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 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 07:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jngnbk53686n4rlkaipd34oeuso4o62smr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73221 |
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. -- 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 | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 09:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <109gmm0$35m5k$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #73499 |
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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 08:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwv8qis583i.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #73504 |
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: > Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>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. Asking makes little or not difference to anything. What matters is whether you can persuade or pay someone to maintain the support, or alternatively do the work yourself and persuade upstream maintainers to accept it. > That is asking too much. Debian continues to support 32-bit x86 executables at least back to the Glibc transition (in principle; I’m not saying you won’t find bugs concerning any specific executable). So I think Steve can have what he wants on that point, at present and for the immediately foreseeable future (the article at the top of this thread didn’t include a roadmap for 32-bit x86 removal, IIRC). libc5 was ELF so it might work, but you’d have to find a copy of the runtime library yourself. a.out was removed the kernel a few years ago, so executables from before about 1998 are truly dead on current operating systems. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 13:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <109h7b7$3qtb4$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #73506 |
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. 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. 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 | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 14:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwv7bybvhu9.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #73535 |
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. > 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. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 04:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oprpbk53avtureia1v1rm72968es1fkb2r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73549 |
On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 14:19:42 +0100, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> 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. > >> There is no installer any more, and no kernel. So 32bit x86 on Debian >> is confined to containers and to being a secondary arch on a 64bit x86 >> system. > >The ask was “a current OS can run vintage software and read the data >collected by it”. The lack of a 32-bit installer or kernel is irrelevant >to that. Exactly. To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? The only reason I would want a 32-bit installer (in any OS) is because a a 64-bit version can't run older software. If a 32-bit version can be made capable of running 8 & 16 bit software, why can't a 64-bit (or 128-bit, or 256-bit) OS not be made so capable? This is a case of the 64-bit OS having reduced capability. But why? -- 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 | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 19:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109isat$3dcpc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73601 |
On 9/6/25 19:45, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 14:19:42 +0100, Richard Kettlewell > <invalid@invalid.invalid> 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. >> >>> There is no installer any more, and no kernel. So 32bit x86 on Debian >>> is confined to containers and to being a secondary arch on a 64bit x86 >>> system. >> >> The ask was “a current OS can run vintage software and read the data >> collected by it”. The lack of a 32-bit installer or kernel is irrelevant >> to that. > > Exactly. > > To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux > example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I > bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the > 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one > where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. > > The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the > 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? > > > The only reason I would want a 32-bit installer (in any OS) is because > a a 64-bit version can't run older software. If a 32-bit version can > be made capable of running 8 & 16 bit software, why can't a 64-bit (or > 128-bit, or 256-bit) OS not be made so capable? > > This is a case of the 64-bit OS having reduced capability. But why? Cannot sell new computers and new copies of improved programs to people if you do not fail to make the old stuff totally obsolete so that you and your supporters can sell more stuff. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 05:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <7pjsbktqsfj6p1vspgvrm6fqj79oe6satp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73604 |
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 19:57:31 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> This is a case of the 64-bit OS having reduced capability. But why? > > Cannot sell new computers and new copies of improved programs to >people if you do not fail to make the old stuff totally obsolete so that you >and your supporters can sell more stuff. Which is why I bought a second-hand computer rather than a new one, because a new one could not do what I wanted a computer to do. As I said, reduced functionality. The job of the marketing department is, of course, to make me want to do the things that their computer *can* do, rather than do the things I want to do. -- 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 | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 03:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109iupe$3do6k$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73601 |
On Sun, 07 Sep 2025 04:45:18 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the > 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? Because Microsoft knows you have no choice but do what it wants you to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 04:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uSWdnSCAwOBZ2CD1nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73601 |
On 9/6/25 10:45 PM, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 14:19:42 +0100, Richard Kettlewell > <invalid@invalid.invalid> 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. >> >>> There is no installer any more, and no kernel. So 32bit x86 on Debian >>> is confined to containers and to being a secondary arch on a 64bit x86 >>> system. >> >> The ask was “a current OS can run vintage software and read the data >> collected by it”. The lack of a 32-bit installer or kernel is irrelevant >> to that. > > Exactly. > > To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux > example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I > bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the > 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one > where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. > > The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the > 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? Intel CPUs dropped native 8/16 support a long time ago. Just Won't Work. Core-2-Quad was, I think, the last that would do it. Have one of those boards, but haven't used it in a long time. > The only reason I would want a 32-bit installer (in any OS) is because > a a 64-bit version can't run older software. If a 32-bit version can > be made capable of running 8 & 16 bit software, why can't a 64-bit (or > 128-bit, or 256-bit) OS not be made so capable? > > This is a case of the 64-bit OS having reduced capability. But why? Because of "future focus" .... That's where the money is. Before the AI completely takes it we may see even 128/256 chips. Anything older - no $$$ in support beyond a few years. Capitalism has perks, and problems. Cope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 13:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <hv50plxjlg.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73634 |
On 2025-09-07 10:43, c186282 wrote: > On 9/6/25 10:45 PM, Steve Hayes wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 14:19:42 +0100, Richard Kettlewell >> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: ... >> To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux >> example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I >> bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the >> 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one >> where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. >> >> The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the >> 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? > > Intel CPUs dropped native 8/16 support a long time ago. > Just Won't Work. Core-2-Quad was, I think, the last that > would do it. Have one of those boards, but haven't used > it in a long time. What does this mean? Can or can not new software access integer variables of only 8 bit? Packed? ... -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 07:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o5mcnRQCEpE28SD1nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73663 |
On 9/7/25 7:13 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-07 10:43, c186282 wrote: >> On 9/6/25 10:45 PM, Steve Hayes wrote: >>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 14:19:42 +0100, Richard Kettlewell >>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > ... > >>> To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux >>> example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I >>> bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the >>> 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one >>> where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. >>> >>> The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the >>> 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? >> >> Intel CPUs dropped native 8/16 support a long time ago. >> Just Won't Work. Core-2-Quad was, I think, the last that >> would do it. Have one of those boards, but haven't used >> it in a long time. > > What does this mean? > Can or can not new software access integer variables of only 8 bit? Packed? It means you can't put that DOS or CP/M-86 disk in anymore and expect it to boot. It means none of the old 8/16 software will run anymore. That stuff, recompile or lose it. VirtualBox CAN emulate some of it however. Slow-ish, but still faster than the old CPUs. Core-2-Quad was the last box I had that would boot that CP/M-86 disk. Everything after was "improved" ... In short, 8-bit addressing - including arrays and indexing - WON'T WORK. Intel decreed it so and didn't ask YOU.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 13:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9i70plxheo.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73667 |
On 2025-09-07 13:29, c186282 wrote: > On 9/7/25 7:13 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-09-07 10:43, c186282 wrote: >>> On 9/6/25 10:45 PM, Steve Hayes wrote: >>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2025 14:19:42 +0100, Richard Kettlewell >>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >> >>>> To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux >>>> example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I >>>> bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the >>>> 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one >>>> where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. >>>> >>>> The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the >>>> 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? >>> >>> Intel CPUs dropped native 8/16 support a long time ago. >>> Just Won't Work. Core-2-Quad was, I think, the last that >>> would do it. Have one of those boards, but haven't used >>> it in a long time. >> >> What does this mean? >> Can or can not new software access integer variables of only 8 bit? >> Packed? > > It means you can't put that DOS or CP/M-86 disk in > anymore and expect it to boot. It means none of the > old 8/16 software will run anymore. > > That stuff, recompile or lose it. > > VirtualBox CAN emulate some of it however. > Slow-ish, but still faster than the old CPUs. > > Core-2-Quad was the last box I had that would > boot that CP/M-86 disk. Everything after was > "improved" ... > > In short, 8-bit addressing - including arrays and > indexing - WON'T WORK. Intel decreed it so and > didn't ask YOU. that's what I was asking, accessing byte sized variables in an array or packed record declared today in a compiler. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 19:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvy0qqdrgg.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #73668 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: > On 2025-09-07 13:29, c186282 wrote: >> On 9/7/25 7:13 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-09-07 10:43, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 9/6/25 10:45 PM, Steve Hayes wrote: >>>>> To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux >>>>> example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I >>>>> bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the >>>>> 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand >>>>> one where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. >>>>> >>>>> The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, >>>>> the 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? >>>> >>>> Intel CPUs dropped native 8/16 support a long time ago. >>>> Just Won't Work. Core-2-Quad was, I think, the last that >>>> would do it. Have one of those boards, but haven't used >>>> it in a long time. >>> >>> What does this mean? >>> Can or can not new software access integer variables of only 8 bit? >>> Packed? That works just fine. >> It means you can't put that DOS or CP/M-86 disk in >> anymore and expect it to boot. It means none of the >> old 8/16 software will run anymore. That’s irrelevant to the question Steve asked, which was about running legacy executables on current operating systems. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 09:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvqzwimz2l.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #73601 |
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>The ask was “a current OS can run vintage software and read the data >>collected by it”. The lack of a 32-bit installer or kernel is irrelevant >>to that. > > Exactly. > > To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux > example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I > bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the > 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one > where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. > > The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the > 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? The hardware doesn’t support it. > The only reason I would want a 32-bit installer (in any OS) is because > a a 64-bit version can't run older software. If a 32-bit version can > be made capable of running 8 & 16 bit software, why can't a 64-bit (or > 128-bit, or 256-bit) OS not be made so capable? > > This is a case of the 64-bit OS having reduced capability. But why? On 64-bit CPUs, Virtual 8086 mode is only supported if the processor is running in legacy mode, and 64-bit operating systems necessarily run in long mode. So, 64-bit operating systems can’t run 16-bit code directly, even if the OS vendor wants it to. There are a couple workarounds available: 1) For a CPU with VT-X, run a virtual machine in legacy mode. 2) Use a software 8086 emulator. Performance would suffer but since we’re talking about software from 30+ years ago, this may not be a problem in practice. I’m not party to Microsoft’s decision-making but I expect that when they considered the question they decided it wasn’t worth the cost. You can probably deploy option 1 yourself - pick your favorite hypervisor and install a 32-bit Windows build into, or perhaps an MSDOS install. Anticipating the obvious next question: the lack of hardware support is a CPU vendor decision. Again, I’m not party to their decision-making, but I expect they decided it wasn’t worth the cost. It’s worth remembering that these things are _not_ just about the cost of writing some code and shipping it. Functionality carries ongoing maintenance costs. And the costs aren’t purely reducible to money: if a developer is working a particular feature, they aren’t working on anything else; testing takes longer if there’s more to test; etc. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 05:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p4ksbk5in8jssc5vr1jn9cq0rvvud6v2b1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73635 |
On Sun, 07 Sep 2025 09:44:34 +0100, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>The ask was “a current OS can run vintage software and read the data >>>collected by it”. The lack of a 32-bit installer or kernel is irrelevant >>>to that. >> >> Exactly. >> >> To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux >> example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I >> bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the >> 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one >> where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. >> >> The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the >> 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? > >The hardware doesn’t support it. Really? I bought a laptop that had a 64-bit Windows OS pre-installed. I tried to run some of the programs I used every day and they wouldn't run. Fortunately the computer came with a set of DVDs with a 32-bit version of the OS. I installed those on the very same hardware, and my programs worked just fine. -- 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 | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 04:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <109llmm$3497$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73702 |
On Mon, 08 Sep 2025 05:46:56 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > I bought a laptop that had a 64-bit Windows OS pre-installed. > > I tried to run some of the programs I used every day and they wouldn't > run. > > Fortunately the computer came with a set of DVDs with a 32-bit version > of the OS. I installed those on the very same hardware, and my programs > worked just fine. Soon you won’t have that option any more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 05:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4g7vbkpcn8bs1eba2lk988vjvtu2liqgm9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #73703 |
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 04:22:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DÿOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Sep 2025 05:46:56 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > >> I bought a laptop that had a 64-bit Windows OS pre-installed. >> >> I tried to run some of the programs I used every day and they wouldn't >> run. >> >> Fortunately the computer came with a set of DVDs with a 32-bit version >> of the OS. I installed those on the very same hardware, and my programs >> worked just fine. > >Soon you won’t have that option any more. Ny present computers will just have to last till I die, then. After that I won't need them any more. -- 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 | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 03:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <y_GcnSM3uZWJRSL1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73743 |
On 9/8/25 11:26 PM, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 04:22:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DÿOliveiro > <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Sep 2025 05:46:56 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: >> >>> I bought a laptop that had a 64-bit Windows OS pre-installed. >>> >>> I tried to run some of the programs I used every day and they wouldn't >>> run. >>> >>> Fortunately the computer came with a set of DVDs with a 32-bit version >>> of the OS. I installed those on the very same hardware, and my programs >>> worked just fine. >> >> Soon you won’t have that option any more. > > Ny present computers will just have to last till I die, then. After > that I won't need them any more. Planning to afflict your heirs with that much cyber-waste ? :-) Hey, I am ... WAY too much to deal with now. THEY get to deal ........... Anyway, your 32-bit will work fine, until it doesn't. With Linux, you don't REALLY even need the latest security updates/kernels for awhile except for a very few net-exposed apps. Vlad/Xi ... they're going after Win/Apple/Cloud anyhow ... not the PI in YOUR little background. My last PI-1 was left at The Office when I retired. It'd been doing its one thing for a decade without flaw. DID update to the newest 32-bit near the end. Still worked flawlessly. If the New Guy hasn't found where I stashed it then it's still probably doing its useful thing .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 08:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvikht752c.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #73702 |
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: > On Sun, 07 Sep 2025 09:44:34 +0100, Richard Kettlewell > <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>The ask was “a current OS can run vintage software and read the data >>>>collected by it”. The lack of a 32-bit installer or kernel is irrelevant >>>>to that. >>> >>> Exactly. >>> >>> To use an example from Windows (I don't know of a comparable Linux >>> example), about a year ago my Windows 7 laptop was stolen. When I >>> bought it it had a 64-bit operating system, but had DVDs with the >>> 32-bit version, which I installed. I replaced it with a 2nd-hand one >>> where they installed a 32-bit version of Windows 10. >>> >>> The 32-bit version of Windows can run 16-bit and 8-bit programs, the >>> 64-bit version cannot. But why can it not? >> >>The hardware doesn’t support it. > > Really? Yes, really. > I bought a laptop that had a 64-bit Windows OS pre-installed. > > I tried to run some of the programs I used every day and they wouldn't > run. > > Fortunately the computer came with a set of DVDs with a 32-bit version > of the OS. I installed those on the very same hardware, and my > programs worked just fine. That’s in line with what the hardware supports. 32-bit operating systems can run 16-bit executables, 64-bit operating systems can’t. Detailed explanation in the rest of my previous post. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web