archlinux dual iso

ebal · 2015-06-08 17:43:05

I understand the benefits of having the same archlinux installation iso for both i686 and x86_64 machines,
but I believe it's time that we split the iso in two separated isos.

Personally I have not (EVER) needed a i686 in the last ten (10) years, but perhaps someone else could need it.
From a bandwidth point of view seems a lot of waste (~300M) extra download.

Of course all the above are just an idea/suggestion and nothing more.

Any thoughts ?

ugjka · 2015-06-08 17:52:54

Just drop the 32-bit support altogether...

2ManyDogs · 2015-06-08 18:02:22

https://pierre-schmitz.com/farewell-i686/
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=164418
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=147697

This discussion comes up on a fairly regular basis. Some people are very vocal about still needing i686, and the discussion often gets quite heated. The general view seems to be that i686 will go away some day, but not today. But of course that could change.

Separating the isos would mean more work for the devs. I don't think that's an option.

Last edited by 2ManyDogs (2015-06-08 18:04:00)

ebal · 2015-06-08 18:08:41

Separating the isos would mean more work for the devs. I don't think that's an option.

Why that means more work ?
Isn't the build of the ISOs automated ?

Again I am not proposing of removing the i686 (not now), but splitting the ISOs.

I believe (statistical number entire fictional) that 99% of the people here,
would be more grateful (ok, maybe they wouldnt be grateful),
more happy if they could just download ~300Mb to do a clean install.

karol · 2015-06-08 18:23:57

I'm using 32-bit and I have so far never used 64-bit. My current hardware is 64-bit capable.
I've installed Arch only a few times when moving to a new computer, so I don't care if it's a dual architecture iso or not.

runical · 2015-06-08 20:08:27

ebal wrote:

I believe (statistical number entire fictional) that 99% of the people here,
would be more grateful (ok, maybe they wouldnt be grateful),
more happy if they could just download ~300Mb to do a clean install.

Just a small interjection, but does 300Mb really matter all that much? I know that I'm probably spoiled because I don't have a data cap, but if you have a data cap and you can't spare 300Mb, maybe Arch isn't for you (provided you plan on keeping it up to date). Also, storage space shouldn't really be a problem in this time and age. 32-bit will disappear in due time and our community does not have a lot of developers, so burdening them with more work shouldn't be something we want to do.

That being said, maybe you should ask the developer responsible for the image about this. That should be the one who knows most about the process of generating a new image and the amount of work involved to split them.

BTW: According to pkgstats, 10% of the userbase running pkgstats uses 32-bit. [1]

[1] https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics

Last edited by runical (2015-06-08 20:09:04)

ewaller · 2015-06-08 20:32:09

There is a lot of free hardware out there that can benefit students, charities, clubs, etc... Why should we hasten old, but otherwise serviceable hardware to the landfill ? Yes, I have heard it said that modern machines are more energy efficient. Perhaps marginally. But it takes a hell of a lot of energy to mine and process the raw materials for a computers components, to assemble them into system and then ship the system (probably by air) from somewhere in Asia. 300 Mbytes.

ugjka · 2015-06-08 20:53:37

Meh, I have an old machine (albeit 64-bit capable) and it can't even be used to browse the web properly. Sure I could repurpose it as some sort of server maybe. Or I could just buy something that is much cheaper (much more energy efficient), much smaller and less noisy like Raspberry Py.

ewaller · 2015-06-08 20:58:49

Yeah, it is tough to pass on a Raspberry Pi. I just hate throwing things that work into the landfill.
I use retired smartphones as wifi security cameras. A turn of the century PC makes a really nice network based irrigation controller -- complete with a web interface

severach · 2015-06-09 09:12:59

The power savings is big. I can build an Celeron i3 based computer with hand picked parts and a laptop hard drive where the tower unit takes 17W at idle. The average consumption for a randomly selected low performance i3 based tower is 30W. The best I could do with hand picked Pentium 4 parts was 48W. The average consumption is 95W. The cost is roughly the same so I end up giving people Core 2 and i3-Celeron computers because I can't afford the time waiting for the old computers to complete simple tasks. I had to get rid of all my Core 2 Duos because they heat the room up too much in the summer.

If you live in Alaska the Pentium 4 isn't such a bad deal. I have an E3-1245v3 with 4 SAS drives and a SATA SSD that takes 46W at idle. Now the most efficient Pentium 4 I had ever created doesn't look like such a good deal.

Something is going to the landfill. If I save the Pentium 4 I throw more of myself and coal in.

chaonaut · 2015-06-09 11:21:29

i often use arch iso as a rescue or live cd to do something on clean or broken machine (because all necessary tools are there already), and i like the fact that it is dual, so i can put put it to any machine and boot it. it's very convenient (unlike, say, debian or ubuntu).

blackout23 · 2015-06-09 11:56:49

runical wrote:

ebal wrote:
I believe (statistical number entire fictional) that 99% of the people here,
would be more grateful (ok, maybe they wouldnt be grateful),
more happy if they could just download ~300Mb to do a clean install.
Just a small interjection, but does 300Mb really matter all that much? I know that I'm probably spoiled because I don't have a data cap, but if you have a data cap and you can't spare 300Mb, maybe Arch isn't for you (provided you plan on keeping it up to date). Also, storage space shouldn't really be a problem in this time and age. 32-bit will disappear in due time and our community does not have a lot of developers, so burdening them with more work shouldn't be something we want to do.
That being said, maybe you should ask the developer responsible for the image about this. That should be the one who knows most about the process of generating a new image and the amount of work involved to split them.
BTW: According to pkgstats, 10% of the userbase running pkgstats uses 32-bit. [1]
[1] https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics

I always wondered:

a) if this website is still being updated (automatically?)
b) If it's actually 5% using a system that doesn't have a 64-Bit CPU and some people use 32-Bit Arch on their 64-Bit PC for no good reason.

helix · 2015-06-09 12:52:32

I think it's better to have one disk-iso for two architectures, than two seperate, it helps carrying only one cd instead of two

Besides, people who don't have an internet connection fast enough to download a 500+ MB iso would feel uncomfortable to update their system in the future, so Arch may not suitable for them after all. I think Arch is one of the few distros that remain faithful in releasing non-bloated installation isos that fit in a single cd. Everything needed for installation is already there and IF the developers wish to add more, there is still enough room until the 700 MB limit (for a single cd).

Last edited by helix (2015-06-09 12:54:01)

Arch Linux

#1 2015-06-08 17:43:05

archlinux dual iso

#2 2015-06-08 17:52:54

Re: archlinux dual iso

#3 2015-06-08 18:02:22

Re: archlinux dual iso

#4 2015-06-08 18:08:41

Re: archlinux dual iso

#5 2015-06-08 18:23:57

Re: archlinux dual iso

#6 2015-06-08 20:08:27

Re: archlinux dual iso

#7 2015-06-08 20:32:09

Re: archlinux dual iso

#8 2015-06-08 20:53:37

Re: archlinux dual iso

#9 2015-06-08 20:58:49

Re: archlinux dual iso

#10 2015-06-09 09:12:59

Re: archlinux dual iso

#11 2015-06-09 11:21:29

Re: archlinux dual iso

#12 2015-06-09 11:56:49

Re: archlinux dual iso

#13 2015-06-09 12:52:32

Re: archlinux dual iso

Board footer