Re: ..when to scrap old junk, was: old machine wheezy vs apt
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:18:16PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:10:38 +0100, Dom wrote in message
> <[🔎] 4F8D79DE.20208@rpdom.net>:
>
> > On 16/04/12 21:34, Aleksandar Kostadinov wrote:
> > > To anybody interested, debian wheezy can't run on 64MB RAM on i386.
> > > Or actually it can run but package management is unusable so all
> > > debian benefits are actually lost.
Hmmm.... I have not tried recently but Debian i386 was for 486 or newer
for good long time.
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en#id583669
| However, Debian GNU/Linux squeeze will not run on 386 or earlier
| processors. Despite the architecture name "i386", support for actual
| 80386 processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge (r3.1)
| release of Debian[2]. (No version of Linux has ever supported the 286 or
| earlier chips in the series.) All i486 and later processors are still
| supported[3].
...
| [2] We have long tried to avoid this, but in the end it was necessary
| due a unfortunate series of issues with the compiler and the kernel,
| starting with an bug in the C++ ABI provided by GCC. You should still be
| able to run Debian GNU/Linux on actual 80386 processors if you compile
| your own kernel and compile all packages from source, but that is beyond
| the scope of this manual.
| [3] Many Debian packages will actually run slightly faster on modern
| computers as a positive side effect of dropping support for these old
| chips. The i486, introduced in 1989, has three opcodes (bswap, cmpxchg,
| and xadd) which the i386, introduced in 1986, did not have. Previously,
| these could not be easily used by most Debian packages; now they can.
This is not RAM size issue but CPU code compatibility issue.
> > > I tried pulling the .deb files on another machine, then transfer to
> > > the old machine. But dpkg is killed on 95% reading database (I think
> > > OOM killer). It fails even if I try to install 1 package.
So install Woddy (r3.0) from old archive ...
Reply to: