Re: real-i386 (was Re: i386 requalification for etch)
Em Qui, 2005-11-03 às 21:39 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> At Thu, 3 Nov 2005 02:38:51 -0800 (PST), Nick Jacobs wrote:
> > You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a significant amount of
> > work should be done to restore support for a processor that has not
> > been manufactured for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance
> > for the 99.99999% of x86 users who have Pentium/Athlon/or better?
> Why not supporting it, if it is not so hard?
I think i386 debian arch is not suitable anymore for real-i386 machines
(self-experience), I mean, it's not suitable even for a Pentium 133 with
32 Mb RAM. Ok, I know it works, but it's a waste of memory and CPU
cycles to run a full glibc-based distro in such restrictive
> This is important for the small hobbits that love to tinker old
> hardware. I have 2 i386 machines and I don't plan to throw them
> away. I am quite confident that the users of powerful and shiny new
> machines won't suffer much.
That applies to me. I have a 486 laptop (ok, its support wasn't
discontinued) and I'd really love to see debian in it. But it's just not
IMHO, the debian x86 arch (currently i386, which is a naming error),
could be promoted even to newer a newer hardware (I don't know much on
this stuff, so I really don't have a clue if using i686 would break
compatibility with other CPUs).
Now, trying to sell my fish, I think uclibc-based architectures could
address this problem much better than the regular x86 debian. Currently,
I'm naming it i386-uclibc, but we could see a future where the current
i386 is renamed to i86 and i386-uclibc renamed to i386.
So, I would state it as: "Want your 386/486/pentium I running Debian?
help the i386-uclibc port" :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
 The effort on the i386-uclibc port is hosted at