's a waste of time, both to create the 32-bit port, and to keep 32-bit hardware around to test it on. At the end of June, Ubuntu developer Dimitri Ledkov chipped into the debate with this mailing list post, saying bluntly that 32-bit ports are a waste of resources. "Building i386 images is not 'for free', it comes at the cost of utilising our build farm, QA and validation time. Whilst we have scalable build-farms, i386 still requires all packages, autopackage tests, and ISOs to be revalidated across our infrastructure." His proposal is that Ubuntu version 18.10 would be 64-bit-only, and if users desperately need to run 32-bit legacy applications, the'll have to do so in containers or virtual machines. [...] In a forum thread, the OpenSUSE Chairman account says 32-bit support "doubles our testing burden (actually, more so, do you know how hard it is to find 32-bit hardware these days?). It also doubles our build load on OBS".
Is it even possible to buy a new 32 bit chip? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that the trouble finding testing hardware is quite telling.
Can end users even buy a new, off-the-shelf 32-bit system these days, except for specialized devices like embedded systems?
Is there anything more than a relatively tiny fraction of the user base that is stuck on 32-bit hardware, that can't use virtual machines to run that software on something that's not a potato?
And I mean, it's not like the old 32-bit versions of OS's are gone. Windows 95 is still around. It didn't go away. I'm willing to bet there are still Windows 95 machines running somewhere in mission critical systems in places around the world.
Yes, there's no security updates, but just unplug it from the internet and you're safe from the vast majority of attacks, and if you're worried about local access to your Windows 95 machine... install a thicker door?
At some point technology has to move on.
Re:Is it even possible to buy a new 32 bit chip? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure and it is, but how many of them are running Ubuntu?
Re:Is it even possible to buy a new 32 bit chip? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you thinking just of people that still have ancient hardware, or do you also mean for new products?
Is there really anything new that is still 32 bit? For sure Arm, Atom and of course desktop CPUs have all gone 64 bit ages ago. What's really left?
Re:Is it even possible to buy a new 32 bit chip? (Score:4, Informative)
The majourity of ARMs sold are still 32 bit, and there is no reason for an embedded system to go 64 bit, usually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it even possible to buy a new 32 bit chip? (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're wrongly painting the entire embedded space with the same brush. I work in said space. Sure there are toaster controllers or whatever that would happily run on an 8 bit pic, but honestly there is a lot more heavy duty stuff going on than that in the majority of the embedded world.
At least everything I've worked on in the last 20+ years would have benefited from 64 bit/moar powa!!!.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, but this story is only talking about the i386 architecture (32-bit x86).
32-bit ARM chips will still be supported.
Re: (Score:2)
Can end users even buy a new, off-the-shelf 32-bit system these days, except for specialized devices like embedded systems?
While 32-bit embedded is certainly a huge market, the use for 32-bit Ubuntu isn't new off-the-shelf systems, it's grandma's old XP machine that needs rescuing. Embedded gear is more likely to run a lite debian.
But, perhaps Ubuntu isn't the right choice for Grandma at this point. Probably more people would go for Mint anyway (they're more likely to be impacted by Ubuntu's decision). M
This isn't about new hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not newly-bought consumer electronics or legacy software. The problem is legacy hardware. I'm still using the Thinkpad I bought in 2006 (4:3 aspect ratio display). Luckily it's a 64-bit processor, but others have older 32-bit machines.
It's also not about the kernel -- Linux itself will support 32-bit architecture for a long while more, and most software will compile correctly on both 32-bit and 64-bit, though it will be less and less true as distributions stop their QA and you are left with only the upstream development team.
Of course, these old machines are pretty few, so it probably does make sense for Ubuntu to drop 32-bit packages. Other more enthusiast-targeted distributions will probably keep 32-bit support. In particular Gentoo compiles everything locally.
Re: (Score:2)
CERN still have plenty of crusty old hardware. They produce a 32-bit version of Scientific Linux for that reason. With a bit of faffing, you can even get it to run on non-PAE processors.
Re: (Score:2)
For computers? Quite some time. There was a one-off Atom netbook chip back in 2008, and before that was Core (the predecessor to the more popular, 64-bit capable Core 2) in 2006-2007 and some of the early Pentium 4s up to 2005. On the AMD side, you have to go back to K7, which stopped being made in 2005. So everything that you'd want to run a desktop distro on is at least eight years old.
Intel did make x86-32-only chips for smartphones until much more recently, but you wouldn't want to run a desktop distro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As of about 5 years ago there was one in a paper mill I was working at. Since they were only using it because there was no new drivers for the thing it was plugged into I'm willing to bet it's still there unless it broke.
The IT guy had a copy of Windows 1.0 in a drawer in the server room too.
Re:Is it even possible to buy a new 32 bit chip? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell? 32 bit cpus are everywhere. The article is talking about PC builds, x86 clones in other words, only a Wintel person actually thinks that is the only arcthitecture out there. Meanwhile if you look at the Linux kernel it has 29 different architectures it supports.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, most 64 bit chips also run 32 bit software, so no, there's no problem finding testing hardware, that's absurd.
Nobody cares if 32-bit ISOs work on 64-bit CPUs because those people are already using a 64-bit ISO. The 32-bit ISO has to be tested on ancient hardware like i686, which there's a shortage of.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything with 2Gbs or less memory might as well run on 32 bit, if only for the memory savings. Wife has a fairy new tablet running 32 bit Win 8.1, Atom processor and 1GB of memory with 16 GBs of storage. Be stupid to run a 64 bit OS on that. Son has a slightly older netbook with an Atom processor and 2 GBs of memory, runs 32 bit Linux (Ubuntu) on it. I have a TP 42, 12 years old and limited to 32 bit, still runs well but will never support 64 bit, (actually most Linuxes won't run on it without a custom kern
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, most 64 bit chips also run 32 bit software, so no, there's no problem finding testing hardware, that's absurd.
Nobody cares if 32-bit ISOs work on 64-bit CPUs because those people are already using a 64-bit ISO. The 32-bit ISO has to be tested on ancient hardware like i686, which there's a shortage of.
No, 32-bit operating systems run just fine on 64-bit CPUs in the x86 world. Some people do so for improved performance. 64-bit sometimes has a performance hit.
Ability to run on old hardware was a feature (Score:2)
containers or virtual machines for apps? (Score:2)
Why not just drop the boot 32bit part and only have the compact 32bit libs. Like how windows server 2008 and newer is on the windows side.
Why cut off apps that can run today on a 64bit system with out needing any vm bs.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just drop the boot 32bit part and only have the compact 32bit libs. Like how windows server 2008 and newer is on the windows side.
Why cut off apps that can run today on a 64bit system with out needing any vm bs.
If you had read TFA, you might have found out that's exactly what most Linux distros are doing. 32-bit library support isn't going anywhere, just .ISO builds for the i686 and older.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the plan as described by TFA.
32-bit != i386 (Score:5, Insightful)
Posts like this always confuse me. The terms i386 and 32-bit are not interchangeable. AFAIK, they were only talking about getting rid of i386 architecture (i.e. 20+ year old 32-bit hardware), but would maintain i686 (more recent 32-bit hardware) support.
Re:32-bit != i386 (Score:5, Informative)
At some point we are going to want drop x86_32 kernel support and just have 32-bit compatibility libraries, but I don't know when that makes sense.
Will create problems (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for Linux being "great for old hardware". This is really just an dubious move by distros and really just ignores a huge area where Linux can see use: Old hardware where Windows wont run. You also have another aspect of this which is your basically trashing 32 bit app support if you do not include 32 bit libraries, or, providing a thunk between 32 bit apps and 64 bit libraries.
Even if 32 bit libraries are not built, you should be able to run a 32 bit app by compiling the libraries yourself, so distros could at least allow people to build 32 bit libraries easily from source packages, (with the benefit of automatically building all dependancies).
Another area this will create problems is with VMs on even recent hardware, Intel chips up to just a year or two ago didnt include VT-x or a Ring 2, which means that virtualization of 64 bit OSs will not work.
Re:Will create problems (Score:4, Insightful)
You might want to think about what you just said, or read the blurb of an article you are commenting on. It specifically states "Major Linux distributions" which are not what tend to support ancient, embedded, long life, or related non-consumer/non-traditional server workloads. In short there are tons, hundreds likely of distros that will cater to 32-bit and even 8/16-bit hardware because that is all that is needed for the job they do.
Go look at Linaro's work, it isn't technically a distro but is supports some pretty 'craptacular' hardware, at least by modern user perspectives. How long do you think your router can live with 'only' 32b SoCs? Do you think DDWRT will get a massive boost from 64b code? How about your dishwasher? There are distros that cater to all those markets and they are not moving to 64-bit only.
In short nothing will change for 99.(big number) of users, those that need 8/16/32b code will still have distros to do it. Anyone wanting to run those distros as a modern desktop or server, well, enjoy it but I am not a masochist so I won't be joining you. For every one else, carry on, you won't notice anything but better wares and cheaper devices.
Given that it's Linux (Score:2)
I don't see the problem here. While it may be tedious, it's not technically difficult to build your own 32-bit packages from source, at least most of the time - the (64-bit) package maintainers have done most of the hard work already, identifying dependencies and whatnot. You may occasionally have to do some troubleshooting, especially as time goes forward - but is this sort of thing where the Linux community really shines.
Heck, you might even learn something.
Re:Given that it's Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Please don't kill 32-bit Wine (Score:5, Interesting)
We at least need enough 32-bit packages available in the 64-bit distro (whether by dpkg --add-architecture i386, or by installing "lib32" packages like we used to do) to install and run Wine.
You see, to run Win32 programs, your Wine emulator binary needs to be a 32-bit Linux/ELF application. I suppose it could emulate cross-architecture, but wine prides itself on *not* emulating native code generation (for performance). Otherwise it would be as slow as a software virtualization solution like Bochs or (non-KVM) qemu.
Wine, in turn, depends on a number of system libraries for core services. It then implements common Windows APIs "in terms of" available platform libraries. Direct3D in terms of OpenGL; DirectSound in terms of libasound2 or libpulse; etc. These libraries, linked into a 32-bit binary, must also be 32-bit.
I agree that there's no point in testing 32-bit *hardware* any longer, but I hope they continue to ship 32-bit *builds* (even if they stop making 32-bit installation CDs). There's just too much software on the Win32 platform that needs to run on Linux (desktop OR server; see game servers) to abandon this segment of the market.
Re:Please don't kill 32-bit Wine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Please don't kill 32-bit Wine (Score:5, Informative)
Read TFA. Nobody's killing 32-bit libraries. Only .ISOs for 32-bit CPUs.
The fine article says
His proposal is that Ubuntu version 18.10 would be 64-bit-only, and if users desperately need to run 32-bit legacy applications, the'll have to do so in containers or virtual machines.
This suggests it's not just the ISOs that they plan to get rid of but also support for 32-bit applications, which includes Wine (for running 32-bit Windows applications). So yes, that's pretty worrying for Wine as a lot of Windows applications are either still 32-bit only, or depend on a 32-bit installer. Furthermore, one of the great advantages of Wine is that you do away with all the annoyance that are VMs. So using "containers or virtual machines" is really not much of a solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Have they heard of Virtual Machines? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's there to "find"? You can kick-off a 32-bit VM under any hypervisor — both on the cloud or on your own desktop. You can automate the VM-creation and tear-down on your build-farm quite easily.
I too strongly prefer to have a system, where size_t is equal to off_t (so you could mmap an entire file and not worry about it), but that is not "free". 64-bit pointers are, obviously, twice-wider than 32-bit ones, so "hairy" structures — with lots of pointers in them — nearly double in size. If none of your processes require more than 4Gb of virtual memory, there is no reason — other than the developers' laziness — to go 64-bit.
Whether it is an OS embedded inside a router or a point-of-sale machine, or even a single-user web-and-email desktop, 32-bit is perfectly sufficient and the overhead of 64-bit not justified.
And that laziness is what is keeping us back... Over the last 18 years, according to Moore's law [wikipedia.org], our computers have become at least 2^12 times more powerful. Now ask yourself, is the user-experience — however you choose to measure it — 4096 times better than it was in 1998? And, if it is not, where did the gains in hardware go?
By refusing to setup/use tens or even hundreds of 32-bit test-systems, developers force thousands and millions of users to upgrade. That is not a fair trade-off.
Re:Have they heard of Virtual Machines? (Score:5, Informative)
If none of your processes require more than 4Gb of virtual memory, there is no reason â" other than the developers' laziness â" to go 64-bit.
First, addresses/pointers aren't normally the largest chunk of code or data memory usage, so the include in RAM usage is far less than double.
Also, in the specific case of the Intel x86 architecture (which is what this is about, not general 32 bits vs. 64 bits), there is a significant reason to move from i386 to x86_64. The i386 architecture has a very small CPU register set, compared to most modern CPU architectures (and some instructions can only use certain registers). That means lots more things require memory loads/stores, which is bad for performance. When AMD created x86_64, they added a bunch of registers (and got rid of most of the usage restrictions), so 64 bit code performance is better.
Terrible headline. DESKTOP DISTIES letting go (Score:5, Informative)
There are a bunch of desktop distributions that will no longer do 32 bit builds. Makes sense.
No effect on kernel or disties for 32 bit systems/embedded/etc.
Re:Terrible headline. DESKTOP DISTIES letting go (Score:4, Insightful)
It's becoming more clear every day how the major Linux distributions have all been drinking the same cool-aid.
Seems so, but as of now 32 bit Linux has 22 years left (year 2038). I heard that may be fixed but AFAIK nothing yet. In any case for 32 bit I would use NetBSD or OpenBSD since the 2038 issue does not exist for them. I would like to know what "major dist" officially includes :) One distro I consider major just released a 32 bit version.
A terrible disturbance (Score:3)
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Intel Atom netbooks suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
AKA, my netbook :(
Re:A terrible disturbance (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's just great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I mean, if you're running Windows 10 right now... uhh.
Lemme rephrase. If Ubuntu 18.10 is 64-bit only, is that a problem? What show-stopping problem for a 2006 MacBook is present in 18.04 but fixed in 18.10?
What's wrong with running 18.04 until the hardware dies?
Re:That's just great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... as more time goes on, more exploits are found in all software, making all systems gradually more insecure. It's almost like there were a universal law governing such things *cough*.
Ubuntu's going to support IA-32 images for at least another five years (EOL for 16.04), probably seven (18.04 EOL). If your IA-32 system is still chugging by then, there'll still likely be Debian and CentOS to switch to.
Re: (Score:3)
My poor old Acer Netbook, 7 years old and going strong, isn't 64 bit, and runs Linux Mint very well. Oh no, what shall I do?
Really, there will be 32-bit compatibility for a minimum of 5 more years (Mint 18 support cycle) and by then ... maybe the Acer will deserve retirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My poor old Acer Netbook, 7 years old and going strong, isn't 64 bit, and runs Linux Mint very well.
My ZG5 is currently running Win XP, Fedora 24 and Ubuntu 16.04 Mate. I'n hesitant to try Windows 10 on an Atom N270 with only 1GB RAM.
Re:That's just great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in 2018, the 2006 MacBook will be 12 years old. 18.04 is an LTS release and will have 5 years of support and security updates. By the time there are no more security patches, the machine will be 17 years old and software exploits will be the least of the user's concerns if it is still his/her main machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in 2018, the 2006 MacBook will be 12 years old. 18.04 is an LTS release and will have 5 years of support and security updates. By the time there are no more security patches, the machine will be 17 years old and software exploits will be the least of the user's concerns if it is still his/her main machine.
I have a 2009 32 bit processor Sony Vaio P for which the best option I found so far is Linux Mint, which is based on Kubuntu. The form fator of this model was abandoned long ago, so I have no appropriate alternative in size and weight (no tablet is not good enough). By the time the aforementioned MakBook be 17 years old, my Sony Vaio P will be 14, yet I have to admit that my least concern will be software exploits.
Re:That's just great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Compaq Preesario V6000 released in 2006, which is also a 32bit medium range machine, designed for "Windows xp".
It runs Windows 10 reasonably, with only a hiccup or two now and then (needs more RAM). Most websites run perfectly fine on it, and can be used for banking, browsing (mostly, it's a bit choppy on HTML5 video - Flash video seems to have fewer problems). I would imagine if it was a high-end laptop, 17 years old shouldn't be an issue.
So why would someone who just does that stop using it?
Nobody's telling you to stop using it. The question is if distro maintainers want to do the work to provide full support to computers that are AT LEAST 17 years old. The answer is, the cutting edge distros don't, but distros focused on stability like CentOS probably will.
Re: That's just great... (Score:3, Informative)
No they didn't. RHEL did, and since CentOS is more or less just a rebuild of the RHEL sources the base CentOS 7 distribution is also 64 bit only.
But CentOS has also has an AltArch distribution for i386. It's right there on the download page if you want it.
Re: (Score:3)
No reason to stop. If it does what you need, go ahead. I'm sure source-based distros like Gentoo will still be fine. Distros that focus on long term support like CentOS and Debian will probably still provide a 32-bit distro as well.
I would also like to point out that your 10-year-old laptop is having trouble now. Add another 7 years to that and you will be compounding those problems dramatically. I don't see any (desktop or laptop) computers around from 1999 that are terribly useful today. Some parts
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and:
Re: (Score:2)
What show-stopping problem for a 2006 MacBook is present in 18.04 but fixed in 18.10?
What's wrong with running 18.04 until the hardware dies?
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with running 18.04 until the hardware dies?
I've never got Ubuntu to install successfully on the MacBook. Mint Linux install fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you say here Dear creimer!
Now you have three frontiers against you!
a) the Apple/Mac hater
b) the Mac/Apple lovers who hate you because you run windows on a Mac!
c) the Windows haters
And I believe the Windows 10 haters or Windows 10 upgrade haters are just in the queue behind them!
Perhaps I should set up a shop with pitchforks close to your house and I finally become rich?
Re:That's just great... (Score:5, Funny)
I bet he's a systemd fan too, the bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
Most definitely!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
aarch64 alphapca56 armv5tel geode ia64 ppc64 ppciseries sh4 sparcv9 alpha amd64 armv6hl i386 noarch ppc64iseries ppcpseries sh4a sparcv9v alphaev5 armv3l armv6l i486 pentium3 ppc64p7 s390 sparc x86_64 alphaev56 armv4b armv7hl i586 pentium4 ppc64pseries s390x sparc64 alphaev6 armv4l armv7l i686 ppc ppc8260 sh
Re:That's just great... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't even know what all of those are.
That is easy to explain, phantomfive:
All this are little bugs, usually black, with lots of golden legs sitting on the motherboard.
Some of them even have arms as you can see, some are sparcling and the others are of greek origin, like the pentium but I wonder where the monon, and duon etc. are. I guess the alpha is also a greek and the i686 has an extraordinary high IQ, or had ... I believe he is out of service now.
Regarding the 'motherboard' ... I'm not sure if you are old enough to get explained that yet. Considering that there are sometimes daughterboards sitting in strange positions on top of the motherboard ...
Hope that helped!
P.S. the Athlon is a long forgotten Spartan athlete. He always wanted to participate in Pankration at the Olympic games. But alas, Spartians were prohibited to participate in that discipline. (Something with killer instinct or something) So he finally decided to dress like a girl. Seems he did not know that women folk is not allowed at Olympic games either. Sad fate. Really sad.
Explanations: (Score:5, Informative)
RPM non-binary package:
noarch
Used for packages that aren't arch-specific, documentation, configuration, etc.
Sun/Oracle:
sparcv9 sparcv9v sparc sparc64 sparc64v sparcv8
sparc is sparc32 v7 abi (or should be... systems: ipx ss2, etc)
sparcv8 is v8+ abi (32 bit with some new instructions, ss4/5/10/20)
sparcv9/sparc64 is sun ultra+ systems (ultra 1 and above with 64 bit processors.)
sparcv9v is (I assume) Niagra chips and above, containing virtualization/containerization tech.
Hitachi SuperH:
sh4 sh4a sh sh3
Not sure what arch 'sh' is (sh2?3?)
sh3/4 were used in some routers and I think the Sega Saturn/Dreamcast/Naomi 1/2 consoles/arcade boards. Have never actually seen one outside a console in real life, although in japan at least there were apparently some routers using them as embedded processors running linux.
ARM:
aarch64 armv5tel armv6hl armv3l armv6l armv4b armv7hl armv4l armv7l armv5tejl
aarch64 is the 64 bit arm extensions. The rest are arm versions from 3 to 7 with different option flags. I think wikipedia has a comprehensive article on what they all mean. Lots of possible binary incompatibilities with arm binaries if you don't build to a specific instruction subset, which almost nobody ever did. v5->7 should I believe be forwards compatible. v6 and 7 definitely are.
Alpha:
alphapca56 alpha alphaev5 alphaev56 alphaev6 alphaev67
DEC's legacy shat all over by Compaq+HP. Better chip than IA64 if they had only produced them on newer processes and provided PC-prices entry level systems to keep developers engaged. China is supposedly producing homegrown knockoffs of these chips for fpu calculations in one of their supercomputers.
x86/x86_64:
geode amd64 i386 i486 pentium3 x86_64 i586 pentium4 i686 athlon ia32e
geode is amd's embedded x86, used in the original released OLPCs and various other embedded systems and devices. Not sure the exact x86 arch it is equivalent to (486->586, and maybe newer arch features)
ia32e I think is the x32 or x86_64 using 32 bit pointer ABI which allows the register file of x86_64 but only using 32 bit pointer references to keep memory usage low for applications that don't require more than 4 gigs of ram.
amd64 == x86_64
And the rest of those are Intel/AMD designations up to to SSE2 (P4) Not sure why they have that many different versions.
Itanic:
ia64 - Nuff said
IBM/Others PowerPC:
ppc64 ppciseries ppc64iseries ppcpseries ppc64p7 ppc64pseries ppc ppc8260 ppc32dy4 ppc8560
32 and 64 bit variants of PowerPC, dating from 90s era Macs to today.
IBM S390:
s390 s390x
Some sort of mainframe/large workstation systems I think. Not sure if the supported models are all PPC derived or not. I believe they run a different microcode layer on top of the cpus intended for mainframe use. Also run a hypervisor(or equivalent) above linux (and predating hypervisor capabilities in x86 by many years.)
Hope that helps! Check wikipedia for further info. They have rather comprehensive articles on all of these!
Re: That's just great... (Score:2)
Re:That's just great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then use Debian. While discouraging i386 as default download is long overdue, judging from other old architectures, it'll be a long long time until i386 is retired from the first class arch set, and even then it'll be welcome in second class (AKA debian-ports), among stuff like m68k, alpha or sh4.
Or, use Debian-hurd. It's available for i386 only!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gary Johnson? Jill Stein? Why pretend there are only 2 candidates?
Re: That's just great... (Score:2)
Because the founding fathers dream of not having a partisan democracy is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
But those are two more political parties... It's still partisan.
Re: (Score:3)
Donald Trump only has something like 20% odds, yet he'll probably get more than 1/3 of the popular vote. I say if you don't like Hillary, "throw your vote away" on a third party and not someone who has a 9-year-old's solution to immigration and runs a campaign targeting Archie Bunker.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least you can look forward to our next president not being Donald Trump.
Are you kidding? Donald Trump has no money, no campaign staff in the battleground states, and the electoral map is stacked against him. The Republicans can kiss the White House, Senate, and maybe the House, goodbye.
First off - you are agreeing with the poster above.
Second, it's funny how the democrats complain about money in politics yet they are the biggest recipients from unions, businesses, and now international entities.
Re: (Score:3)
Second, it's funny how the democrats complain about money in politics yet they are the biggest recipients from unions, businesses, and now international entities.
Funny how much Republican money is sitting on the sidelines because Trump is the nominee.
Re: That's just great... (Score:2)
Democrats like to obstreperously disagree. That way they can say a lot without making a point or actually having an idea that isn't nearly identical to the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A [Washington, ..., Lincoln, ..., Obama] Presidency will be the end of the republic.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."
Re: (Score:2)
That might have been true, except for the gift the Republicans received when Hillary bought the Democratic nomination.
The only thing that changed since Hillary won the Democratic nomination is Trump's sinking poll numbers, especially in the battleground states.
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually several new and new-ish 32 bit embedded x86 processors. Or systems where it makes more sense to use 32 bit Windows instead of 64 bit. Low-cost tablets, for instance, often use Atom chips that don't even support more than one or two gigs of RAM. They run Win10 okay, and browsing and casual games are fine on 'em, but a 64 bit OS would be a waste.
Re: (Score:2)
As we see, a geek would just compile his own kernel to his machine and wouldn't need to worry about if one already existed compiled for his machine.
I haven't compiled a kernel since the 1990's.
Re:GEEK POLICE RAID (Score:5, Funny)
Is that when you started or when it finished? I'm asking because it might have been Gentoo.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that when you started or when it finished? I'm asking because it might have been Gentoo.
I started in 1997 with Debian in a book distro. Ran SUSE for many years. Used Ubuntu, Fedora or Mint at work, depending on whatever was popular with the engineers. When I worked at Google, I used Goobuntu (Ubuntu variation). These days I'm banging on Red Hat Linux to see if I want to go for the certification.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Specifically IA-32 hardware, not anything 32-bit.
I don't disagree with a decision to drop support for old hardware, but what about some other level of support using emulated hardware to at least give some degree of support?
I think you're missing what the point of "support" is. A company can release a binary and say they support it, without testing it and not fixing any bugs for it, but that makes them look like assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
"doubles our testing burden (actually, more so, do you know how hard it is to find 32-bit hardware these days?)" I can find 32-bit hardware easily. Obviously, someone who didn't try and claims it not possible.
Agreed. There is a lot of hardware - even new hardware - that is 32-bit; while especially the case in non-x86 systems, there is even x86 systems that are still being shipped in 32-bit mode (e.g 32-bit OS) by default or are 32-bit only, especially in the embedded world - and yes, many of those embedded devices may still operate a GUI interface.
Example: A previous employer was converting from DOS to Linux. We had a GUI interface and the developer just loaded up X-Windows (GNOME I think) and then made a ful
Re: (Score:3)
The whole argument is nothing more than a straw man. All you have to do is have a multi-boot system where one of the images is 32 bit. Sure, you won't be able to take advantage of all of the RAM, but it will run, just fine. And, you can have one using a PAE kernel so that you can test programs in that environment
Re: (Score:2)
At least for intel Archs, you can install a 32 Bit OS on a computer with a 64 bit capable cpu.
*facepalm*
They're talking about x86 CPUs, like the i386, which cannot use the amd64 build because they don't support 64-bit. That's why it's hard to test.
Re: (Score:3)
They can still test the software on "better" hardware. They can also run it in a VM. That's what they expect everyone else to do.
It may not be "optimal" but it's certainly possible.
That's not even getting into the fact that they aren't really trying very hard to find 32bit x86 hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
They can still test the software on "better" hardware. They can also run it in a VM. That's what they expect everyone else to do.
It may not be "optimal" but it's certainly possible.
That's not even getting into the fact that they aren't really trying very hard to find 32bit x86 hardware.
I'm having difficulty apprehending what's so difficult to understand about this.
VMs and 64-bit CPUs can use the amd64 image, so there's literally no point in testing the IA-32 image on an amd64 CPU. The point of supporting an IA-32 ISO is so people on i686s and Core Duos can still use them. And you have to *test* to make sure the IA-32 image actually works on those CPUs, else you're at best wasting those peoples' time, at worst wrecking their computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Just because it can run 64-bit code doesn't mean it should.
There are plenty of systems SOLD TODAY that have 64-bit processors, but don't have >4GB of RAM. Lots of cheapie x86 tablets, x86 media sticks (Intel Compute Stick, anyone) etc? THey have 64-bit processors, but 1 or 2 GB of RAM.
Yes, you can run 64-bit software on it, but should you? After all, the 64-bit software takes mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you can run 64-bit software on it, but should you?
Yes you should, without a doubt, unless you know for sure the main bottleneck for your application will be memory.
The 64-bit modes offer more registers, and instructions that can do more operations per cycle as well as other optimized instructions. In most cases the performance will be much better!
Re: (Score:3)
If they expect "every one else" to run 32 bit software in VMs, they actually should test their 32 bit builds in VMs.
"The devil is a squirrel" as we say in german ...
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even getting into the fact that they aren't really trying very hard to find 32bit x86 hardware.
It's always simple when it's other people's time and money you're spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Not what they mean by supporting. Building it isn't good enough. If you say your software supports i586 then it needs to be tested on a Pentium I, i686 on Pentium II and III, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Well yes and no, there are some surprises from time to time. Like you might expect passing arch=i486 to gcc would give you code that would run on a 486, not always unless you pass other options as well. The problem is testing on the latest x64 chip means you are going to have a super set of the the i686 ISA in most cases, and with the wrong compiler flags or kernel build options, you might discover it really does not work on older hardware.
That doesn't mean squat. (Score:3)
At least for intel Archs, you can install a 32 Bit OS on a computer with a 64 bit capable cpu.
Which doesn't mean squat. We're talking Q.A. here.
The goal is to determine whether the code will work on a real 32-bit architecture, not a 64-bit architecture running in 32-bit emulation mode. The two have differences. If you run the tests on something other than the real target you have no clue whether it will work on the real thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Embedded, IoT and robotics are awash with 32 bit x86 stuff.
How many of those run Ubuntu or OpenSUSE?