On 28/3/17 11:08, John Gilmore wrote: > The idea of dropping i386 support seems like a step backwards to me.
> If an architecture needs to be dropped due to resource constraints, > the obvious one to drop is amd64. No. > Every computer capable of running > amd64 is also capable of running i386. There are essentially no > applications that inherently require a 64-bit address space First of all, as the announcement made clear, ASLR hugely benefits from 64-bit address space. Secondly, the extra registers in AMD64 increase binary performance. Third, a lot of software benefits hugely from AVX and AVX2, from Blender to handbrake to GIMP. But compiling software to i386, users would forgo on 15 years worth of advancements and extensions to x86. Fourth: One of the biggest advancements in computer security in the last 15 years has been the introduction of NX bit, which is not available in 32-bit x86. Finally, a lot of us have more than 4GiB of RAM, and PAE is an ugly hack that incurs extra performance penalty. > probably hundreds of > millions, of computers can run i386 without trouble, but cannot run > amd64. (Yes, I do regularly use multiple computers, including an > Atom-based netbook and a Pentium III server, that can't run amd64.) You use an Atom-based netbook and a Pentium III server with Ubuntu Gnome?! You run Gnome 3.2x on a Pentium III?! I'd like to see that in action. PS: You should buy a new atom CPU and replace that Pentium III with. It costs $60 and pays for itself in your reduced electricity usage in less than a year. > Why > is Ubuntu-GNOME throwing away this advantage that it has long held > over Windows? Engineering for the lowest common denominator has many extra costs. > For those who care about secure computing, the vendors who ship amd64 > architecture chips have polluted them with embedded processors that > subvert the security of the system. > Anyone who truly cares > about having full control over their computing environment is stuck > with buying older CPUs and motherboards. There are plenty of open architectures around where you have complete control over the ISA and can inspect the the CPU. OpenPOWER and RISC-V are two examples that come to my mind. I suggest you get yourself a POWER 8 system from IBM, it probably still uses less power than your Pentium III. > > The main reason to prefer amd64 over i386, despite the cost in > compatability, seems to be simple trendiness. Processor chic. Oh wait. You pretend to care about security but have not heard of ASLR or NX bit. Or maybe ASLR is also just "chic"? > > Finally, there is the bold but false statement in the wiki page, "If > you are running 64-bit capable hardware there are absolutely no valid > reasons to be running a 32-bit operating system." > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGNOME/32bit_support > > What I think the author meant is that THEY could not conceive of a > reason to run a 32-bit operating system. Or perhaps that every end > user who has a reason to run a 32-bit operating system is not "valid" > in their choice. If you have a CPU supporting AMD64, there is no valid reason for running 32-bit x86 OS on it. Period. > This seems more like hubris than wisdom to me. Or maybe it just shines a light on your ignorance. > Different users have different situations and different needs. Of course. And there will always be Slackware for you. Unless Patrick Volkerding gets hit by a bus. -- Aryan Ameri -- Ubuntu-GNOME mailing list Ubuntu-GNOME@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-gnome
