So it appears that Arch has dropped (or in the process of dropping)

/g/ - Tech Support

>>60816081
probably, unless that particular distro has a very dedicated community or subgroup that needs 32bit support for a serious project, and even then it's iffy

can someone explain to me why we should keep support for 64bit, why haven't everyone moved on?

I haven't had a 32bit system in a decade

>>60816198
>can someone explain to me why we should keep support for 64bit, why haven't everyone moved on?
Good question desu, I've been on x86 bits for at least a decade now.

>>60816198
legacy systems / embedded processors

>>60816081
Yes. Abandon the sinking ship, before it's too late.

>>60816081
Totally sad!

I have mixed feelings about it.

On one hand I see that it's a quite a lot of work for something that is barely a niece these days.

On the other hand I'm a fan of retro computers but it's a just because I think it's kind of fun thing. It's not like I am using a AMD Athlon XP or a Pentium II for anything real or important.. but it's fun to turn those on and see that wow, they actually still work just fine. And you can install the latest GNU/Linux distributions on them. Sure, some things are a bit.. slow with a 20 year old single-core CPU and a whopping 1 GB RAM but X and XFCE4 actually run just fine.

>>60816370
I guess there is still debian, ubuntu (and friends), fedora and opensuse. But how long until these distros ultimately drop 32bit support as well?

>The [multilib] repository will not be affected by this change
Wow it's fucking nothing

>>60816757
I'm talking about older x86 machines not 32bit backwards compatibility in 64bit environments.

>>60816198
My thinkpad x60 won't work without 32 bit parabola.

>>60816611
There will always be a Linux os that does. Someone will fork Debian and put it 32 bit if they announce they're dropping supp

>>60817864
>Debian
>ever dropping x86 support
Honestly Debian is so ancient as it is, that I would believe you if you said that Debian didn't get x86-64 support until Jesse

Yes why do you still have a 32 bit machine?

>>60816611
ubuntu is dropping it too or so some say

>>60819149
Good we need to get away from 32 bit

>>60816214
What retard would use Arch on an embedded system? It's far from lightweight.

>>60819737
Compared to what?

>>60820210
Puppy linux
Cent os
A properly setup gently

>>60820257
Puppy lighter than Arch... Stop reading there.

>>60820210
>>60820257
Or even a minimal Debian install

>>60820267
No. Minimal Arch is lighter than minimal Debian.

>>60816611
I'm completely sure that debian won't drop 32bit support ever

>>60816081
install gentoo

>>60820210
Use buildroot

>>60820275
it's really not
with ubuntu's network installer you end up with something like a gig in / , 25mb tty ram , 50mb in i3

File: a.png (6KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 640x480px

>>60820507
and not in arch?

not the same person, and i DO agree arch packages are typically bigger than debian ones, however, they're not equivalent
if you use the things that come with arch packages by default, then you would do the same in debian as well, equalling themselves out
and the base/core installations are about the same 'weight'

however, >>60820275 is wrong, they can be equivalent, but debian offers more flexibility on the matter, and can be lighter, depending on what packages one uses

pic related, minimal arch installation example. note that linux itself is the largest thing here, and a custom build cutting out most of the firmwares and modules will greatly reduce the space used, both for arch and debian

>>60820296
> I'm completely sure that debian won't drop 32bit support ever
They already dropped older 32bit architectures, so why not the others?
Probably, after the test HWs are gone...
https://m.slashdot.org/story/310977

>>60820507
>>60820840
those are vms, on actual hardware it's double that at least for arch