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 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 00:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kZacnRff0ZIomyD1nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73566 |
On 9/6/25 2:42 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 06/09/2025 18:02, c186282 wrote: >> Alas, at present, there's serious question as to >> what is "the science" and what is just political >> partisanship and agenda in a white lab coat. >> >> It's a problem. >> > Indeed. The co-opting of 'science' by narrow political and commercial > interests has debased the whole thing. Well, political co-opting of "Truth" - first religious, then 'science', is nothing really new. Horrible, but not new. >> So, do not blindly kneel before the lab coats like >> the purple of old. >> >> Finally, even WITH good science, the 'logical' solution >> is not always the best solution - fiscal, political, >> economic or philosophical. The eugenics movement started >> with good science and the math to back it ... but was >> it the best solution ? > > It is a very elitist thing. One bunch of people make value judgements > about others. Ah ... but they could very successfully put it into that white lab coat ........ > And that has nothing to do with the science. And everything to do with > moral superiority. Again, always wrapped in that lab coat ... > That darling of the Left. 'Left' - sometimes 'right' - they'll ALL do it because it's a successful approach. In the USA, RFK is kinda trashing decades of vaccine and epidemic research at the moment. He REALLY BELIEVES what he's selling and has a cohort of like-minded. But, in the end, it's again politics in the white coat. Ah, today, Acetaminophen causes all autism ! :-) Blame Newton's momma for popping those pills ! But how much of the opposing view is the Same ??? It's a nasty time. The Dali-Ocracy. It's getting WORSE. How DO we cope ? CAN we cope - or is it forever Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ? Since I retired I have time to watch lots of 'documentaries' in-between the Roswell alien conspiracy shit. Recently there was some stuff on the 'alchemists' ... a viewpoint on 'science' that lasted at least up through Newton. It was sort-of chemistry, but 90% mysticism - 'principles' and 'essences' and 'spirits of' and such. Newton worked on 'physics' only part-time, the rest of his time was deep in 'alchemy' - "Philosophers Stone" and such. A few brews - and a lot of mystic chanting. So, where was 'scientific Truth' ? Utterly different than now - though the smart people lived their lives, ruled their kingdoms, by it. Tomorrow ? Sorry, philosophical/existential shit getting too deep ... Maybe just sit on a mountain and chant mantras while seeking oblivion of ego ...... Well, even 'ego' is an old, mostly pseudo-science, term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 12:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250906125027.733f8b2f@ryz.dorfdsl.de> |
| In reply to | #73498 |
On 06.09.2025 07:10 Uhr Steve Hayes wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 04:44:56 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > > >On 9/3/25 4:42 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> you cant run the 64 bit on early pis or zeros > > > > > > Then you throw them into the trash bin. > > > > Sorry, but The Past does NOT live forever. > > And to ensure that it doesn't, you burn down the museums and burn all > the history books. Anything published or produced before the current > century must be destroyed. Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete devices in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current tasks - and maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external infrastructure is gone. -- kind regards Marco Send spam to 1757135428muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 12:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109h6ha$30ile$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73524 |
On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: > Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete devices > in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current tasks - and > maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external infrastructure is gone. > I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever did. -- In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 14:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <45ntolx5gp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73531 |
On 2025-09-06 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: > >> Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete devices >> in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current tasks - and >> maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external infrastructure is gone. >> > I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever did. > > But my camera from the 20's doesn't. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 14:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CKCcnTmAl-sb5CH1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73544 |
On 9/6/25 8:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-06 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: >> >>> Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete devices >>> in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current tasks - and >>> maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external infrastructure is gone. >>> >> I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever did. >> >> > But my camera from the 20's doesn't. I've got a few from the 10's ... one DOES work. The rest, well, it's not the camera but the odd film sizes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 00:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q8ouolxlf4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73564 |
On 2025-09-06 20:12, c186282 wrote: > On 9/6/25 8:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-09-06 13:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: >>> >>>> Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete devices >>>> in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current tasks - and >>>> maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external infrastructure is gone. >>>> >>> I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever >>> did. >>> >>> >> But my camera from the 20's doesn't. > > I've got a few from the 10's ... one DOES work. > The rest, well, it's not the camera but the odd > film sizes. Exactly. Well, one of my cameras used glass plates. Unfortunately, one of my ancestors disassembled it repurposing the lenses for something else. I had both parts in my possession, but it took me some years to realize that perhaps that odd lenses assembly was in fact the objetive of that camera, and by that time the lenses had got lost somewhere in the house. Not thrown away, but unknown location. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 22:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109icqm$3a1tr$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73531 |
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 12:39:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever > did. Why don’t you use it, then? Don’t bother with all this new-fangled computery stuff. You’ve still got your hammer!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 03:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <KHSdnUQiI6GIqiD1nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73584 |
On 9/6/25 6:32 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 12:39:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever >> did. > > Why don’t you use it, then? Don’t bother with all this new-fangled > computery stuff. You’ve still got your hammer! Hey, a CP/M unit CAN do a LOT ... cheap :-) Don't piss on the Old Stuff TOO much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250907111003.4d015651@ryz.dorfdsl.de> |
| In reply to | #73531 |
On 06.09.2025 12:39 Uhr The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: > > > Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete > > devices in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current > > tasks - and maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external > > infrastructure is gone. > I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever > did. A hammer is produced at a time and does not rely on external infrastructure. -- kind regards Marco Send spam to 1757155162muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 05:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fmGdnb0vX-phzyD1nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73640 |
On 9/7/25 5:10 AM, Marco Moock wrote: > On 06.09.2025 12:39 Uhr The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: >> >>> Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete >>> devices in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current >>> tasks - and maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external >>> infrastructure is gone. >> I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever >> did. > > A hammer is produced at a time and does not rely on external > infrastructure. Not current infrastructure ... But PERIOD infrastructure. Look, 8/16/32 is now "period" ... an old universe. Upgrade to 64+ bit now. Little MONEY in "old".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109jl69$3i2d7$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73640 |
On 07/09/2025 10:10, Marco Moock wrote: > On 06.09.2025 12:39 Uhr The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: >> >>> Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete >>> devices in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current >>> tasks - and maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external >>> infrastructure is gone. >> I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever >> did. > > A hammer is produced at a time and does not rely on external > infrastructure. > It relies on people having hands and eyes and co-ordination, so they will probably become extinct in the next 10 years.. -- New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 06:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <G16dnYDlV4MhwyD1nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73645 |
On 9/7/25 6:01 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 07/09/2025 10:10, Marco Moock wrote: >> On 06.09.2025 12:39 Uhr The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: >>> >>>> Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete >>>> devices in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current >>>> tasks - and maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external >>>> infrastructure is gone. >>> I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever >>> did. >> >> A hammer is produced at a time and does not rely on external >> infrastructure. >> > It relies on people having hands and eyes and co-ordination, so they > will probably become extinct in the next 10 years.. Agreed. We won't be able to MAKE much of anything anymore. How dismal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 13:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rl50plxjlg.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73640 |
On 2025-09-07 11:10, Marco Moock wrote: > On 06.09.2025 12:39 Uhr The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 06/09/2025 11:50, Marco Moock wrote: >> >>> Feel free to keep the old stuff, I also keep old and obsolete >>> devices in some situations. Although, I cannot use them for current >>> tasks - and maybe I cannot use them at all, as the external >>> infrastructure is gone. >> I've got a hammer somewhere from the 1920s. Works as well as it ever >> did. > > A hammer is produced at a time and does not rely on external > infrastructure. Not much use if there are no more nails. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 10:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1098vnq$2o09q$6@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #73157 |
On 03.09.2025 09:42 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/09/2025 05:42, rbowman wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:35:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > > >> On 02/09/2025 16:43, John McCue wrote: > >>> I ram across this long article. It is free to read for all: > >>> > >>> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1035727/4837b0d3dccf1cbb/ > >>> > >>> The way I read it, the day may soon come 32 bit Linux will be > >>> sun-setted. I know if I was maintaining Linux I would also be > >>> looking to remove all 32 bit support. *But* as a user I will be > >>> a bit sad to see it go. > >>> > >> It's alive and well on ARM and likely to remain that way. > > > > Maybe. The OS selection in the Raspberry Pi Imager recommends the > > 64-bit Bookworm version although it does have 32-bit Bookworm and > > Bullseye options. > > > you cant run the 64 bit on early pis or zeros Everything later that 3B can run 64 bit. That came out in 2026 - so more than 10 years old when Linux considers dropping 32 bit support.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mhrlmmFg9rfU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73164 |
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 10:54:18 +0200, Marco Moock wrote: > Everything later that 3B can run 64 bit. That came out in 2026 - so more > than 10 years old when Linux considers dropping 32 bit support. 2016.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mhrj4vFg9rfU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73157 |
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 09:42:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/09/2025 05:42, rbowman wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:35:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 02/09/2025 16:43, John McCue wrote: >>>> I ram across this long article. It is free to read for all: >>>> >>>> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1035727/4837b0d3dccf1cbb/ >>>> >>>> The way I read it, the day may soon come 32 bit Linux will be >>>> sun-setted. I know if I was maintaining Linux I would also be >>>> looking to remove all 32 bit support. *But* as a user I will be a >>>> bit sad to see it go. >>>> >>> It's alive and well on ARM and likely to remain that way. >> >> Maybe. The OS selection in the Raspberry Pi Imager recommends the >> 64-bit Bookworm version although it does have 32-bit Bookworm and >> Bullseye options. >> > you cant run the 64 bit on early pis or zeros The oldest I have is a 3+. I figured there was a cutoff but didn't know where. The zero has it's uses but I doubt there are many sales of the earlier boards. The 4 remains popular because of the 5's increased power consumption and architectural changes. I don't know about Oranges and the other 'sort of' Pi boards. Between the older Unos, the Sense 33 with an Arm processor, the pis, the pico w, and pico 2 w, I have ample opportunities to confuse myself. I spent some quality time trying to troubleshoot a problem when I didn't look close enough and grabbed a Pico 2 W rather than a Pico W.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 11:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10998vp$144i1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73124 |
At 3 Sep 2025 04:42:39 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:35:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > > On 02/09/2025 16:43, John McCue wrote: > >> I ram across this long article. It is free to read for all: > >> > >> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1035727/4837b0d3dccf1cbb/ > >> > >> The way I read it, the day may soon come 32 bit Linux will be > >> sun-setted. I know if I was maintaining Linux I would also be looking > >> to remove all 32 bit support. *But* as a user I will be a bit sad to > >> see it go. > >> > > It's alive and well on ARM and likely to remain that way. > > Maybe. The OS selection in the Raspberry Pi Imager recommends the 64-bit > Bookworm version although it does have 32-bit Bookworm and Bullseye > options. The 32-bit ARM chips will likely out-live 32-bit x86 ships (well they already have). There are many embeded ARM 32-bit processors (eg routers and other appliances). This sorts of systems would not benefit from 64-bit and the lower end 32-bit chips are more cost effective, etc. > > > -- Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-02 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1097epa$msm2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73031 |
On 02/09/2025 16:43, John McCue wrote: >I ram across this long article. It is free to read for all: > >https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1035727/4837b0d3dccf1cbb/ > >The way I read it, the day may soon come 32 bit Linux will be >sun-setted. I know if I was maintaining Linux I would also >be looking to remove all 32 bit support. *But* as a user I >will be a bit sad to see it go. There are distributions committed to 32 bit Linux, so I don't think that will be a problem for the next few years. Browsers OTOH might end up being a problem, but then again, a thing doesn't need a desktop and browser to sit in a place and do something useful :-). -- -- A PICKER OF UNCONSIDERED TRIFLES
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-02 20:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1097h42$ndgo$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73051 |
On 02/09/2025 19:58, Jason H wrote: > On 02/09/2025 16:43, John McCue wrote: >> I ram across this long article. It is free to read for all: >> >> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1035727/4837b0d3dccf1cbb/ >> >> The way I read it, the day may soon come 32 bit Linux will be >> sun-setted. I know if I was maintaining Linux I would also >> be looking to remove all 32 bit support. *But* as a user I >> will be a bit sad to see it go. > > There are distributions committed to 32 bit Linux, so I don't think that > will be a problem for the next few years. Browsers OTOH might end up being > a problem, but then again, a thing doesn't need a desktop and browser to > sit in a place and do something useful :-). > Indeed. IIRC it was the ghastliness of browsers in general that lead me to ditch 32 bit... -- There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-03 09:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1098pdv$2o09q$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #73051 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web