32bit antiX and kernels

Forum Forums antiX-development Development 32bit antiX and kernels

  • This topic has 20 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated Apr 2-9:52 pm by oops.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #55594
    Forum Admin
    anticapitalistaanticapitalista

    We will still provide 32bit antiX for as long as Debian does (and beyond if we can).
    However, to reduce the workload, I’m planning on cutting back on how many 32 bit kernels to offer.

    If you use 32 bit antiX in any way (installed, frugal, live on a stick), which kernel do you use?

    I’m thinking of dropping support for the 5 series kernel.

    These kernel series will still be supported until they reach end of life (non-pae and pae).

    4.4
    4.9
    4.19

    Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

    antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

    #55599
    Member
    XecureXecure

    We will still provide 32bit antiX for as long as Debian does (and beyond if we can).
    However, to reduce the workload, I’m planning on cutting back on how many 32 bit kernels to offer.

    I no longer have any 32 bits machine alive and working, but I agree with your decision. No new hardware is being released for this architecture, so the already existing kernel version + future bug and security fixes once or twice a year are more than enough. It has been proven that the LTS 4.4 and 4.9 kernel versions work well on these older machines.

    Extra options (like better btrfs implementations) are not really a priority for these old machines. The only thing that people may miss is compatibility with new mobile phones (for USB tethering), but if you can buy a new android 9/10 mobile phone, you can buy a Wireless USB thingy.

    #55600
    Member
    oopsoops

    We will still provide 32bit antiX for as long as Debian does (and beyond if we can).
    However, to reduce the workload, I’m planning on cutting back on how many 32 bit kernels to offer.

    If you use 32 bit antiX in any way (installed, frugal, live on a stick), which kernel do you use?

    I’m thinking of dropping support for the 5 series kernel.

    These kernel series will still be supported until they reach end of life (non-pae and pae).

    4.4
    4.9
    4.19

    Here the 4.9 for frugal install, (and 4.19 or 5.xx on my old eepc)

    #55601
    Member
    AvatarDaveW

    In order to maintain one operating system on my 3 computers, I’m running 32 bit AntiX 17 on all of them.
    I suppose the only one that needs 32 bit is the Asus eeepc 900. The Dell D620 and a formerly Windows 7 Asus laptop could run the 64 bit. Awhile back, I tried to upgrade the D620 from AntiX 17 to 19, but ran into internet connectivity problems, and, to avoid the headache, went back to what was working well for me (v. 17).

    Most of the time, I am using Kernel 4.9.240. It is very stable on all machines.

    However, I occasionally use Kernel 5.8.16, in order to access a Wireguard vpn service. I have seen some instability with the 5.x.xx series Kernels on 32 bit OS system. But typically, it is stable for the first two or three restarts with that kernel. After the fourth restart, the session may lock up for no apparent reason. But a restart with 4.9.xxx fixes that (then, the 5.x.xx kernel will go for another 2 or 3 restarts).

    In any case, the built-in Wireguard capability is my only reason for using 5.x.xx kernels on 32 bit system.

    Thanks for asking for feedback.

    #55602
    Moderator
    christophechristophe

    Using 4.9 on 32-bit, generally.
    Also using the 5.8 from sid runit ISO.
    I’ve been able to use whatever the ISO comes with, then upgrading within the same series, as you supply them.
    I could easily switch from 5.x to 4.x on my sid.

    #55612
    Member
    Avatarseaken64

    I’m using the default kernel that comes with the iso. In the 4.9 series I think.

    Thanks for supporting 32-bit.

    Seaken64

    #55629
    Moderator
    AvatarBobC

    I use the default 4.9.235 or .240 I think and haven’t had problems with them.

    #55642
    Member
    marcelocripemarcelocripe

    If you use 32 bit antiX in any way (installed, frugal, live on a stick), which kernel do you use?

    Answer: Yes, I use 32-bit antiX installed on hard drives a lot.

    The criteria I use for choosing ISO:
    1-For computers / notebooks that have less than 1.5 GB of RAM, the priority is the use of the full 32-bit version.
    2-For computers / notebooks that have more than 1.5 GB of RAM I try to install the full 64-bit version if the processor is 64-bit.
    3-When in the previous attempt it is informed that the processor is not 64-bit, the priority is the use of the full 32-bit version.
    4-When the official 32-bit and 64-bit full versions do not work, due to incompatibility related to the video card (SIS, Via and others), I use the ISO “antiX-19-legacy-bet2_386-base.iso “which was kindly built by Xecure with the 4.4 kernel.
    5-As I still don’t know how to add “kernel” or remove “kernel”, I use the kernel that is available in the ISO.

    We will still provide 32bit antiX for as long as Debian does (and beyond if we can).

    Answer: It is very good to know that 32-bit antiX will still be maintained as long as possible. (Thank you so much!)

    However, to reduce the workload, I’m planning on cutting back on how many 32 bit kernels to offer.

    Answer: About the workload, I was doing some accounts and I don’t know if I got the accounts right … the development team makes it available on the website: https://sourceforge.net/projects/antix-linux/files/Final/antiX -19 / various types of ISOs: sid, runit-sid, runit-buster, 4.19_kernel and sysvinit. Each has the versions: net, core, base and full for 32 bits and 64 bits.

    Would it be possible to reduce the development team’s workload by making fewer full, base, net and core 32-bit versions available and with less types of startup (runit and sysvinit)?

    I use the standard version, but if with runit the consumption of idle RAM is less than in the standard version, then the runit should be better to recover old computers and notebooks with little available RAM.

    I’m thinking of dropping support for the 5 series kernel.

    Question: Will the 5 series kernel work on 32-bit processors?

    I apologize for not having any knowledge of the kernel and the differences between runit and sysvinit. The information on the internet is not all reliable and often biased, which makes it more difficult to clarify my doubts.

    I thank you for antiX and for this forum exist.

    marcelocripe
    (Original text in Brazilian Portuguese)

    ———-

    If you use 32 bit antiX in any way (installed, frugal, live on a stick), which kernel do you use?

    Resposta: Sim, eu utilizo muito o antiX 32 bits instalado em discos rígidos.

    Os critérios que utilizo para a escolha da ISO:
    1-Para os computadores/notebooks que possuem menos de 1,5 GB de RAM, a prioridade é a utilização da versão full de 32 bits.
    2-Para os computadores/notebooks que possuem mais de 1,5 GB de RAM eu tento instalar a versão full de 64 bits se o processador for de 64 bits.
    3-Quando na tentativa anterior é informado que o processador não é de 64 bits, a prioridade é a utilização da versão full de 32 bits.
    4-Quando as versões oficiais de full de 32 bits e de 64 bits não funcionam, devido a incompatibilidade relacionadas a placa de vídeo (SIS, Via e outras), eu utilizo a ISO “antiX-19-legacy-bet2_386-base.iso” que foi gentilmente construída pelo Xecure com o kernel 4.4.
    5-Como eu ainda não sei adicionar “kernel” ou retirar “kernel”, eu utilizo o kernel que é disponibilizado na ISO.

    We will still provide 32bit antiX for as long as Debian does (and beyond if we can).

    Resposta: É muito bom saber que o antiX de 32 bits ainda será mantido o quanto for possível. (Muito Obrigado!)

    However, to reduce the workload, I’m planning on cutting back on how many 32 bit kernels to offer.

    Resposta: Sobre a carga de trabalho, eu estava fazendo algumas contas e não sei se acertei as contas… a equipe de desenvolvimento disponibiliza no site: https://sourceforge.net/projects/antix-linux/files/Final/antiX-19/ vários tipos de ISOs: sid, runit-sid, runit-buster, 4.19_kernel e sysvinit. Cada uma possui as versões: net, core, base e full para 32 bits e para 64 bits.

    Por acaso, uma forma de reduzir a carga de trabalho da equipe de desenvolvimento seria disponibilizar menos versões full, base, net e core de 32 bits e com menos tipos de inicialização (runit e sysvinit)?

    Eu utilizo a versão padrão, mas se com runit o consumo de memória RAM ociosa for menor do que na versão padrão, então a runit deve ser melhor para recuperar computadores e notebooks antigos e com pouca memória RAM disponível.

    I’m thinking of dropping support for the 5 series kernel.

    Pergunta: O kernel da série 5 funcionará em processadores de 32 bits?

    Eu peço desculpas, por eu não possuir conhecimentos sobre kernel e sobre as diferenças entre runit e sysvinit. As informações na internet não são todas confiáveis e muitas vezes tendenciosas, o que torna mais difícil o esclarecimento das minhas dúvidas.

    Eu agradeço pelo antiX e por este fórum existirem.

    marcelocripe
    (Texto original em Português do Brasil)

    #55646
    Member
    Avatarolsztyn

    If you use 32 bit antiX in any way (installed, frugal, live on a stick), which kernel do you use?

    I use 4.19 across all antiX instances, including 32 bit.
    Thanks for continued support on antiX…

    #55655
    Member
    fatmacfatmac

    When I’ve used a 32bit system, 4.19 seemed to be stable, & other distros have been using it too for some time, so I’d suggest that one.

    Linux (& BSD) since 1999

    #55668
    Member
    AvatarRobin

    At the moment I’m on 4.9.240-antix.1-686-smp-pae i686 (32 bit) which seems to be very stable and allows virtualbox modules to work correctly as well as proprietary nvidia drivers. As soon as Noveau driver will have learned to handle the NV6600go correctly I planed to switch to 5.x kernel series (and antiX 19.x).

    I’m thinking of dropping support for the 5 series kernel.

    I don’t think this is a good idea, since support for any 4.x linux kernel (even lts) will end in two years already, referring to kernel.org. I’m sure I’m not the only one not having any 64 bit hardware at all, but some rock stable and really fast 32 bit systems. And I don’t believe this will change for the next 5 to 10 years.
    The main problem with new 64 bit notebooks or mainboards (for desktop) is they won’t have the needed ports and interfaces (e.g. real rs-232, s-video in and out, SCSI, D-SUB-VGA) for all the peripherals in use.
    So I plead not to drop 5.x kernels for 32 bit.

    #55677
    Member
    linuxdaddylinuxdaddy

    On my older 32-bit the 4.9-4.4 kernel run great and newer is on the 5.8-5.10 kernel.
    little need for a 5 series on 32 bit cpus really. they run but use more ram. If have
    an early 64-bit cpu I try to put enough ram to run 5 series and full iso.
    I try to put at least 2gb ram in a 64-bit machine and 512mb ram in a 32-bit

    Normal == 🙂
    depends on the surrounding crowd ?!

    #55684
    Member
    fatmacfatmac

    Robin has a point if kernel.org are planning on dropping the 4 series altogether.

    Linux (& BSD) since 1999

    #55685
    Moderator
    AvatarModdIt

    More info from Kernel.org website. What individual distros such as debian plan or do may be different.
    Considering the fact that there are millions of 32 bit devices still in everday usage, in particular
    in poorer countries or needed for special hardware the timetable is somewhat worrying.

    Sorry about crappy formatting, forum software strikes again.
    Longterm release kernels
    Version__ Maintainer__Released__Projected EOL
    5.10 Greg Kroah-Hartman & Sasha Levin 2020-12-13 Dec, 2022
    5.4 Greg Kroah-Hartman & Sasha Levin 2019-11-24 Dec, 2025
    4.19 Greg Kroah-Hartman & Sasha Levin 2018-10-22 Dec, 2024
    4.14 Greg Kroah-Hartman & Sasha Levin 2017-11-12 Jan, 2024
    4.9 Greg Kroah-Hartman & Sasha Levin 2016-12-11 Jan, 2023
    4.4 Greg Kroah-Hartman & Sasha Levin 2016-01-10 Feb, 2022

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by ModdIt.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by ModdIt.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by ModdIt.
    #55699
    Member
    Avatargreyowl

    I am using kernel 4.9.240 on my Dell Latitude /d600 and D610 32 bit. I am running antiX 19.3. It works well.
    I really appreciate antiX continuing support for 32 bit.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by greyowl.

    Dell Latitude D610 laptop with antiX 19.3 (32 bit)
    Dell Latitude D620 laptop with antiX 19.3 (64 bit)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.