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 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 23:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iN-dnfqNGMHSYCH1nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73549 |
On 9/6/25 9:19 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >>>> That is asking too much. >>> >>> Debian continues to support 32-bit x86 executables at least back to the >>> Glibc transition >> >> As long as the toolchain is still available, and as long people are >> willing to fix bugs in 32bit x86. > > Sure. But the point is, at present those conditions are met. But next year ? The next ??? 64-bit hardware is now ubiquitous and cheap. Why keep bothering with 32 bit except to, briefly, support some Old Stuff ? Keep expecting native 256-bit Just Because They Can. Then the 64 goes down the disposal tube as well. 256 WOULD be fairly 'future-proof' ... but of course we said that about 16-bit back in the day :-) The "AI" approaches, not sure what will count anymore. Human coders won't, fer sure. There is going to be about a dozen of those left in the world in 25 years - and slaves to minor "AI" tweaks until the "AI" is even sharper and more creative than they are. >> There is no installer any more, and no kernel. So 32bit x86 on Debian >> is confined to containers and to being a secondary arch on a 64bit x86 >> system. > > The ask was “a current OS can run vintage software and read the data > collected by it”. The lack of a 32-bit installer or kernel is irrelevant > to that. Anyway, if you want to run 'vintage', try VirtualBox and friends. DO have a CP/M-86 VM. Stuff, better or worse, for most olde-tyme CPUs also. Hell, these days you can write an uncompiled Python script that will run much faster than those old CPUs. Want a TI-990 ... you can HAVE one. 6502 ? 6800/6809 ? Z8 ? F8 ? 1802 ? You can have them, virtually. But don't expect regular updates ... I guess my point is that 'hardware' is SO cheap now that there's no reason to keep supporting the old stuff ... dump it and go new, then newer. I had a thread here about 'old hardware' - but even that is 64-bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 10:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v9tnbk1d2vbek4f2as6rn8h0e8fj0omcf6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73504 |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >><mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >> >>>The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN solaris, >>>>Ultrix etc., >>> >>>You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage >>>hardware for free. >> >>All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the >>data collected by it. > >That is asking too much. Why? -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 12:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250906124530.3422e225@ryz.dorfdsl.de> |
| In reply to | #73507 |
On 06.09.2025 10:48 Uhr Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber > <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > > >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber > >><mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > >> > >>>The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>>My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN > >>>>solaris, Ultrix etc., > >>> > >>>You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is > >>>expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage > >>>hardware for free. > >> > >>All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the > >>data collected by it. > > > >That is asking too much. > > Why? Because supporting that architecture consumes resources like time to develop and test the extra work that is needed for that architecture. Compilers needs to care about the instruction set of those processors, the kernel too, including the processor-specific limits. As too less people depend on it, developers stop doing it. You can change that either by contributing to the projects or by funding them, so they continue. -- kind regards Marco Send spam to 1757148511muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 13:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <109h7d2$3qvlp$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #73507 |
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber ><mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > >>Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>><mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>> >>>>The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN solaris, >>>>>Ultrix etc., >>>> >>>>You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>>expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage >>>>hardware for free. >>> >>>All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the >>>data collected by it. >> >>That is asking too much. > >Why? Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free time to support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the user base still has. You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better start learning and volunteering yourself now. 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 | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2antolx5gp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73536 |
On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: > Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >> >>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN solaris, >>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>> >>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage >>>>> hardware for free. >>>> >>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the >>>> data collected by it. >>> >>> That is asking too much. >> >> Why? > > Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free time to > support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the > user base still has. > > You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better > start learning and volunteering yourself now. I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jY0vQ.177617$GnW4.9926@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #73545 |
On 2025-09-06, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. But you're not a corporation that stands to make a lot of money by selling it to you again. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 01:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TredndfleIY_jiD1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73571 |
On 9/6/25 4:37 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-09-06, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. > > But you're not a corporation that stands to make a lot of money > by selling it to you again. Got that right ! :-) Hmmm ... have some 8" Shugart-formatted floppies ; who is offering to sell me THAT data all over again ? It's even worse in govt projects - too TOO many proprietary one-off formats. NASA maybe the worst in that department. That digital, sometimes analog, past is just GONE. Govt will fill in whatever it needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250908081128.0000712c@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #73571 |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 20:37:35 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > > I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too > > much. > > But you're not a corporation that stands to make a lot of money > by selling it to you again. "Sell?" Hah, what a quaint notion! Why *sell* when you can rent out access on a monthly basis in perpetuity...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kYMvQ.733615$jMMa.3104@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #73718 |
On 2025-09-08, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 20:37:35 GMT > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too >>> much. >> >> But you're not a corporation that stands to make a lot of money >> by selling it to you again. > > "Sell?" Hah, what a quaint notion! Why *sell* when you can rent out > access on a monthly basis in perpetuity...? Oops! Sorry, I'm out of date. Buddy, can you paradigm? -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 04:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zZWcnYUXMOaffyL1nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73740 |
On 9/8/25 11:14 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2025-09-08, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 20:37:35 GMT >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too >>>> much. >>> >>> But you're not a corporation that stands to make a lot of money >>> by selling it to you again. >> >> "Sell?" Hah, what a quaint notion! Why *sell* when you can rent out >> access on a monthly basis in perpetuity...? > > Oops! Sorry, I'm out of date. Buddy, can you paradigm? Heh heh ... Mr. Modern probably has it right. Why make money only ONE time eh ? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 11:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109ouhm$t9ek$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73751 |
On 09/09/2025 09:14, c186282 wrote: > On 9/8/25 11:14 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2025-09-08, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 20:37:35 GMT >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too >>>>> much. >>>> >>>> But you're not a corporation that stands to make a lot of money >>>> by selling it to you again. >>> >>> "Sell?" Hah, what a quaint notion! Why *sell* when you can rent out >>> access on a monthly basis in perpetuity...? >> >> Oops! Sorry, I'm out of date. Buddy, can you paradigm? > > > Heh heh ... Mr. Modern probably has it right. > Why make money only ONE time eh ? :-) We called it 'ching ching' revenue. -- The New Left are the people they warned you about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LKWvQ.1070612$3yJ3.295459@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #73751 |
On 2025-09-09, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 9/8/25 11:14 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2025-09-08, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 20:37:35 GMT >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too >>>>> much. >>>> >>>> But you're not a corporation that stands to make a lot of money >>>> by selling it to you again. >>> >>> "Sell?" Hah, what a quaint notion! Why *sell* when you can rent out >>> access on a monthly basis in perpetuity...? >> >> Oops! Sorry, I'm out of date. Buddy, can you paradigm? > > Heh heh ... Mr. Modern probably has it right. > Why make money only ONE time eh ? :-) I find it ironic that corporations who so staunchly oppose Karl Marx share his dream to eliminate private ownership. Or individual ownership if we're splitting hairs. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <109phog$12nqm$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73769 |
On 09/09/2025 15:22, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > I find it ironic that corporations who so staunchly oppose > Karl Marx share his dream to eliminate private ownership. > Or individual ownership if we're splitting hairs. The only difference between US style oligarchy and communism, is that in a oligarchy rich men own the government whereas in communism the government owns all the rich men. Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-10 03:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Ua6wQ.479545$jEC7.469193@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #73775 |
On 2025-09-09, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/09/2025 15:22, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> I find it ironic that corporations who so staunchly oppose
>> Karl Marx share his dream to eliminate private ownership.
>> Or individual ownership if we're splitting hairs.
>
> The only difference between US style oligarchy and communism, is that
> in a oligarchy rich men own the government whereas in communism the
> government owns all the rich men.
Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism, it's the other way around.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mibcqrF5krvU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73769 |
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 14:22:35 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > I find it ironic that corporations who so staunchly oppose Karl Marx > share his dream to eliminate private ownership. Or individual ownership > if we're splitting hairs. Heads Marx, tails Capitalism. You lose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250909083241.00007057@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #73751 |
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 04:14:52 -0400 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > >> "Sell?" Hah, what a quaint notion! Why *sell* when you can rent out > >> access on a monthly basis in perpetuity...? > > > > Oops! Sorry, I'm out of date. Buddy, can you paradigm? > > Heh heh ... Mr. Modern probably has it right. > Why make money only ONE time eh ? :-) They really put the ARR in "annualized recurring revenue...!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 22:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <109i75e$14fmd$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #73545 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: >> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>> >>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN solaris, >>>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>>> >>>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage >>>>>> hardware for free. >>>>> >>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the >>>>> data collected by it. >>>> >>>> That is asking too much. >>> >>> Why? >> >> Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free time to >> support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the >> user base still has. >> >> You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better >> start learning and volunteering yourself now. > >I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. Good luck then. You may succeed. 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 | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 00:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gaouolxlf4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73574 |
On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: >>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN solaris, >>>>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage >>>>>>> hardware for free. >>>>>> >>>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the >>>>>> data collected by it. >>>>> >>>>> That is asking too much. >>>> >>>> Why? >>> >>> Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free time to >>> support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the >>> user base still has. >>> >>> You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better >>> start learning and volunteering yourself now. >> >> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. > > Good luck then. You may succeed. It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 04:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <shspbk5d3gvsbjf06aj7039u09rmuvkgfd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73580 |
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2025-09-06 13:54, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 09:08:48 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 13:37:40 +0200, Marc Haber >>>>>>> <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> My point being that freeDos, CP/M etc still exist. As does SUN solaris, >>>>>>>>> Ultrix etc., >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can continue running vintage OSses on vintage hardware. It is >>>>>>>> expecting much (too much) to expect to run a current OS on vintage >>>>>>>> hardware for free. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All I ask is that a current OS can run vintage software and read the >>>>>>> data collected by it. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is asking too much. >>>>> >>>>> Why? >>>> >>>> Because you'll need to have volunteers to sacrifice their free time to >>>> support the use case that only you and a tiny tiny fracture of the >>>> user base still has. >>>> >>>> You will probably not be able to find those volunteers. So better >>>> start learning and volunteering yourself now. >>> >>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. >> >> Good luck then. You may succeed. > >It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending data that could be useful. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 03:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NP6vQ.1063469$3yJ3.156629@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #73602 |
On 2025-09-07, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 00:14:08 +0200, "Carlos E.R." > >> On 2025-09-06 22:56, Marc Haber wrote: >> >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think that being able to read vintage data is asking too much. >>> >>> Good luck then. You may succeed. >> >> It is a problem for the NASA and many libraries and archival sites. > > Yep -- the Voyager I spacecraft, launched in 1977, is still sending > data that could be useful. "Dammit, who turned on automatic updates for the package that's interpreting Voyager data? It dropped support for the old format!" -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web