You are not logged in.

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

mDuo13
Member
Registered: 2010-04-25
Posts: 90

Re: Dropping i686 support

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

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.

Offline

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

hussam
Member
Registered: 2006-03-26
Posts: 525
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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)

Offline

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

Pierre
Developer
From: Bonn
Registered: 2004-07-05
Posts: 1,950
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.

Offline

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

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 3,015

Re: Dropping i686 support

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?


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Offline

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

SanskritFritz
Member
From: Budapest, Hungary
Registered: 2009-01-08
Posts: 1,619
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.


zʇıɹɟʇıɹʞsuɐs AUR || Cycling in Budapest with a helmet camera || Revised log levels proposal: "FYI" "WTF" and "OMG" (John Barnette)

Offline

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

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,541

Re: Dropping i686 support

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

Offline

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

bjornoslav
Member
Registered: 2011-11-01
Posts: 137

Re: Dropping i686 support

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. smile


asus ux303la, core i5@1.6ghz, 8 gb ram, 500gb hdd, hd4400 gpu, crux x64 with openbox

Offline

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

SanskritFritz
Member
From: Budapest, Hungary
Registered: 2009-01-08
Posts: 1,619
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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)


zʇıɹɟʇıɹʞsuɐs AUR || Cycling in Budapest with a helmet camera || Revised log levels proposal: "FYI" "WTF" and "OMG" (John Barnette)

Offline

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

skanky
Member
From: WAIS
Registered: 2009-10-23
Posts: 1,841

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.


"...one cannot be angry when one looks at a penguin."  - John Ruskin
"Life in general is a bit shit, and so too is the internet. And that's all there is." - scepticisle

Offline

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

anonymous_user
Member
Registered: 2009-08-28
Posts: 3,058

Re: Dropping i686 support

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 big_smile

Offline

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

brazzmonkey
Member
From: between keyboard and chair
Registered: 2006-03-16
Posts: 818
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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...


what goes up must come down

Offline

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

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,422

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

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

SanskritFritz
Member
From: Budapest, Hungary
Registered: 2009-01-08
Posts: 1,619
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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 smile


zʇıɹɟʇıɹʞsuɐs AUR || Cycling in Budapest with a helmet camera || Revised log levels proposal: "FYI" "WTF" and "OMG" (John Barnette)

Offline

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

Gusar
Member
Registered: 2009-08-25
Posts: 3,472

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.

Offline

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

SanskritFritz
Member
From: Budapest, Hungary
Registered: 2009-01-08
Posts: 1,619
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.


zʇıɹɟʇıɹʞsuɐs AUR || Cycling in Budapest with a helmet camera || Revised log levels proposal: "FYI" "WTF" and "OMG" (John Barnette)

Offline

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

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,856

Re: Dropping i686 support

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).


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

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

SanskritFritz
Member
From: Budapest, Hungary
Registered: 2009-01-08
Posts: 1,619
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.


zʇıɹɟʇıɹʞsuɐs AUR || Cycling in Budapest with a helmet camera || Revised log levels proposal: "FYI" "WTF" and "OMG" (John Barnette)

Offline

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

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,437
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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...

Offline

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

ConnorBehan
Trusted User (TU)
From: Long Island NY
Registered: 2007-07-05
Posts: 1,356
Website

Re: Dropping i686 support

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 wink.


6EA3 F3F3 B908 2632 A9CB E931 D53A 0445 B47A 0DAB
Great things come in tar.xz packages.

Offline

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

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,856

Re: Dropping i686 support

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?


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

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

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 3,015

Re: Dropping i686 support

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)


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Offline

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

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,856

Re: Dropping i686 support

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?


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

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

nomorewindows
Member
Registered: 2010-04-03
Posts: 3,015

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.


I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.

Offline

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

Jristz
Member
From: America/Santiago
Registered: 2011-06-11
Posts: 924

Re: Dropping i686 support

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)


Well, I suppose that this is somekind of signature, no?

Offline

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

ANOKNUSA
Member
Registered: 2010-10-22
Posts: 2,141

Re: Dropping i686 support

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.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB