Hello,
On 09.06.24 16:21, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 2024-06-09 at 08:58 -0500, r...@neoquasar.org wrote:
What it is is functional, and paid for. And likely, already installed
and in use somewhere (like all of my 32-bit systems).
It's not just a matter of "buy something better." That's easy.
Indeed, that is easier and cheaper.
There can be other reasons aswell, for example, it's quite hard
to get a T61 with 4:3 screens and later models only have widescreens,
which I find cumbersome to use.
What's not easy is that a) that adds another machine to the waste
stream, instead of continuing to get use from it, and b) someone has
to take the time to set up the new machine, test things, migrate
services, etc. to functionally replace the old one. That takes time
and effort, too, multiplied by the number of such systems out there.
(a) is false as newer hardware can already be taken from electronic
waste, so it does not add new waste. (Also electricity isn't free
everywhere.)
Maintaining support for ancient hardware costs too. And is more
expensive per device as the number of systems is lower.
Newer hardware is still often sought after and as such often quite
costly, whilst you can sometimes snatch a machine from e-waste,
you have to still be lucky.
About electricity: I know that, and that is part of the reason why I
would never use a Pentium 4 as a server nowerdays. However,
with laptops, which often run in standby or are at idle and have
good power-saving features, the advantage, at least with my T60
lies in 4-10W, which can be mostly attributed to the CCFL, if the
powertop output is correct. (If I were to switch out the CCFL for
an LED, I might be able to get single digit discharge-rates.)
Also the repairability of newer laptops is often times garbage,
something I find invaluable on a transportable device, not to mention
that you can replace such machines quite cheaply, in the worst case.
I've asked before and I'll ask again - and perhaps it's time for
someone to contact me off list to discuss details - how can I help
with support for i386? I have just enough software training to be
dangerous and may be able to help carry some of the actual load here,
instead of just asking for more free support.
As I said before
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/05/msg00302.html):
If you look at https://release.debian.org/testing/arch_qualify.html
there is at least several things that can be done:
1. Add CPU security mitigations to Linux kernel.
CPU mitigations exist in the PAE kernel that is at least supported on an
Intel Pentium PRO (and on Pentium M's with forcepae, to my knowledge).
Instead of removing i386 entirely, I'd suggest to bump the requirements to
include PAE, if that would otherwise be an argument to stop supporting i386.
If someone would really like to run debian on a non-PAE-system, they'd still
be able with a custom kernel.
2. Address builds reaching address limit. There were ideas to use
foreign-arch (amd64) compilers to do so.
Wouldn't that be important for all 32-bit archs? I'll have a look at
trying to setup
a crosscompile environment.
3. Look at other arch-specific issues (porter); this can also include
baseline violations and other issues for real i386 hardware.
It is also possible to work on finding funding and asking someone else
to do this. I've no idea how much that would cost, but let's say a few
10k USD.
Which leads to the problem: most people who want this, seem to want to
continue to use old hardware (T60, N270). However, continuing to
support i386 has likely costs much higher than the replacement cost of
said hardware... Which is probably why nobody really seems sufficiently
motivated to actually invest resources. (Or do you?)
(Sadly you previously refused incoming mail as I got a bounce.)
My mail server has some problems which is the reason why I use my old mail
address. My new address is m...@zeldakatze.de , however, currently postfix
sends mail on the wrong ip address breaking rDNS lookups, which I'll
have to fix.
Ansgar
regards,
Maite Gamper (zeldakatze)
