[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for
some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine.  But its
not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently
installed 32 bit application has a problem.

But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus,
and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.

How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff in the
repos and install it.

All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for
non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at
least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.

Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64

I would do a backup-wipe-install-restore cycle.  (Yes, I'm predictable.)

I typically grab CD 1 with my desktop of choice, installing or leaving out the desktop as desired when installing on a given computer:


For those who prefer KDE or LXDE:



I believe the standard CD 1 defaults to Gnome 3:


Of course, if you have a local cache for packages, the net installer saves bandwidth and might age better:


I'm curious about "2 new drives". What's the intended purpose of the machine? What drive(s) are already installed? Any spares on the shelf? And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?


Reply to: