Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 08:43:48 +0000 Subject: Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc References: <0Yudna13zPeqcSr1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <1098vhv$2o09q$5@paganini.bofh.team> <1099357$11hv4$12@dont-email.me> <109979b$1389k$9@dont-email.me> <10999a5$1g1jr$1@news1.tnib.de> <109gmm0$35m5k$1@news1.tnib.de> <109h7b7$3qtb4$1@news1.tnib.de> From: c186282 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2025 04:43:44 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Lines: 57 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-iuSrD2u1EgmHi6RIKmVVzAFBTSwcP8iRTIoxVUwS6xdTSLaw9So82JYhjTxiz/T3sYcvYKN/zNU/k9G!s1mzLsWH5OxICCt1vClJhGftsAACnp6ShdvJs4tvLPzWGldowEApnAVgWM9FvIM6KM2sk0uNIz1i!Fw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:73634 On 9/6/25 10:45 PM, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 14:19:42 +0100, Richard Kettlewell > wrote: > >> Marc Haber writes: >>> Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> Marc Haber writes: >>>>> That is asking too much. >>>> >>>> Debian continues to support 32-bit x86 executables at least back to the >>>> Glibc transition >>> >>> As long as the toolchain is still available, and as long people are >>> willing to fix bugs in 32bit x86. >> >> Sure. But the point is, at present those conditions are met. >> >>> There is no installer any more, and no kernel. So 32bit x86 on Debian >>> is confined to containers and to being a secondary arch on a 64bit x86 >>> system. >> >> The ask was “a current OS can run vintage software and read the data >> collected by it”. The lack of a 32-bit installer or kernel is irrelevant >> to that. > > Exactly. > > To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux > example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I > bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the > 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one > where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. > > The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the > 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? Intel CPUs dropped native 8/16 support a long time ago. Just Won't Work. Core-2-Quad was, I think, the last that would do it. Have one of those boards, but haven't used it in a long time. > The only reason I would want a 32-bit installer (in any OS) is because > a a 64-bit version can't run older software. If a 32-bit version can > be made capable of running 8 & 16 bit software, why can't a 64-bit (or > 128-bit, or 256-bit) OS not be made so capable? > > This is a case of the 64-bit OS having reduced capability. But why? Because of "future focus" .... That's where the money is. Before the AI completely takes it we may see even 128/256 chips. Anything older - no $$$ in support beyond a few years. Capitalism has perks, and problems. Cope.