Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Linux dropping support for i386
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:50 pm    Post subject: Linux dropping support for i386 Reply with quote

Oh noes! 8O :o
http://www.zdnet.com/good-bye-386-linux-to-drop-support-for-i386-chips-with-next-major-release-7000008772/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
genstorm
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 2352
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do those machines even have enough RAM to load a modern linux image? :lol:
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The whole story would be no issue if Linux were a modern operating system. It's one big fat clone of decades old bad concepts. Now, if Linux had been developed as a micro kernel operating system, then there would be no need to eliminate anything, as long as the interfaces don't change. Even if someone decided to change the interface to certain modules like the FPU emulation, it should be fairly simple to write a layer in between to achieve backward compatibility. I think Torvarlds merely admits that Linux is a big bad cluster fuck design.

Let's see if and when Minix will have to drop support for the 80386. Minix was designed from the beginning as a micro kernel operating system. (The same is true for VMS.)

The Z80 processor is far older than the 80386. Zilog still sells it (in an updated package, though). People like it because it fits their needs. Now, the 80386 is certainly slower than a Pentium processor, but it is also faster than a Z80. I bet there is a market between the Z80 and the 80386. One feature which the Z80 and the 80386 have in common is that they do not need bulky noisy fans. I would not be surprised to see some projects which currently depend on the 80386.

Perhaps Torvalds' little universe got too fat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
genstorm
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 2352
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sure hurd will run on those machines :)
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dr.Willy
Guru
Guru


Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 318
Location: NRW, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I heard they'd release hurd soon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
The whole story would be no issue if Linux were a modern operating system. It's one big fat clone of decades old bad concepts. Now, if Linux had been developed as a micro kernel operating system, then there would be no need to eliminate anything, as long as the interfaces don't change. Even if someone decided to change the interface to certain modules like the FPU emulation, it should be fairly simple to write a layer in between to achieve backward compatibility. I think Torvarlds merely admits that Linux is a big bad cluster fuck design.

Let's see if and when Minix will have to drop support for the 80386. Minix was designed from the beginning as a micro kernel operating system. (The same is true for VMS.)

The Z80 processor is far older than the 80386. Zilog still sells it (in an updated package, though). People like it because it fits their needs. Now, the 80386 is certainly slower than a Pentium processor, but it is also faster than a Z80. I bet there is a market between the Z80 and the 80386. One feature which the Z80 and the 80386 have in common is that they do not need bulky noisy fans. I would not be surprised to see some projects which currently depend on the 80386.

Perhaps Torvalds' little universe got too fat.

The GNU operating system was designed properly (except for the shitty name); you seem to be talking about the Linux kernel. I think GNU should abandon Mach and develop something ground-breaking and intrinsically virtualization-oriented based on L4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amaranatha
n00b
n00b


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 48
Location: Spain, Europe

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
The whole story would be no issue if Linux were a modern operating system. It's one big fat clone of decades old bad concepts. Now, if Linux had been developed as a micro kernel operating system, then there would be no need to eliminate anything, as long as the interfaces don't change. Even if someone decided to change the interface to certain modules like the FPU emulation, it should be fairly simple to write a layer in between to achieve backward compatibility. I think Torvarlds merely admits that Linux is a big bad cluster fuck design.

A microkernel design will have a hard time providing CMPXCHG on processors that lack it.
_________________
"Freedom incurs responsibility; that is why so many men fear it." - George Bernard Shaw
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr.Willy wrote:
I heard they'd release hurd soon?

They should, however some kernels are a tough nut to crack.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crooksey
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 239
Location: Vatican City

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This makes me so angry, this means I will no longer to be able to install newer driver versions on my 386 box.

What happens when I upgrade my video card in a few years?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aCOSwt
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2379
Location: Hilbert space

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
Perhaps Torvalds' little universe got too fat.

Perhaps we do not precisely perceive and even less manage what makes something is successful... or not, Mr Tanenbaum !
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amaranatha wrote:
A microkernel design will have a hard time providing CMPXCHG on processors that lack it.
Why is that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bigun
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 1954

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still own a Tandy 386. :cry:
_________________
BK - "Then, after months of loud-mouthed shit-talking and own-fart smelling, you lost the big bet, fair snd square, and are being a baby about it."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2025
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minix is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with microkernels. After decades unable to support more than one platform. Fucking slow.

Hurd is even worse. Fat, slow, bloated and doing everything wrong. You have to applaud for the tenancy of its devs. After they fucked up with mach, they just switched the kernel. And as soon as their was some hope of ever be able to provide something worse the diskspace they switched kernels again.

Congratulations.

About i386:
the last ones were produced in 2006. And nobody was upset. It is dead Jim. So very dead. Why carry around a lot of bloat and complexity for a CPU that is too slow, too power hungry and too limit to do anything interessting at all?
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

energyman76b wrote:
Minix is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with microkernels. After decades unable to support more than one platform. Fucking slow.
Bad accounting on your part. No Christmas present for you this year.

Minix is a university research project. Like so many of these, it suffers from the lack of excellent students who can be exploited over the needed long period of time. That has nothing to do with a micro kernel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2025
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
Minix is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with microkernels. After decades unable to support more than one platform. Fucking slow.
Bad accounting on your part. No Christmas present for you this year.

Minix is a university research project. Like so many of these, it suffers from the lack of excellent students who can be exploited over the needed long period of time. That has nothing to do with a micro kernel.


yes it has. There is only one microkernel which really worked well - QNX. And you don't want to use that one for your desktop. Every other one sucks - or in case of not extreme suckiness is not a true microkernel at all (for example Windows NT 4 and its descendants)
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

energyman76b wrote:
wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
Minix is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with microkernels. After decades unable to support more than one platform. Fucking slow.
Bad accounting on your part. No Christmas present for you this year.

Minix is a university research project. Like so many of these, it suffers from the lack of excellent students who can be exploited over the needed long period of time. That has nothing to do with a micro kernel.


yes it has. There is only one microkernel which really worked well - QNX.
And VMS.
Quote:
And you don't want to use that one for your desktop.
Why not?!
Quote:
Every other one sucks - or in case of not extreme suckiness is not a true microkernel at all (for example Windows NT 4 and its descendants)
Which other ones? And why do they suck?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rorgoroth
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 221
Location: England, UK

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No i386 any more? This means a slight slim-down?! #omg-optimized! :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2025
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
Minix is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with microkernels. After decades unable to support more than one platform. Fucking slow.
Bad accounting on your part. No Christmas present for you this year.

Minix is a university research project. Like so many of these, it suffers from the lack of excellent students who can be exploited over the needed long period of time. That has nothing to do with a micro kernel.


yes it has. There is only one microkernel which really worked well - QNX.
And VMS.


really? wikipedia says monolithic.
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

energyman76b wrote:
wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
Minix is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with microkernels. After decades unable to support more than one platform. Fucking slow.
Bad accounting on your part. No Christmas present for you this year.

Minix is a university research project. Like so many of these, it suffers from the lack of excellent students who can be exploited over the needed long period of time. That has nothing to do with a micro kernel.


yes it has. There is only one microkernel which really worked well - QNX.
And VMS.


really? wikipedia says monolithic.
That would not be the first Wakopedia article written by a bunch of idiots. The whole OS kernel of VMS is a large set of execlets, each doing one small part of what a monolitihic kernel does. I have the source code listings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rtomek
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 210
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a hard enough time getting the electronics recyclers to take those off of my hands, why anyone here cares is beyond me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 3601
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
Amaranatha wrote:
A microkernel design will have a hard time providing CMPXCHG on processors that lack it.
Why is that?

Kind of hard to emulate something that's atomic with something that's not (try making an atom with atoms? huh?). I think they were getting something close by doing something really slow, but on a slow machine it makes it even slower... and it's STILL not "correct".

As much as the loss of i386 support pains me, I think it's time to go... Glibc already went away from it...
I haven't read any information about the support drop, is it solely due to not having atomic instructions for mutual exclusion?
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed to be advocating?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2025
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
Minix is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with microkernels. After decades unable to support more than one platform. Fucking slow.
Bad accounting on your part. No Christmas present for you this year.

Minix is a university research project. Like so many of these, it suffers from the lack of excellent students who can be exploited over the needed long period of time. That has nothing to do with a micro kernel.


yes it has. There is only one microkernel which really worked well - QNX.
And VMS.


really? wikipedia says monolithic.
That would not be the first Wakopedia article written by a bunch of idiots. The whole OS kernel of VMS is a large set of execlets, each doing one small part of what a monolitihic kernel does. I have the source code listings.


and all those 'Execlets' run in userspace, completely independent from each other?`
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

energyman76b wrote:
and all those 'Execlets' run in userspace, completely independent from each other?`
Why should they all run in "userspace"? Sounds like you only read a bit about unix in Computerbild. VMS utilises 4 (four) modes, namely the user mode, supervisor mode, executive mode, and kernel mode.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2025
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
and all those 'Execlets' run in userspace, completely independent from each other?`
Why should they all run in "userspace"? Sounds like you only read a bit about unix in Computerbild. VMS utilises 4 (four) modes, namely the user mode, supervisor mode, executive mode, and kernel mode.


ok, and all those 'execlets' run in the same kernel mode or outside of it? because if they and the kernel run in the same 'mode' or 'space' then vms is not a true microkernel.
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eccerr0r wrote:
Kind of hard to emulate something that's atomic with something that's not (try making an atom with atoms? huh?). I think they were getting something close by doing something really slow, but on a slow machine it makes it even slower... and it's STILL not "correct".
The i386 has btc, btr, and bts. These are atomic instructions on a single-processor system. On a multi-processor system you would have to use lock as additional prefix. The i386 instruction xchg also works fine, which implies a lock. What is your problem?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum