Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 31 Looking At No Longer Building i686 Linux Kernel Packages

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fedora 31 Looking At No Longer Building i686 Linux Kernel Packages

    Phoronix: Fedora 31 Looking At No Longer Building i686 Linux Kernel Packages

    Not to be confused with Ubuntu's varying stance on dropping 32-bit packages beginning with their next release later this year, Fedora 31 now has a proposal pending to discontinue their i686 kernel builds but they will still be keeping with their 32-bit packaging...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...l-i686-Kernels

  • #2
    I don't think I ever had to run a 32-bit kernel since I bought my first 64-bit AMD CPU back in 2003 or 2004.

    Comment


    • #3
      Really I would love to see Pi4 head to head with Atom Z670 the last intel processor 32 bit only processor you can still buy. I know the atom graphics are not going to work because it powervr. The Atom Z670 has a list price for just cpu of 75 USD.

      Comment


      • #4
        Unfortunately I had a case of the perfect storm about 1½ years ago where I sold my desktop (because it was unsused), then my notebook died, and the old spare core2 (then 9 years old) got stolen. The only notebook I could get at super short notice was a 2'nd gen ATOM netbook.
        And I really struggled to get hold of a 32-bit OS that didn't suck in some way.
        All the Ubuntu derivatives had no 32-bit love for a long time, so the system would install packages but with constant breakages.

        So, yes. Please discontinue 32-bit kernel and 32-bit-only systems. But please don't discontinue 32-bit userspace for another decade, please?

        Comment


        • #5
          This is a much better solution to the 32 bit issue. Rebuilding a mainline kernel for i686 seems like a reasonable barrier of entry for those who want to keep using 32 bit x86 processors.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ldesnogu View Post
            I don't think I ever had to run a 32-bit kernel since I bought my first 64-bit AMD CPU back in 2003 or 2004.
            VM guest?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ldesnogu View Post
              I don't think I ever had to run a 32-bit kernel since I bought my first 64-bit AMD CPU back in 2003 or 2004.
              I tend to run the 32-bit kernel on most of my 2008 machines because they simply use less RAM and feel snappier. Unless your applications use much more than 4 gigs individually, the PAE kernel largely makes a 64-bit kernel on consumer hardware a little pointless.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
                I tend to run the 32-bit kernel on most of my 2008 machines because they simply use less RAM and feel snappier. Unless your applications use much more than 4 gigs individually, the PAE kernel largely makes a 64-bit kernel on consumer hardware a little pointless.
                That more of an oddity because https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...ntu-1710-x8664 because by 2017 there not a benchmark that 32 bit Linux can win against 64 bit Linux. Maybe lack of ram problem?

                It was true way back in time that 32 bit Linux worked out faster but that has not been true almost 5 years now.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                  It was true way back in time that 32 bit Linux worked out faster but that has not been true almost 5 years now.
                  That could be the case. My 2008 machines run an older kernel 2.6 (RHEL6). Or they run Windows 7 (32-bit) which is generally an old kernel.

                  I probably wouldn't dare run a recent desktop Linux distro like Fedora 31 on a 2008 machine.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

                    I tend to run the 32-bit kernel on most of my 2008 machines because they simply use less RAM and feel snappier. Unless your applications use much more than 4 gigs individually, the PAE kernel largely makes a 64-bit kernel on consumer hardware a little pointless.
                    no. The 64 bit ABI allows much better optimizations. I highly doubt you find many applications running actually faster in 32 bit mode than 64 bit. And PAE isn't for free either. With older hardware it might be a little different due to smaller caches and stuff like that, but generally running 32 bit kernels is pretty pointless as you really have no significant enough benefit in doing so and if you care about speed, you'd buy more RAM anyway, as this gives you a much bigger perf boost than switching to a 32 bit kernel would be able to.

                    And then there are the security benefits of 64 bit kernels and the 64 bit ABI as well...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X