Dropping i686 support

mDuo13 · 2013-03-06 22:57:36

I've got an old Pentium 4 box from early 2005 that's running Arch i686. It works great!

I can definitely see where you'd consider dropping support, but I also agree with the devs that that time has not yet come. Arch makes the right decision once again.

hussam · 2013-03-18 14:38:52

I recently got rid of my 6 year old i686 installation which I had been moving from computer to computer and from hard disk to hard disk.
I installed 64bit archlinux. I must say I regret this move. While there was a some performance gain and I can now use all my system RAM, I have some proprietary 32bit applications that I can no longer run on my home machine and I'm not going to start installing the multi-lib crap.
I may go back to i686 when I have some free time or get another machine and install 32bit archlinux on it.
I think 32bit archlinux is going to be needed for at least another decade. I don't see any reason to remove it. Some of us buy really expensive software to run on linux and we need the 32bit binary installations without the multi-lib silliness.

Last edited by hussam (2013-03-18 14:42:43)

Pierre · 2013-03-18 14:49:55

Multilib solves your problem Why would that be silly or crap? Do you think it's more sane to keep a whole distribution of packages just to run old proprietary software? If you spend that much money on it make sure you get the x86_64 version.

nomorewindows · 2013-03-18 15:24:02

hussam wrote:

I recently got rid of my 6 year old i686 installation which I had been moving from computer to computer and from hard disk to hard disk.
I installed 64bit archlinux. I must say I regret this move. While there was a some performance gain and I can now use all my system RAM, I have some proprietary 32bit applications that I can no longer run on my home machine and I'm not going to start installing the multi-lib crap.
I may go back to i686 when I have some free time or get another machine and install 32bit archlinux on it.
I think 32bit archlinux is going to be needed for at least another decade. I don't see any reason to remove it. Some of us buy really expensive software to run on linux and we need the 32bit binary installations without the multi-lib silliness.

If you don't want multilib, how about running 32-bit in a chroot jail?

SanskritFritz · 2013-03-18 15:28:37

hussam wrote:

I'm not going to start installing the multi-lib crap.
we need the 32bit binary installations without the multi-lib silliness.

If you can say mulitilb crap, I can say 32 bit crap too. Love those arguments. I mean I can surely call a system that cant't show me dates beyond 2038... crap.

Awebb · 2013-03-19 11:00:50

Yeah, I'm also tired of this static bitrate crap. I hope to see the day of dynamic binaries before I bite the bullet.

bjornoslav · 2013-03-19 11:20:48

I prefer the 32-bit Arch version since I have only 2 GiB RAM, my laptop supports max. 4 GiB and personally I haven't noticed any visible benefits of using the 64-bit version.
I know, my Core 2 Duo CPU does support 64-bit, but the increase of RAM usage because of the greater data structures of the programs and no visible gains made me stick to the 32-bit version.
I'd rather not jump ship again, since I consider Arch my home.

SanskritFritz · 2013-03-19 13:35:45

I converted my 32 bit installation to 64 bit due to two factors:
1. The 2038 bug (ridiculous reason I know)
2. 32 bit packages receive less and less testing (not so ridiculous reason, I have read somewhere here that some 32 bit packages aren't even tested at all, because the mainteiner does not have a 32 bit box - citation needed)

UPDATE: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 1#p1226981

Last edited by SanskritFritz (2013-03-19 14:14:43)

skanky · 2013-03-19 13:51:37

SanskritFritz wrote:

I converted my 32 bit installation to 64 bit due to two factors:
1. The 2038 bug (ridiculous reason I know)
2. 32 bit packages receive less and less testing (not so ridiculous reason, I have read somewhere here that some 32 bit packages aren't even tested at all, because the mainteiner does not have a 32 bit box - citation needed)

Pages 3 & 4 of this thread (no link as the point is clarified over several posts). It was that that pushed me to finally (had been considering it for a while) switch all 64 bit compatible systems to 64 bit. Using the wiki page, it was actually pretty straight forward, and I cleaned out a few forgotten about AUR packages that I no longer used.

anonymous_user · 2013-03-19 14:49:54

bjornoslav wrote:

I prefer the 32-bit Arch version since I have only 2 GiB RAM, my laptop supports max. 4 GiB and personally I haven't noticed any visible benefits of using the 64-bit version.

I used to feel the same way though I'm not sure what made me switch to 64-bit. FWIW, the increase in memory usage is not very noticeable when you use a light-weight window manager

brazzmonkey · 2013-03-20 09:13:58

I have several computers at home, but only 2 of them are 64-bit capable and they don't run Arch.
Legacy ones use Arch i686 because it's lightweight, versatile, efficient and... compatible.
I understand the reasons for dropping i686. That means I'll have to drop Arch...

Lone_Wolf · 2013-03-20 12:02:01

While all 64-bit capable archlinux systems i maintain do use 64-bit archlinux, i'll soon be configuring a 32-bit system with archlinux.

This system is approx 5 years old, has a 32-bit only intel proc, but is working fine otherwise.
Until now, the owner has been using windows xp, doesn't like windows vista/7/8 and has chosen to switch to archlinux with kde after trying out live versions of (k)ubuntu, mint , opensuse and such.

I hope arch will continue to support 32-bit even with little testing for a long time to come.

SanskritFritz · 2013-03-20 13:08:53

I think the main problem really is that hadly any maintainer uses 32 anymore. Someone would have to step up to maintain or at least test the 32 bit packages. Else 32 bit arch turns into a source-only distro

Gusar · 2013-03-20 15:12:48

I don't think there's really a need for a special "32bit maintainer". I'd have no problem if the devs do away with the need to sign off on 32bit packages, and move the package from testing to core at the same time as the 64bit package. If a bug crops up, that's what the bugtracker is for. Yeah, this would mean that 32bit folks are perpetually beta testers and not "users", but I'd be fine with that. Much better than needing to search for a different distro. I like Arch very much and only one of my machines is 64bit capable.

SanskritFritz · 2013-03-20 15:27:27

Gusar wrote:

I don't think there's really a need for a special "32bit maintainer". I'd have no problem if the devs do away with the need to sign off on 32bit packages, and move the package from testing to core at the same time as the 64bit package. If a bug crops up, that's what the bugtracker is for. Yeah, this would mean that 32bit folks are perpetually beta testers and not "users", but I'd be fine with that. Much better than needing to search for a different distro. I like Arch very much and only one of my machines is 64bit capable.

Allan wrote, that there were some 32 bit related bugs already. Ok, you report, and test, but how would the problem be fixed? Otherwise, I agree, dropping 32 bit would be undesirable with so many old machines still working. After all one of the key points in using arch is that it is so lean that it is feasible to run on old hardware.

ngoonee · 2013-03-20 23:25:31

SanskritFritz wrote:

After all one of the key points in using arch is that it is so lean that it is feasible to run on old hardware.

I must have missed that memo. Old/slow hardware was never really the target (check Puppy Linux out, that's more like what you're referring to).

SanskritFritz · 2013-03-20 23:54:41

ngoonee wrote:

SanskritFritz wrote:
After all one of the key points in using arch is that it is so lean that it is feasible to run on old hardware.
I must have missed that memo. Old/slow hardware was never really the target (check Puppy Linux out, that's more like what you're referring to).

Oh come on. I didn't say it was a target, just that it is a nice side effect of the simplicity arch provides. Don't be a nitpick.

Allan · 2013-03-20 23:56:53

Wow... this discussion is still going!

Let me reiterate - there are no plans to drop i686... But we will likely reduce the requirement for package signoffs for i686 (officially... unofficially we already have). When that happens, it will be clear that x86_64 is our primary architecture and i686 will be secondary. That brings potential for other secondary architectures...

ConnorBehan · 2013-03-21 00:40:11

SanskritFritz wrote:

Gusar wrote:
I don't think there's really a need for a special "32bit maintainer". I'd have no problem if the devs do away with the need to sign off on 32bit packages, and move the package from testing to core at the same time as the 64bit package. If a bug crops up, that's what the bugtracker is for. Yeah, this would mean that 32bit folks are perpetually beta testers and not "users", but I'd be fine with that. Much better than needing to search for a different distro. I like Arch very much and only one of my machines is 64bit capable.
Allan wrote, that there were some 32 bit related bugs already. Ok, you report, and test, but how would the problem be fixed?
...

You're mistaking Gusar for someone who doesn't know how to fix bugs .

ngoonee · 2013-03-21 00:50:13

SanskritFritz wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
SanskritFritz wrote:
After all one of the key points in using arch is that it is so lean that it is feasible to run on old hardware.
I must have missed that memo. Old/slow hardware was never really the target (check Puppy Linux out, that's more like what you're referring to).
Oh come on. I didn't say it was a target, just that it is a nice side effect of the simplicity arch provides. Don't be a nitpick.

Not trying to be a nitpick, sorry, but 'key points' is stretching it (and misleading to the less well-informed).

It IS a very nice side-effect (and I take advantage of that myself on some older machines) but that's as far as it goes. I'd be more than happy to see i686 support properly maintained, but with most of the devs (not TUs though, I think I remember quite a few TUs mentioning 32-bit much more frequently) on 64-bit the days are likely numbered.

Maybe Arch should totally drop 32-bit support by the beginning of next month. Or haven't we done that before?

nomorewindows · 2013-03-21 01:17:24

The design philosophy of Linux is to make it work on just about any hardware. If this distro doesn't have maybe another has or can be easily ported. Just because another distro is dropping i686 support makes it a good idea.

Last edited by nomorewindows (2013-03-21 01:18:41)

ngoonee · 2013-03-21 02:24:17

nomorewindows wrote:

The design philosophy of Linux is to make it work on just about any hardware. If this distro doesn't have maybe another has or can be easily ported. Just because another distro is dropping i686 support makes it a good idea.

Have you read the discussion or are you simply responding to a thread title?

nomorewindows · 2013-03-21 14:16:15

ngoonee wrote:

nomorewindows wrote:
The design philosophy of Linux is to make it work on just about any hardware. If this distro doesn't have maybe another has or can be easily ported. Just because another distro is dropping i686 support makes it a good idea.
Have you read the discussion or are you simply responding to a thread title?

For one thing, the last line is supposed to read Just because another distro is dropping i686 support doesn't mean it is a good idea. I kept rewriting it, and still couldn't get it right.

Jristz · 2013-03-21 20:18:28

nomorewindows wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
nomorewindows wrote:
The design philosophy of Linux is to make it work on just about any hardware. If this distro doesn't have maybe another has or can be easily ported. Just because another distro is dropping i686 support makes it a good idea.
Have you read the discussion or are you simply responding to a thread title?
For one thing, the last line is supposed to read Just because another distro is dropping i686 support doesn't mean it is a good idea. I kept rewriting it, and still couldn't get it right.

probably /sarcasm is not used here /sarcasm-fin

I Not believe in anythink of the dev say in this thread, I believe in Fact and mailisting the fact say: 'Maintain i686 for a maximum of 25 years more'

Last edited by Jristz (2013-03-21 20:19:18)

ANOKNUSA · 2013-03-23 15:56:29

I just set up an i686 Arch server on an 11-year-old Dell tower my ma haulled out of the basement a couple weeks ago. It took me about three hours, being totally unfamiliar with the hardware. Would I be upset if i686 Arch support were dropped in the near future? Not at all, since I knew going into it that using Arch as a stable server on an old computer might not be the best idea. My production machine is 64-bit anyway, and I can just as easily SSH into a Debian or Gentoo or even FreeBSD box as I can an Arch one (though the latter would take some doing to set up). Such is the nature of rolling-release operating systems maintained by a limited number of individuals.

Arch Linux

#101 2013-03-06 22:57:36

Re: Dropping i686 support

#102 2013-03-18 14:38:52

Re: Dropping i686 support

#103 2013-03-18 14:49:55

Re: Dropping i686 support

#104 2013-03-18 15:24:02

Re: Dropping i686 support

#105 2013-03-18 15:28:37

Re: Dropping i686 support

#106 2013-03-19 11:00:50

Re: Dropping i686 support

#107 2013-03-19 11:20:48

Re: Dropping i686 support

#108 2013-03-19 13:35:45

Re: Dropping i686 support

#109 2013-03-19 13:51:37

Re: Dropping i686 support

#110 2013-03-19 14:49:54

Re: Dropping i686 support

#111 2013-03-20 09:13:58

Re: Dropping i686 support

#112 2013-03-20 12:02:01

Re: Dropping i686 support

#113 2013-03-20 13:08:53

Re: Dropping i686 support

#114 2013-03-20 15:12:48

Re: Dropping i686 support

#115 2013-03-20 15:27:27

Re: Dropping i686 support

#116 2013-03-20 23:25:31

Re: Dropping i686 support

#117 2013-03-20 23:54:41

Re: Dropping i686 support

#118 2013-03-20 23:56:53

Re: Dropping i686 support

#119 2013-03-21 00:40:11

Re: Dropping i686 support

#120 2013-03-21 00:50:13

Re: Dropping i686 support

#121 2013-03-21 01:17:24

Re: Dropping i686 support

#122 2013-03-21 02:24:17

Re: Dropping i686 support

#123 2013-03-21 14:16:15

Re: Dropping i686 support

#124 2013-03-21 20:18:28

Re: Dropping i686 support

#125 2013-03-23 15:56:29

Re: Dropping i686 support

Board footer