(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/ubu ... ng-forward

Ubuntu has confirmed plans to drop all support for 32-bit (i386) systems going forward, beginning with the upcoming Ubuntu 19.10 release.

Maintaining packages for the i386 architecture is simply more hassle than its worth with only around 1% of Ubuntu’s current user base running 32-bit systems.

I have one laptop running on i386 architecture. One day, despite using Linux, i will have to put it down.

Use Void Linux (and also avoids systemd), or FirstRib void flavor in a chroot on existing 32bit systems, come to that.

wiak

Quote: "Maintaining packages for the i386 architecture is simply more hassle than its worth with only around 1% of Ubuntu’s current user base running 32-bit systems."

I have never bought into this excuse and I challenge the authenticity of that 1% figure.

I tend to agree with you, Darren.

Okay, perhaps 1% is right for Ubuntu proper; Lord knows, current releases have been getting heavier & heavier as the years go by, with the end result that my elderly dual-core 64-bit desktop is starting to struggle with 64-bit Ubuntu releases! Though I confess, the problem there is instruction sets; the Athlon64 X2 is a very early, almost first-generation 64-bit CPU, at the time of its release intended to steal Intel's thunder vis-a-vis the original Pentium 4s.....we're only looking at SSE3s.

But Linux as a whole, across the entire spectrum of distros available out there.....no. And bearing in mind that Linux is intended to keep old hardware serviceable, it hardly makes sense to exclude the hundreds of thousands of perfectly functional 32-bit machines still out there.

Trouble is, so many of the alternatives base themselves on Ubuntu, one way or another. I was thinking about this last night; Puppies of the future may have to begin basing themselves on something other than Ubuntu...'cos even on a 64-bit box, my 32-bitzers still run snappier than the 64-bit ones do.

We all know that Shuttleworth fancies himself as the 'Bill Gates' of the Linux world, with the outcome being that modern Ubuntu is meant to run on brand-new, up-to-date hardware..!

What's the current 'state-of-play' over at Debian themselves? My experience with the current DPup, 'Stretch' 7.5, has been extremely favourable.

What are their intentions? Any ideas?


Mike.

this idea that we need to chase the latest greatest machine to run the OS is frustrating........and what about the rest of the world?

At the Moment I am working for a Refuse Park and a lot of 32bit machines are being left there so there is still plenty out there to be recycled with Puppy.

As an aside Debian is going to go wayland I don't know how this will work in Puppy?

It's discrimination against people on a tight budget...
(Not to mention the temporarily or permanently poor.)

@MIke_Walsh:
I read somewhere that Debian has a more realistic view, and will keep offering 32-bit
versions for a while.

musher0 wrote:It's discrimination against people on a tight budget...
(Not to mention the temporarily or permanently poor.)

@MIke_Walsh:
I read somewhere that Debian has a more realistic view, and will keep offering 32-bit
versions for a while.

Agreed.

@ musher0:-

Thanks for the info, musher!

rockedge wrote:this idea that we need to chase the latest greatest machine to run the OS is frustrating........and what about the rest of the world?

Too true, rockedge, too true. Y'know, I always thought that was MyCrudSoft's 'province'; update the OS, upgrade the hardware to be able to run it.....



At least we have the satisfaction of knowing there'll be plenty of 32-bit Puppies left to run on all that abandoned 32-bit hardware for a good few years yet. Little wonder I'm beginning to embrace the school of thought that says

"Puppy Roolz!"


Mike.

darry19662018 wrote: I have never bought into this excuse and I challenge the authenticity of that 1% figure.

It probably doesn't include derivates of Ubuntu (like UPup Bionic Beaver) and people running very old versions of Ubuntu.

Remember when it was all about 16bit to 32bit.
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs ... r-2006-04/

bigpup wrote:Remember when it was all about 16bit to 32bit.
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs ... r-2006-04/

The performance gains in going from 16bits to 32bits was much more significant than the supposed performance gains in going from 32bit to 64bit systems. The reason is that as you add more ram you end up with I/O bottlenecks between the ram and the CPU. System try to get around this by adding more cpu cache but this significantly increases the energy usage of the system (and might also mean a reliance on things like predictive execution?).

The extra cpu cache negates the supposed energy saving of 64bit systems and if predictive execution is required then this potentially creates security risks.

Anyway, I suspect in part due to the above reasons (but also in part due to economics) many new computers don't come with enough ram to truly get significant performance gains from using 64bits.

I will also note that when people say that ram is cheap, that is a pretty privileged thing to say. For the majority of people ram is not cheap.

By the way can anybody tell me if the Debian move to wayland? - will wayland work with Puppy?

32 bit computing vs 64 bit computing.
The eternal search for something bigger.
The cost of "bigger".

I find 32 bit processors have enough processing power to meet ALL my needs.

All my computing is done on machines that are (at least) 15 years old and I'm currently considering moving from a 3GHz desktop BACK to a 1.6 or 1.8GHz laptop. The reason? Power consumption. My desktop consumes approx 250W. A laptop consumes approx 60W but will supply all the processing power I need. Over time this saving in power (about 450kWh every year) is a significant saving for me as an individual. If thousands (or tens of thousands) of PC users made this change the result would be a significant reduction in CO2 pouring into the atmosphere.

Hence: I support the on-going maintenance (and development) of software for 32 bit systems.

Les (fr. Australia where life is good).

Exactly there are some nice 32bit machines around the more than adequatly cope with the demands of modern computer use and Linux is supposed to be the answer - as far as I am concerned the ever increasing bloat code introduced into Linux like systemad is part of the problem of the so called 32bit being hard to maintain.

Slackware a fine example of a Linux distro that stuck to tradition and is still around - it is just to use a technical expression a load of hogwash.

End of Rant for now - now putting away my pulpit:)

http://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2019/06/mx-gn ... ntubuzz%29

What's so interesting about MX is not only its Sysvinit, but also its commitment to support 32-bit computers as stated on their FAQ "MX has no plans to discontinue 32-bit releases for the foreseeable future." This is a really good news for old-computer users.

A base OS for Dog or Puppy in the future, to prevent old laptops and desktop computers from being dragged kicking and screaming to dumpsters.

LNSmith wrote:The reason? Power consumption. My desktop consumes approx 250W. A laptop consumes approx 60W but will supply all the processing power I need. Over time this saving in power (about 450kWh every year) is a significant saving for me as an individual. If thousands (or tens of thousands) of PC users made this change the result would be a significant reduction in CO2 pouring into the atmosphere.

Yes, I stopped using desktop computers for exactly that reason many years ago (I still have one stored away under a desk but hate the thought of ever plugging it in - don't want to give it away, because of the pollution/energy-waste using it, and don't want to send it to landfill... so sits under desk...).

I also use a 32 inch screen low-energy-usage TV panel rather than something more cinema-like for same reason (though actually use my laptop more than I watch TV screen anyway).

Actually, aside from doing dev work, I generally just use a wee 8 inch tablet for browsing and self-entertainment. I tend to disable Google Apps then though, and rely mainly on F-droid, since I hate auto-installation invasions. I do run prooted Debian on my tablet for fun though (with jwm or similar window manager).

wiak

I switched 3 years ago because I thought all development was going 64 bit & that 32 bit would become insecure.
Security is very important to me. I do note than when I made 32 bit .pets, they were downloaded at least as
often as 64 bit versions. Haven't had a desktop for 8 years & recently have been given 9yo i3 & 3yo i3 laptops.
I use the older 35 Watt one to compile kernels & the newer 15 Watt one daily, mostly with Slacko64 variants.
I had a 3yo 6 Watt Celeron, but my son now has that as a low-power server - better at that than as a desktop.

https://www.linuxuprising.com/2019/06/w ... prising%29

The Wine developers are concerned with this news because many 64-bit Windows applications still use a 32-bit installer, or some 32-bit components.

Ubuntu's solution for using Wine on 32-bit going forward, which is to publish applications as snaps, or use an Ubuntu 18.04 LTS based LXD container that has full access to multiarch 32-bit WINE and related libraries, was also discussed by the Wine developers, with Vincent Povirk of CodeWeavers saying that there's no point putting much effort into this temporary solution. The maintainer of the Wine OBS repository also mentioned that he has no interest in maintaining so many libraries.

So what's the solution for all of this? Not building Wine packages for Ubuntu 19.10 and later releases, or using the Steam runtime for the Wine packages seem to be the answers, but no final decision has been made yet.

I reckon this one's gonna run & run....

Just been reading on one of the Linux gaming forums. There's all sorts of conspiracy theories flying around, left, right & centre. Most Linux gamers are of the firm opinion that this will mean the death of Linux, stat. To them, Linux=Ubuntu. In their narrow opinion, Canonical dropping multi-lib support will push Linux down to 0% market share, and all the Linux developers will shut up shop and go home.....

I am pissing myself laughing here. As if gaming is the only thing people buy a computer for. What utter tosh.

The favourite rumour is that MyCrudSoft are secretly paying Canonical a big back-hander, because it will push all the Linux users back to Windows.....this being based around the news a couple of years ago about Canonical cosying up to M$.

Dearie me. What a storm in a teacup. Gamers seem incapable of living in the real world. The top and bottom of it is that Canonical has probably made this decision for the good of the server side of their business, and the home desktop side is a secondary consideration. We shall see what happens.


Mike.