Slashdot Mirror
Debian Dropping Support For Older CPUs (distrowatch.com)
An anonymous reader shares DistroWatch's report that the Debian distribution will soon be dropping support for older, 32-bit processors.
The Debian project supports a wide range of hardware architectures, including 32-bit x86 CPUs. Changes are happening in Debian's development branches which will make older versions of the 32-bit architecture obsolete. Ben Hutchings provides the details:
"Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle. This means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid 586/686 processors. (Support for 486-class processors was dropped, somewhat accidentally, in Squeeze.) This was implemented in the Linux kernel packages starting with Linux 4.3, which was uploaded to Unstable in December last year. In case you missed that change, GCC for i386 has recently been changed to target 686-class processors and is generating code that will crash on other processors. Any such systems still running Testing or Unstable will need to be switched to run Stable (Jessie)." Hutching's announcement includes a list of processors which will no longer be supported after Debian "Jessie".
The Debian project supports a wide range of hardware architectures, including 32-bit x86 CPUs. Changes are happening in Debian's development branches which will make older versions of the 32-bit architecture obsolete. Ben Hutchings provides the details:
"Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle. This means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid 586/686 processors. (Support for 486-class processors was dropped, somewhat accidentally, in Squeeze.) This was implemented in the Linux kernel packages starting with Linux 4.3, which was uploaded to Unstable in December last year. In case you missed that change, GCC for i386 has recently been changed to target 686-class processors and is generating code that will crash on other processors. Any such systems still running Testing or Unstable will need to be switched to run Stable (Jessie)." Hutching's announcement includes a list of processors which will no longer be supported after Debian "Jessie".
giving up on embedded systems.
What a shame. One thing that I loved about Debian, is that it supported old hardware, much older than what is required by the popular dumbed-down distros such as Fedora/Ubuntu/etc.
There are many applications, and use-cases, where you do not need a top-of-the-line CPU to get the job done.
This change, along with the systemd change, do not make me happy at all. Debian is going down the drain.
The "modern" linux desktop is becoming a bloated piece of garbage. You should not need >=i686, multiple cores, and gigabytes of RAM, just to have a graphical desktop environment and browse the internet. In fact, unless you are doing photo-editing work, or something similar, you do not need a graphical desktop at all.
Back when I was a young kid, I used a computer with a 486 cpu to browse the internet, and the Netscape browser was around ~10MB or so, if I remember correctly. Now, most websites are impossible to view without a multi-core processor, and browsers such as fiefox take up hundreds of megabytes. This bloat is absolutely disgusting. And the internet is becoming a disgusting commercial cesspool. My /etc/hosts file is about half a megabyte large, just to blacklist all the crap (MVPS Hosts).
In the past month, I booted up an Ubuntu LiveDVD out of curiousity. It took way too long to load. Once it finally loaded, I open up a terminal, and type in ps aux. A huge gigantic list comes up. Pulseaudio, avahi, udisks, consolekit, systemd, gnome-keyring, gvfs, gnome-this, gnome-that, etc, etc, etc.. What the fuck is all this shit? This is just as bad as Windows or MacOS.
Well, at least there is still Slackware...
Hopefully the Devuan folks will retain compatibility with older CPUs.
I miss the good old days...
The processors they are dropping support for, according to the mailing list, are approximately from the Windows 95 era of computing.... AMD K6 ( a tad newer ) and Intel Pentium / Pentium W/ MMX. That's Win9.x era hardware that even if you could get XP to boot on, it wouldn't be a fun experience.
Frankly I don't know how anyone is still running a usable system on that ancient of hardware without custom tuning the hell out of their kernel and applications anyway, as those systems had extremely small amounts of RAM.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
"It's difficult to imagine that that processor still has the grunt to run an OS these days."
What, did you forget that pretty much everything you're doing RIGHT NOW is exactly the same stuff you were doing back on Windows 95/98? Playing games, surfing the web, watching videos (not streamed, usually from VCD or DVD) and maybe getting some work done.
Nothing has changed. People just got shitty at programming.
MenuetOS shows this off quite well. It does everything. Even runs Quake. Full GUI, supports all kinds of shit.
1.4 Megabytes.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Maintaining useless old CPU architectures costs time and money. Given you can buy a Pentium 4 class CPU for $3 (or a quad core 2.8GHz i7 for $50), and a good developer's time is easily worth $100 per hour, it just plain doesn't make sense to support 20+ year old Intel chips.
If you believe differently, well - GCC is an open source project. How much are you paying to use it? Support it yourself, or spend $100 and get a new i686 capable computer.
Debian Dropping Support For Older CPUs
It doesn't say anything about 32 bit or i686 in the headline. Just says older cpus.
And in the first line of the story it says "An anonymous reader shares DistroWatch's report that the Debian distribution will soon be dropping support for older, 32-bit processors." Perhaps the comma after "older" should have been left out, so that it was clear that it meant "those 32-bit processors that are older", as in "pre-P6", rather than "those older processors - you know, the 32-bit ones".
They are dropping support for Pentiums in their testing distro. If someone is running a Pentium (as if), they'll be stuck on ancient applications anyway. If it's mission critical, they certainly won't be going anywhere near debian testing; the OS and programming will be set in stone.
So why don't you bog off elsewhere with your pathetic Daily Mail retard level of hyperbole and stick your whizzbang up your... Twat.
jesus christ.. in every single one of your posts on this topic, you have fucked up some version of they're, their, and there.
In fact, you haven't used the proper spelling for the word you have used A SINGLE TIME.
I was having a conversation with another IT Manager friend of mine and he expressed that he would "have to test for 64-bit Windows" at his site now.
My jaw hit the floor. I mean, seriously? Granted, we both work in schools so the clients aren't exactly beefy, but the amount of use they get and they hadn't gone past 4Gb (or likely even TO 4Gb properly!) or onto 64-bit operating systems? And at no point had bothered to say "I wonder if these machines I'm intending to use for the next 4 years will actually support 64-bit versions of our software that I will no doubt need to rollout in the future?"
And the guy had some kind of fixation with printer drivers on 64-bit. There I was thinking "Well, if your managed print providers can't handle a '64-bit compatible' printer driver in this day and age, maybe it's time to look for a new one"
I was pushing out 64-bit Windows years ago, and the only "problems" I ever had are that basically you have to push 32-bit Office for best results, but that will change with Office 2016 rollouts no doubt.
On Linux, I don't even look but I'm fairly sure the default is 64-bit for just about anything vaguely recent (Ubuntu LTS from about, what, at least 10.04 or before has had 64-bit?). I know I've had to install the 32-bit libs on Ubuntu more than once over the last five years or so, for certain programs.
I hate to see support for old hardware dropped, as much as anyone. I tinker with old junk, especially the junk that my workplace can't make use of any more. But, come on. 64-bit? You MUST at least have checked compatibility and taken it into account when purchasing by now.
You SHOULD at least have migrated to 64-bit everywhere practical already (yes, I still have 32-bit devices, but they are thin-clients, or used for things like digital signage and thus I just don't care as they aren't critical and are easily replaced if I need to).
And if you've not done this already, this article and maybe the other comments here are the kick in the teeth that you need to do that.
Especially with 32-bit now instruction sets - how the hell have you been virtualising your stuff with only 4Gb RAM? Or are you not even there yet either? And if you ARE stuck with 32-bit on hardware / operating systems that need 64-bit, guess what technology you need to look into? Virtualisation.
Honestly guys, I have about 5% of my client stock that can't do more than 4Gb RAM because of motherboard limitations but even they support 64-bit operating systems and instructions as a matter of course.
For a desktop-focus operating systems, 64-bit should have been the default for, what? Nearly a decade? I'm not sure, it's so long ago that I needed to worry about it.
But you're not using a 30 year old system in production are you?
I'd wager the only place you'll find a 30 year old system is in production.