ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

brain0 · 2006-05-23 09:47:26

Jan de Groot wrote:

Somewhere this week glibc 2.4 will enter testing, together with gcc 4.1
and a matching binutils. Glibc 2.4 has no support for linuxthreads,
which means kernel 2.4 is no longer supported.
This means, that if you use testing on a 2.4 box, you should not upgrade
to packages in testing after the glibc 2.4 package has gone in.

So Arch is moving on again, leaving kernel 2.4 behind for good. How do you feel about this change? Are there some of you who will have to stop using Arch?

kth5 · 2006-05-23 09:56:07

arch is about being as bleeding edge as possible. possible in way that we could have dropped kernel24 much earlier and possible in a sense of glibc 2.4 being a bit old already. arch is about implementing the latest features where applicable, users should not use arch if they do not agree with that. i think JGC waited long enough for users to settle down. some asked about gcc 4.1 and glibc 2.4 months ago, still JGC did not consider putting them to testing to leave some time for others who would have started a riot against the upgraders.

in any case, kernel24 should not be necessary on i686 compatible computers anymore. if you would run a i386 with tons of oldish ISA hardware or something, i would understand but that is out of the question with -march=i686 anyway.

AndyRTR · 2006-05-23 10:46:25

Anybody not yet upgraded the kernel? Maybe the old glibc and kernel24 developement can be continued in community repos/AUR like old gcc releases.

I would like to see arch even more bleading edge and new features should appear faster in the maintained part of the distribution. But that's only my personal opinion.

I'm thinking about making arch64 the "more" bleading edge part. Maybe a bit of real life testing for the i686 tree. Only porting from the stable tree is sometimes a bit late to get involved in some developement decissions. So i'm thinking about steppin in front off all. I can only offer to make arch64 the new bleading edge playground part of archlinux

dtw · 2006-05-23 10:57:51

Assuming arch64 _is_ actually the future...

codemac · 2006-05-23 13:18:47

Pff, yea. Who says 64-bit is the future? It's not like history has shown us that over time we get higher and higher bit machines or anything.

Actually, in the future, we are just going to stay using old hardware even though we know of better.

Anonymo · 2006-05-23 13:23:46

codemac wrote:

Pff, yea. Who says 64-bit is the future? It's not like history has shown us that over time we get higher and higher bit machines or anything.
Actually, in the future, we are just going to stay using old hardware even though we know of better.

ha ha LOL

user · 2006-05-23 13:51:50

I am very happy about it.

> uname -a
Linux arch 2.6.17-rc4-git9 #2 PREEMPT Mon May 22 00:44:16 KST 2006 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
>

tomk · 2006-05-23 13:56:25

Option #1 for me. 2.4 has been off my radar for years, with one exception - IPCop - and that's a bit OT here. The newest hardware I have is six years old, but I have no need for 2.4 on any of it.

stavrosg · 2006-05-23 14:47:17

#1 for me, too. If I am going to use 2.4, it will be on hardware that arch does not run anyway, so I really don't care about it.

stonecrest · 2006-05-23 15:14:21

1 for me. Isn't this why we choose Arch, to run the latest and greatest?

shadov · 2006-05-23 20:44:52

stonecrest wrote:

1 for me. Isn't this why we choose Arch, to run the latest and greatest?

Well... I choose Arch because it's the simplest, easiest, one of the fastests, and also one of the most stable distros I have tried. Running the latest and greatest is nice too, as long as it doesn't break things too often and doesn't make my system unstable.

To answer the original question: I don't use 2.4 so I don't mind dropping it.

dtw · 2006-05-23 21:35:55

codemac wrote:

Pff, yea. Who says 64-bit is the future? It's not like history has shown us that over time we get higher and higher bit machines or anything.
Actually, in the future, we are just going to stay using old hardware even though we know of better.

Hmm, you seemed to get the point...and then missed it

Xaero_Vincent · 2006-05-23 22:58:31

The 64 bit revolution is already happening. Soon people wont be able to buy 32 bit machines anymore except for maybe low-power notebooks and tablet PCs.

So why hasnt Arch64 gone gold with today's release? I was kind of expecting x86_64 ISOs on the mirrors and torrents.

cactus · 2006-05-24 00:40:16

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

The 64 bit revolution is already happening. Soon people wont be able to buy 32 bit machines anymore except for maybe low-power notebooks and tablet PCs.

Where are you, and how cheap is the crack you are smoking?

64bit has been around for *quite a while* now.
sparc, alpha... quite a while..

And I don't see things changing that quickly. It is one thing to be on the 'leading edge' of technology. It is another thing to be so on the cutting edge that nobody else can use it. Arch for quantum computers! Screw everyone else!

user · 2006-05-24 01:39:12

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

Arch64.

s/64/PS3/ or s/64/CELL/

;-)

Xaero_Vincent · 2006-05-24 04:59:19

cactus wrote:

Xaero_Vincent wrote:
The 64 bit revolution is already happening. Soon people wont be able to buy 32 bit machines anymore except for maybe low-power notebooks and tablet PCs.
Where are you, and how cheap is the crack you are smoking?
64bit has been around for *quite a while* now.
sparc, alpha... quite a while..
And I don't see things changing that quickly. It is one thing to be on the 'leading edge' of technology. It is another thing to be so on the cutting edge that nobody else can use it. Arch for quantum computers! Screw everyone else!

Bleh... crack aint cheap here. You wouldnt want the cheap stuff anyway as you'd have no assurance about it's quality. Actually, I've never smoked that crap before. In fact I have never smoked or drank anything after 19 years!

I just need to get off my ritalin and I'll get a "natural" high!

brain0 · 2006-05-24 05:38:13

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

The 64 bit revolution is already happening. Soon people wont be able to buy 32 bit machines anymore except for maybe low-power notebooks and tablet PCs.
So why hasnt Arch64 gone gold with today's release? I was kind of expecting x86_64 ISOs on the mirrors and torrents.

The "64 Bit" machines that you can buy today (x86_64) are not real 64 bit systems, but rather 32/64 bit hybrids. They can do both and are backwards compatible to normal x86 machines.

The reason that 64 bit operating systems are not yet that popular for x86_64 is this: There is missing software. In case you want to use a pure 64 bit system (like Arch64), most closed source apps won't be available, this includes flashplayer, acroread, skype, teamspeak and others. AFAIK you won't even have OpenOffice (until someone finally is able to build it, I don't know if the Arch64 project already has a PKGBUILD for that).
So while a typical desktop users won't really benefit from using 64 Bit, he will lose much of his beloved applications and is better off with 32 Bit.
Until closed source software is available for x86_64, it won't conquer the average desktop. Let's hope it doesn't take that long.

Still (to answer your question), Arch64 is a step forward and will be an official Arch port. It just didn't happen with this release yet, as the efforts of merging both projects have just started. I'd expect it for 0.8 ....

iphitus · 2006-05-24 07:35:46

I'm wondering who the single person was who voted for 2.4...

James

Vins · 2006-05-24 08:15:39

I'm using a 2.4 kernel on my XBOX. I can't upgrade because the 2.6 branch doesn't have FATX support.

But I don't think it will be a problem: Archlinux on my XBOX is running smoothly, I don't need to update it

ViNS

dtw · 2006-05-24 08:57:48

cactus wrote:

Xaero_Vincent wrote:
The 64 bit revolution is already happening. Soon people wont be able to buy 32 bit machines anymore except for maybe low-power notebooks and tablet PCs.
Where are you, and how cheap is the crack you are smoking?
64bit has been around for *quite a while* now.
sparc, alpha... quite a while..
And I don't see things changing that quickly. It is one thing to be on the 'leading edge' of technology. It is another thing to be so on the cutting edge that nobody else can use it. Arch for quantum computers! Screw everyone else!

Precisely - by the time Arch is a arch64 optimized distro there'll be an arch128 (or whatever sub-project waiting in the wings). There is no future, there is only now. Things won't change quickly at all and by the time they do something bigger and better will have come along anway. Not saying we can't plan for the future of course

Chris|MD · 2006-05-24 13:10:17

I better want to see a installer with new features or something like that. There was a thread about that long ago.
But nothing happened since then...

brain0 · 2006-05-24 13:12:49

It looks like 0.8 will have a completely redesigned installer and install cd.

user · 2006-05-24 13:30:14

AISB, i would wish that arch has reasonable dir structure for me comming 1.0.
easy to maintain or understand or never did mess up or well filed..

Cerebral · 2006-05-24 13:38:45

I've been using 2.6 ever since my first install of Arch - never once touched the 2.4 kernel. I started with stock, then went to archck, then beyond. My hardware is decently recent, though, so I've never needed anything else.

Chris|MD · 2006-05-24 14:54:53

brain0 wrote:

It looks like 0.8 will have a completely redesigned installer and install cd.

When will it be released? 2008?
I hope i get a nice modern linuxsystem before im dead...
The progress is so slow. Of most of the apps which are developed at the moment.

If i could code C or help with something else i would really do it. But theres no deeper look in the progress of that possible.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-05-23 09:47:26

ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#2 2006-05-23 09:56:07

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#3 2006-05-23 10:46:25

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#4 2006-05-23 10:57:51

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#5 2006-05-23 13:18:47

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#6 2006-05-23 13:23:46

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#7 2006-05-23 13:51:50

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#8 2006-05-23 13:56:25

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#9 2006-05-23 14:47:17

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#10 2006-05-23 15:14:21

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#11 2006-05-23 20:44:52

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#12 2006-05-23 21:35:55

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#13 2006-05-23 22:58:31

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#14 2006-05-24 00:40:16

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#15 2006-05-24 01:39:12

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#16 2006-05-24 04:59:19

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#17 2006-05-24 05:38:13

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#18 2006-05-24 07:35:46

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#19 2006-05-24 08:15:39

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#20 2006-05-24 08:57:48

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#21 2006-05-24 13:10:17

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#22 2006-05-24 13:12:49

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#23 2006-05-24 13:30:14

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#24 2006-05-24 13:38:45

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

#25 2006-05-24 14:54:53

Re: ArchLinux is moving on again, how do you feel about it?

Board footer