not if i fork it.
Best Linux for 32 bits laptop
- Thread starter Vounelles
- Start date
@KGIII :-
Correct me if I'm wrong, David.....but as I understand it, the kernel source-code is in fact architecture-agnostic. It's the compiler tool-chain that determines whether or not all the included kernel modules get built for either the i686 or amd64 architectures (or ARM, or PowerPC.....whatever)......and that is determined by the tool-chain that is present in whichever distro you use as your build environment.
Anyway, it's perfectly possible - at least, at present - to run a 32-bit distro with a 64-bit kernel. I do this with at least 2 Puppies in my "kennels". You're aware of the multi-arch/multi-lib stuff, yes? We're all aware that it's perfectly possible to run 32-bit applications within a 64-bit distro by the installation of the appropriate 32-bit dependencies. This was for a long time the only way to get WINE running in Linux, until the WINE dev team started producing 64-bit-specific builds of WINE.
(The WINE AppImages I use for the Puppy-portable builds, while being essentially WOW64-compatible have nevertheless been built with 32-bit compatibility as well. This is why I use these specific builds in preference to some of the other WINE AppImages available out there).
One of our Puppy devs built, a while back, a complete self-contained 64-bit environment .....in order for those running older 32-bit Puppies to have access to up-to-date 64-bit browsers. Needless to say, it's a cast-iron requirement that the machine in question must have a 64-bit CPU, and for the Puppy in question to run a 64-bit kernel. I have to say, though, that the entire setup runs remarkably well.
I have two long-standing favourite 32-bit Pups which I fully intend to keep running for as long as I can, using this very method. It at least allows me to run secure browsers.....which is, after all, the major vector by which malware of any kind usually enters a system.
I wish this had been available when I first came to Puppy. The Compaq Presario desktop rig I had at the time, while being 64-bit capable, was nevertheless very early 64-bit (AMD Athlon64). I used to run mainly 32-bit Pups in those days, simply because they just seemed to run so much faster than the early 64-bit Puppies...
As I understand it, any kernel built under a 64-bit tool-chain nonetheless contains the ability to make use of & run 32-bit software.....provided the other "conditions" are satisfied. I won't, however, state with any degree of confidence how long this state of affairs will persist, since I really couldn't say.
Mike.
Correct me if I'm wrong, David.....but as I understand it, the kernel source-code is in fact architecture-agnostic. It's the compiler tool-chain that determines whether or not all the included kernel modules get built for either the i686 or amd64 architectures (or ARM, or PowerPC.....whatever)......and that is determined by the tool-chain that is present in whichever distro you use as your build environment.
Anyway, it's perfectly possible - at least, at present - to run a 32-bit distro with a 64-bit kernel. I do this with at least 2 Puppies in my "kennels". You're aware of the multi-arch/multi-lib stuff, yes? We're all aware that it's perfectly possible to run 32-bit applications within a 64-bit distro by the installation of the appropriate 32-bit dependencies. This was for a long time the only way to get WINE running in Linux, until the WINE dev team started producing 64-bit-specific builds of WINE.
(The WINE AppImages I use for the Puppy-portable builds, while being essentially WOW64-compatible have nevertheless been built with 32-bit compatibility as well. This is why I use these specific builds in preference to some of the other WINE AppImages available out there).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One of our Puppy devs built, a while back, a complete self-contained 64-bit environment .....in order for those running older 32-bit Puppies to have access to up-to-date 64-bit browsers. Needless to say, it's a cast-iron requirement that the machine in question must have a 64-bit CPU, and for the Puppy in question to run a 64-bit kernel. I have to say, though, that the entire setup runs remarkably well.
I have two long-standing favourite 32-bit Pups which I fully intend to keep running for as long as I can, using this very method. It at least allows me to run secure browsers.....which is, after all, the major vector by which malware of any kind usually enters a system.
I wish this had been available when I first came to Puppy. The Compaq Presario desktop rig I had at the time, while being 64-bit capable, was nevertheless very early 64-bit (AMD Athlon64). I used to run mainly 32-bit Pups in those days, simply because they just seemed to run so much faster than the early 64-bit Puppies...
As I understand it, any kernel built under a 64-bit tool-chain nonetheless contains the ability to make use of & run 32-bit software.....provided the other "conditions" are satisfied. I won't, however, state with any degree of confidence how long this state of affairs will persist, since I really couldn't say.
Mike.
Last edited:
I lack the time to give this a proper answer, but that's only partially true. You could even say that it's mostly true, but with some caveats. The ISA is an example. The 'biggie' will be the /arch source tree, which contains many of the caveats, and there are many of them. My understanding is, and I could be wrong, that they'll even be going so far as to remove that stuff from the kernel itself.
Someone could put it back in, keep it patched, and maintain it -- but by 'somebody' it's going to need to be a lot of them. No one person can understand all the code involved, even though it's not a huge part of the kernel.
You can do what you like with your own computer and risk the consequences, but if you repeat that here, Staff will delete your comments.
You agreed to those conditions when you joined.
Wizard
Even though not forking, that's basically what distributions like Ubuntu, RHEL and Opensuse do. They take a kernel version and support it for a an amount of time and changing some kernel settings here and there.
Software not receiving security updates are a risk when connected to the internet. See xz utils backoor CVE.
CaffeineAddict
Well-Known Member
You guys are wasting your time trying to convince tator wrong.
No matter what you say, even if correct.
In time he will figure out on his own, there is a saying, what we don't learn from others we learn on our own skin (by paying a price)
No matter what you say, even if correct.
In time he will figure out on his own, there is a saying, what we don't learn from others we learn on our own skin (by paying a price)
wendy-lebaron
Well-Known Member
q4os "andromeda" is 64-bit only. the iso for "aquarius" the previous version. (based on debian "bookworm".) could still be downloaded from sourceforge. 32-bit or 64-bit.
iinm slackware 15 supports the "last vestige." of 32-bit processors. codenamed "i586" or "i686" or something like that.
in fact in the last three years until now. 32-bit support has been steadily reduced. to exclude earlier intel pentium and amd equivalent. pretty much works with pentium 4. or better yet the models that came after. when core2duo became available.
the answer from antix's developers. next year will be interesting.
theLegionWithin
Well-Known Member
yep - "you cant teach experience" is the verbiage I always use.
86 is intel CPU instruction set, 586 is 5th gen and includes the first Pentiums 686 are also Pentium based but with 64 bit codecs,
now i will show my age, my first home computer was IBM comparable it had an 8 bit processor then came the 286 which was 16 bit followed by the 386,486 and Pentium 1/2 which were 32 bit, at the beginning of this Milena, intel missed out and AMD were the first to hit the mass market with a 64 bit CPU [the Athlon x64] Intel tried to push their own 64 bit CPU and failed, so after many years of CPU makes having to pay intel royalties, Intel now pay AMD [and ARM] for rights to use their instruction sets.
theLegionWithin
Well-Known Member
lucky! I didnt get to "join the ranks" until the 386 (sx-33 lol)
yeah, 64-bit is x86_64 in actuality. a bit of fun, native 16-bit support is technically possible by the hardware but most OS's dont support that level of virtualization due to many factors. not that I want to relive the 16-bit era
I actually go back a bit further, the first machine I stripped to see how it worked was an old office terminal with a 1 nibble [4 bit] CPU
theLegionWithin
Well-Known Member
with punch cards? my mother told me stories about punch cards when she was interning somewhere back in the day (she was carrying a stack, tripped, cards went everywhere, and absolutely ruined someone's week).
the first place i worked that had a computer for the accounting, it filled a specially built room 3mt x 4 mt x 3mt high and had air-conditioning to keep the room below 40Deg [or there about] we had 4 comptometers [they were tape not jacquard ] and 4 trained operators [I had 2 secretaries one had a Olivetti electric and the other an Olivetti manual, the computer came with the purchase of the site. [this was1968]
theLegionWithin
Well-Known Member
sounds a lot like my "server room" at the office - 3x chillers, raised platform, special fire suppression system, etc - but it's all very legacy as we have no servers, I decommed the last one a few years ago - just have the fiber circuit and networking gear - maybe 60u all told in 3 racks. room is easily 30' wide by 50' long.
wow! that must have been the general-purpose computing era tech then, with ibm (or olivetti) owning the hardware but leasing it to a site. I've watched some documentaries about that time.
The Olivetti typewriters were ours, and i think you are right the rest was probably leased as you didn't have in house computer techs then, the contometers were [from memory] shaped like a small upright piano about 4ft 6 inch wide standing around 4 ft high and 4 ft deep, after that job I didn't come into contact with another computerised company till about 1989, when i worked as sales and marketing manager, I wasn't universally accepted, and being the first of the management team to arrive in the mornings. i had many customers turn up at the end of the month to pay their bill, [but i was not allowed access to the accounting programs] so I used to guestimate what they needed to pay, I asked for access and the girl who thought she knew all as IT specialist in accounts said no, so one morning looking at the system it could see it was a special program based on IBM Basic, didn't take me long to find a big hole in the system and get access to the accounts, she wasn't happy when she asked where I was getting the necessary info from, I just said it was available to anyone who knew how the system worked, she never found out how even when I left 10 years later.
Still its nice to reminisce but we are getting a bit off-topic.
wendy-lebaron
Well-Known Member
you're still older than me.
because my first computer was radio shack (later tandy) trs-80 color computer 2. i went to school and into classroom. with an apple iie. really clunky and silly-looking thing. whose basic interpreter beeped at any error in code. the only thing i liked about that computer. was "astrostorm." a game that i easily mimicked with qb64. this is just moving a spaceship across the screen. avoid the "asteroids" falling from the top of the screen.
sort of back on topic: my first 32-bit computer. was probably compaq bought at radio shack. my only computer with any amd (or non-intel) processor. the k6-2. with windows98 and 100mb iomega zip drive. ("modern" linux won't be able to run on that. maybe freebsd could.) i discovered with this tower computer. that no motherboard could last long in summer heat. with enough dirt going into it. i was rather ignorant at the time. half-remained like that. because portable computers seem to last much longer despite pollution and abuse.
i dont have ht effected versions The backdoor ONLY existed in 5.6.0 and 5.6.1Software not receiving security updates are a risk when connected to the internet. See xz utils backoor CVE.
xz (XZ Utils) 5.2.2
liblzma 5.2.2
i dont see why me posting progress and question on my fork is wrong? that doesnt hurt anyone unless they downlaod and use it irresponsibly
Similar threads
- Deleted member 216840
- General Linux Topics
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Another one: CIFSwitch: a non-universal Linux local root vulnerability- Latest: beanburrito