Debian's i386 Builds Now Require 686-Class CPUs

[trek]

That's i686, but it's called i386. Both are 32-bit, why they don't name 32-bit packages i686?

Because the architecture name is i386. At some point Debian supported 386 486 586 and 686 with the i386 architecture. What name should be assigned in this case? i345686? Or starting with 386, then 486 when the 386 support is dropped and so on

On OpenSUSE, 32-bit packages are suffixed by i586, and on Arch Linux, i686. It's not confusing.

Debian avoided exactly this problem using the architecture name and not the family

[Gusar]

The only thing I wonder are new 32 bit UEFI systems with Atom CPUs...

Those can load a 64bit kernel without problems. In fact, on a Baytrail laptop (Pentium N3510) with 32bit UEFI that I had access to for a while, I had problems booting a 32bit kernel . Only a 64bit kernel would run. I can't recall whether the pre-installed Win8 was 32bit or 64bit.

[torsionbar28]

If you want latest Google Chrome you already need a 64 bit system. So for desktop systems the minimum specs already are just below Windows 8.1/10 64 bit which also requires some extra CPU instructions. If a new Debian release that will be released hopefully next year does not support CPUs older than 10 years the world does not need to cry. The only thing I wonder are new 32 bit UEFI systems with Atom CPUs...

I'm not sure where that's relevant. I don't think anyone is suggesting that these legacy systems are being used as desktop pc's.

[vsteel]

He is saying that while old hardware is still useful, you don't need the latest greatest OS on it with all of the bells and whistles. So you have to stop upgrading the OS on a hardware box you stopped upgrading 20 years ago, it is still useful. Not to mention hardware that old is getting pretty corner case.

[torsionbar28]

He is saying that while old hardware is still useful, you don't need the latest greatest OS on it with all of the bells and whistles. So you have to stop upgrading the OS on a hardware box you stopped upgrading 20 years ago, it is still useful. Not to mention hardware that old is getting pretty corner case.

The bells and whistles have nothing to do with it. The issue is supportability. Fixes for security flaws are a big deal. Which is easier? Supporting an ancient distro for years (decades?) beyond its useful life? Or simply installing a modern distro that's fully supported and gets all the latest bug fixes and security patches.

Lets not forget that the hardware in question here is primarily in use in embedded systems, industrial machinery, etc. These are not standard ATX form factor desktop peecee's we're talking about here. A simple motherboard swap is not an option in many of these systems. Remember, until just a few years ago, even NASA was using i486 chips still in the space shuttles.

[adler187]

Because the architecture name is i386. At some point Debian supported 386 486 586 and 686 with the i386 architecture. What name should be assigned in this case? i345686? Or starting with 386, then 486 when the 386 support is dropped and so on


Debian avoided exactly this problem using the architecture name and not the family

The architecture name is IA-32, not i386 - though many people use i386 as the name, since the 80386 was the first to implement IA-32.

[discordian]

The architecture name is IA-32, not i386 - though many people use i386 as the name, since the 80386 was the first to implement IA-32.

Nope, many people use i386/x86 to denote the x86 compatible Processors since this is rather hard to misunderstand unlike IA-32. Intels first 32 Bit architecture was "iAPX 432", which was "Intel Architecture, 32bit" before the i386 came along.
Similarly, IA-64 ("Intel Architecture, 64bit") stood (still stands?) for the Itanium line, I rather doubt thats what people mean it they want to buy an 64bit Intel.

In short, if you talk about i386 compatibles, call them like that. IA-32 is fuzzy, even if its claimed to be official.

[Kano]

@Gusar

I doubt that your Pentium N branded BayTrail had 32 bit UEFI. Windows is of course 32 bit in that case. Best check (valid for 32+64 bit Windows): msinfo32

[directhex]

That's i686, but it's called i386. Both are 32-bit, why they don't name 32-bit packages i686?
On OpenSUSE, 32-bit packages are suffixed by i586, and on Arch Linux, i686. It's not confusing.

dpkg doesn't support architecture aliases, so it's actually *really* hard to make this change

[Gusar]

@Gusar
I doubt that your Pentium N branded BayTrail had 32 bit UEFI. Windows is of course 32 bit in that case. Best check (valid for 32+64 bit Windows): msinfo32

I've been around long enough to know how to handle computers. Regular distros (which only contain 64bit UEFI loaders) wouldn't start on the thing. Then I added a 32bit loader to my own little liveusb toy and voila, it booted.

Can't check Windows bit-ness, like I said the machine is not around anymore. It was a HP 250 G2.