Re: 32 versus 64 bit reading list suggestions

[deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com>]

Andrew Cater wrote:

> In reality - there's very little hardware newer than ten years old that's
> economic to run - x86_6r4 has been around for long enough that 64 bit
> hardware is cheap. The overhead of compiling _pure_ 32 bit is significant
> to keep going. It's not for nothing that Debian's 32 bit target has
> gradually moved from 386 to 586 to 686 - an early Geode is probably at the
> very end of its support lifestyle. pretty much everything else other than
> Debian has dropped full 32 bit support. It will be there for Bullseye but
> that will almost certainly be the last.
> 
> Ubuntu has already dropped 32 bit support once, reintroduced very limited
> support and it will probably go again. Maybe not before time - the laptop
> I'm typing this on is eight years old or so, the sort of thing you'd pull
> from a junk pile, has been rescued by adding a cheap SSD and ran 32 bit
> Windows originally. It's equivalent can probaby be picked up off the back
> shelf in any computer recycling shop.

Not good news from you - the hardware is good it consumes ~10Watt and works
perfectly. It might be I setup a local repository. The packages I use are
not hard to compile.
I understand the explanation, but this is industry grade hardware - I doubt
that it will break in the next 10y. As for productivity I do not see what
more I could want to have.
I looked recently for replacement, but newer hardware costs too much and
consumes slightly more power. OF course it's productivity might be much
higher, but it would be an overhead in the case here.

Thank you for the information anyway. It is very appreciated.

regards