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

151–160 of 201 posts

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#151

Post by pseudalopex »

djsumdog wrote: post #135
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.

Ubuntu does this now with Xenial.

Ubuntu uses Python 3 where possible, but /usr/bin/python is 2.7.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#152

Post by wolrah »

Koshkin wrote: post #130
StringEpsilon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All modern x86* CPUs are 64bit anyway and if this move means maintainers are freed up a bit, then I think it's worthwhile for the distro as a whole. Arch isn't really meant to be that one distro you can stick on a PC from the early nineties anyway. There are much more suitable distros for legacy hardware. And about the downsides of 64bit: I think the vastly improved address space offsets the improved memory use by or…

> the early nineties 64-bit computers started gaining popularity in the consumer market only, what, 5 years ago?

The Athlon 64 was released in September 2003, the Prescott Pentium 4 in February 2004, and the iMac G5 in August 2004.

Desktop CPUs have been basically guaranteed to be 64 bit since 2005.

The Pentium 3 derived Pentium M and Core Solo/Duo delayed wide mobile adoption of 64 bit until Core 2 came around in July 2006. I'd guess by 2007 you could probably safely assume 64 bit across all but the cheapest laptops as well.

tl;dr: Aside from a few Atom-powered netbooks 64 bit has been standard in anything resembling a normal computer for around a decade.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#153

Post by RUG3Y »

Zancarius wrote: post #127
AsyncAwait wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I agree, but I'd guess the chief complaint is that doing so requires the `python2` symlink to be available. There's at least one claim up thread that it doesn't exist on all systems (create it yourself?). I didn't catch the distribution used, but I DID check an older Ubuntu image I have (I run Arch) and there's definitely a python2 link pointing to python2.7 (`python` also points to python2.7 and there's a `python3`…

You're right. - If Arch is targeted for power users, what's preventing them from configuring symlinks etc? - Why aren't they using virtualenvs? I never install Python packages outside of a virtualenv.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#154

Post by Koshkin »

mastax wrote: post #144
Koshkin wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the early nineties 64-bit computers started gaining popularity in the consumer market only, what, 5 years ago?

What do you mean gaining popularity? Athlon 64 came out in 2003, Pentium 4F in 2005. I'll concede that 32-bit Atoms were reasonably popular in certain market segments, but hasn't generally every consumer computer been 64-bit for over 10 years?

Sure, but the point has nothing todo with the availabilty or popularity of 64-bit CPUs. Rather, it has to do with the amount of memory deemed necessary in a computer. As far as I remember, Windows Vista, which was released into the wild just about 10 years ago, was predominantly 32-bit, 64-bit intalls, just like with XP, being more of a curiosity. Few consumer devices had more than 2GB of RAM back then.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#155

Post by michaelmrose »

simplyluke wrote: post #115
CJefferson wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not? Can you elaborate?

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#156

Post by EdwinHoksberg »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #125
crimsonalucard wrote: post #106

I love the rolling release aspect of arch but I'm looking for something more user friendly. Anybody know of a good linux distro that is user friendly and has rolling releases?

Debian testing might work. I don't know if it is technically a rolling release distro but it stays up to date. Also OpenSuse tumbleweed. And there's a similar Fedora distro: rawhide, maybe?

Why use testing instead of unstable? (genuine question)

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#157

Post by lelandbatey »

srssays wrote: post #131
jvreeland wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says right in the pep "...however, end users should be aware that python refers to python3 on at least Arch Linux (that change is what prompted the creation of this PEP), so python should be used in the shebang line only for scripts that are source compatible with both Python 2 and 3..." There was no guidance before the Arch devs made their choice. There's no reason to change back. Especially since the goal is tha…

There's a good reason to change back. There is now convention in place, and Arch's approach is obsolete.

It seems to me that Arch established their convention first, so why should Arch "change back" when they where first; why are others not "changing back" to Arch's convention, given that Arch's came first?

Well, the answer is that this is a silly discussion. Arch is doing what Arch is doing because Arch is intentionally forward oriented, sometimes to the detriment of backwards compatibility with the old school (and yes, a distro not having a symlink for python2 is at this point nearly 5 years into being "old school").

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#158

Post by [deleted] »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #123
rlpb wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It was only because of what Arch unilaterally did Arch is a bleeding-edge, latest software kind of distribution. They did not made the decision 'unilaterally'. They made the decision to ship the latest software for their own distribution, as they always do. It may have proven that a lot of software is extremely poor/inflexible, (i.e. rests on weak assumptions), but I am glad Arch moved forward as that showed their…

[deleted]

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#159

Post by gravypod »

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 do we still type "bash" instead of "bash4"

Because Bash was made by, and is maintained by, people who understand how backwards compatability in their program is important.

Re: Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

#160

Post by ctrlc-root »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #106

I love the rolling release aspect of arch but I'm looking for something more user friendly. Anybody know of a good linux distro that is user friendly and has rolling releases?

I'm curious why you think Arch is not user friendly? It's not the rolling release since you're asking for other distributions that use that model. I've used my fair share and from what I've seen Arch is by far the most user friendly.
Post reply on HN