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

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#111

Post by kogepathic »

scandox wrote: post #107
kogepathic wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it's a DK200, then I've built grub to bypass secure boot.

You can boot other Linuxes on it (e.g. Yocto) but as per my parent comment, not much will work.

I have an SPI image and instructions to flash if you're interested. You'll need an SPI programmer like the ch341a.

I think Intel is violating the GPL by not providing sources, since they include a written offer and GPL requires source availability for 3 years.

I tried to download the WindRiver SDK using the code in the box, and Intel told me the product was no longer receiving support...

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#112

Post by simplyluke »

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…

> Are we to hold back for the lowest common denominator?

Well, the fact that over a decade after the release of python 3 we're _still_ arguing about it shows that lot of people think we should.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#113

Post by kogepathic »

akoster wrote: post #96
kogepathic wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for your post (and tl;dr comment too - I need to work on being more concise :-). I own no Quark powered boards but have some friends who do. It's a shame that they fall into the category of boards with poor software support (and even more of a shame since they are based off the Intel architecture). I own a few raspberry pi's and have been extremely pleased that even my rPi model B+ from 2012 still gets support…

> I wish there was some sort of regulatory label put on these devices (or boards) that would clearly state how many years of support they would commit to.

As someone who owns a Raspberry Pi, PandaBoard, BananaPi, Orange Pi, and Intel DK200 I've learned this important life lesson:

Always assume that the most support you'll ever receive for the board is on the day you buy it.

Apart from the Raspberry Pi, no one else gives half a shit to fix bugs or even provide distro updates for their hardware.

Cheap Chinese boards are even worse for this. They'll typically take the SoC kernel (an ancient version several years out of date with the worst patches you've ever seen) and roll some shitty old distro around it (e.g. Ubuntu 14.04, Android 4.4).

A good recommendation for people looking to buy a board is to look at the Armbian [0] or Arch Linux ARM [1] supported hardware (read the notices!!!) and buy that.

[0] http://armbian.com

[1] https://archlinuxarm.org/

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#114

Post by LukeShu »

mhd wrote: post #63

Bad news for my old X60 Thinkpad (still the best laptop form factor I've ever owned).

If you're interested, Parabola (an Arch derivative) is continuing i686 support pretty much solely because so many of the Parabola developers love their X60's (which is largely due to Libreboot support).

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#115

Post by simplyluke »

CJefferson wrote: post #79
Fiahil wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, even Ansible folks started to switch to python 3 ( https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/python_3_support.html ). Pushing people off python 2 is not "absolutely evil".

I have no problem with Arch having a "only install python3 by default" rule. They can even not distribute python2 for all I care. But, don't make /usr/bin/python run python3, that just confuses programs which have made the (reasonable based on past experience, and official python advice) assumption that it /usr/bin/python will run python2.

So forever into the future $ python should run python2? That's not pragmatic at all.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#116

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #17
StreakyCobra wrote: post #12

It is one of the reasons that makes me love Arch: developers are pragmatic. They were always in the early birds for taking decision about the future, like switching to Python3 as default interpreter system-wide, embracing the change to systemd, and now this. The rolling release aspect imposes to stay as close as possible to upstream versions because upstream does not wait on Arch to update their dependencies to newer…

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#117

Post by simplyluke »

DanBC wrote: post #101
StreakyCobra wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't think arch has ever been particularly focussed on writing an OS for the least performant hardware in circulation.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#118

Post by shmerl »

What about supporting older 32-bit applications? Without 32-bit support, there won't be any way to run 32-bit games in Wine for example, unless Wine will somehow rewrite it all to work with underlying 64-bit libraries.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#119

Post by LukeShu »

recursive wrote: post #70
jonathonf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how Arch works... ;)

How does Arch work?

Arch is rolling release; there isn't really an older version that you can go back to, the installer just fetches the latest versions of the packages.

Of course, there's the Arch Linux Archive, which lets you sync packages as they were on a particular date.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#120

Post by arca_vorago »

40acres wrote: post #84

Off topic: I've been in the market for a new laptop that runs Linux, I've never had a PC that ran Linux (closest thing was a Macbook running MacOS, I'm also discounting my work laptop that allows me to VNC into SuSe). After doing some research it seemed like Arch Linux might be a good fit, it seems like a very minimal OS that allows for great customization. However I'm unsure how user friendly it would be for someone…

"Can anyone comment about their experiences with moving to Arch and the learning curve?"

To me arch is designed to force you to learn the guts of your system, so it has a relatively high learning curve but it is one that pays dividends in the form of understanding what your system is doing and how it is setup. (this aside from the side-effect of keeping it debloated and therefor fast)

Honestly, what I would suggest is this:

Step 1:(if you have the time) go through a full arch install. Now format and do it again without following the guide. Now maybe do it one more time.

Step 2: (if pressed for time and/or lazy) Install Manjaro. I distro-hop frequently, and while I generally try to use debian on servers, for desktop/laptop use I have gone from Arch to Suse to Fedora, but I recently gave Majaro a shot, and I can honestly say next to Suse it has the easiest and most graceful linux installer I have ever seen (beating even Ubuntu). I generally don't like using Mint-like everything in a box distros, but the slimness of Arch along with the Just works of Ubuntu/Fedora/Suse I am finding it highly likely Manjaro is going to be my distro of choice for a long time to come. If in doubt, you can always just fire up different installs in a virtualbox first.

Post reply on HN