Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Nukes 386 Support

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the upgrade-time dept.

Upgrades 464

sfcrazy writes with news that Linus pulled a patch by Ingo Molnar to remove support for the 386 from the kernel. From Ingo's commit log: "Unfortunately there's a nostalgic cost: your old original 386 DX33 system from early 1991 won't be able to boot modern Linux kernels anymore. Sniff." Linus adds: "I'm not sentimental. Good riddance."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dammit (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42260815)

I'm forking Linux right now to support this under-appreciated processor.

Re:Dammit (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42260935)

If you HAVE a 386, don't you also REALLY want a pre-2.0 kernel, anyway? :-)

Re:Dammit (5, Funny)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#42261139)

If you HAVE a 386, don't you also REALLY want a pre-2.0 kernel, anyway? :-)

Real men run .99, and wait 16 hours for their kernel to compile.

(Of course, that was 1/4 the time it took X to compile ...)

Re:Dammit (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42261327)

XMKMF

Sounds like an insult. :-)

Re:Dammit (0)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42261463)

If a Raspberry Pi can run the latest distro, why can't a machine with eight times as much RAM, disk space, etc. run the exact same thing?

This is a joke, a complete betrayal by a man who ought to know better then to piss off all the people who put him where he is today. There's a REASON why some of us choose Linux over Windows (or should I say "chose"?)

Re:Dammit (3, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#42261121)

You would have a really hard time maintaining it. The stuff that was removed allows them to change a whole mess of things that will become incompatible to backport from

Time to fork (5, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42260819)

I'll fork the kernal and keep the 386 dream alive, just as soon as the checkout is complete on my blazing fast 28.8k modem.

Re:Time to fork (4, Funny)

Parker Lewis (999165) | about 2 years ago | (#42260835)

Wait for Debian. They'll make a manifest complaining about that.

Re:Time to fork (4, Informative)

Trevelyan (535381) | about 2 years ago | (#42260919)

See: http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=linux-image [debian.org]

Debian dropped i386 kernel images a very long time ago; the lowest you can go is 486.
Annoying for me is, that they also dropped i686 without pae. Meaning for my AMD Geodes I either have to roll my own or install 486.

Re:Time to fork (1)

Parker Lewis (999165) | about 2 years ago | (#42261073)

I was joking, man.

Geode (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | about 2 years ago | (#42261413)

I'm running a Debian 686-pae kernel on a Geode NX without problems. It seems the Geode LX doesn't support pae though.

Fond Memories (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42260825)

I remember furiously masturbating to low resolution pornography on my 386.

640x480 is perfectly wankable if you ask me...

Which nobody does.

Why don't you call me anymore??

Re:Fond Memories (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42260911)

16 colors? the real stuff was either 320x200 256 color, or ASCII.

Re:Fond Memories (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261013)

Monochrome FTW.

Re:Fond Memories (4, Funny)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 2 years ago | (#42261053)

ASCII porn on the line printer.

Re:Fond Memories (5, Funny)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#42261245)

ASCII porn on the line printer.

Don't knock it, man... it was good practice for not being a two pump chump with the ladies. When it takes 15 minutes of watching the paper scroll to get to the good part, you learned to take your time ...

Re:Fond Memories (5, Funny)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#42260991)

Surely that must have been Debian does Dallas :)

Re:Fond Memories (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 2 years ago | (#42261265)

Somebody boo this man!

Re:Fond Memories (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261277)

Seriously. I started fapping to CGA porn in the 1200bps BBS days. That's 320x200 in 4 colors from a pallet of 16. Kids today, you have no idea how good you have it!

Re:Fond Memories (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#42261501)

Ah, the JMIS series of jpegs. Where are you, baby? I've looked all over for you...

What was the last version which actually did? (3, Insightful)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 2 years ago | (#42260839)

Which kernel version was the last to actually run on a real 80386?

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (3, Insightful)

FreonTrip (694097) | about 2 years ago | (#42260917)

I think 2.4 was the last safe bet for 386's, but the mainline support for that terminated about seven years ago. All things considered, the 386 had a pretty fucking good run.

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (4, Informative)

FreonTrip (694097) | about 2 years ago | (#42261015)

Ack, I was wrong: according to this handy timeline, [wikipedia.org] the last release was 2.4.37 at the very beginning of 2011. Were one to roll his own distribution and cross-compile, you could still make a surprisingly modern Linux run on a 386...

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (1)

harrkev (623093) | about 2 years ago | (#42261099)

So, how many 386 computers actually have enough RAM to handle a modern kernel?

The size of the kernel had certainly bloated with module & stuff. Yes, I am aware that you COULD custom-compile a kernel with just what you need, but would that even fit in 32Mb RAM (probably a pretty good amount of memory when the 386 was king)?

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#42261177)

My 386 has 4mb of RAM and no math coprocessor. No Linux on this thing.

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261319)

I had a 386/40 with 8MB and got it to run two instances of Quake with heavy swapping in Linux. I think it even got 30 seconds per frame since it was using an emulated math coprocessor.

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 years ago | (#42261181)

32MB? That was a pretty good amount of memory when Pentium was king.

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261471)

My dual pentium MMX box featured 128MB of memory. I think there is a FreeBSD 3.0 hibernating on it.

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261259)

Of course you could. One of my current Linux installations runs on about 32 megabit RAM (i.e. 4MB), with a whole bunch of security features in the kernel (grsecurity etc). If I recall correctly, it runs a 3.6 kernel too.

Re:What was the last version which actually did? (2)

FreonTrip (694097) | about 2 years ago | (#42261379)

I think most nice 386 'boards maxed out at 16 MB RAM, which would have been garishly expensive in the late '80s to early '90s. You'd have to pare a modern kernel down until you sweated blood just to make a command-line install squeeze into that space without paging out to swap... As has been suggested by others, the 2.4 kernel was probably the last realistic choice, and some would argue that going further back would be wise.

Bearded UNIX admin: (5, Funny)

mattytee (1395955) | about 2 years ago | (#42260843)

"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer."

Re:Bearded UNIX admin: (0)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#42261057)

Not so fully bearded embedded technician: Not everything that runs Linux is a general-purpose computer.

Re:Bearded UNIX admin: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261251)

Whatever embedded device you run from 1991, it's highly unlikey that you need to run a 2012 linux on it.

Re:Bearded UNIX admin: (1, Interesting)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#42261409)

The last original 80386 from Intel was made in 2007.

Re:Bearded UNIX admin: (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#42261317)

However you have better imbedded options then the 386. There isn't anything stopping you from using an older version of the kernel... Which will probably run a lot better anyways.

Re:Bearded UNIX admin: (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 2 years ago | (#42261455)

If you're running Linux on an embedded machine, odds are it won't even be able to run a 3.x kernel.

Re:Bearded UNIX admin: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261239)

One of my favs from 1995 Dilbert http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-06-24/

Now I Want... (2)

dmacleod808 (729707) | about 2 years ago | (#42260853)

A 486 with ethernet just for IRC. Since it is now my last vestiges of nostalgia for 1992 since my 386 wont work. Sans modem of course.

Re:Now I Want... (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#42260963)

It's ok give it a few years there will be an i386 Ubuntu emulator just like there are speccy & C64 emulators now :)

Oh well. (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#42260857)

No big deal. I'll just keep the i386 CPUs at the current kernel version anyway. It's not like it needs to be bleeding edge anyway. My new embedded CPU boards are 486+/PowerPC/ARM anyway, so this is just a minor inconvenience.

Re:Oh well. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#42260907)

A 2.4 kernel is probably a more appropriate candidate for a 386 anyway.

Re:Oh well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261035)

If you needed to be bleeding edge, you'd never want to be seen anywhere near that 386.

Re:Oh well. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#42261459)

My new embedded CPU boards are 486+

Genuine 486 or the rather more modern Vortex86?

And the Linux Community responds (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42260867)

And the Linux Community responds with a resounding... "meh".

Re:And the Linux Community responds (1)

dow (7718) | about 2 years ago | (#42261529)

So long as it still works on my Amiga...

On noes! The satellites! (1)

Dysan2k (126022) | about 2 years ago | (#42260877)

If I remember correctly, don't quite a few sats run on i386 and i486 procs? They'll fall from the skies in protest! Oh noes!!

Realistically speaking, I'm kind of glad to see it go. Especially if they have been having to make things overly complex trying to retain backwards compatibility.

Re:On noes! The satellites! (4, Insightful)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 2 years ago | (#42260943)

Especially if they have been having to make things overly complex trying to retain backwards compatibility.

Now, see... if he'd just gone and written a microkernel in ther first place, we could support multiple processor architectures with a single codetree anyway....

Re:On noes! The satellites! (5, Funny)

Tarlus (1000874) | about 2 years ago | (#42261105)

Tanenbaum, is that you?

Re:On noes! The satellites! (2)

harrkev (623093) | about 2 years ago | (#42261151)

Now, see... if he'd just gone and written a microkernel in ther first place, we could support multiple processor architectures with a single codetree anyway....

Well, Linus went with a monolithic kernel, but others already HAVE made a microkernel. Every heard of Hurd? I understand that, after only 20 years of development, it will go stable any year now.

Re:On noes! The satellites! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261509)

Ever heard of MINIX? It's been stable for about 15 years now.

No point supporting i386 anyway (4, Informative)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | about 2 years ago | (#42260885)

No point supporting i386 anyway
As far as I'm aware, GNU binutils won't work on anything less than a 486

I guess you could be affected if you're using some other toolchain, but realistically is pointless keeping support for 386

Re:No point supporting i386 anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261095)

But doesn't supporting 486 systems mean that it will run on 386 automagically too? I thought that was the whole point of the x86 system that things compiled for a higher x can run on lower x too. Or wait, maybe that is backwards and higher ones can run lower x86s.

Re:No point supporting i386 anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261125)

1) binutils supports i386
So the assertion that it does not is incorrect

2) i386 ceased production in 2007
It turns out that it was still used in embedded systems

3) There is little difference between i386 and i486 architecturally. If you are going to dispense with i386, why not phase out i486?
The i486 production ceased in 2007, too. The Pentium was introduced in 1993 and offered significant architectual improvements/changes. Maybe Pentium should be the baseline for kernel support.

Nostalgia (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#42260893)

My first server was a 386sx16 with 4MB of memory - sad Gothmolly is sad.

Re:Nostalgia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261453)

Third person loser is a loser

Fucking sellout (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42260895)

More and more linux sellouts these days. Now even Torvalds is a sellout. Ubuntu, Red Hat. All sellouts.

Re:Fucking sellout (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261193)

I know i shouldn't feed the troll but, how exactly are Linus and Red Hat sellouts? Red hat makes a for-pay distro, they're making money, good for them. Linus? I don't even see it

So... (1)

x0d (2506794) | about 2 years ago | (#42260913)

The patch was from Igno or Ingo?

Ingo rants is bliss (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42260953)

...must...resist...Ingo rants...joke...

Re:So... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42261031)

Inigo maybe?

You killed my father...

Re:So... (1)

dayjn (942897) | about 2 years ago | (#42261567)

Inigo maybe? You killed my father...

Prepare to die! Good one, man :-)

Re:So... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261111)

Ultimately, Allah.

Silicon (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#42260923)

By the way, I believe that the 387 math coprocessor has been axed on the 64-bit side of the processors and SSE2 is explicitly used for mathematics there instead.

Going further, I wonder if it is possible to rip the 32-bit parts completely away from the silicon at some point?

Re:Silicon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261081)

x87 is still supported in silicon, it's the software conventions that have changed. It's not worth the effort and incompatibility to remove the 16- and 32-bit parts, so they'll stay for the foreseeable future.

Re:Silicon (1)

kasperd (592156) | about 2 years ago | (#42261149)

Going further, I wonder if it is possible to rip the 32-bit parts completely away from the silicon at some point?

Do you want that to happen before or after ripping out the 16-bit parts? Even the latest 64-bit CPUs boot up in 16-bit mode. As far as I recall you still need 32-bit mode because there isn't support for switching directly from 16-bit mode to 64-bit mode.

Are there any AMD64 (or compatible) CPUs, which can be powered on directly in 64-bit mode? Supporting that would be the first step towards getting 16-bit and 32-bit modes out of the CPUs.

Re:Silicon (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about 2 years ago | (#42261395)

As far as I know, Coreboot (open source bios) comes close, but it does seem you are correct that it is a processor problem.

http://www.coreboot.org/Benefits [coreboot.org]

Rad-hardened processors? (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#42260937)

Aren't there high-reliability, or radiation-hardened versions of old designs that still need to run, out there?

Wouldn't they want to retain Linux compatibility? Or do these people use different OSs?

Re:Rad-hardened processors? (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | about 2 years ago | (#42260985)

There are. But how many of them desperately need to run a 3.7 kernel?

Re:Rad-hardened processors? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42261025)

They don't need a bleeding edge kernel.
On that kind of hardware you would be running 2.4 or older.

That terminal emulator... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#42260951)

...so, does that mean that Linus isn't using that terminal emulator for that 386 of his anymore? :-)

Historical significance (5, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | about 2 years ago | (#42260965)

The historical significance of this of course is that Linux was originally written to specifically target the 80386, and it was written with the 386 with *no* portability in mind. So it no longer supports the CPU it was originally written for.

Re:Historical significance (2)

Gary Perkins (1518751) | about 2 years ago | (#42261123)

True, but I think it's amazing they maintained backward-compatibility for this long, considering how far removed hardware architecture has gone compared to the 1980s.

Re:Historical significance (2)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 2 years ago | (#42261237)

MS only fully dropped support in Server 2008

Re:Historical significance (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#42261217)

This isn't surprising or a new practice. BeOS originally targeted AT&T Hobbit processors. OSX was PowerPC.

Re:Historical significance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261443)

Not sure about BeOS, but OS X descended from NeXTStep which WAS available for IA32 and is based on Mach + BSD both of which are available for multiple architectures. The original Linux code didn't make a lot of use of x86-specific features that are not present on other architectures, there are much better examples of OSes that are not portable, mostly pre-NT Microsoft OSes, e.g. DOS, Windows 9x and OS/2.
And just because an OS is not maintained for a platform doesn't mean it is impossible or particularly difficult. To this day NT remains portable but Microsoft just doesn't bother to maintain a port for irrelevant architectures. E.g. when ARM started to become more and more popular the guys in Redmond were quick to bring their OS to it.

Re:Historical significance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261307)

TFA apparently said Intel stopped production in 2007. Not sure where those chips went though.

Re:Historical significance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261481)

Space. The last running 386 production line ran so long because it was making the space hardened & certified processors.

Tsk Tsk Tsk (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | about 2 years ago | (#42260967)

That's not the only machine that you've broken with that mistake ... think it through. What else depends on this version?

Re:Tsk Tsk Tsk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261551)

That's not the only machine that you've broken with that mistake ... think it through. What else depends on this version?

The eight people who studiously maintain the 80386 servers which require this can maintain their own damn kernel. In fact, since they've presumably been maintaining that processor for that many years, if they DON'T know their way around the processor architecture and OS enough, given all the other concessions they've had to make just to keep it going, then they're doing their job wrong.

No0o0o0o0o0o0o0o !!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42260969)

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

"Filter error: Too much repetition." is not an error now.

Embeded systems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261033)

I think there may be some embedded systems kicking around that still use 386. Some might even still be sold today! But they're probably running a custom 2.0.x kernel, if anything. (Nice, tiny memory footprint) So, forked codebase anyway.

Pfff. 386DX. Decadence! Real men use the FPU emulator.

Linux for embedded applications (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261069)

Linux is becoming the de facto os for embedded applications.

"Linux has been ported to a variety of CPUs which are not only primarily used as the processor of a desktop or server computer, but also ARM, AVR32, ETRAX CRIS, FR-V, H8300, IP7000, m68k, MIPS, mn10300, SuperH, and Xtensa processors, It is also used as an alternative to using a proprietary operating system and toolchain." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_Linux [wikipedia.org]

This latest development means the 386 will join the club of CPUs for which Linux is ported rather than native.

Anyone in the world affected at all? (3, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | about 2 years ago | (#42261083)

I'm trying to figure out if any user, worldwide, would be affected by this.

As pointed out in another comment, there aren't very many applications that will work. If anyone, worldwide, is using it as a desktop OS, they probably are on an older kernel anyway.

As for embedded systems : since new 386 CPUs have not been produced in 5 years, there's not anyone who would be designing a new embedded system that will use a recent kernel. There's old systems deployed in the field - but why would anyone try to upgrade an old embedded system to a new OS and kernel? A good embedded system is supposed to be reliable and simple enough it needs only minor bug fixes throughout it's deployed lifespan.

Re:Anyone in the world affected at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261189)

I know for a fact that a nearby paper mill is still using 386 desktop boards in some of its proprietary equipment controllers -- I sold them two boards I still had in storage a couple of years ago. While I am sure the software they run is some sort of *nix derivative, I am equally certain that it hasn't been updated in about ten years.

Re:Anyone in the world affected at all? (4, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#42261269)

I'm pretty sure there will be no one affected. When I tried getting linux running on a real 486, it was pretty close to impossible with every distribution that claimed 486 support. I'm guessing they test on qemu (486 emulation seems to emulate something more than a real 486). Not one of the maintainers seemed to care. I might add, Debian was the only actual linux to work.

oh Linus you so funny (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261205)

Didn't FreeBSD dump this a long long long time ago?

Does Linux support ISA/EISA/MCA busses still too?
Can modern Linux even run in 64MB of ram?
Linus silly dismissal of nostalgia is to hide the fact that he should have eliminated it a LONG time ago

Re:oh Linus you so funny (2)

nielsm (1616577) | about 2 years ago | (#42261495)

As far as I know, ISA is still used for some legacy hardware, e.g. PS/2 keyboard, PC speaker, floppy controller, but it's almost purely conceptual by now. The ISA bus might not even exist outside a single chip (e.g. SuperIO controller.) I don't know about MCA, but I think that was only on some 386 and 486 IBMs, so that would certainly be irrelevant to have in by now.

Just 386? (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#42261209)

My understanding was that the 486 was architecturally very similar.

What is the new absolute minimum spec for Linux?

Re:Just 386? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261363)

8086, 400kb RAM - use ELKS [sourceforge.net] .

Re:Just 386? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261449)

Wrong: there are more differences between 386 and 486 than between 486 and first Pentium (not MMX).
The most serious differences are, no WP bit in 386, which introduces security holes in any multithreaded program, only global TLB flush on 386 (vs. INVLPG instruction), no byte swap on 386 (bswap, heavily used in networking code).

The Pentium is basically two 486 in parallel wit a beefier FPU. The big architectural change was then the PPro, which is not that different from the latest core-i7 actualy (there are differences but the instruction flow is not that different, the only very different x86 processor from Intel has been the toaster, I mean the P4).

Who has best driver support? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261221)

It's often claimed that Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system. Removing support for old hardware makes me dubious of that claim. It runs on so many platforms: Sparc, MIPS, ARM, you name it. 386 is version 1 of ia32, and if that's too hard to support, I wonder if the captain and first-officer, both, aren't asleep at the wheel.

Sadly, Linux's reputation as being for enthusiats and hobbyists is re-inforced, once more. It's not a good look.

David Newall

How old can you go? (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 2 years ago | (#42261261)

What's the oldest system anyone has that's still in use?

I've got a Dell Dimension XPS Pro 200n that's been going nearly 24/7 since the late 90s, shut down only to move locations. It hosts a Citadel BBS for a small group of old timers. I replaced the hard drive last year when it started making alarming noises and crashing randomly but everything else is original. Some day soon, I'm going to virtualize it and find a cheap host. Of course, I've been saying that for over a year.

386 dead, but 80 chars untouchable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261365)

Since Linux isn't "sentimental" and monitors are now (even on laptops) supposed to be "huge", can we finally move into the modern era and end the 80 character limit in kernel code?

It's funny how some dinosaurs get to live and others HAVE to die.

I wonder if this could affect general stability. (2)

vovick (1397387) | about 2 years ago | (#42261393)

Apart from getting rid of obsolete code, you also get rid of an additional target architecture that could potentially reveal certain bugs and implicit assumptions in the platform-independent part of the kernel that do not fire up on other architectures. That said, I have virtually no experience with the kernel and I have no idea whether this argument makes any bit of sense with the code in question.

Re:I wonder if this could affect general stability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261565)

I doubt it would ever make a difference. As far as I know, i386 and it's successors are much more forgiving with compiled code and portability issues than almost all other architectures. It has to do with things like unaligned accesses and in-order I/O, which always work on i386, but not so with certain ARM variants and others.

I assume the complexity they're talking about here is to do with register-level bits and control registers specific to i386 for various synchronization and IPC primitives. The i486 would have added more powerful/flexible system-control registers and features to make all of this stuff less hackish.

Feeling nostalgic but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261445)

My first Linux linux install was on a 386 DX 20. I think it has 50 3.5 diskettes,It ran as a server for 2 years until the end of my first company.

ground control to major tom (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | about 2 years ago | (#42261461)

oh noes, how are we supposed to get nasa to adopt linux over VxWorks now?

I'll say this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261473)

If you are running a kernel so old, you really don't have to worry about attacks. Who would think anyone would still be running a 386 machine with linux?

Mr. Linus doth protest too much? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42261527)

Every second missive from our dear leader seems to underline how little sentimentality he has or, conversely, how single-mindedly he is focused on practicality. Either he is a heartless bastard (which isn't impossible given the cruel tone of some of his public talks, especially his infamous Git talk at Google), or he is a soft-hearted mope trying to cover up, probably to gain approval from his father.

Either way, I don't trust a person who says 'good riddance' to the processor that started him out in life.

But would you really want to? (2)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#42261541)

Considering the limited resources of such old hardware and resource requirements of newer software.... it is better to stay with lightweight older versions of Linux or other OS's to keep these systems in use. One such OS might be AROS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?