6 ms·

Around the 8 and 9 min mark RMS talks about old hardware losing software support, like 32 bit systems. I am a kernel developer and the kernel removes code for a

Around the 8 and 9 min mark RMS talks about old hardware losing software support, like 32 bit systems. I am a kernel developer and the kernel removes code for a lot of older systems all the time (often lesser known 32bit ARM systems). Phoronix reported that 5.18 removed the Andes NDS32 CPU arch code. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-518-features&num=1 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-51... The reason they do this is because a lot of these systems can break as the internal kAPIs change all the time and the users will not know since the embedded custom distro of software + kernel is not upgraded. Support can be broken for these arches for years until someone gets these systems second hand and posts about them, but may not care to fix it or it is cheaper to replace it. RMS calls this a major issue, specifically 32-bit support in Ubuntu. I do not agree. My last 32 bit computer died a long time ago after the battery died years ago. It was a Gateway so getting replacement parts would be difficult. I also was never able to get it to run Linux. Aside from my brother-in-law finding his old laptop no one I know uses 32 bit computers (well except for myself with my Pi Zero: ARM v6, which I used once). It just feels like the wrong battle to pick when Linux's biggest competitor is forcing practically all PCs to use a bootloader signed with their key. Major vendors can choose to refuse to allow users to install their own key. They are already locking CPUs (Ryzens) to their brand of motherboards with a builtin fuse provided by AMD. He of course talks about it-it just feels like the 32 bit part distracts from it.

enneff 5y ago
Stallman is not a pragmatic guy. He picks all battles related to free software simultaneously.
- thawaya3113 5y ago
  Which is why he is so needed. Pragmatism will always gravitate towards the “middle”. But the middle can never be truly found by pragmatism unless it can see either extreme. Without Stallman, the closed software extreme has a ton of supporters (Microsoft, Apple, etc) but the free software extreme has almost none. What Stallman does is define the free software extreme which allows the pragmatists to find a much better middle than if he wasn’t pushing that boundary.
- throwaway693 5y ago
  Yep. He is a genius who does not care about money and stands up for a cause. So cool
riffraff 5y ago
I think the point is not that kernel devs (or whoever) will support obsolete platforms, but that users of those platforms can keep using the kernel if they want and are willing to put in the effort to maintain it.
assttoasstmgr 5y ago
There were a large number of Intel Atom tablets and laptops manufactured less than a decade ago that were hobbled with I think a 32-bit UEFI which could only boot a 32-bit OS. I own two of these devices myself so they are not uncommon.
- tehbeard 5y ago
  I had such a system to hand (my brother's old netbook). Turns out a bios flash can in some cases enable the 64bit functionality. Its not a particularly fast system though...
- blendergeek 5y ago
  The 32 bit UEFI actually could be used to boot a 64 bit OS image. Well, you could make it work. Source: https://liliputing.com/2015/07/install-ubuntu-14-04-lts-on-the-2gb-intel-compute-stick.html https://liliputing.com/2015/07/install-ubuntu-14-04-lts-on-t... A friend of mine had one of those laptops and I wanted to install Linux on it. It took me a few weeks for other reasons (those M.2 drives were the worst), but thanks to the work of Ian Morrison, it was possible.
- lynguist 5y ago
  The deal with these devices is they have the compute power of a Pentium III from 1999 or a Raspberry Pi 2 from 2015. It’s enough for an embedded system, but vastly underpowered for desktop computing or web browsing.
belorn 5y ago
Developers naturally has the freedom to choose where and on what they want to focus development time on, through I would not discount 32-bit machines as computers that should by now have died and be discared, especially in the server space which is what RMS is talking about during that 8-9m mark. A old 1U rack server is perfectly fine to operate as a router, a firewall, a logging server, a message bus, secondary backup (ie the server that simply get copies from the primary backup server) or some other low intensity work that is preferable done on a separate physical machine. If you work at a company that owned many of those you also have plenty of spares in case some essential old parts breaks down. You don't need a 256 core epic server with a 1TB of ram. I suspect most kernel developers mostly operate with virtual machines in mind, but as a sysadmin I would argue that physical machines also has their use cases. I also suspect that if the linux kernel stop supporting 32-bit machines, others will continue. Are the BSD people thinking about dropping 32-bit support?
- 2b3a51 5y ago
  OpenBSD... "Due to the increased usage of OpenBSD/amd64, as well as the age and practicality of most i386 hardware, only easy and critical security fixes are backported to i386. The project has more important things to focus on." [1] OpenBSD includes their Xorg port in a base install, and you can run a reasonable graphical desktop on a 32bit machine. Firefox is not packaged for i386 I think. I just use Seamonkey when I test the 32 bit image now and again. There may be other package limitations relevant to server only use. Seems a rational approach to me. [1] https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html
einpoklum 5y ago
So, two of the people closest to you use 32-bit machines today. Explain to me again why 32-bit support is not a major issue then? :-(
blueflow 5y ago
I have a ton of devices that are 32 bit x86. I'd love if i was able to continue to use them... i can't stand having to throw away all tech every $x years. I only need like, 1 GB of RAM to work productively! I unironically work on machines that i found in the garbage. Remove 32-bit x86 support, and it will pin me down to the few 64-bit machines that i have.
- neilalexander 5y ago
  Every line of code has a maintenance overhead and it is quite likely you are in a minority at this point. Eventually, as with all things legacy, the effort outweighs the gain.

enneff 5y ago

Stallman is not a pragmatic guy. He picks all battles related to free software simultaneously.

thawaya3113 5y ago
Which is why he is so needed. Pragmatism will always gravitate towards the “middle”. But the middle can never be truly found by pragmatism unless it can see either extreme. Without Stallman, the closed software extreme has a ton of supporters (Microsoft, Apple, etc) but the free software extreme has almost none. What Stallman does is define the free software extreme which allows the pragmatists to find a much better middle than if he wasn’t pushing that boundary.
throwaway693 5y ago
Yep. He is a genius who does not care about money and stands up for a cause. So cool

riffraff 5y ago

I think the point is not that kernel devs (or whoever) will support obsolete platforms, but that users of those platforms can keep using the kernel if they want and are willing to put in the effort to maintain it.

assttoasstmgr 5y ago

There were a large number of Intel Atom tablets and laptops manufactured less than a decade ago that were hobbled with I think a 32-bit UEFI which could only boot a 32-bit OS. I own two of these devices myself so they are not uncommon.

tehbeard 5y ago
I had such a system to hand (my brother's old netbook). Turns out a bios flash can in some cases enable the 64bit functionality. Its not a particularly fast system though...
blendergeek 5y ago
The 32 bit UEFI actually could be used to boot a 64 bit OS image. Well, you could make it work. Source: https://liliputing.com/2015/07/install-ubuntu-14-04-lts-on-the-2gb-intel-compute-stick.html https://liliputing.com/2015/07/install-ubuntu-14-04-lts-on-t... A friend of mine had one of those laptops and I wanted to install Linux on it. It took me a few weeks for other reasons (those M.2 drives were the worst), but thanks to the work of Ian Morrison, it was possible.
lynguist 5y ago
The deal with these devices is they have the compute power of a Pentium III from 1999 or a Raspberry Pi 2 from 2015. It’s enough for an embedded system, but vastly underpowered for desktop computing or web browsing.

belorn 5y ago

Developers naturally has the freedom to choose where and on what they want to focus development time on, through I would not discount 32-bit machines as computers that should by now have died and be discared, especially in the server space which is what RMS is talking about during that 8-9m mark. A old 1U rack server is perfectly fine to operate as a router, a firewall, a logging server, a message bus, secondary backup (ie the server that simply get copies from the primary backup server) or some other low intensity work that is preferable done on a separate physical machine. If you work at a company that owned many of those you also have plenty of spares in case some essential old parts breaks down. You don't need a 256 core epic server with a 1TB of ram. I suspect most kernel developers mostly operate with virtual machines in mind, but as a sysadmin I would argue that physical machines also has their use cases. I also suspect that if the linux kernel stop supporting 32-bit machines, others will continue. Are the BSD people thinking about dropping 32-bit support?

2b3a51 5y ago
OpenBSD... "Due to the increased usage of OpenBSD/amd64, as well as the age and practicality of most i386 hardware, only easy and critical security fixes are backported to i386. The project has more important things to focus on." [1] OpenBSD includes their Xorg port in a base install, and you can run a reasonable graphical desktop on a 32bit machine. Firefox is not packaged for i386 I think. I just use Seamonkey when I test the 32 bit image now and again. There may be other package limitations relevant to server only use. Seems a rational approach to me. [1] https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html

einpoklum 5y ago

So, two of the people closest to you use 32-bit machines today. Explain to me again why 32-bit support is not a major issue then? :-(

blueflow 5y ago

I have a ton of devices that are 32 bit x86. I'd love if i was able to continue to use them... i can't stand having to throw away all tech every $x years. I only need like, 1 GB of RAM to work productively! I unironically work on machines that i found in the garbage. Remove 32-bit x86 support, and it will pin me down to the few 64-bit machines that i have.

neilalexander 5y ago
Every line of code has a maintenance overhead and it is quite likely you are in a minority at this point. Eventually, as with all things legacy, the effort outweighs the gain.