subject:"x86_64 vs i386"

On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff
> > in quite a while?
>
> Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs a 32
> bit computer (Debian 7 and TDE 3.5.13.2):
> 
> My computer is telling me I have 75 updates available.
> Perhaps we could do that at some point.
> We are involved with the Musical Festival this week, so no rush!
> 
>
> No updates???
>
Correct, no updates to iceweasel despite a growing list of exploits.

> Lisi


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread Tom Browder

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:39 PM, John Hasler  wrote:
> Tom Broder writes:
>> I just upgraded to Deb 8 (Jessie), 64bit, and tried Chromium but it
>> didn't work for me.  Downloaded Chrome from Google and it works fine.
>
> That doesn't mean it isn't 32 bit.  Debian has multiarch support.

The file downloaded from Google's Chrome site is:

  google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb

-Tom

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread Tom Browder

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Lisi Reisz  wrote:
> On Monday 21 March 2016 15:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus",
>> > and
>>
>> What do you mean by that?
>> There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
>> chromium package?

I just upgraded to Deb 8 (Jessie), 64bit, and tried Chromium but it
didn't work for me.  Downloaded Chrome from Google and it works fine.

Best regards,

-Tom

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread Lisi Reisz

On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote:
> You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff in
> quite a while?

Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs a 32 bit 
computer (Debian 7 and TDE 3.5.13.2):

My computer is telling me I have 75 updates available.
Perhaps we could do that at some point. 
We are involved with the Musical Festival this week, so no rush!

No updates???

Lisi

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread Lisi Reisz

On Monday 21 March 2016 15:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus",
> > and
>
> What do you mean by that?
> There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
> chromium package?
>
>
> Stefan

I don't know what is happening with Chromium, But Google Chrome has stopped 
updates for i386, Wheezy and one or two other things.  They didn't affect me, 
so I can't remember what they are!  I have not seen anything about Debian not 
supporting Chromium i386, so it probably still does.

Lisi

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 17:09:52 Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Monday 21 March 2016 12:08:15 The Wanderer wrote:
> > On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > >>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under
> > >>> the bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff
> > >>> left behind.
> > >>
> > >> What do you mean by that?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"
> > >
> > > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff
> > > in quite a while?
> >
> > Where?
> >
> > You confirmed in another mail that you're referring (at least in
> > part) to the chromium package, and to an apparent decision by Google
> > upstream to drop 32-bit support in Chrome. (I haven't heard of this
> > elsewhere AFAIK, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me.)
> >
> > The version of chromium:i386 in testing is the same as the version
> > of chromium:amd64 in testing (49.0.2623.87-1), and the chromium
> > binary from the latter package is timestamped March 9th, so it's
> > less than two weeks old.
> >
> > Am I looking in the wrong places, or do we just have significantly
> > different definitions of "quite a while"?
>
> No, its far more likely that because this system says its a 32 bit
> system, google is refusing to show me the amd64 version. But I need ti
> figure out how to re-install the 32 bit iceweasel because thats what
> my bank expects, unless someone can tell me how to import the
> iceweasel saved site list and passwds into Chromium.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

PS: That problem is solved, I found dpkg's arch file & nuked the amd64 
entry.  iceweasel is now reinstalled and all my links and pws are 
restored.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 12:08:15 The Wanderer wrote:

> On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under
> >>> the bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff
> >>> left behind.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by that?
> >>
> >>
> >> Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"
> >
> > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff
> > in quite a while?
>
> Where?
>
> You confirmed in another mail that you're referring (at least in part)
> to the chromium package, and to an apparent decision by Google
> upstream to drop 32-bit support in Chrome. (I haven't heard of this
> elsewhere AFAIK, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me.)
>
> The version of chromium:i386 in testing is the same as the version of
> chromium:amd64 in testing (49.0.2623.87-1), and the chromium binary
> from the latter package is timestamped March 9th, so it's less than
> two weeks old.
>
> Am I looking in the wrong places, or do we just have significantly
> different definitions of "quite a while"?

No, its far more likely that because this system says its a 32 bit 
system, google is refusing to show me the amd64 version. But I need ti 
figure out how to re-install the 32 bit iceweasel because thats what my 
bank expects, unless someone can tell me how to import the iceweasel 
saved site list and passwds into Chromium.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread Curt

On 2016-03-20, David Christensen  wrote:
>
> I would do a backup-wipe-install-restore cycle.  (Yes, I'm predictable.)
>
LOL.

-- 
Hypertext--or should I say the ideology of hypertext?--is ultrademocratic and
so entirely in harmony with the demagogic appeals to cultural democracy that
accompany (and distract one’s attention from) the ever-tightening grip of 
plutocratic capitalism. - Susan Sontag

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread The Wanderer

On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 
>>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under
>>> the bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff
>>> left behind.
>> 
>> What do you mean by that?
>> 
>> 
>> Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"
> 
> You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff in
> quite a while?

Where?

You confirmed in another mail that you're referring (at least in part)
to the chromium package, and to an apparent decision by Google upstream
to drop 32-bit support in Chrome. (I haven't heard of this elsewhere
AFAIK, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me.)

The version of chromium:i386 in testing is the same as the version of
chromium:amd64 in testing (49.0.2623.87-1), and the chromium binary from
the latter package is timestamped March 9th, so it's less than two weeks
old.

Am I looking in the wrong places, or do we just have significantly
different definitions of "quite a while"?

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 11:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus", and
>
> What do you mean by that?
> There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
> chromium package?
>
>
> Stefan
Exactly.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left
> > behind.
>
> What do you mean by that?
>
>
> Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"
You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff in 
quite a while?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread Stefan Monnier

> to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus", and 

What do you mean by that?
There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
chromium package?


Stefan

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread Lisi Reisz

On Monday 21 March 2016 14:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus,
> > and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.
>
> What do you mean by that?
>
>
> Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"

I still administer several i386 machines.  I think that Gene must be referring 
to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus", and 
is a browser.

I have not so far come across any other problem.

Lisi

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-21 Thread Stefan Monnier

> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, 
> and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.

What do you mean by that?


Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 00:20:28 David Christensen wrote:

> On 03/20/2016 04:08 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote:
> >> I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of
> >> the machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on
> >> the shelf?
> >
> > Some, but with 60k plus spinning hours on them.
> >
> >> And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?
> >
> > In reverse order, this old Asus mobo doesn't boot from usb.  Old
> > also means its sata is 3Gb at best, and the USB is 2.1 max. 100 meg
> > Cat5 to the printer is faster.
> >
> > I haven't found a new mobo that doesn't send everything in this
> > machine to the recycle bin.  So I'd be out another $400 in installed
> > cards as this board is all pci. 4 slots, 7 sata, 7 usb's, and my usb
> > tree looks like a weeping willow, most of which would be obsolete
> > too. 1 4 port external hub, 1 7 port external hub, a 10 meter hub to
> > some stuff in the basement with a 7 port on the end of it.  And a
> > pci video card, a pci firewire, and an hdPC3000 digital tv card. 
> > That stuff is all toast when the bus turns into pci-e.
> >
> > Drive #2 will be a new drive for amanda to use, after I run a
> > mktapes script on it to make about 60 ea 20+Gig virtual tapes. 
> > Drive 1 will be the new install, which will get most of my home dir
> > copied to it, then the former drive 1 will be remounted as /dev/sdc
> > so once the copies have been made, and reformatted so half the drive
> > is /home and half is /opt. Let drive 1 BE the system drive, but I
> > want my stuff better isolated.  I did have 4 drives in here at one
> > time, but the drives got bigger faster than my own storage needs,
> > which are now occasionally feeling the pinch.
> >
> > Running the trinity gui, and quite a boat load of other stuff
> > including my web page out of /opt, that would be one less recovery
> > worry when a drive upchucks.
>
> So, "everything plus the kitchen sink".  (Did someone mention
> LinuxCNC?) ;-)
>
>
> A few years back, I built a new high-end desktop/ low-end server and
> tried consolidating everything into virtual machines running on that
> one box.  One powerful, quiet machine was nice when everything worked
> and I wasn't messing with it.  But when something broke or I did mess
> with it, I frequently ran into circular dependencies and had to fix
> and/or mess with everything.  While doing so, I was dead in the water.
>  It was a memorable lesson in "too many eggs in one basket."

There is that too.  But I am physical space limited as this is a former 
childs bedroom in a 3BR crackerbox.  So amanda as server running on this 
machine, backs up everything on this machine, and amanda clients on the 
other 3 function as slaves to backup the important stuff on the other 
three in the wee hours of the night. I wrote some wrapper scripts that 
help with the housekeeping, so theoretically I can do a bare metal to a 
new drive recovery once a bare install is done, and restore to the exact 
state it was in when amanda ran, so the only thing potentially missing 
would be the emails that arrived after amanda ran. 

> Now I'm running three boxes locally -- one desktop, one file server,
> and one maintenance/ backup/ archive/ image server.  For you, I'd
> recommend trying that arrangement plus one more box for your machine
> shop.  I don't know what region you're in (I'm near Silicon Valley),
> but I see used computers at good prices on Craig's List fairly often.
>
And I'm running 4 normally, this one as the swiss army knife, and 3 more. 
1 for each of the cnc machines. But unless I actually have them doing 
something that needs watching with a hand and finger near the e-stop 
button, I do all the coding and update maintenance on those from here as 
this is the only chair my back is comfortable enough that the pain 
doesn't distract from what I am attempting to do.  Everything I do is 
generally done in my home directory or subdir thereof, with an sshfs 
connection to the other 3 from here, and an ssh -Y session to a terminal 
on each.  For me, that works well.

Since I don't run actual machinery from this one, and I have been assured 
that the LinuxCNC simulator runs just fine on a 64 bit jessie install, 
that is what I'll do when I have all the ducks lined up.  That will take 
a few days as I'm also slowly putting the basement back together after 
$13G's worth of jackhammer work to control water ingress and re-inforce 
a wall was done last week.  About a 100 lb bag of cement dust to wash 
off everything washable, sort the rest to the landfill, and wrestle all 
the shelving back into place in addition to putting 4" of styro between 
the 4" i-beams & new paneling over them, I think at the rate I can 
accomplish all that, I have the rest of my lifes work laid out in front 
of me. :)  Today, once I get started, I take the drain assemble off the 
laundry tub and take the whole thing to Lowes

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-20 Thread David Christensen


On 03/20/2016 04:08 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:

On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote:

I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of the
machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on the
shelf?


Some, but with 60k plus spinning hours on them.


And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?


In reverse order, this old Asus mobo doesn't boot from usb.  Old also
means its sata is 3Gb at best, and the USB is 2.1 max. 100 meg Cat5 to
the printer is faster.

I haven't found a new mobo that doesn't send everything in this machine
to the recycle bin.  So I'd be out another $400 in installed cards as
this board is all pci. 4 slots, 7 sata, 7 usb's, and my usb tree looks
like a weeping willow, most of which would be obsolete too. 1 4 port
external hub, 1 7 port external hub, a 10 meter hub to some stuff in the
basement with a 7 port on the end of it.  And a pci video card, a pci
firewire, and an hdPC3000 digital tv card.  That stuff is all toast when
the bus turns into pci-e.

Drive #2 will be a new drive for amanda to use, after I run a mktapes
script on it to make about 60 ea 20+Gig virtual tapes.  Drive 1 will be
the new install, which will get most of my home dir copied to it, then
the former drive 1 will be remounted as /dev/sdc so once the copies have
been made, and reformatted so half the drive is /home and half is /opt.
Let drive 1 BE the system drive, but I want my stuff better isolated.  I
did have 4 drives in here at one time, but the drives got bigger faster
than my own storage needs, which are now occasionally feeling the pinch.

Running the trinity gui, and quite a boat load of other stuff including
my web page out of /opt, that would be one less recovery worry when a
drive upchucks.


So, "everything plus the kitchen sink".  (Did someone mention LinuxCNC?) 
 ;-)



A few years back, I built a new high-end desktop/ low-end server and 
tried consolidating everything into virtual machines running on that one 
box.  One powerful, quiet machine was nice when everything worked and I 
wasn't messing with it.  But when something broke or I did mess with it, 
I frequently ran into circular dependencies and had to fix and/or mess 
with everything.  While doing so, I was dead in the water.  It was a 
memorable lesson in "too many eggs in one basket."



Now I'm running three boxes locally -- one desktop, one file server, and 
one maintenance/ backup/ archive/ image server.  For you, I'd recommend 
trying that arrangement plus one more box for your machine shop.  I 
don't know what region you're in (I'm near Silicon Valley), but I see 
used computers at good prices on Craig's List fairly often.



David

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote:

> On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks
> > for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. 
> > But its not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no
> > currently installed 32 bit application has a problem.
> >
> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left
> > behind.
> >
> > How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff
> > in the repos and install it.
> >
> > All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for
> > non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at
> > least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.
> >
> > Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh
> > x86_64 install?
>
> I would do a backup-wipe-install-restore cycle.  (Yes, I'm
> predictable.)
>
>
> I typically grab CD 1 with my desktop of choice, installing or leaving
> out the desktop as desired when installing on a given computer:
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.jigdo
>
>
> For those who prefer KDE or LXDE:
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-kde-CD-1.jigdo
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-lxde-CD-1.jigdo
>
>
> I believe the standard CD 1 defaults to Gnome 3:
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-CD-1.jigdo
>
>
> Of course, if you have a local cache for packages, the net installer
> saves bandwidth and might age better:
>
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-
>7.9.0-amd64-netinst.jigdo
>
>
> I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of the
> machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on the
> shelf?

Some, but with 60k plus spinning hours on them. 

> And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick? 
>
In reverse order, this old Asus mobo doesn't boot from usb.  Old also 
means its sata is 3Gb at best, and the USB is 2.1 max. 100 meg Cat5 to 
the printer is faster.

I haven't found a new mobo that doesn't send everything in this machine 
to the recycle bin.  So I'd be out another $400 in installed cards as 
this board is all pci. 4 slots, 7 sata, 7 usb's, and my usb tree looks 
like a weeping willow, most of which would be obsolete too. 1 4 port 
external hub, 1 7 port external hub, a 10 meter hub to some stuff in the 
basement with a 7 port on the end of it.  And a pci video card, a pci 
firewire, and an hdPC3000 digital tv card.  That stuff is all toast when 
the bus turns into pci-e.

Drive #2 will be a new drive for amanda to use, after I run a mktapes 
script on it to make about 60 ea 20+Gig virtual tapes.  Drive 1 will be 
the new install, which will get most of my home dir copied to it, then 
the former drive 1 will be remounted as /dev/sdc so once the copies have 
been made, and reformatted so half the drive is /home and half is /opt.  
Let drive 1 BE the system drive, but I want my stuff better isolated.  I 
did have 4 drives in here at one time, but the drives got bigger faster 
than my own storage needs, which are now occasionally feeling the pinch.

Running the trinity gui, and quite a boat load of other stuff including 
my web page out of /opt, that would be one less recovery worry when a 
drive upchucks.
>
> David

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-20 Thread Dan Ritter

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:35:54PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64
> >install?

> I'm curious about "2 new drives".  What's the intended purpose of the
> machine?  What drive(s) are already installed?  Any spares on the
> shelf?   And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?

My assumption was that Gene will set up two new disks in an
mdadm RAID 1, install a new system to them, and thus be able to
fall back to his old system with only a reboot.

Then, after some weeks or months of contentment with his new
disks, the old ones will get wiped and turned into backup
storage or something similar.

-dsr-

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-20 Thread David Christensen

On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:

One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for
some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. But its
not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently
installed 32 bit application has a problem.

But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus,
and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.

How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff in the
repos and install it.

All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for
non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at
least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.

Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64
install?

I would do a backup-wipe-install-restore cycle. (Yes, I'm predictable.)

I typically grab CD 1 with my desktop of choice, installing or leaving
out the desktop as desired when installing on a given computer:

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.jigdo

For those who prefer KDE or LXDE:

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-kde-CD-1.jigdo

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-lxde-CD-1.jigdo

I believe the standard CD 1 defaults to Gnome 3:

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-CD-1.jigdo

Of course, if you have a local cache for packages, the net installer
saves bandwidth and might age better:

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.9.0/amd64/jigdo-cd/debian-7.9.0-amd64-netinst.jigdo

I'm curious about "2 new drives". What's the intended purpose of the
machine? What drive(s) are already installed? Any spares on the shelf?
And, what about the USB 3.0 flash-as-system-drive trick?

David

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:59:14 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:51:03 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd,
> >
> > Why??
> >
> > Lisi
>
> How is that avoidable?
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

https://debiantalk.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/you-can-install-debian-8-without-systemd/

Or install and immediately remove it:
http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_remove_systemd_from_a_Debian_jessie/sid_installation

I was just girding my loins to try!

Of course, it might be somewhat too complicated when coupled with this:

https://forum.linuxcnc.org/forum/9-installing-linuxcnc/29764-how-to-install-debian-8-2-jessie-and-linuxcnc2-7

But since you would install Jessie completely first, it ought to be OK.

Lisi

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:53:02 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a
> > clue if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc
> > will run on a jessie install.
>
> You can install 32 bit Wheezy - though I agree that I wouldn't at this
> stage. And you can install Jessie without systemd, if you want to do
> so.
>
> Lisi

I just asked if the lcnc guys have respun their install image for 64 bit 
jessie, in which case I'll probably use it.  But there is some reticence 
in doing the 64 bit for the real machinery control as so far its been a 
quite measurable amount slower, and the real time patches I don't think 
have fully caught up with the 64 bit scene.  Even building it for PAE 
can mess up the realtime performance. That has been driving us toward 
spending a couple hundred on FPGA interface cards that can do thing by 
themselves for a millisecond as they can do the step pulse very steadily 
at 10 microseconds a pulse, where the fastest we have logged in software 
has been a fairly broad error in timing at 25 microseconds per step.
If someplace in the install, it asks, how do I recognize that the 
question refers to systemd as opposed to the tried and proven init?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Stupid ERRATUM was Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:53:02 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a clue
> > if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc will run
> > on a jessie install.
>
> You can install 32 bit 

I meant 64 bit, of course.  Senility creeps on apace. :-(  Stupid fingers.

Lisi

> Wheezy - though I agree that I wouldn't at this 
> stage. And you can install Jessie without systemd, if you want to do so.
>
> Lisi

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:51:03 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd,
>
> Why??
>
> Lisi

How is that avoidable?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-20 Thread The Wanderer

On 2016-03-20 at 14:51, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> 
>> And since all this is also going to bring in systemd,
> 
> Why??

Because a new Debian install, with current install media, installs
systemd. You can go out of your way and take extra steps to remove it
and install sysvinit again, if you know what you're doing - I think even
before rebooting into the newly-installed system - but it's not
sufficiently trivial and straightforward for most people to consider
worth tackling. (Even then, systemd has still been brought in, even if
you've kicked it straight back out again.)

That's unless things have changed since the last news I heard on this
front, but since I did an install (either of latest stable or of current
testing, I forget which) within the past month and did not see any
simpler way of installing without systemd, I don't really expect that
they have.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a clue
> if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc will run
> on a jessie install.

You can install 32 bit Wheezy - though I agree that I wouldn't at this stage.  
And you can install Jessie without systemd, if you want to do so.

Lisi

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
> And since all this is also going to bring in systemd,

Why??

Lisi

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 13:54:09 Dan Ritter wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks
> > for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. 
> > But its not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no
> > currently installed 32 bit application has a problem.
>
> That implies that you have a 64 bit capable machine, running a
> hand-selected 64 bit kernel, with a 32 bit userland.

Quad core amd phenom.

> This is a generally usable configuration, but ends up with problems
> like what you are facing now.
>
> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left
> > behind.
> >
> > How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff
> > in the repos and install it.
>
> You need to convert your machine from i386 to x86_64.
>
> There's an entry in the wiki:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Migrate32To64Bit
>
> but it doesn't look very trustworthy/up to date.
>
> > All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for
> > non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at
> > least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.
> >
> > Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh
> > x86_64 install?
>
> I would do that. If you have good backups and are willing to
> spend a weekend or so in an indeterminate state, you could go
> for the in-place conversion.
>
> -dsr-

Well, to both of you, I did that, it wanted to remove iceweasel, which it 
did, but to install the 64 bit version pulls in around 125 new 64 bit 
files, which the i386 versions in turn cannot be removed without ripping 
out everything.

So now to grab the iso's, hopefully either chromium or konquerer can find  
and download them.

And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a clue 
if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc will run 
on a jessie install. But I'm about to ask on that list.  Looks like I go 
get a couple commodity hard drives though.  So I'll be back whenever I 
have it all in hand.

Thanks, both of you, Dan and Christian.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-20 Thread Dan Ritter

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
> 
> One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for 
> some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine.  But its 
> not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently 
> installed 32 bit application has a problem.

That implies that you have a 64 bit capable machine, running a
hand-selected 64 bit kernel, with a 32 bit userland.

This is a generally usable configuration, but ends up with problems like
what you are facing now.

> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, 
> and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.
> 
> How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff in the 
> repos and install it.

You need to convert your machine from i386 to x86_64.

There's an entry in the wiki:
https://wiki.debian.org/Migrate32To64Bit

but it doesn't look very trustworthy/up to date.

> All my reload the repo databse errors point to it looking for 
> non-existant i386 version of this or that, when obviously (to me at 
> least) I see no valid reason for refusing to install x86_64 stuff.
> 
> Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64 
> install?

I would do that. If you have good backups and are willing to
spend a weekend or so in an indeterminate state, you could go
for the in-place conversion.

-dsr-

Re: x86_64 vs i386

2016-03-20 Thread Christian Seiler

On 03/20/2016 06:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for 
> some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine.  But its 
> not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently 
> installed 32 bit application has a problem.
> 
> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, 
> and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.
> 
> How can I convince the package managers to search for x86_64 stuff in the 
> repos and install it.

Since you are using a backports 3.16 kernel, I assume you are using
Wheezy, which already understands Multi-Arch. In that case, just do

dpkg --add-architecture amd64

That will add 'amd64' as a secondary architecture to your system and
you can install packages from there (at least those that are
co-installable with your current set of packages).

Note that you need to do an "apt-get update" after this change.

Regards,
Christian

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

x86_64 vs i386