What architecture do you run Slackware on ? (for proposed switch to i686)
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: What architecture do you run Slackware on ?
i486
8
4.57%
i586
16
9.14%
i686
95
54.29%
x86_64
122
69.71%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 175. You may not vote on this poll
Interesting poll, but I suspect the results are skewed in favour of x86_64 and the newer processors. I imagine that there are many x86_64 users who drop by linuxquestions quite frequently (to catch up on flashplayer and other compatibility issues etc) and would see the poll. I can also imagine that there are i486 workhorses out there whose owners have less reason to keep up with the latest news, and dare I say it, don't participate regularly on this forum.
Hare you saying that a Slackware recompiled with i686 optimization will have the same performance?
No, I am saying that it is pointless for Slackware to add another 32-bit version of the distro. It adds nothing of value and only takes away precious time in maintaining it.
IMHO, compiling Slackware for i686 instead of i486 makes complete sense. It would improve performance a bit for i686 users, an architecture supported by most computers out there, and i[45]86 users would still have older Slackware releases that are still maintained. However, it's simply not the time to do it. It could have been done a few years ago, but now it makes no sense. Today we're sold x86_64 machines and an x86_64 version of Slackware exists, which improves performance much further. If you want performance and taking full advantage of your architecture, use that version. If performance is not your worry, the difference between i486 and i686 is so small that the advantage of knowing the distribution will run on almost any 32-bit machine you could find today surpasses the benefits of rebuilding the system, even if at incremental steps, for i686. Not worth the effort. If Slackware64 didn't exist, things would be different, but it's not the case anymore.
IMO it is rather pointless to bother. It is just as rg3 says, if you want performance you should be running Slackware for x86_64.
If you need Wine to play World of Warcraft, but refuse to go multilib on Slackware64, then just install Slackware 32-bit. You will certainly have a PC that is beefy enough that you do not have to be bothered with performance gains when march=i686 is applied.
if you want performance you should be running Slackware for x86_64.
But to get the top performance, you might then want special Slackware distributions compiled with -march=nocona or -march=core2, depending on whether your 64-bit intel processor is a p4 or something newer. In addition, you would need three different distributions for 64-bit AMD cpus. Hmm...
But to get the top performance, you might then want special Slackware distributions compiled with -march=nocona or -march=core2, depending on whether your 64-bit intel processor is a p4 or something newer. In addition, you would need three different distributions for 64-bit AMD cpus. Hmm...
Thanks for showing how pointless the exercise is :-)
Maintaining even more versions of the same distro is not going to pay for Pat's daily bread. Sales of Slackware is not going to rise but the required effort will double.
I generally compile my own glibc which is i686-optimized
and usually set properly optimized cflags in my slackbuilds, not to mention that I compile my own kernels, which I usually distribute to relatives -some of them quite capable to compile a kernel, but too lazy to do it. So in the end we have a Slackware-based distro at home. (I changed the penguin logo with the Slack logo... couldn't resist... )
This is why I love Slackware! Let's face it -- I don't notice any speed difference in actually using apps when testing out other i686 distros than with stock x86 Slack. A "slightly" faster boot and ten-second faster shutdown (on Ubuntu & Trisquel) doesn't impress me at all. And look at what you have to go through to get that. I mean...ech.
There's nothing (other than knowledge) stopping anyone from recompiling for i686. It will preserve Pat&Company's precious resource of Time and everybody Gets What They Want without having to go all LFS.
As far as antique hardware...my dad used my original 1983 IBM PC (with the 8088 proc and 64k ram) to do his monthly rental house invoices as recently as late 2007. Never replaced the cmos battery (yet) or anything -- which is really amazing.
(I can just imagine some guy with a VAX 11/730 in his basement waiting to top this post.)
It does DNS and SMTP. It was also my router and firewall for a long time, but it can't keep up with network throughput anymore. Plus, my internet connection is 14Mb, and the only two ISA NICs I have are only 10Mb.
The hard drive is backed up, and it's on its third or fourth drive. The BIOS can't even address 20% of the drive, but it doesn't really need to. The original drive that the system was installed on back in 1999 was only 512MB. Otherwise, it's all 1990s hardware.
It will NEVER run any newer software, except when Sendmail and BIND patches come out, or if somebody ever were to patch the 2.2 kernel again.
Both my desktop and laptop (not my netbook) use AMD Athlon CPUs, 1.2GHz and 1.5GHZ respectively. Both run Slackware 13.1. I know they're old but they still suit my needs and thanks to Slackware and Fluxbox I never feel pressured to upgrade.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.