I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall. Netinstall is poorly documented, but the default settings all work, I was able to select the software I wanted, and it has all worked very well. I think I actually prefer Netinstall to the DVD. Has anyone else out there played with this? I have not yet updated my website notes. -- Howard Gibson hgibson@eol.ca jhowardgibson@gmail.com http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson
On 02/09/2018 10:27 PM, Howard Gibson via talk wrote:
I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall. Netinstall is poorly documented, but the default settings all work, I was able to select the software I wanted, and it has all worked very well. I think I actually prefer Netinstall to the DVD.
Has anyone else out there played with this?
I have not yet updated my website notes.
Yes, but with OpenSUSE, not Fedora. However, I did it because one of my systems only had a CD drive. Worked fine.
| From: Howard Gibson via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD | is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall. Interesting. What laptop is it? I would think that most 32-bit only laptops are not really useful any longer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hugh wrote:
I would think that most 32-bit only laptops are not really useful any longer.
I have a Toshiba Satellite P200 laptop, 3 GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GBytes RAM, 200 GByte HD, 4 USB ports, and, most wonderful of all, a 1440x900 px 17" screen. I was disappointed to learn about a week ago when installing Debian Testing that it only has a 32-bit CPU. I have another P200 that no longer boots, and I was sure it had a 64-bit CPU. That one also had Bluetooth and 6 USB ports, so it was likely a higher sub-model of the P200. Such a machine is perfectly adequate for web surfing, e-mail reading, maintaining other people's websites, and ssh-ing into whatever remote machine I'm SysAdminning. But now that some packages are no longer available in 32-bit architecture (hello, Chrome!) it may be necessary to buy a new laptop. Are there any down sides to using a 32-bit machine as a web- or mail server? I'm thinking low power consumption, &c. make that an attractive alternate use. Howard wrote:
Has anyone else out there played with this? (Netinstall)
Yes, very successfully. I generally prefer doing the netinstall. Using an .iso to install takes time to copy all the OS files and packages to the computer, and, unless the .iso is a very recent release, almost everything you just installed has to be replaced with the first upgrade you make. So, might as well do the netinstall and get all the current stuff the first time. - --Bob. On 2018-02-10 10:49 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
| From: Howard Gibson via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD | is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall.
Interesting. What laptop is it? I would think that most 32-bit only laptops are not really useful any longer.
On 2018-02-09 10:27 PM, Howard Gibson via talk wrote:
I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall. Netinstall is poorly documented, but the default settings all work, I was able to select the software I wanted, and it has all worked very well. I think I actually prefer Netinstall to the DVD.
Has anyone else out there played with this?
I have not yet updated my website notes.
- -- Bob Jonkman <bjonkman@sobac.com> Phone: +1-519-635-9413 SOBAC Microcomputer Services http://sobac.com/sobac/ Software --- Office & Business Automation --- Consulting GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability iEYEARECAAYFAlp/WaEACgkQuRKJsNLM5eoSNQCgwI6BKg7y6vNCTj6K4iOxHUAW HU8AoIyMEn6cnYMKNOgXe8mf2elrSZKt =nOzg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 10 February 2018 at 20:44, Bob Jonkman via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hugh wrote:
I would think that most 32-bit only laptops are not really useful any longer.
I have a Toshiba Satellite P200 laptop, 3 GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GBytes RAM, 200 GByte HD, 4 USB ports, and, most wonderful of all, a 1440x900 px 17" screen.
I was disappointed to learn about a week ago when installing Debian Testing that it only has a 32-bit CPU. I have another P200 that no longer boots, and I was sure it had a 64-bit CPU. That one also had Bluetooth and 6 USB ports, so it was likely a higher sub-model of the P200.
Such a machine is perfectly adequate for web surfing, e-mail reading, maintaining other people's websites, and ssh-ing into whatever remote machine I'm SysAdminning. But now that some packages are no longer available in 32-bit architecture (hello, Chrome!) it may be necessary to buy a new laptop.
Are there any down sides to using a 32-bit machine as a web- or mail server? I'm thinking low power consumption, &c. make that an attractive alternate use.
Howard wrote:
Has anyone else out there played with this? (Netinstall)
Yes, very successfully. I generally prefer doing the netinstall. Using an .iso to install takes time to copy all the OS files and packages to the computer, and, unless the .iso is a very recent release, almost everything you just installed has to be replaced with the first upgrade you make. So, might as well do the netinstall and get all the current stuff the first time.
- --Bob.
On 2018-02-10 10:49 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
| From: Howard Gibson via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD | is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall.
Interesting. What laptop is it? I would think that most 32-bit only laptops are not really useful any longer.
On 2018-02-09 10:27 PM, Howard Gibson via talk wrote:
I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall. Netinstall is poorly documented, but the default settings all work, I was able to select the software I wanted, and it has all worked very well. I think I actually prefer Netinstall to the DVD.
Has anyone else out there played with this?
I have not yet updated my website notes.
I'm reading all of this with some interest: I tried a Fedora Net Install about four months back. And I appear to be the only person on this list who had a problem with it. Specifically, I got to the page where you have to fill in details about your system and users (I think, I'm doing this from memory) and couldn't proceed further despite having filled in the details because the installer was having a hard time either getting the list of mirrors or finding a responsive mirror (I think it was the former). The result was a ten minute delay, despite my having a fully functional network connection. A bit of research at the time seemed to indicate that this was an uncommon but not unheard-of problem with the Net Installer. It left me strongly inclined to make the big ISO download ... -- Giles https://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:15:57 +0000 Giles Orr via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I'm reading all of this with some interest: I tried a Fedora Net Install about four months back. And I appear to be the only person on this list who had a problem with it. Specifically, I got to the page where you have to fill in details about your system and users (I think, I'm doing this from memory) and couldn't proceed further despite having filled in the details because the installer was having a hard time either getting the list of mirrors or finding a responsive mirror (I think it was the former). The result was a ten minute delay, despite my having a fully functional network connection. A bit of research at the time seemed to indicate that this was an uncommon but not unheard-of problem with the Net Installer. It left me strongly inclined to make the big ISO download ...
-- Giles https://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com
Giles, I have now updated my website install notes. I state in them that the documentation sucks, and that all the default values work fine. I did not fill in the repository window. -- Howard Gibson hgibson@eol.ca jhowardgibson@gmail.com http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson
I have now updated my website install notes. I state in them that
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Howard wrote: the documentation sucks, and that all the default values work fine. I did not fill in the repository window. Pretty good notes, Howard! http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson/Lenovo/ - --Bob. On 2018-02-12 06:59 PM, Howard Gibson via talk wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:15:57 +0000 Giles Orr via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
I'm reading all of this with some interest: I tried a Fedora Net Install about four months back. And I appear to be the only person on this list who had a problem with it. Specifically, I got to the page where you have to fill in details about your system and users (I think, I'm doing this from memory) and couldn't proceed further despite having filled in the details because the installer was having a hard time either getting the list of mirrors or finding a responsive mirror (I think it was the former). The result was a ten minute delay, despite my having a fully functional network connection. A bit of research at the time seemed to indicate that this was an uncommon but not unheard-of problem with the Net Installer. It left me strongly inclined to make the big ISO download ...
-- Giles https://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com
Giles,
I have now updated my website install notes. I state in them that the documentation sucks, and that all the default values work fine. I did not fill in the repository window.
- -- Bob Jonkman <bjonkman@sobac.com> Phone: +1-519-635-9413 SOBAC Microcomputer Services http://sobac.com/sobac/ Software --- Office & Business Automation --- Consulting GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability iEYEARECAAYFAlqEfVUACgkQuRKJsNLM5epaSwCg4IwVc1l+O4ar0x1skUrv3Cef Ul4AnjyP0SsQgbkHfHxLKjwSimT78Nxq =3nE3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:17:59 -0500 Bob Jonkman via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I have now updated my website install notes. I state in them that
Howard wrote: the documentation sucks, and that all the default values work fine. I did not fill in the repository window.
Pretty good notes, Howard!
http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson/Lenovo/
- --Bob.
Bob, Thanks. -- Howard Gibson hgibson@eol.ca jhowardgibson@gmail.com http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson
| From: Bob Jonkman via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | I have a Toshiba Satellite P200 laptop, 3 GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GBytes | RAM, 200 GByte HD, 4 USB ports, and, most wonderful of all, a 1440x900 | px 17" screen. What's the processor? I read a review of a P200 that had a Core Duo T2350 processor running at 1.867GHz. The fastest Core Duo T series runs at 2.33GHz. | But now that some packages are no longer | available in 32-bit architecture (hello, Chrome!) it may be necessary | to buy a new laptop. Switch to Firefox? What other programs are missing? | Are there any down sides to using a 32-bit machine as a web- or mail | server? I'm thinking low power consumption, &c. make that an | attractive alternate use. Power consumption isn't that low on your notebook. There have been some efficiency advances since 2006 when the Core Duo T series were introduced. I'm typing this on a three year old netbook with a processor that is roughly as powerful (but with modern features) and takes a lot less power (7.5W vs 31W + GPU power). But that's a minor point. If you've got the notebook, why not use it until it dies or something better comes along?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hugh wrote:
What's the processor?
I'll have to check. It's possible the two P200s have different CPUs, since there are other differences. And I may be remembering the speed of the dead 64-bit laptop, not the 32-bit laptop.
| But now that some packages are no longer | available in 32-bit architecture (hello, Chrome!) it may be necessary | to buy a new laptop.
Switch to Firefox? What other programs are missing?
I'm already using IceCat, so the browser isn't my problem. But the lack of 32-bit Chrome is the thin edge of the wedge. There will be other packages that will no longer be distributed for 32-bit architecture. Then what? But I guess we're not using 8-bit and 16-bit CPUs any more either.
If you've got the notebook, why not use it until it dies
Yup. That's how I treat all my computers. And then take the useful parts and frankenstein them into other computers. - --Bob. On 2018-02-10 09:46 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
| From: Bob Jonkman via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| I have a Toshiba Satellite P200 laptop, 3 GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GBytes | RAM, 200 GByte HD, 4 USB ports, and, most wonderful of all, a 1440x900 | px 17" screen.
What's the processor? I read a review of a P200 that had a Core Duo T2350 processor running at 1.867GHz. The fastest Core Duo T series runs at 2.33GHz.
| But now that some packages are no longer | available in 32-bit architecture (hello, Chrome!) it may be necessary | to buy a new laptop.
Switch to Firefox? What other programs are missing?
| Are there any down sides to using a 32-bit machine as a web- or mail | server? I'm thinking low power consumption, &c. make that an | attractive alternate use.
Power consumption isn't that low on your notebook. There have been some efficiency advances since 2006 when the Core Duo T series were introduced.
I'm typing this on a three year old netbook with a processor that is roughly as powerful (but with modern features) and takes a lot less power (7.5W vs 31W + GPU power).
But that's a minor point. If you've got the notebook, why not use it until it dies or something better comes along?
=====
Hugh wrote:>> I would think that most 32-bit only laptops are not really useful
any longer.
I have a Toshiba Satellite P200 laptop, 3 GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GBytes RAM, 200 GByte HD, 4 USB ports, and, most wonderful of all, a 1440x900 px 17" screen.
I was disappointed to learn about a week ago when installing Debian Testing that it only has a 32-bit CPU. I have another P200 that no longer boots, and I was sure it had a 64-bit CPU. That one also had Bluetooth and 6 USB ports, so it was likely a higher sub-model of the P200.
Such a machine is perfectly adequate for web surfing, e-mail reading, maintaining other people's websites, and ssh-ing into whatever remote machine I'm SysAdminning. But now that some packages are no longer available in 32-bit architecture (hello, Chrome!) it may be necessary to buy a new laptop.
Are there any down sides to using a 32-bit machine as a web- or mail server? I'm thinking low power consumption, &c. make that an attractive alternate use.
Howard wrote:
Has anyone else out there played with this? (Netinstall)
Yes, very successfully. I generally prefer doing the netinstall. Using an .iso to install takes time to copy all the OS files and packages to the computer, and, unless the .iso is a very recent release, almost everything you just installed has to be replaced with the first upgrade you make. So, might as well do the netinstall and get all the current stuff the first time.
--Bob.
On 2018-02-10 10:49 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: | From: Howard Gibson via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD | is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall.
Interesting. What laptop is it? I would think that most 32-bit only laptops are not really useful any longer.
On 2018-02-09 10:27 PM, Howard Gibson via talk wrote:
I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall. Netinstall is poorly documented, but the default settings all work, I was able to select the software I wanted, and it has all worked very well. I think I actually prefer Netinstall to the DVD.
Has anyone else out there played with this?
I have not yet updated my website notes.
- -- Bob Jonkman <bjonkman@sobac.com> Phone: +1-519-635-9413 SOBAC Microcomputer Services http://sobac.com/sobac/ Software --- Office & Business Automation --- Consulting GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability iEYEARECAAYFAlp/z6UACgkQuRKJsNLM5eqrOwCfZAqbwk7IO0x0Q/r/gO4H1ICg avwAn02A/8cdwXPP8N/0XxMEtvCJsB9a =BGMN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From: Bob Jonkman via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | I'm already using IceCat, so the browser isn't my problem. But the | lack of 32-bit Chrome is the thin edge of the wedge. There will be | other packages that will no longer be distributed for 32-bit | architecture. Then what? | | But I guess we're not using 8-bit and 16-bit CPUs any more either. The difference between 8, 16, and 32 were serious and a programmer had to be aware of them. 64k limits would impinge fairly often. The difference between 32 and 64 are important, but only for a small number of cases. Handling a lot of memory is best done with pointers that are wide enough. There are two kinds of pointers: ones that hold a physical address (to real memory) (used by the OS), and ones that hold a virtual address (used by the OS and by userland programs). - on x86, the PAE feature allows the OS to use more than 3.5G of physical memory. I don't know about other 32-bit architectures. (Early Atom processors only sent 32-bits worth of address lines off-chip, even though they had PAE. I have an Atom desktop PC with 4G of RAM that can only use 3.5G of it. I consider this an example of monopolistic behaviour. It was not easy to find this limitation documented.) - on 32-bit machines, Linux processes cannot easily use more than 3G of address space. If you want more, you write code to manage your address space, but that is intrusive and intricate. Why not just go to 64-bit instead? - irrelevant aside: many 64-bit ARM SOCs don't support more than 2G or 3G of RAM. This seems crazy to me since the first use-case of 64-bit is to support wider pointers. - wider external data busses improve performance but they are not tied to the instruction-set data-width. x86 busses have been 64-bits wide long before AMD64. I would guess that most ARM SOCs use 16-bit data busses, whether they have 32- or 64-bit instruction sets. - when you switch from 32-bit to 64-bit, programs require more memory. Both for object code and for data. The x86 => x86_64 bloat was remarkably modest. For ARM it seems to be a lot worse. On SPARC and Power, I understand that almost all userland code is still 32-bit, probably for this reason. If the penalty is significant, it makes sense to keep most programs 32-bit. Most standard UNIX utilities were coded in a 16-bit world so 32-bits should not cramp their style. - most programmers don't think enough about overflow. And only a few programming languages help. If you programmed much for 16-bit machines, you do think more about overflow. On 64-bit machines, few things will overflow. Summary: 64-bit machines are more forgiving of sloppy programming. What really needs more than 3G of address space? - programs that map the whole of a very large file into the address space - programs that manage scads of buffering. Perhaps database programs dealing with large databases at high speed. - programs that grew very very very large. Or problems that grew very very very large. It seems inexcusable that browsers are starting to tick these boxes. Almost NO 32-bit x86 chips are in current production. I think that Intel has some goofy SoCs for IoT applications that are limited to 32-bit but they really don't matter. So: I don't expect that we're going to see many programs that will stop supporting 32-bit. A greater risk is that 32-bit ports will become less tested. That may reduce reliability. Some distros are surely going to drop 32-bit soon. I would imagine that debian won't be one of them. In the Microsoft world, 32-bit could be turned off at any time, at the whim of Microsoft. It costs them a fair bit to support 32-bit SKUs.
On 2018-02-11 01:06 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
- irrelevant aside: many 64-bit ARM SOCs don't support more than 2G or 3G of RAM. This seems crazy to me since the first use-case of 64-bit is to support wider pointers.
Most ARMs are just application processors. If you're building a set-top box, you don't want to pay for all of those extra address lines you'll never use. While it's not about the RAM, Chris Tyler at Seneca gives an interesting talk about how 64-bit ARM does some rather clever vectorization by working with 128-bit vectors internally. I'm guessing the demand for ARM as anything other than application processor isn't there yet. Witness AMD's Opteron A1100: production has been scaled back, possibly even stopped. In theory you can still get a $600 A1100 dev box from SoftIron, but it's not readily available.
Almost NO 32-bit x86 chips are in current production. I think that Intel has some goofy SoCs for IoT applications that are limited to 32-bit but they really don't matter.
No, they canned that line last year. They really were not very good. Stewart
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:26:51PM -0500, Stewart C. Russell via talk wrote:
Most ARMs are just application processors. If you're building a set-top box, you don't want to pay for all of those extra address lines you'll never use. While it's not about the RAM, Chris Tyler at Seneca gives an interesting talk about how 64-bit ARM does some rather clever vectorization by working with 128-bit vectors internally.
I'm guessing the demand for ARM as anything other than application processor isn't there yet. Witness AMD's Opteron A1100: production has been scaled back, possibly even stopped. In theory you can still get a $600 A1100 dev box from SoftIron, but it's not readily available.
If it was actually possible to buy arm servers I think at least some people would have (I know I would have in the past), but none of the systems announced could actually be bought unless you were google or facebook or something like that. So the makers can't claim there isn't a market because they never actually tried to sell it. It seems a few systems from gigabyte can now be bought, but it took a while for that to become possible. As for the A1100, by now an A57 system is totally irrelevant. They took way too long to do anything with it. -- Len Sorensen
On 2018-02-14 11:06 AM, Lennart Sorensen via talk wrote:
If it was actually possible to buy arm servers I think at least some people would have (I know I would have in the past), but none of the systems announced could actually be bought unless you were google or facebook or something like that.
I think you can buy Cavium ThunderX systems if you get in touch with the distributor in Canada. We have some of their systems in the US for arm64 build farm purposes. But yes, the long promised ARM in the datacentre thing seems to remain just that, a promise with no major channel resellers or anyone offering much in terms of product. HP tried high density ARM servers with its Moonshot blades, but it seems like that effort died off in 2014 as soon as it started, and the whole HP/HPE thing the next year probably didn't help. Cheers, Jamon
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 08:56:54PM -0500, Jamon Camisso via talk wrote:
I think you can buy Cavium ThunderX systems if you get in touch with the distributor in Canada. We have some of their systems in the US for arm64 build farm purposes.
I think now you can, but even a year or two ago, good luck. I think the most powerful I managed to get my hands on was an 8 core 64bit A53 reference board from Freescale (NXP? Qualcomm?) but that was a pain to try to work with because the network ports were totally weird and non standard and kernel support was not integrated yet.
But yes, the long promised ARM in the datacentre thing seems to remain just that, a promise with no major channel resellers or anyone offering much in terms of product.
HP tried high density ARM servers with its Moonshot blades, but it seems like that effort died off in 2014 as soon as it started, and the whole HP/HPE thing the next year probably didn't help.
Also a box full of independant small 32 bit arm servers was not what people wanted. They wanted large single image multicore 64 bit arm servers. -- Len Sorensen
| From: Stewart C. Russell via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | On 2018-02-11 01:06 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: | > | > - irrelevant aside: many 64-bit ARM SOCs don't support more than 2G or | > 3G of RAM. This seems crazy to me since the first use-case of | > 64-bit is to support wider pointers. | | Most ARMs are just application processors. If you're building a set-top | box, you don't want to pay for all of those extra address lines you'll | never use. While it's not about the RAM, Chris Tyler at Seneca gives an | interesting talk about how 64-bit ARM does some rather clever | vectorization by working with 128-bit vectors internally. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing#Pros_and_cons> I follow with interest all the liitle ARM boxes, mostly meant for running Kodi. They come with a hacked version of Android (not Android TV). In fact, I just bought my first, an Egal T95K Pro, which contains an AMLogic S912 SoC. Many of these little boxes brag about 64-bit processor but I don't know if that counts for much. Except that they are a newer generation and likely have other improvements. As far as I can tell, all voilate the Kernel's GPL. You can read about these things on cnx-software.com (a blog-like sequence of news about little things "Embedded Systems News") or FreakTab.com (a forum). So little documentation is released that a lot of reverse-engineering is going on. The Raspberry Pi is much weaker and not cheaper than these little boxes. But it is open (mostly), has a great community, is stable, and software is maintained. The Android boxes are mostly fire-and-forget: the manufacturers put all their effort into their next boxes rather that fixing the bugs in their old boxes. Are any distros for the Raspberry Pi 64-bit? These little boxes are starting to push the limit of the address pins: some now have 3GB of RAM. Which means that they actually have 4GB but cannot address the last 1GB. Sad when you consider how expensive RAM is these days. There are a *lot* of little boxes. Just look on GearBest, for example: <https://www.gearbest.com/tv-box-c_11262/> They are probably great for running Kodi, with plugins to stream unauthorized copies of TV and movies. That's not something I do. They aren't great for authorized streaming due to not supporting required DRM. I do have an Xaiomi Mi Box running Android TV. Although the processor is weaker than the T95K Pro, it is a much better appliance. For example, Netflix allows Mi Box to play HD. | I'm guessing the demand for ARM as anything other than application | processor isn't there yet. Witness AMD's Opteron A1100: production has | been scaled back, possibly even stopped. In theory you can still get a | $600 A1100 dev box from SoftIron, but it's not readily available. Sad. There was a lot of talk but little availability, as far as I can tell. Cavium and Qualcomm have also announced things a while back, I think. | > Almost NO 32-bit x86 chips are in current production. I think that | > Intel has some goofy SoCs for IoT applications that are limited to | > 32-bit but they really don't matter. | | No, they canned that line last year. They really were not very good. This doesn't say that it is EoLed. But I do think I heard that they stopped work in this direction. <https://ark.intel.com/products/91949> The "segfault bug" (lock instruction (prefix?) bug) sounds bad: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quark#Segfault_bug>
D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote:
... So: I don't expect that we're going to see many programs that will stop supporting 32-bit. A greater risk is that 32-bit ports will become less tested. That may reduce reliability.
Some distros are surely going to drop 32-bit soon. I would imagine that debian won't be one of them.
Debian has already dropped 32-bit PowerPC as a release architecture; 64-bit is still supported. And I've heard mutterings that i386 is getting too long in the tooth and that amd64 is very much the core architecture today. We're already seeing browsers needing ginormous address space and not playing nicely on smaller computers with less than four gig in which to romp. I'm expecting that 64-bit processors are going to become increasingly less optional in the desktop and server space, and that there may be a fork at some point with the full distros focussing on 64-bit and embedded distros being the thing to use on 32-bit hardware. 64-bit ARM has been awfully slow off the mark but is likely to be a big thing once it gets properly going. The only reasonable thing I've seen actually for sale and have personally touched and run is the Solidrun Macchiatobin. Decent little board, supports a proper DIMM-load of RAM, the 10gig SFP slots are overkill for most of us but it has a normal GigE port too. I haven't tried video but I've heard reports of people having luck with a card of the appropriate PCI flavour. (Technically you can boot arm64 on some Raspberry Pis, but they don't have enough RAM to make that worth trying.) -- Anthony de Boer
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:44:24 -0500 Bob Jonkman via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
Are there any down sides to using a 32-bit machine as a web- or mail server? I'm thinking low power consumption, &c. make that an attractive alternate use.
Bob, This machine works fine for the stuff I do with it. It would be nice to have Chrome, to play Netflix, but I don't travel much. I have the means of accessing Netflix at home. -- Howard Gibson hgibson@eol.ca jhowardgibson@gmail.com http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:49:08 -0500 (EST) "D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
| From: Howard Gibson via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
| I have just upgraded my 32-bit laptop to Fedora 27. The install DVD | is no longer available for 32-bit. I had to do a Netinstall.
Interesting. What laptop is it? I would think that most 32-bit only laptops are not really useful any longer. --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
Hugh, Lenovo T400. It is my away-from-home machine, and still seems fast enough. -- Howard Gibson hgibson@eol.ca jhowardgibson@gmail.com http://home.eol.ca/~hgibson
participants (9)
-
Anthony de Boer -
Bob Jonkman -
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
Giles Orr -
Howard Gibson -
James Knott -
Jamon Camisso -
lsorense＠csclub.uwaterloo.ca -
Stewart C. Russell