Hi, late on the thread, but...
On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 19:51, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>
> [Please CC me in replies as I'm not subscribed to this list]
>
> I hope I'm not too late for this discussion ...
>
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > >On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 12:42, Steve
On Friday, 2 June 2023 20:59:27 CEST Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> "complain on -devel" is not part of the job
That wasn't my intend, but I obviously horribly failed at that.
Won't happen again o/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:24:15PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Wed May 31, 2023 at 12:44 PM CEST, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> > 20+ year old machines are typically more power hungry, more expensive,
> > less performant, and less reliable than an up-to-date raspberry pi. If
> > you want
Adam Borowski left as an exercise for the reader:
> Instead of RasPis as suggested by many in this thread, I'd instead suggest
> whatever is the current model of Odroid-H2+:
I was intrigued, but https://ameridroid.com/products/odroid-h2
suggests it's been out of stock since 2021?
--
nick black
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:10:56PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> As someone who owned and happily used an Asus eePC several years ago: very
> nice, silent - it also had a flash disk from the earliest days of flash disks.
Instead of RasPis as suggested by many in this thread, I'd instead
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:51:06AM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>
> I would be VERY disappointed if Debian would abandon people who do NOT have
> the means to just buy new equipment whenever they feel like it.
Debian is a Do-ocracy. Which is to say, it's a volunteer project.
People work on
On Wed, 2023-05-31 at 00:51 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> I would be VERY disappointed if Debian would abandon people who do NOT have
> the means to just buy new equipment whenever they feel like it.
There are Debian contributors who are in this position (although
perhaps not with i386
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:24:15PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Wed May 31, 2023 at 12:44 PM CEST, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:51:06AM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> My point is: what about people who don't have the option to *buy*
> anything (new or used), for
On Wed May 31, 2023 at 12:44 PM CEST, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:51:06AM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > While it may be a no-brainer for a person with a $/€ 1000 a month residual
> > income to just buy new hardware whenever they feel like it, that is not
the
> >
On Wed, 2023-05-31 at 19:48 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2023-05-31 07:29 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > > Hanging on to systems using power-hungry chips from 20 years ago instead
> > > of
> > > intercepting a system such as this is not reducing the number of computers
> > > that end up in the
On 2023-05-31 07:29 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Hanging on to systems using power-hungry chips from 20 years ago instead of
> > intercepting a system such as this is not reducing the number of computers
> > that end up in the waste stream, it just keeps you stuck with a more
> > power-hungry
John Goerzen dijo [Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:29:38AM -0500]:
> (...)
> I guess the question is: is this use case too niche for Debian to
> continue supporting? I would suggest that as long as we have 32-bit
> ARM, are the challenges for 32-bit x86 really worse?
Do note, however, the ARM64 started
Alexandre Detiste dijo [Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:00:42PM +0200]:
> Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 12:44, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > 20+ year old machines are typically more power hungry, more expensive,
> > less performant, and less reliable than an up-to-date raspberry pi.
>
> Embedded systems and
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:29:38AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi,
> I guess the question is: is this use case too niche for Debian to
> continue supporting? I would suggest that as long as we have 32-bit
> ARM, are the challenges for 32-bit x86 really worse?
If I assume for a moment that the
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:00:42PM +0200, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
Hi,
> Embedded systems and medical one can be crazily expensive to maintain
> and even more to replace but some will run on i386 for a long time more
The question is: Is that a target for a future Debian installation and/or
a
On Tue, May 30 2023, Steve Langasek wrote:
> For businesses, the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit was several
> depreciation cycles ago.
>
> In my city, there is a non-profit that accepts donations of old computers,
> refurbishes them, installs Linux, and both sells them and provides them free
>
Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 12:44, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> 20+ year old machines are typically more power hungry, more expensive,
> less performant, and less reliable than an up-to-date raspberry pi.
Embedded systems and medical one can be crazily expensive to maintain
and even more to replace but
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:51:06AM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> While it may be a no-brainer for a person with a $/€ 1000 a month residual
> income to just buy new hardware whenever they feel like it, that is not the
> case for everyone.
[...]
> It's absolutely true that modern machines are
If there's a well-supported social or technical reason to remove the
i386 Debian installer, I think that it would still be disappointing,
but acceptable.
I don't know what those reasons are yet (I've imagined that they could
be maintainer burden -- but as mentioned, I don't think there's much
Hi,
Quoting Diederik de Haas (2023-05-31 00:51:06)
> > If people have strong opinions about that plan, let us know please.
>
> I have *strong* opinions about this.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2023/01/msg00372.html was a message/
> plea to not forget about supporting OLD systems.
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:51:06AM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > >+1 for stopping publishing installers for i386, it has been mentioned
> > >many times but it's always worth repeating: electricity costs to keep
> > >running i386 hardware are already way higher than what it costs to buy
> > >a
[Please CC me in replies as I'm not subscribed to this list]
I hope I'm not too late for this discussion ...
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 12:42, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> I'm planning on stopping publishing installer images for i386
> >> soon. Why? We
On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 00:27, Roger Lynn wrote:
>
> On 21/05/2023 07:00, James Addison wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 22:58, Ansgar wrote:
> >> One of the problems with popcon is that it draws too much attention to
> >> old releases which isn't really interesting when talking about future
>
On 21/05/2023 07:00, James Addison wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 22:58, Ansgar wrote:
>> One of the problems with popcon is that it draws too much attention to
>> old releases which isn't really interesting when talking about future
>> developments. If one looks at arch usage per release (as
Hi Simon
On 2023/05/19 17:30, Simon McVittie wrote:
1. same as in recent Ubuntu: just enough packages (mostly libraries) to
configure it as a multiarch foreign architecture on an amd64 system,
and run legacy Linux i386 binaries directly or legacy Windows i386
binaries via Wine
2.
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 22:58, Ansgar wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 19:40 +0100, James Addison wrote:
> > Do we know how often the i386 installer is downloaded compared to
> > amd64, and could/should we start with updated messaging where those
> > are provided before removing users' ability to
On Sat, 20 May 2023 at 09:39, Cyril Brulebois wrote:>
> James Addison (2023-05-20):
> > Replying individually, but may bring this back on-list depending on
> > what I learn:
> >
> > On Sat, 20 May 2023 at 06:00, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > >
> > > If you're concerned about the impact of no
(2-in-1 reply.)
Ansgar (2023-05-19):
> On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 20:57 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > Hmm. I find the netboot installer archives very useful for rescue
> > purposes. This sometimes involves PC hardware too old for amd64. I
> > PXE booted a 20+ year old laptop with no DVD/CD drive
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 19:40 +0100, James Addison wrote:
> Do we know how often the i386 installer is downloaded compared to
> amd64, and could/should we start with updated messaging where those
> are provided before removing users' ability to install on their
> systems?
>
> (i386 remains the
Ansgar writes:
> On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 20:57 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Hmm. I find the netboot installer archives very useful for rescue
>> purposes. This sometimes involves PC hardware too old for amd64. I PXE
>> booted a 20+ year old laptop with no DVD/CD drive (Compaq Evo N410c - CD
>>
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 20:57 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Hmm. I find the netboot installer archives very useful for rescue
> purposes. This sometimes involves PC hardware too old for amd64. I PXE
> booted a 20+ year old laptop with no DVD/CD drive (Compaq Evo N410c - CD
> drive was part of the
Steve McIntyre writes:
> I had been thinking about doing similar for installer images too, but
> with other work going on too I think it got too late in the cycle to
> make that change. My plan is therefore to ship i386 installer images
> for bookworm as normal (including bookworm point releases
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 12:42, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> I'm planning on stopping publishing installer images for i386
> soon. Why? We should be strongly encouraging users to move away from
> it as a main architecture. If they're still installing i386 on 64-bit
> hardware, then that's a horrible
Am 19.05.23 um 19:23 schrieb Cyril Brulebois:
Hi,
Andrew M.A. Cater (2023-05-19):
I'd honestly suggest *just* publishing DVD1 for i386.
Netinst requires internet access: DVD1 can be used to install a basic
system without this. Scrap *everything else* for i386 installation media.
I'm not
Hi!
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 12:42:32 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> >On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 12:01:40 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> > […], I'm also dubious about this, and introduces a special case
> >> > and complexity that does not seem warranted TBH. If this was the case
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:42:32PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >If the main reason is to support non-free binaries, at least to me
>> >that does not seem like a very compelling reason. And people can
>> >always use old chroots or similar I guess?
>
>> i386 is in a
Am 19.05.23 um 17:30 schrieb Simon McVittie:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 09:19:35 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
I have to ask how someone would conduct an install to a 32-bit x86 machine
running under emulation, assuming no OS on the simulated machine.
I see four levels of support that we
Andrew Cater wrote:
>On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 03:03:40PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> I had been thinking about doing similar for installer images too, but
>> with other work going on too I think it got too late in the cycle to
>> make that change. My plan is therefore to ship i386 installer
Colin Watson wrote:
>On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:19:35AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
>> Well, maybe not a strong view, but a sense of vague unease--possibly an
>> ill-informed one. As someone who has used SIMH for "real" work[1], I
>> have to ask how someone would conduct an install to a
Hi,
Andrew M.A. Cater (2023-05-19):
> I'd honestly suggest *just* publishing DVD1 for i386.
>
> Netinst requires internet access: DVD1 can be used to install a basic
> system without this. Scrap *everything else* for i386 installation media.
I'm not sure how dropping one netinst ISO is going
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 03:03:40PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 12:42, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm planning on stopping publishing installer images for i386
> >> soon. Why? We should be strongly encouraging users to move away from
> >> it
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 09:19:35 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I have to ask how someone would conduct an install to a 32-bit x86 machine
> > running under emulation, assuming no OS on the simulated machine.
> I see four
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:19:35AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think simulation of 32-bit x86 will get _more_ important as year 2038
> approaches, not less, because in about 2037, people will suddenly notice
> they need to test things before deployment.
Ah but if Debian doesn't support
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:42:32PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >If the main reason is to support non-free binaries, at least to me
> >that does not seem like a very compelling reason. And people can
> >always use old chroots or similar I guess?
> i386 is in a really awkward situation here, I
Hi,
Quoting G. Branden Robinson (2023-05-19 16:19:35)
> > If people have strong opinions about that plan, let us know please.
>
> Well, maybe not a strong view, but a sense of vague unease--possibly an
> ill-informed one. As someone who has used SIMH for "real" work[1], I
> have to ask how
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 09:19:35 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> I have to ask how someone would conduct an install to a 32-bit x86 machine
> running under emulation, assuming no OS on the simulated machine.
I see four levels of support that we could reasonably have for i386:
1. same as in
At 2023-05-19T15:32:40+0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I occasionally use 32-bit x86 even today (mostly for not very good
> historical reasons, but nevertheless), and I do it by using a 32-bit
> container on a 64-bit x86 machine instead. It's much faster to run,
> and it doesn't depend on installer
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:19:35AM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, maybe not a strong view, but a sense of vague unease--possibly an
> ill-informed one. As someone who has used SIMH for "real" work[1], I
> have to ask how someone would conduct an install to a 32-bit x86 machine
>
At 2023-05-19T15:03:40+0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >+1 for stopping publishing installers for i386, it has been mentioned
> >many times but it's always worth repeating: electricity costs to keep
> >running i386 hardware are already way higher than what it costs to
> >buy a
Luca Boccassi wrote:
>On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 12:42, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> I'm planning on stopping publishing installer images for i386
>> soon. Why? We should be strongly encouraging users to move away from
>> it as a main architecture. If they're still installing i386 on 64-bit
>>
On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 12:42, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> >On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 12:01:40 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> > > * … but NOT on i386. Because i386 as an architecture is primarily of
> >> > > interest for running legacy binaries which cannot be
Guillem Jover wrote:
>On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 12:01:40 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
...
>> > > * ⦠but NOT on i386. Because i386 as an architecture is primarily of
>> > > interest for running legacy binaries which cannot be rebuilt against a
>> > > new
>> > > ABI, changing the ABI on i386
52 matches
Mail list logo
