On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 08:14:43PM -0500, John Morris wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:25 -0500, Don Wright wrote: > > Dragan FOSS wrote: > > >I think it's best to drop 32-bit support at all... it's such a waste of > > >time and resources. > > > > > > As long as you're pruning, kill x64 as well, because the majority of > > computers sold are using ARM architecture and run Android or iOS. > > I think you are joking, but it helps not to confuse the three big forks > > 1. Linux / GNU / X, this is the fork Devuan is on and few Devuan > installs are on ARM. At this late date, there probably aren't many on > x86_32 either. Which is why discussion of eliminating a big chunk or > archive space and compile time will continue to recur until eventually > nobody can muster a good argument for continuing.
I'm still on a 32-bit Intel machine, and given an OS with the fficiency of Devuan, it's perfectly capable of doing what I need. Does this count as an x86_32? If so, I'd be happy with Devuan keeping it for a long time yet. If not, I'd like to know what it *does* count as. hendrik@notlookedfor:~$ uname -a Linux notlookedfor 3.16.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.16.43-2 (2017-04-30) i686 GNU/Linux hendrik@notlookedfor:~$ I'm *thinking* of upgrading, butt until I can get a better laptop that doesn't have significant vulnerabilities baked into the *hardware*, I'd rather keep using what I've got. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
