Antergos Spins New ISOs, The Last Time Pushing 32-bit Media

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Antergos Spins New ISOs, The Last Time Pushing 32-bit Media

Antergos 2016.06.18 has been released as a re-spin of this Arch-based Linux distribution...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Antergos-20160618-ISOs

[zanny]

I've been wondering how long it will be until Arch drops i686 entirely. I imagine there are more Chromebooks and Raspi style SOC boards running 32 bit ARM nowadays than 32 bit Intel computers in regular use. They could drop i686 and adopt Arch Linux ARM.

[starshipeleven]

Considering that their installer ISO is basically just a GUI netinstall, that before installing stuff updates the installer from repos, this isn't going to matter much.

All supportable hardware locked to 32bit processors is already supported anyway by this day and age.

[LinuxID10T]

I've been wondering how long it will be until Arch drops i686 entirely. I imagine there are more Chromebooks and Raspi style SOC boards running 32 bit ARM nowadays than 32 bit Intel computers in regular use. They could drop i686 and adopt Arch Linux ARM.

32-bit still has some life left in it in X86 and there is no reason not to support it, or at least build packages for it. For Arch Linux ARM (ALARM) they already build for three different architectures.

[DeepDayze]

32-bit still has some life left in it in X86 and there is no reason not to support it, or at least build packages for it. For Arch Linux ARM (ALARM) they already build for three different architectures.

Definitely agree wholeheartedly as there are still a lot of older 32 bit machines out there that still warrant 32 bit installer media to be available and supported. If not producing a full install ISO for 32 bit after this, at least providing a means to install the 32 bit versions should still be a good idea.

[Zan Lynx]

Definitely agree wholeheartedly as there are still a lot of older 32 bit machines out there that still warrant 32 bit installer media to be available and supported. If not producing a full install ISO for 32 bit after this, at least providing a means to install the 32 bit versions should still be a good idea.

Possibly a few Atom netbooks or the like. Nothing serious. I have an old EeePC myself, but I don't think I ever upgraded the Linux install on it and if I never booted it again I wouldn't really miss it.

I believe that we're long past the point that anyone really needs a 32-bit 686 Linux. If they want one they can build a niche distro for themselves.

[starshipeleven]

Definitely agree wholeheartedly as there are still a lot of older 32 bit machines out there that still warrant 32 bit installer media to be available and supported. If not producing a full install ISO for 32 bit after this, at least providing a means to install the 32 bit versions should still be a good idea.

As I said above, the Antergos installer is a netinstall with GUI of a rolling release distro, and before installing stuff it updates the installer program itself.
Since they are keeping 32bit packages anyway because a bunch of good reasons (Steam and other proprietary crap, mainly), and since all 32bit-only PCs are already fully supported by now, this decision to "drop 32bit installer" isn't going to matter much.

[starshipeleven]

I believe that we're long past the point that anyone really needs a 32-bit 686 Linux. If they want one they can build a niche distro for themselves.

Agreed. Point is that 32bit packages aren't going to be dropped in the forseeable future because too many crap proprietary stuff needs them (Steam in primis). Since the packages are going to be built anyway though, dropping the installer is mostly a nudge for clueless 64bit-hardware users that install 32bit because they read "amd64" on the 64bit and have Intel hardware.

[wizard69]

32-bit still has some life left in it in X86 and there is no reason not to support it, or at least build packages for it. For Arch Linux ARM (ALARM) they already build for three different architectures.

There are plenty of reasons not to support it. The primary reason is resource usage. This is an issue for both human resources and computer resources. Supporting 32 bit software should be taken as n the same light as trying to support 80386 processors. Their time has passed.

Beyond that hat as someone else mentioned most 32 bit action these days is ARM based.