I have only one machine with a 64 bit Slackware, all my other machines run 32 bit, because it's not worth the multilib hassle.

Running Atom CPUs in Long Mode gives no advantage and my other CPUs are not capable (N270, VIA C7, Athlon XP).

In the long run I think before I end in a x86-64 only world, I may have already completely switched over to ARM (while keeping some legacy stuff around). There are interesting new developments in this area, so it's very possible in the future, that I won't buy MS-secure-booted UEFI PCs anymore (to run Slackware on them).

Alien Bob, you said:

But earlier today started this by:

How can you just decide that it is not going away when you have been thinking for some time that no one uses 32-bit architecture anymore? Supporting something no one uses would be a waste of time.

Then you just said:

So if I can pull out any reason now, you may be wanting to keep 32-bit slackware to allow us to run virtual machines without any other thought that people were still using it in hardware?

Also, it was very odd you referenced the question on dropping i486 compilation for i686 as a reason to drop 32-bit due to a lack of response (on twitter non-the-less?). I think the very reason you are getting a response now on it is this is the first time only x86-64 was directly mentioned to the largest slackware audience! (In an zombie thread even.) How can we make ourselves heard before now when such vagueness occurred prior to the present discussion?

I don't follow twitter.

I do use Slackware (32) I have a two laptops and and a netbook that are still 32-bit.

well, all of my machine except for 1 server is using 32 bit :)

All machines I'm running - be it mine or my client's - are a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit. I hope 32-bit will not disappear, this would be quite embarrassing.

There's a french "port" of Slackware called "0linux" developed by a guy from a research lab. Very clean and all. Only reason I don't use it is it's 64-bit only.

All my servers and the servers of all my clients are running 32bits. Why go x64 if there is nothing to be gained in so simple servers?

And IMO tweeter is not a good venue for queries of this kind....

Please be patient. In appended list, all scripts but the ones prepended by $CONFIG (which are not included in the installer) are localized in French, the other ones will be soon. I will check today for some which may miss. This won't be a "port" of Slackware but a localized Slackware. I will provide tools and documentation to help localize it in other languages and maintain all that stuff as well, quality checks included.

//To help maintain visibility for the topic and gauge interest the posts about keeping 32-bit slack have been pruned from the "Slackware 14.0 RC1 Arrived: Send Your Bug Reports" thread.

I recommend adding a poll.

I do NOT use 32-bit slackware on any of my machines, and I will never again. I think 32-bit will disappear in the not too distant future, and I certainly hope it does, because it is long overdue.

I do not think it would be useful. Knowing why and for which purpose people still need 32-bit or not is more important that how many IMO.

Well, there are still some people running 32-bit hardware, as well as applications with no 64-bit versions available.

So if I understand well the question is more "is the hassle and additional work involved by maintaining a 32-bit Slackware worthwhile, knowing which user base we would loose if not and in the other hand what we could do with the time saved?"

This thread's purpose, as I see it, being to gather information to help making the decision rather than opinions.

Put me in the camp of people still using hardware only capable of 32-bit operation.

One of the attractions of Slackware has always been the support for the long tail in technology. I think it is still too soon to be retiring 32-bit Slackware.

Ok, so what kind of information is needed ? Obviously not opinions ... so then what ?

Post #6: "if you still need it, you need to make yourself heard".

I have a couple of Dell Dimension 8400's sitting in a closet mumbling to themselves and serving MySQL data bases on one and PostgreSQL on the other, both at Slackware 14.0, both happily crunching away (and both 32-bit dual-core with 4G of RAM each). I monitor the things with GKrellM, administer them with SSH and I think I've gotten my money's worth out of 'em.

Everything else is 64-bit (and all Slackware) and if 32-bit goes to the great byte bucket in the sky one of these days I probably won't miss it too much (just let those boxes run with whatever version of Slackware is installed or the boxes poop their diapers, whichever comes first).

And, you know, the Next Big Thing will be 128-bit or maybe some kind of laser or biological...

Member Response
 

Hi,

World community still uses x86-32. Not everyone will chime in here, so to just to sample this community will not provide a good sample or representation. Not everyone upgrades nor replaces machines as most members here at LQ will/have/may.

My vote is to still provide 32 bit support and providing the user options via downloads. Dual DVD would be great but still some users will not nor have access to DVD. Sure a USB/net install would provide a universal access but loads of machines in the world that still are 32 bit w/CD or USB. Net instal could provide a better install but bandwidth are still limited in parts of the world.

The 'Slackware Documentation Project' could provide different method/means to facilitate a 32bit install. :) USB image install via hard disk or local installs without CD/DVD media, something like this old thread: Slackware® 12 installation with the ISOs but without burning them!

Sure users could look at: usb-and-pxe-installers but alternate methods would provide means for more users.

Just my :twocents: