Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #73031 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-02 15:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-09-08 01:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> - 2025-09-02 15:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 19:35 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 04:42 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 09:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 04:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 08:16 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:26 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 08:51 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:20 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 20:07 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:54 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:28 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 04:56 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 08:57 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 08:23 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 04:36 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 11:59 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:49 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:40 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-07 08:35 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:02 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-07 15:57 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 21:30 +0000
PCI cards and cables "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-08 22:55 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:23 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:35 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-06 07:53 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 10:14 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 09:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 13:02 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 19:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-06 20:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 00:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 01:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-09 14:48 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-09 22:44 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 20:52 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 08:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:55 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 01:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-10 03:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:55 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 11:15 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-10 10:57 +0000
UFO [Was: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 13:25 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-10 23:47 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 21:07 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 20:50 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:59 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:35 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 01:04 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 21:09 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:41 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:50 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 07:46 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:39 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 08:44 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 19:43 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-10 18:35 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 22:04 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-11 02:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 22:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-11 04:09 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 00:42 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:02 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 22:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 04:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:32 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 07:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 08:29 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 21:11 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 22:02 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 02:42 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 23:41 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:28 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 06:46 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 07:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 00:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 21:34 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:04 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-11 23:46 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-11 13:07 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-11 11:04 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-11 10:25 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 04:00 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 00:38 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-11 22:26 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 02:35 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 08:32 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 06:22 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-12 15:26 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-12 21:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-13 13:06 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 17:24 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 22:01 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-12 06:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 21:01 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 00:20 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:08 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:34 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2025-09-07 15:13 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 16:48 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 21:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:31 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:39 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 00:14 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:50 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:39 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 14:12 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 00:13 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:41 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-07 11:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 05:39 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 11:01 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 06:30 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 10:54 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 20:11 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:27 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-02 18:58 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 20:38 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 09:06 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 03:20 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 10:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 05:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:52 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 11:59 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 13:10 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 13:36 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 04:51 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 06:33 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 12:03 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 13:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 13:37 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:15 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 15:16 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:21 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 09:44 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:30 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 17:24 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 21:23 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:14 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 09:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:53 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:19 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-06 19:57 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 05:41 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:39 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:43 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:13 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 07:29 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:40 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 19:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 09:44 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 05:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-08 04:22 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-09 05:26 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 03:32 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-09 05:35 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:15 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 07:06 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 16:37 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 16:37 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 21:46 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-12 17:30 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-12 10:05 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:40 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-12 20:59 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 00:18 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-13 05:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 18:12 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-13 07:33 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-13 06:32 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 05:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:13 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-14 08:48 +1000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-13 21:27 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 23:34 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 10:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 13:54 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 14:50 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-06 20:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 01:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 08:11 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 04:14 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:12 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:22 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 16:40 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 08:32 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 22:56 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 00:14 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:48 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:56 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-10 19:10 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 12:16 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-10 15:55 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 10:57 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 06:47 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:53 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-08 23:00 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 11:11 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 04:15 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:21 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-13 12:57 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 13:26 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:35 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-07 04:51 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-07 03:38 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:54 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:44 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:43 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 12:10 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 14:08 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-03 09:57 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 18:16 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-04 09:45 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 08:02 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-09-04 15:40 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 08:59 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 18:30 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 04:05 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-05 14:47 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 19:33 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 08:15 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-15 17:10 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:22 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:47 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-09-04 11:09 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-09-05 14:05 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2025-09-05 15:03 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-06 12:46 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-06 22:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:46 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 11:01 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 20:51 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 00:08 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 04:37 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 09:17 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:36 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 06:27 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:18 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-03 12:28 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 19:05 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-09-04 06:55 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-04 07:08 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:18 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:42 +0100
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-05 23:23 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 06:47 -0400
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> - 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-06 07:05 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Øyvind Røtvold <orotvold@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 09:01 +0200
Re: Linux 32 bit support days are numbered Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-08 01:50 +0000
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10997mq$1389k$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73197 |
On 03/09/2025 11:43, Marco Moock wrote: > On 03.09.2025 10:52 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 03/09/2025 10:15, c186282 wrote: >>> On 9/3/25 4:51 AM, Marco Moock wrote: >>>> On 03.09.2025 03:20 c186282 c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> DO encourage at least ONE distro to hang on to >>>>> a 32-bit version for a few more years though. >>>>> After that ....... the past is the past. >>>> >>>> Slackware plans to do so. >>>> Although, if upstream software will stop supporting it (not only >>>> the kernel, but compilers and linkers), it will definitely come to >>>> an end. >>> >>> 32 has gone the way of 8-bit .... >>> >>> Nothing really to DO about it ... tech keeps >>> marching on. >>> >>> What, should all the distros keep a PDP-11 >>> version ??? Come ON now !!! >>> >>> Learned on a PDP-11, good unit ... but its >>> time is LONG LONG gone. >> >> I think custom Linuxes of a 32 bit flavour will be around as long as >> there are being platforms made that will run them and need them. > > Although, no security updates and bugfixed upstream then. Rather > unlikely that people will continue to buy such devices. > >> It is probably true to say that ultimately if the PIOS (32bit) were >> frozen at the latest level it would still be a usable option for >> embedded applications almost forever. > > Without bugfixes and support, I don't like such solutions. Small x64 > hardware is cheap. Small 32 bit is even cheaper, and when you are in a product costing less tha $10 every cent counts. And mostly bugfixes DO NOT MATTER. The code you already have runs perfectly well on the existing OS - why change it? > >> I mean you can still run FreeDos on a *86 if you want. Or CP/M on a >> z80 > > Useless for current applications. > Absolutely not. For limited applications its *more than enough*. >> That doesn't detract from the argument that a 386SX running today's >> linux wouldn't be completely unusable as a day to day desktop. > > I have serious doubt that you are able to install any current > distribution on such a system. You need a kernel with just a small > portion of the features to make it possible to use only some MBs of RAM. > > FYI: ~3 years ago I tried to use the Debian installer on 384 MB - it > crashed. Now images that for machines with under 16MB. > >> You would be better off running windows XP on it. > > Will already run horrible on a Pentium 2 - with resources multiple > times of 386 machines. > >> And thats the point. Retro computing uses retro software as well as >> retro hardware. > > And is a hobby. Such old stuff sometimes still exists in companies - > but if it fails or needs to be changes, it is a PITA. > >> And the cost of maintaining REALLY old kit starts to >> ruse and its utility starts to fall after a certain age. > > Many parts of the Linux kernel are maintained by companies. I have > doubt that they will care about that old stuff. Linux already dropped > support for really old graphics cards, ISDN and other stuff that is not > well-used nowadays and created issues. Nobody liked to seriously take > over. > You have blinkers on here. Old code that runs on cheap platforms is perfectly usable for *limited applications*. For many people, Wordstar running on CP/M was *all they ever needed* to write fantastic books on. I'm running 32 bit code on old Pi Zeros and expect to be running the same code in 10 years time. If still alive. I have no reason to update it. -- “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 14:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1099b48$2o09q$13@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #73208 |
On 03.09.2025 12:10 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Small 32 bit is even cheaper, and when you are in a product costing > less tha $10 every cent counts. Also calculate the costs for people who need to develop and operate on it. > And mostly bugfixes DO NOT MATTER. That indeed applies for crap products. > The code you already have runs perfectly well on the existing OS - > why change it? Because other systems around it are being changed. I've had enough with 10 y+ old Linux machines. No support for current cryptography, no support for current SSH and such issues. > > > >> I mean you can still run FreeDos on a *86 if you want. Or CP/M on a > >> z80 > > > > Useless for current applications. > > > > Absolutely not. > > For limited applications its *more than enough*. Very limited niche applications. How many people can develop on that platform? How much do they cost compared to a more generic platform? > >> That doesn't detract from the argument that a 386SX running today's > >> linux wouldn't be completely unusable as a day to day desktop. > > > > I have serious doubt that you are able to install any current > > distribution on such a system. You need a kernel with just a small > > portion of the features to make it possible to use only some MBs of > > RAM. > > > > FYI: ~3 years ago I tried to use the Debian installer on 384 MB - it > > crashed. Now images that for machines with under 16MB. > > > >> You would be better off running windows XP on it. > > > > Will already run horrible on a Pentium 2 - with resources multiple > > times of 386 machines. > > > >> And thats the point. Retro computing uses retro software as well as > >> retro hardware. > > > > And is a hobby. Such old stuff sometimes still exists in companies - > > but if it fails or needs to be changes, it is a PITA. > > > >> And the cost of maintaining REALLY old kit starts to > >> ruse and its utility starts to fall after a certain age. > > > > Many parts of the Linux kernel are maintained by companies. I have > > doubt that they will care about that old stuff. Linux already > > dropped support for really old graphics cards, ISDN and other stuff > > that is not well-used nowadays and created issues. Nobody liked to > > seriously take over. > > > > You have blinkers on here. > Old code that runs on cheap platforms is perfectly usable for > *limited applications*. If that is the only task, yes. But in case it needs to be modified, it is PITA. Same applies for connected systems. Various embedded systems are connected to others to gain data, have central control over attached machines or just to monitor that the device is still operating. All of that is a PITA for old platforms, as networking stuff changes. > For many people, Wordstar running on CP/M was *all they ever needed* > to write fantastic books on. Back in the days. Nowadays, it is common to distribute the written files to other machines and there is already the first issue. How many people can read those files and how can they get them? A 10 year old used machine can do that task too and can run a current OS. > I'm running 32 bit code on old Pi Zeros and expect to be running the > same code in 10 years time. If still alive. I have no reason to > update it. Fine. But don't expect others that they need to make their stuff compatible with that, especially networking software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 09:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250903095751.00005420@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #73234 |
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:08:40 +0200 Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > Because other systems around it are being changed. I've had enough > with 10 y+ old Linux machines. No support for current cryptography, > no support for current SSH and such issues. It's funny how many people here say "there is no use for X" when what they really mean is "*I* don't have a use for X." > > For many people, Wordstar running on CP/M was *all they ever needed* > > to write fantastic books on. > > Back in the days. Nowadays, it is common to distribute the written > files to other machines and there is already the first issue. How > many people can read those files and how can they get them? I do my writing on a 16-year-old Asus Eee, which was underpowered when it was new. Runs mEdit and Claws Mail like a champ, and handles major webnovel sites well enough for me to post from.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 18:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1099t4i$19f2q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73290 |
On 03/09/2025 17:57, John Ames wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:08:40 +0200 > Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > >> Because other systems around it are being changed. I've had enough >> with 10 y+ old Linux machines. No support for current cryptography, >> no support for current SSH and such issues. > > It's funny how many people here say "there is no use for X" when what > they really mean is "*I* don't have a use for X." > >>> For many people, Wordstar running on CP/M was *all they ever needed* >>> to write fantastic books on. >> >> Back in the days. Nowadays, it is common to distribute the written >> files to other machines and there is already the first issue. How >> many people can read those files and how can they get them? > Answering the above...the medium of the day was floppy disks. Its still possible to read CP.M format floppy disks The files are in text format. Pagination is added using DTP software post authoring > I do my writing on a 16-year-old Asus Eee, which was underpowered when > it was new. Runs mEdit and Claws Mail like a champ, and handles major > webnovel sites well enough for me to post from. > -- The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 09:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <109bg30$cbij$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #73290 |
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:08:40 +0200 >Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >> Back in the days. Nowadays, it is common to distribute the written >> files to other machines and there is already the first issue. How >> many people can read those files and how can they get them? > >I do my writing on a 16-year-old Asus Eee, which was underpowered when >it was new. Runs mEdit and Claws Mail like a champ, and handles major >webnovel sites well enough for me to post from. And it's going to lose Linux support sooner or later. Live with it, or start contributing to 32bit Linux. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250904080226.0000417f@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #73338 |
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 09:45:36 +0200 Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > >I do my writing on a 16-year-old Asus Eee, which was underpowered > >when it was new. Runs mEdit and Claws Mail like a champ, and handles > >major webnovel sites well enough for me to post from. > > And it's going to lose Linux support sooner or later. Live with it, or > start contributing to 32bit Linux. I'm not even running oldstable on it at the moment; IIRC it's still on Devuan ascii.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109cbt4$1rhl9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73338 |
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:
> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:08:40 +0200
>>Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
<snip>
>>I do my writing on a 16-year-old Asus Eee, which was underpowered when
>>it was new. Runs mEdit and Claws Mail like a champ, and handles major
>>webnovel sites well enough for me to post from.
>
> And it's going to lose Linux support sooner or later. Live with it, or
> start contributing to 32bit Linux.
Yes, but the big question is when :)
Anyway as to the Asus Eee, looks like NetBSD works fine on
those. Since it seems eventually NetBSD may end up as the
only game in town for 32 bit, John could always migrate once
Linux drops 32 bit.
https://wiki.netbsd.org/laptops/#index3h1
I have NetBSD on an older Laptop and it works great, installing
it can be a bit confusing and setting up encryption a bit more
confusing, just review the Guide many times and then take a
run at it. If you know Linux, NetBSD is not too different
and the learning curve is small.
--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250904085915.00003c84@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #73379 |
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:40:20 -0000 (UTC) John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > Anyway as to the Asus Eee, looks like NetBSD works fine on > those. Since it seems eventually NetBSD may end up as the > only game in town for 32 bit, John could always migrate once > Linux drops 32 bit. > > https://wiki.netbsd.org/laptops/#index3h1 > > I have NetBSD on an older Laptop and it works great, installing > it can be a bit confusing and setting up encryption a bit more > confusing, just review the Guide many times and then take a > run at it. If you know Linux, NetBSD is not too different > and the learning curve is small. Been on my to-do list; just haven't gotten around to it as the current install is still working fine for my purposes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mhu462FshmkU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73379 |
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:40:20 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: > Anyway as to the Asus Eee, looks like NetBSD works fine on those. Since > it seems eventually NetBSD may end up as the only game in town for 32 > bit, John could always migrate once Linux drops 32 bit. https://www.q4os.org/ I installed Q4OS on the eeePC. The KDE desktop was too heavy but Trinity works fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 04:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <daudnVIwSIFJBCf1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73396 |
On 9/4/25 2:30 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:40:20 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: > >> Anyway as to the Asus Eee, looks like NetBSD works fine on those. Since >> it seems eventually NetBSD may end up as the only game in town for 32 >> bit, John could always migrate once Linux drops 32 bit. > > https://www.q4os.org/ > > I installed Q4OS on the eeePC. The KDE desktop was too heavy but Trinity > works fine. My EEEPC was good - but NOT insanely fast. By far best to stick with LIGHT desktops. They exist, even now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <109ecc6$49qc$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #73420 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >On 9/4/25 2:30 PM, rbowman wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:40:20 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: >> >>> Anyway as to the Asus Eee, looks like NetBSD works fine on those. Since >>> it seems eventually NetBSD may end up as the only game in town for 32 >>> bit, John could always migrate once Linux drops 32 bit. >> >> https://www.q4os.org/ >> >> I installed Q4OS on the eeePC. The KDE desktop was too heavy but Trinity >> works fine. > > My EEEPC was good - but NOT insanely fast. By far > best to stick with LIGHT desktops. They exist, > even now. Once you have started the browser, resource usage of the desktop is irrelevant. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 11:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109eea4$2acbn$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73437 |
On 05/09/2025 11:00, Marc Haber wrote: > Once you have started the browser, resource usage of the desktop is > irrelevant. I think that needs to be engraved on Somewhere Important and Visible -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. -- Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 14:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <109em60$h902$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #73442 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 05/09/2025 11:00, Marc Haber wrote: >> Once you have started the browser, resource usage of the desktop is >> irrelevant. > >I think that needs to be engraved on Somewhere Important and Visible On the Desktop, maybe? Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 19:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109fae0$2j9nh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73457 |
On 05/09/2025 13:47, Marc Haber wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 05/09/2025 11:00, Marc Haber wrote: >>> Once you have started the browser, resource usage of the desktop is >>> irrelevant. >> >> I think that needs to be engraved on Somewhere Important and Visible > > On the Desktop, maybe? > > Greetings > Marc +1 -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10a9s8o$25v3q$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73437 |
On 2025-09-05, Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>On 9/4/25 2:30 PM, rbowman wrote: >>> On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:40:20 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: >>> >>>> Anyway as to the Asus Eee, looks like NetBSD works fine on those. Since >>>> it seems eventually NetBSD may end up as the only game in town for 32 >>>> bit, John could always migrate once Linux drops 32 bit. >>> >>> https://www.q4os.org/ >>> >>> I installed Q4OS on the eeePC. The KDE desktop was too heavy but Trinity >>> works fine. >> >> My EEEPC was good - but NOT insanely fast. By far >> best to stick with LIGHT desktops. They exist, >> even now. > > Once you have started the browser, resource usage of the desktop is > irrelevant. > - Dillo - mpv+yt-dlp+streamlink - Telescope + Gemini proxy for HTTP, mainly for news - gopher://magical.fish - Heck, Usenet has misc.internet.discuss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 08:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250905081533.00001920@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #73420 |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 04:05:34 -0400 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > My EEEPC was good - but NOT insanely fast. By far best to stick with > LIGHT desktops. They exist, even now. WindowMaker runs quite comfortably on mine - featureful enough to be comfortable, but not too heavy for a little embedded Intel GPU^H^H^H 2D graphics accelerator ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10a9s8n$25v3q$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73290 |
On 2025-09-03, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:08:40 +0200 > Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > >> Because other systems around it are being changed. I've had enough >> with 10 y+ old Linux machines. No support for current cryptography, >> no support for current SSH and such issues. > > It's funny how many people here say "there is no use for X" when what > they really mean is "*I* don't have a use for X." > >> > For many people, Wordstar running on CP/M was *all they ever needed* >> > to write fantastic books on. >> >> Back in the days. Nowadays, it is common to distribute the written >> files to other machines and there is already the first issue. How >> many people can read those files and how can they get them? > > I do my writing on a 16-year-old Asus Eee, which was underpowered when > it was new. Runs mEdit and Claws Mail like a champ, and handles major > webnovel sites well enough for me to post from. > Once you learn Mutt+msmtp+isync (and lynx for HTML emails), your EEEpc will fell like an i3.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anthk NM <anthk@openbsd.home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10a9s8l$25v3q$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73197 |
On 2025-09-03, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > On 03.09.2025 10:52 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 03/09/2025 10:15, c186282 wrote: >> > On 9/3/25 4:51 AM, Marco Moock wrote: >> >> On 03.09.2025 03:20 c186282 c186282 wrote: >> >> >> >>> DO encourage at least ONE distro to hang on to >> >>> a 32-bit version for a few more years though. >> >>> After that ....... the past is the past. >> >> >> >> Slackware plans to do so. >> >> Although, if upstream software will stop supporting it (not only >> >> the kernel, but compilers and linkers), it will definitely come to >> >> an end. >> > >> > 32 has gone the way of 8-bit .... >> > >> > Nothing really to DO about it ... tech keeps >> > marching on. >> > >> > What, should all the distros keep a PDP-11 >> > version ??? Come ON now !!! >> > >> > Learned on a PDP-11, good unit ... but its >> > time is LONG LONG gone. >> >> I think custom Linuxes of a 32 bit flavour will be around as long as >> there are being platforms made that will run them and need them. > > Although, no security updates and bugfixed upstream then. Rather > unlikely that people will continue to buy such devices. > >> It is probably true to say that ultimately if the PIOS (32bit) were >> frozen at the latest level it would still be a usable option for >> embedded applications almost forever. > > Without bugfixes and support, I don't like such solutions. Small x64 > hardware is cheap. > >> I mean you can still run FreeDos on a *86 if you want. Or CP/M on a >> z80 > > Useless for current applications. > >> That doesn't detract from the argument that a 386SX running today's >> linux wouldn't be completely unusable as a day to day desktop. > > I have serious doubt that you are able to install any current > distribution on such a system. You need a kernel with just a small > portion of the features to make it possible to use only some MBs of RAM. > > FYI: ~3 years ago I tried to use the Debian installer on 384 MB - it > crashed. Now images that for machines with under 16MB. > >> You would be better off running windows XP on it. > > Will already run horrible on a Pentium 2 - with resources multiple > times of 386 machines. > >> And thats the point. Retro computing uses retro software as well as >> retro hardware. > > And is a hobby. Such old stuff sometimes still exists in companies - > but if it fails or needs to be changes, it is a PITA. > >> And the cost of maintaining REALLY old kit starts to >> ruse and its utility starts to fall after a certain age. > > Many parts of the Linux kernel are maintained by companies. I have > doubt that they will care about that old stuff. Linux already dropped > support for really old graphics cards, ISDN and other stuff that is not > well-used nowadays and created issues. Nobody liked to seriously take > over. > OpenBSD, cwm, mupdf, mpv+yt-dlp+streamlink capped to 480p. It runs really fast under an n270 Atom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 17:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <KNCdnT3Yl49QHVX1nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #74268 |
On 9/15/25 16:17, Anthk NM wrote: > On 2025-09-03, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >> On 03.09.2025 10:52 The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 03/09/2025 10:15, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 9/3/25 4:51 AM, Marco Moock wrote: >>>>> On 03.09.2025 03:20 c186282 c186282 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> DO encourage at least ONE distro to hang on to >>>>>> a 32-bit version for a few more years though. >>>>>> After that ....... the past is the past. >>>>> >>>>> Slackware plans to do so. >>>>> Although, if upstream software will stop supporting it (not only >>>>> the kernel, but compilers and linkers), it will definitely come to >>>>> an end. >>>> >>>> 32 has gone the way of 8-bit .... >>>> >>>> Nothing really to DO about it ... tech keeps >>>> marching on. >>>> >>>> What, should all the distros keep a PDP-11 >>>> version ??? Come ON now !!! >>>> >>>> Learned on a PDP-11, good unit ... but its >>>> time is LONG LONG gone. >>> >>> I think custom Linuxes of a 32 bit flavour will be around as long as >>> there are being platforms made that will run them and need them. >> >> Although, no security updates and bugfixed upstream then. Rather >> unlikely that people will continue to buy such devices. >> >>> It is probably true to say that ultimately if the PIOS (32bit) were >>> frozen at the latest level it would still be a usable option for >>> embedded applications almost forever. >> >> Without bugfixes and support, I don't like such solutions. Small x64 >> hardware is cheap. >> >>> I mean you can still run FreeDos on a *86 if you want. Or CP/M on a >>> z80 >> >> Useless for current applications. >> >>> That doesn't detract from the argument that a 386SX running today's >>> linux wouldn't be completely unusable as a day to day desktop. >> >> I have serious doubt that you are able to install any current >> distribution on such a system. You need a kernel with just a small >> portion of the features to make it possible to use only some MBs of RAM. >> >> FYI: ~3 years ago I tried to use the Debian installer on 384 MB - it >> crashed. Now images that for machines with under 16MB. >> >>> You would be better off running windows XP on it. >> >> Will already run horrible on a Pentium 2 - with resources multiple >> times of 386 machines. >> >>> And thats the point. Retro computing uses retro software as well as >>> retro hardware. >> >> And is a hobby. Such old stuff sometimes still exists in companies - >> but if it fails or needs to be changes, it is a PITA. >> >>> And the cost of maintaining REALLY old kit starts to >>> ruse and its utility starts to fall after a certain age. >> >> Many parts of the Linux kernel are maintained by companies. I have >> doubt that they will care about that old stuff. Linux already dropped >> support for really old graphics cards, ISDN and other stuff that is not >> well-used nowadays and created issues. Nobody liked to seriously take >> over. >> > > OpenBSD, cwm, mupdf, mpv+yt-dlp+streamlink capped to 480p. It runs really > fast under an n270 Atom. Yep - the BSDs generally lack eye-candy ... all business out of the box. Makes them fast. Who was dissing Z80s ? They're still in use, esp in embedded/industrial/control systems. All the tools are basically free now too. You can still buy the Zilog chips and there are 3rd-party 'improved' versions as well. For new setups I wouldn't rec Z80s though ... a number of cheap microcontrollers and low-end microcomputer modules would be the better way to go. DO use surge/static protection for the pins however - industrial can be nasty. In any case, the Z80 outlasted the 68xx and 65xx chips. Z80/CP/M WAS "business computing" for a long time, only finally pushed out by the IBM-PC. Did a number of apps for the Osbournes and KayPros back in the day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 10:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10991di$11u95$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73150 |
On 2025-09-03, Marco Moock wrote: > On 02.09.2025 18:58 Jason H wrote: > >> There are distributions committed to 32 bit Linux, so I don't think >> that will be a problem for the next few years. > > They rely on the upstream kernel. If x86 is being dropped there, those > distributions will come to an end. > LTS kernels might give them some months/years, but the end is near. What about other UNIX-like systems? Are BSDs planning to do the same? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web