From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 20961 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2021 23:00:02 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 9 Feb 2021 23:00:02 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1E6C19B55C; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:00:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5AE94F1A; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:59:25 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="TzNmHjqr"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8BE9A94F1A; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:59:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f52.google.com (mail-ej1-f52.google.com [209.85.218.52]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0786894F19 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:59:20 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f52.google.com with SMTP id l25so329845eja.9 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 14:59:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QxLT81DtzNDRuYOzvIzsfIaXatu3f9PK0vllJLP4zdM=; b=TzNmHjqr+Vb68/EpFV/URi4+DlQzqkfmkQhFwpKqtwjaIJVX/B9MR7Ict+GbrhQ8iR SEhC8W76nM8zaO6ylGiiQY6wf2bj2knzINlndXe5EeiKRUnvwwXIu+mt+18XeXbSGkva XZwxPKXG34J2lORuleSYSn4Hry4Gc3w80Z8ZCgox5eBzzvp7FcgoaDnvu92EwSOz+P7N qBTzuczAviZLoOBo1112wciTXOVENc4qPTMR1onvKadlVuLps23a8O1+JcEV+Xt8doNR SpcB9/0Zk08MF6pFbE2C6e9sBZOF14+v8AsAo4XbMuhlGbDYFpImREzB/727hoyod3sA JbTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QxLT81DtzNDRuYOzvIzsfIaXatu3f9PK0vllJLP4zdM=; b=AMB/F5jQGIm2p/+xTgAulODAscml4/rddwfuCo6d+5CmOxBHSy0SSMZL2hbjrOAUig XJ5fd/vn+Ry1dkNjX84aixtXCsRTH8IiO0f7atRr+RY41oH7ZzyP2uIHjGHrpZMCUwws oGRnCrrUtn6nzdX++XIAZ84iXdWJftwDvwA5d7aXHUO6JIzCmYKP3SlgLs9J/QNo1Vf+ pQYZ/bop8yW2wM8wTNiwDyregyHzslZkjIrf1HIpSFM4VrToR1ikqCB6ozKnwhJIkLi7 ZFFywNS/aAvVRIWGoonjcGBbzh7NyLZTSpI2KoNhRex28OJ0dK4o+2adNCr8Wc/6PVcf 1XvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336VmN0pGvLdKg7WKwCjRvJaxrhIDQbXL0ILFspQcj5aZnCIwry V8xuKRece1tAhW5CLL2K1xkTCB0eR1L5sktPEgeFqkbi X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwAD6mHhJTUm9OrCiq8z0T6h481RLTet6t+I5L+/xD/DIaWiw8/YkjmXcwLt1RnSFjL03dXfnwiS2Ezf7SFLiI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3fa6:: with SMTP id hr38mr22888ejc.24.1612911558321; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 14:59:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6402:b62:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:59:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5372.1612853750@hop.toad.com> References: <5372.1612853750@hop.toad.com> From: Wesley Parish Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 11:59:17 +1300 Message-ID: To: John Gilmore Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Macs and future unix derivatives X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Many of those mentioned in the fossbytes article have become 64-bit only. But I can recommend Anti-X (pronounced Antics) as a suitable OS for an old-but-good i386 box or laptop. Wesley Parish On 2/9/21, John Gilmore wrote: > Henry Bent wrote: >> Apple loves to move quickly and abandon >> compatibility, and in that respect it's an interesting counterpoint to >> Linux or a *BSD where you can have decades old binaries that still run. > > That was true decades ago, but no longer. In the intervening time, all > the major Linux distributions have stopped releasing OS's that support > 32-bit machines. Even those that support 32-bit CPUs have often > desupported the earlier CPUs (like, what was wrong with the 80386?). > Essentially NO applications require 64-bit address spaces, so arguably > if they wanted to lessen their workload, they should have desupported > the 64-bit architectures (or made kernels and OS's that would run on > both from a single release). But that wouldn't give them the > gee-whiz-look-at-all-the-new-features feeling. > > I ran 32-bit OS releases on all my 64-bit x86 hardware for years. They > ran faster and smaller than the amd64 versions, and also ran old > binaries for more than a decade. But their vendors and support teams > decided that doing the release-engineering to keep them running was more > work than pulling the plug. > > Even Fedora has desupported the One Laptop Per Child hardware now -- no > new releases for millions of kids! And desupported all the other cheap > Intel mobile CPUs, let alone your typical desktop 80386, 80486, or > Pentium. Have you tried running Linux on a machine without a GPU > these days? It's truly sad that to gain stupid animated window tricks, > they broke compatability with millions of existing systems. > > Here's one overview of the niche distros that still have x86 support: > > https://fossbytes.com/best-lightweight-linux-distros/ > > Even those are dropping like flies, e.g. Ubuntu MATE now says "For older > hardware based on i386. Supported until April 2021", i.e. only til next > month! The PuppyLinux.com web site is now a 404. Etc. > > (I'm not up on what the BSD releases are doing.) > > John > >