Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Concerned about future 32 bit server support

David Fletcher-5
Hi all,

There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
dropping 32 bit support.

My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32 bit
Atom processor that has been running for several years and perfectly
serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will 32 bit server
support continue into the foreseeable future?

Dave

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

rapt@inventati.org
I read, don't remember where, that some Linux distros would have
continued supporting 32bit versions. There are a lot of machines that
still work fine (I have two of them), and I remember that one of the
reasons proposed for passing to Linux from Winz was the possibility to
continue using older machines...

Hope that somehow Ubuntu team will continue this actitude


Il 08/08/2017 18:07, David Fletcher ha scritto:

> Hi all,
>
> There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
> dropping 32 bit support.
>
> My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32 bit
> Atom processor that has been running for several years and perfectly
> serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will 32 bit server
> support continue into the foreseeable future?
>
> Dave
>


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Richard Kimber
In reply to this post by David Fletcher-5
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:07:07 +0100
David Fletcher wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
> dropping 32 bit support.
>
> My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32 bit
> Atom processor that has been running for several years and perfectly
> serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will 32 bit server
> support continue into the foreseeable future?

My understanding is that this possibility is being examined because there
are not very many people who are able/willing to test the 32 bit software.
Clearly the testing process is crucial. So I guess the solution is: if you
want it, become a tester.

--
Richard Kimber


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Robert Heller
At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 18:48:33 +0100 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:07:07 +0100
> David Fletcher wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
> > dropping 32 bit support.
> >
> > My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32 bit
> > Atom processor that has been running for several years and perfectly
> > serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will 32 bit server
> > support continue into the foreseeable future?
>
> My understanding is that this possibility is being examined because there
> are not very many people who are able/willing to test the 32 bit software.
> Clearly the testing process is crucial. So I guess the solution is: if you
> want it, become a tester.

Just as another datapoint: RedHat has dropped 32-bit support starting with
RHel 7. But the CentOS team is building 32-bit kernels and has a distro for
i686 AND arm based on RHel 7, I believe mostly done by people who have a
specific need for such systems. I expect that eventually all of the major
distros will stop distributing *binaries* for 32-bit x86 eventually, just as
they have stopped distributing 68K, Alpha, ppc/ppc-64, etc. I believe non-PAE
32-bit kernels are no longer available stock, as well is <i686 kernels -- is
anyone still running 80386's? '486s or '586s? Even though I believe current
kernels still have support for these processors, if one were willing to
[cross?] build them.

>

--
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
[hidden email]       -- Webhosting Services
                               

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Dave Stevens
On Tue,  8 Aug 2017 16:06:36 -0400 (EDT)
Robert Heller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 18:48:33 +0100 "Ubuntu user technical support,
> not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:07:07 +0100
> > David Fletcher wrote:
> >  
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
> > > dropping 32 bit support.
> > >
> > > My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32
> > > bit Atom processor that has been running for several years and
> > > perfectly serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will
> > > 32 bit server support continue into the foreseeable future?  
> >
> > My understanding is that this possibility is being examined because
> > there are not very many people who are able/willing to test the 32
> > bit software. Clearly the testing process is crucial. So I guess
> > the solution is: if you want it, become a tester.  
>
> Just as another datapoint: RedHat has dropped 32-bit support starting
> with RHel 7. But the CentOS team is building 32-bit kernels and has a
> distro for i686 AND arm based on RHel 7, I believe mostly done by
> people who have a specific need for such systems. I expect that
> eventually all of the major distros will stop distributing *binaries*
> for 32-bit x86 eventually, just as they have stopped distributing
> 68K, Alpha, ppc/ppc-64, etc. I believe non-PAE 32-bit kernels are no
> longer available stock, as well is <i686 kernels -- is anyone still
> running 80386's? '486s or '586s? Even though I believe current
> kernels still have support for these processors, if one were willing
> to [cross?] build them.
>
> >  
>

well, I ran across a dual cpu 486 system last year running controls for
a commercial greenhouse setup (42 greenhouses) Tyan motherboard. Still
working, I just vacuumed it out and turned it back on. MS-DOS

D



--
In modern fantasy (literary or governmental), killing people is the
usual solution to the so-called war between good and evil. My books are
not conceived in terms of such a war, and offer no simple answers to
simplistic questions.

----- Ursula Le Guin

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Compdoc@hotrodpc.com
In reply to this post by Robert Heller
On 08/08/2017 02:06 PM, David Fletcher wrote:

> My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32 bit
> Atom processor that has been running for several years and perfectly
> serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will 32 bit server
> support continue into the foreseeable future?

Support the industry or it will die. Buy a new one.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Xen
In reply to this post by Robert Heller
Robert Heller schreef op 08-08-2017 22:06:

> Just as another datapoint: RedHat has dropped 32-bit support starting
> with
> RHel 7. But the CentOS team is building 32-bit kernels and has a distro
> for
> i686 AND arm based on RHel 7, I believe mostly done by people who have
> a
> specific need for such systems. I expect that eventually all of the
> major
> distros will stop distributing *binaries* for 32-bit x86 eventually,
> just as
> they have stopped distributing 68K, Alpha, ppc/ppc-64, etc. I believe
> non-PAE
> 32-bit kernels are no longer available stock, as well is <i686 kernels
> -- is
> anyone still running 80386's? '486s or '586s? Even though I believe
> current
> kernels still have support for these processors, if one were willing to
> [cross?] build them.

I'm not sure what the difference is between current-day 32-bit (x86) and
those old CPUs...

But the main reason I am sure for 32-bit today is that it has a lower
memory footprint.

There are many embedded systems I believe that still want to be 32-bit
for this reason and I guess the memory usage of 64-bit is easily 30%
higher.

Java doesn't care, it will use 32-bit pointers when the application uses
less than 4GB.

But everything else appears to use vastly more memory; all pointers and
regular arithmetic and iterative integers are 64-bit.

Personally I must say I never felt good about 64-bit for some reason
;-).

Of course, without 64-bit you also cannot (really) have large files
although large file support is not constrained to 64-bit systems.

But even today if I had a netbook or something with less than 4GB of
memory I would want to use a 32-bit version of whatever I use.

Well, that's just me, but I think it is pretty common-sensical.

Curiously enough, if you take the C type uint_fast32_t on a 64-bit
platform, it will simply use 32-bit integers, not 64-bit ones. But I am
not a very good C programmer.

Maybe x64 cpus are fast enough with 32-bit that it doesn't matter. I
mean to say, RISC cpus.

Anyway, the push for more memory seems to me to sit in the domain of
"not really needed". Computers advanced in speed until the 2008
generation of Athlon X2 CPUs etc. and at that point I thought "Now they
are fast enough" and it seemed to be a kind of platform that still many
people use today.

E.g. graphics cards such as the GTX 1080 are so incredibly fast that
there is almost no point to them anymore. No one actually needs it. They
can build the software to match it, but there is barely any reason for
it.

Regards.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Colin Law
In reply to this post by David Fletcher-5
On 8 August 2017 at 17:07, David Fletcher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
> dropping 32 bit support.
>
> My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32 bit
> Atom processor that has been running for several years and perfectly
> serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will 32 bit server
> support continue into the foreseeable future?

It depends what you consider to be forseeable. If you are running a
current LTS version (on 32 bit) then it will continue to be supported
till the end of its life, so 16.04 will be supported till April 2021.
If 18.04 server has 32 bit then it will be supported till 2023.

Colin

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Grizzly-4
In reply to this post by David Fletcher-5
08 August 2017  at 17:07, David Fletcher wrote:
Concerned about future 32 bit serve (at least in part)

>Hi all,
>
>There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
>dropping 32 bit support.

I know that Tails3 onwards (based on Debian) have dropped all 32 bit support,
which is a PITA for a mobile, secure, OS, when you don't know what hardware you
may want / need to use it on

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Robert Heller
In reply to this post by Dave Stevens
At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:18:20 -0700 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue,  8 Aug 2017 16:06:36 -0400 (EDT)
> Robert Heller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 18:48:33 +0100 "Ubuntu user technical support,
> > not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:07:07 +0100
> > > David Fletcher wrote:
> > >  
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
> > > > dropping 32 bit support.
> > > >
> > > > My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32
> > > > bit Atom processor that has been running for several years and
> > > > perfectly serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will
> > > > 32 bit server support continue into the foreseeable future?  
> > >
> > > My understanding is that this possibility is being examined because
> > > there are not very many people who are able/willing to test the 32
> > > bit software. Clearly the testing process is crucial. So I guess
> > > the solution is: if you want it, become a tester.  
> >
> > Just as another datapoint: RedHat has dropped 32-bit support starting
> > with RHel 7. But the CentOS team is building 32-bit kernels and has a
> > distro for i686 AND arm based on RHel 7, I believe mostly done by
> > people who have a specific need for such systems. I expect that
> > eventually all of the major distros will stop distributing *binaries*
> > for 32-bit x86 eventually, just as they have stopped distributing
> > 68K, Alpha, ppc/ppc-64, etc. I believe non-PAE 32-bit kernels are no
> > longer available stock, as well is <i686 kernels -- is anyone still
> > running 80386's? '486s or '586s? Even though I believe current
> > kernels still have support for these processors, if one were willing
> > to [cross?] build them.
> >
> > >  
> >
>
> well, I ran across a dual cpu 486 system last year running controls for
> a commercial greenhouse setup (42 greenhouses) Tyan motherboard. Still
> working, I just vacuumed it out and turned it back on. MS-DOS

Generally pure silicon will last almost forever. Hard drives get old and die,
PS get old and die, fans get old and die, but a uProcessor is forever... OTOH,
it does get harder and harder to get old-style interface replacement hard
drives (can you still get IDE [PATA] hard drives? 8-bit wide SCSI? AT Power
supplies? ISA interface boards?).  At some point it might make sense to
replace the old gear.

I wonder: would a $40 Raspberry Pi Model 3B run those 42 greenhouses as well
(better?) than the dual cpu 486 system? :-)

>
> D
>
>
>

--
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
[hidden email]       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                   

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Dave Stevens
On Tue,  8 Aug 2017 17:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
Robert Heller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:18:20 -0700 "Ubuntu user technical support,
> not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue,  8 Aug 2017 16:06:36 -0400 (EDT)
> > Robert Heller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  
> > > At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 18:48:33 +0100 "Ubuntu user technical support,
> > > not for general discussions" <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:07:07 +0100
> > > > David Fletcher wrote:
> > > >    
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list,
> > > > > about dropping 32 bit support.
> > > > >
> > > > > My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a
> > > > > 32 bit Atom processor that has been running for several years
> > > > > and perfectly serves my needs for a low power headless
> > > > > server. Will 32 bit server support continue into the
> > > > > foreseeable future?    
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that this possibility is being examined
> > > > because there are not very many people who are able/willing to
> > > > test the 32 bit software. Clearly the testing process is
> > > > crucial. So I guess the solution is: if you want it, become a
> > > > tester.    
> > >
> > > Just as another datapoint: RedHat has dropped 32-bit support
> > > starting with RHel 7. But the CentOS team is building 32-bit
> > > kernels and has a distro for i686 AND arm based on RHel 7, I
> > > believe mostly done by people who have a specific need for such
> > > systems. I expect that eventually all of the major distros will
> > > stop distributing *binaries* for 32-bit x86 eventually, just as
> > > they have stopped distributing 68K, Alpha, ppc/ppc-64, etc. I
> > > believe non-PAE 32-bit kernels are no longer available stock, as
> > > well is <i686 kernels -- is anyone still running 80386's? '486s
> > > or '586s? Even though I believe current kernels still have
> > > support for these processors, if one were willing to [cross?]
> > > build them.
> > > >    
> > >  
> >
> > well, I ran across a dual cpu 486 system last year running controls
> > for a commercial greenhouse setup (42 greenhouses) Tyan
> > motherboard. Still working, I just vacuumed it out and turned it
> > back on. MS-DOS  
>
> Generally pure silicon will last almost forever. Hard drives get old
> and die, PS get old and die, fans get old and die, but a uProcessor
> is forever... OTOH, it does get harder and harder to get old-style
> interface replacement hard drives (can you still get IDE [PATA] hard
> drives? 8-bit wide SCSI? AT Power supplies? ISA interface boards?).
> At some point it might make sense to replace the old gear.
>
> I wonder: would a $40 Raspberry Pi Model 3B run those 42 greenhouses
> as well (better?) than the dual cpu 486 system? :-)

not sure, will it run DOS?

d

>
> >
> > D
> >
> >
> >  
>



--
In modern fantasy (literary or governmental), killing people is the
usual solution to the so-called war between good and evil. My books are
not conceived in terms of such a war, and offer no simple answers to
simplistic questions.

----- Ursula Le Guin

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Ralf Mardorf-2
In reply to this post by Compdoc@hotrodpc.com

> On 08 Aug 2017, at 22:28, compdoc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Support the industry or it will die. Buy a new one.

+1 for civic duty

Alternatively consider to shoplift a new one, to bring down unemployment of store detectives.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

David Fletcher-5
In reply to this post by Robert Heller
On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 17:57 -0400, Robert Heller wrote:


> Generally pure silicon will last almost forever. Hard drives get old
> and die,
> PS get old and die, fans get old and die, but a uProcessor is
> forever... OTOH,
> it does get harder and harder to get old-style interface replacement
> hard
> drives (can you still get IDE [PATA] hard drives? 8-bit wide SCSI? AT
> Power
> supplies? ISA interface boards?).  At some point it might make sense
> to 
> replace the old gear.

This is a custom built system, in a self designed and fabricated case.
The motherboard with the 32 bit processor is mini ITX format, BUT it is
single 12V supply with a voltage converter on board which puts out the
12V and a 5V supply on the standard type hard drive power sockets next
to the SATA data connectors. At the moment it has a 2TB Toshiba hard
drive installed. The fan is a bog standard off the shelf 60mm fan that
runs directly off the 12V supply, which can easily be replaced if
necessary. The power supply is a standard open frame switch mode
industrial unit, which again can easily be replaced if necessary.

If I can source an equivalent board with a 64 bit processor which can
be set to automatically boot when power is applied, it would be easy
enough to swap it, it's just that I'm the sort of person who dislikes
chucking out perfectly good working electronics that are doing a
perfectly good job.

Dave

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Oliver Grawert
In reply to this post by David Fletcher-5
hi,
Am Dienstag, den 08.08.2017, 17:07 +0100 schrieb David Fletcher:
> Hi all,
>
> There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list, about
> dropping 32 bit support.
>
> My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a 32 bit
> Atom processor that has been running for several years and perfectly
> serves my needs for a low power headless server. Will 32 bit server
> support continue into the foreseeable future?

the discussion on the ubuntu-devel list (not sure what spilled over
into the kubuntu list from that) was mainly about install media since
there you have a high testing workload. 

there are places where 32bit support is still essential due to the fact
that 32bit binaries are slightly smaller and less ram hungry. the 32bit
archive packages will not go away in the foreseeable future ... there
is quite a user base in the cloud that uses 32bit and it is an
essential architecture in the embedded world (less power hungry
hardware, less ram hungry (and smaller) binaries).

embedded (IoT) and cloud are two declared focuses of canonical now, so
there the support wont go away. that said ... 32bit server installs on
real HW are a rather rare thing nowadays (at least where you can make
any business with them), so canonical wont invest manpower here.
there wont be any official install media (this isnt fully true either.
it is more work to remove the mini.iso builds from the debian-installer
source than to leave it in place and not carry a delta, so these will
likely go on to exist even for i386, but wont see any official testing)

i could imagine if a team steps up to take full responsibility of
maintaining a 32bit server install as a community flavour (like
{lu,ku,xu}buntu), it wouldnt be refused ...

ciao
        oli
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Karl Auer
On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 10:55 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> the discussion on the ubuntu-devel list (not sure what spilled over
> into the kubuntu list from that) was mainly about install media since
> there you have a high testing workload.

There was a not-so-recent decision to drop support for non-PAE devices,
which was a blow to people with old systems, too. I have a half-dozen
old machines that still work fine, but they have no PAE, so later
Ubntu's won't run on them. Losing 32-bit versions is just more of the
same.

I think it's a shame that Ubuntu will not support 32 bit systems, but
that's the way it goes...

> i could imagine if a team steps up to take full responsibility of
> maintaining a 32bit server install as a community flavour (like
> {lu,ku,xu}buntu), it wouldnt be refused ...

They could call it 32buntu :-)

Regards, K.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer ([hidden email])
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: A52E F6B9 708B 51C4 85E6 1634 0571 ADF9 3C1C 6A3A
Old fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Robert Heller
In reply to this post by Dave Stevens
At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:08:35 -0700 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue,  8 Aug 2017 17:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
> Robert Heller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:18:20 -0700 "Ubuntu user technical support,
> > not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue,  8 Aug 2017 16:06:36 -0400 (EDT)
> > > Robert Heller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > At Tue, 8 Aug 2017 18:48:33 +0100 "Ubuntu user technical support,
> > > > not for general discussions" <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:07:07 +0100
> > > > > David Fletcher wrote:
> > > > >    
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a fairly long discussion over on the Kubuntu list,
> > > > > > about dropping 32 bit support.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My concern is that I have a little home built machine with a
> > > > > > 32 bit Atom processor that has been running for several years
> > > > > > and perfectly serves my needs for a low power headless
> > > > > > server. Will 32 bit server support continue into the
> > > > > > foreseeable future?    
> > > > >
> > > > > My understanding is that this possibility is being examined
> > > > > because there are not very many people who are able/willing to
> > > > > test the 32 bit software. Clearly the testing process is
> > > > > crucial. So I guess the solution is: if you want it, become a
> > > > > tester.    
> > > >
> > > > Just as another datapoint: RedHat has dropped 32-bit support
> > > > starting with RHel 7. But the CentOS team is building 32-bit
> > > > kernels and has a distro for i686 AND arm based on RHel 7, I
> > > > believe mostly done by people who have a specific need for such
> > > > systems. I expect that eventually all of the major distros will
> > > > stop distributing *binaries* for 32-bit x86 eventually, just as
> > > > they have stopped distributing 68K, Alpha, ppc/ppc-64, etc. I
> > > > believe non-PAE 32-bit kernels are no longer available stock, as
> > > > well is <i686 kernels -- is anyone still running 80386's? '486s
> > > > or '586s? Even though I believe current kernels still have
> > > > support for these processors, if one were willing to [cross?]
> > > > build them.
> > > > >    
> > > >  
> > >
> > > well, I ran across a dual cpu 486 system last year running controls
> > > for a commercial greenhouse setup (42 greenhouses) Tyan
> > > motherboard. Still working, I just vacuumed it out and turned it
> > > back on. MS-DOS  
> >
> > Generally pure silicon will last almost forever. Hard drives get old
> > and die, PS get old and die, fans get old and die, but a uProcessor
> > is forever... OTOH, it does get harder and harder to get old-style
> > interface replacement hard drives (can you still get IDE [PATA] hard
> > drives? 8-bit wide SCSI? AT Power supplies? ISA interface boards?).
> > At some point it might make sense to replace the old gear.
> >
> > I wonder: would a $40 Raspberry Pi Model 3B run those 42 greenhouses
> > as well (better?) than the dual cpu 486 system? :-)
>
> not sure, will it run DOS?

Probably not, but why run DOS? I presume that the control system is likely in
a language like C or Pascal and can probably be recompiled. My point is that
a Raspberry Pi Model 3B has much more compute resources (cpu speed,
memory, etc.) than a pair of '486s -- it is a quad core 64-bit arm processor
with a 1Gig of RAM. And only costs about $40. What does the dual 486 box have
for memory? What does it use for a hard drive? What happens when that hard
drive dies?

>
> d
>
> >
> > >
> > > D
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> >
>
>
>

--
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
[hidden email]       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                   

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Xen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Xen
Robert Heller schreef op 09-08-2017 13:35:

> Probably not, but why run DOS? I presume that the control system is
> likely in
> a language like C or Pascal and can probably be recompiled. My point is
> that
> a Raspberry Pi Model 3B has much more compute resources (cpu speed,
> memory, etc.) than a pair of '486s -- it is a quad core 64-bit arm
> processor
> with a 1Gig of RAM. And only costs about $40. What does the dual 486
> box have
> for memory? What does it use for a hard drive? What happens when that
> hard
> drive dies?

You know full well that software development is much more costly than
hardware.

Changing this stuff around when you don't need to is a recipe for
disaster.

And the only reason you would do it, would be because it would be more
"politically correct" to so do.

There are also still thousands (millions) of IDE drives out there.

Dave just mentioned that he ran across this system as an example of
older hardware being out there ;-).

But I can also safely say that it would cost many hours of work to
replace it.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

David Fletcher-5
In reply to this post by Karl Auer
On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 19:13 +1000, Karl Auer wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 10:55 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >
> > the discussion on the ubuntu-devel list (not sure what spilled over
> > into the kubuntu list from that) was mainly about install media
> > since
> > there you have a high testing workload.
> There was a not-so-recent decision to drop support for non-PAE
> devices,
> which was a blow to people with old systems, too. I have a half-dozen
> old machines that still work fine, but they have no PAE, so later
> Ubntu's won't run on them. Losing 32-bit versions is just more of the
> same.
>
> I think it's a shame that Ubuntu will not support 32 bit systems, but
> that's the way it goes...
>
> >
> > i could imagine if a team steps up to take full responsibility of
> > maintaining a 32bit server install as a community flavour (like
> > {lu,ku,xu}buntu), it wouldnt be refused ...
> They could call it 32buntu :-)

I'm beginning to think that it would not be unwise, to have a good look
through the offerings in the MiniITX shop and try to find something in
64 bit that appears to do what my faithful 32 bit board does, buy one,
hook it up to my laboratory supply and a hard drive to make sure, then
hold it in reserve for the next LTS server release.

Dave

>
> Regards, K.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Compdoc@hotrodpc.com
On 08/09/2017 01:01 PM, David Fletcher wrote:

> then
> hold it in reserve for the next LTS server release.

I would recommend you wait until youre ready to switch, before buying.

They are always coming out with newer, faster, and improved, lower power
use technology.

And the previous generation will cost less, even though they are
amazingly fast.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about future 32 bit server support

Ralf Mardorf-2
In reply to this post by David Fletcher-5
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 20:01:37 +0100, David Fletcher wrote:
>I'm beginning to think that it would not be unwise, to have a good look
>through the offerings in the MiniITX shop and try to find something in
>64 bit that appears to do what my faithful 32 bit board does, buy one,
>hook it up to my laboratory supply and a hard drive to make sure, then
>hold it in reserve for the next LTS server release.

Hi,

my laboratory power supply does provide up to 2 A only :D. Regarding a
Google research nowadays even cheaper laboratory power supplies than
mine seem to be more comfortable and provide much more ampere. However,
I wasn't aware that a MiniITX could consume less than 10 W, OTOH others
consume around 40 W. For a lot, if not most laboratory power supplies
it's still seems to be marginal.

Regards,
Ralf


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
12