Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

pcworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 201 posts

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#101

Post by DanBC »

StreakyCobra wrote: post #25
DanBC wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Side effect will be that people will be encouraged to get a modern computer if not already. All those netbooks (atom processors; 1 GB or 2 GB ram; 32 GB hard drive) would be great with Linux (once the drivers get fixed) and really benefit from 32 bit because of the ram limitations. Now? They'll end up in landfill.

There are other distributions better suited (even specialized) to be run on old hardware.

There are brand new machines. Some haven't been released yet.

They come with a tiny bit of ram 2 gb, 4 gb if you're lucky.

The processor is 64 bit, but because of the small ram you'll suffer with a 64 bit OS. (Both Microsoft and Arch wiki agree here).

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#102

Post by rlpb »

Latty wrote: post #76
CJefferson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The switch to the 'python' command running python 3, as a non-arch user, put me off Arch forever. It just broke everything, which had long assumed 'python' would run python 2. Not installing python 2, and just python 3, with the name python3, would have been fine. Arch put us in a situation where it was basically impossible to run python 2 with a #! line, as some distros hadn't yet introduced a 'python2' symlink yet.

I'm an Arch user, and it literally broke nothing for me. Packages were updated, life went on. You seem to be complaining because other distros hadn't done the right thing. I don't see how that's Arch's fault. Are we to hold back for the lowest common denominator? Do we need every distro to join together and agree to a switchover date? There was official guidance from Python on the switchover, this wasn't some maveric…

My Python 2 scripts on Github start with "#!/usr/bin/python", as do many others. All of these broke for you as an Arch user.

Because Arch did what they did, Python now recommends that Python 2 scripts start "#!/usr/bin/python2" (or the env equivalent).

> Are we to hold back for the lowest common denominator? Do we need every distro to join together and agree to a switchover date?

It's not just other distros; it's the rest of the world, including all of the scripts that people run but distros don't necessarily ship.

The right way to migrate would be to ship and use both /usr/bin/python2 and /usr/bin/python3. Leave /usr/bin/python as a symlink to python2 for a while. Eventually, drop the symlink, but do not replace it with python3. Allow users to opt-in to a compat symlink if they wish. Let stuff catch up. When the expectation that "python" is python2 has faded, then introduce a symlink from python to python3 by default, letting users opt-in earlier if they wish.

> There was official guidance from Python on the switchover, this wasn't some maverick decision.

No, there wasn't, and yes, it was some maverick decision. It was done without consultation with upstream.

(I am a non-Arch distribution developer)

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#103

Post by rlpb »

akoster wrote: post #24

It is a shame that many major Linux distributions are dropping 32-bit x86 support. I used to be able to say with confidence that the old laptop or PC in your garage can run any major Linux distribution, breathing new life into aging hardware. For example, I have an old ThinkPad T42, which I use to test out new Linux distros, which incidentally, is currently running Arch. Using older hardware increases the chances tha…

> It is a shame that many major Linux distributions are dropping 32-bit x86 support.

Really it's that nobody who is interested in 32-bit x86 support is prepared to maintain it. In Free Software land, that's almost always the reason that stuff gets dropped. If it's enough of a shame, those interested would step up and make it happen. They haven't.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#104

Post by rlpb »

nebulon wrote: post #2

Will be interesting if a part of the community "forks" arch like they did for 16bit back then. However lowarch is apparently also dead by now: http://www.lowarch.org/ I still have that installed on a i386 machine, but not booted since years.

Do they need to fork? The reason given is "decreasing popularity of i686 among the developers and the community". If enough developers were prepared to maintain a fork, why wouldn't they just do it as part of the Arch project? As far as I can tell, they're not being turned away; it's being dropped because there isn't anyone to turn away.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#105

Post by AsyncAwait »

michrassena wrote: post #55
CJefferson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The switch to the 'python' command running python 3, as a non-arch user, put me off Arch forever. It just broke everything, which had long assumed 'python' would run python 2. Not installing python 2, and just python 3, with the name python3, would have been fine. Arch put us in a situation where it was basically impossible to run python 2 with a #! line, as some distros hadn't yet introduced a 'python2' symlink yet.

What I wonder is why one would assume the python command would run python 2, instead of running python 1, assuming python 1 was a thing. By your logic, shouldn't python2, run python3 run python 3, etc. What I'm getting at, is we get used to things being a certain way, but often we're just following a convention that was set in place before we got onboard. Why do we still type "bash" instead of "bash4"?

Why not be explicit with 'python2' and be done with it?

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#107

Post by scandox »

kogepathic wrote: post #54
akoster wrote: post #24

It is a shame that many major Linux distributions are dropping 32-bit x86 support. I used to be able to say with confidence that the old laptop or PC in your garage can run any major Linux distribution, breathing new life into aging hardware. For example, I have an old ThinkPad T42, which I use to test out new Linux distros, which incidentally, is currently running Arch. Using older hardware increases the chances tha…

tl;dr - due to a CPU bug, you can't run normal i686 distributions on the Quark anyway, and support in mainline Linux is still shit 3 years after release. > Also, I wonder what this means for the Intel Quark SoC (found in Intel Edison and Intel Galileo boards). Does this mean Arch Linux wont be an option for these devices? I have a device based on the Quark SoC. Support is abysmal for this SoC, especially considering…

Supporting this view. Got given a Quark SoC based box by someone at Intel. Tried to get something going with it, only to realise I had to use WindRiver Linux. Tried to obtain toolchain for building even simple software for it online, couldn't find it. Asked contacts at Intel: radio silence.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#108

Post by AsyncAwait »

rlpb wrote: post #102
Latty wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an Arch user, and it literally broke nothing for me. Packages were updated, life went on. You seem to be complaining because other distros hadn't done the right thing. I don't see how that's Arch's fault. Are we to hold back for the lowest common denominator? Do we need every distro to join together and agree to a switchover date? There was official guidance from Python on the switchover, this wasn't some maveric…

My Python 2 scripts on Github start with "#!/usr/bin/python", as do many others. All of these broke for you as an Arch user. Because Arch did what they did, Python now recommends that Python 2 scripts start "#!/usr/bin/python2" (or the env equivalent). > Are we to hold back for the lowest common denominator? Do we need every distro to join together and agree to a switchover date? It's not just other distros; it's the…

> My Python 2 scripts on Github start with "#!/usr/bin/python", as do many others. All of these broke for you as an Arch user.

So you made certain assumptions. Have you made your scripts use python2, which is safer anyway, everything would've been fine, don't blame Arch for your incorrect assumptions.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#109

Post by rlpb »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #108
rlpb wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Python 2 scripts on Github start with "#!/usr/bin/python", as do many others. All of these broke for you as an Arch user. Because Arch did what they did, Python now recommends that Python 2 scripts start "#!/usr/bin/python2" (or the env equivalent). > Are we to hold back for the lowest common denominator? Do we need every distro to join together and agree to a switchover date? It's not just other distros; it's the…

> My Python 2 scripts on Github start with "#!/usr/bin/python", as do many others. All of these broke for you as an Arch user. So you made certain assumptions. Have you made your scripts use python2, which is safer anyway, everything would've been fine, don't blame Arch for your incorrect assumptions.

No. Before Arch made their change, that /usr/bin/python is Python 2 was the only possible assumption that could be made. No distribution shipped /usr/bin/python2 at that time. There was no need, because /usr/bin/python was always Python 2.

It was only because of what Arch unilaterally did that forced the community to start providing a /usr/bin/python2. Before that, /usr/bin/python2 did not commonly exist at all.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#110

Post by pavanky »

The maintainers are dropping a hard requirement for 32 bit and asking the community to step up if they want to. 32 bit packages can and will continue to be still packaged under archlinux perhaps from [community] instead of [core]
Post reply on HN