[DanBC]

> Side effect will be that people will be encouraged to get a modern computer if not already.

All those netbooks (atom processors; 1 GB or 2 GB ram; 32 GB hard drive) would be great with Linux (once the drivers get fixed) and really benefit from 32 bit because of the ram limitations.

Now? They'll end up in landfill.

[callinyouin]

It looks like the community had the same thought. I follow the arch-ports mailing list and there is discussion right now about a community maintained 32-bit port. They've registered a github account (https://github.com/archlinux32) but there isn't any activity yet.

[StreakyCobra]

There are other distributions better suited (even specialized) to be run on old hardware.

[jonathonf]

Which ones provide a similar approach to Arch?

A six-year-old 32-bit processor (e.g. an Atom in an EeePC 901 or HP Mini 311c) is more than capable of running a modern desktop system.

[StreakyCobra]

For a "similar" approach, I would opt for a slackware or a gentoo.

I understand that some people would like to keep Arch 32 bit for their use cases. But as any open source project, the developer are mostly working on it on their spare time, you can not force them to work on anything. Having followed a little bit the discussion on the mailing list [1], I don't remember having seen a lot of objection among the developers. Also, they encourage the creation of a community around i686 [2]:

     However, as there is still some interest in keeping i686 alive, we would like to encourage the community to make it happen with our guidance. The arch-ports mailing list and #archlinux-ports IRC channel on Freenode will be used for further coordination.

So if there are people willing to do the job, Arch will still be usable on 1686.

[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2016-D... [2] https://www.archlinux.org/news/phasing-out-i686-support/

[rev]

Debian testing is similar in "rollingness", Slackware and Alpine are similar in the sense of "no frills". OpenBSD is a good non-Linux choice to try out.

[km3k]

FYI It's actually 8 years old for the EeePC 901 and the last 32-bit Atoms came out in 2009.

[DanBC]

The processors are now 64 bit, but the low ram means you're going to suffer if you use a 64 bit OS.

Also, for some of these machines they use a 32 bit UEFI, so even if you want to use a 64 bit OS you'll need some weird tinkering to get it installed.

[jonathonf]

I erred on the side of caution. :)

I've successfully run Arch on a set of 10 EeePC 901s for a club. Linux plus Arduino programming = awesome kids.

[DanBC]

There are brand new machines. Some haven't been released yet.

They come with a tiny bit of ram 2 gb, 4 gb if you're lucky.

The processor is 64 bit, but because of the small ram you'll suffer with a 64 bit OS. (Both Microsoft and Arch wiki agree here).

[simplyluke]

I don't think arch has ever been particularly focussed on writing an OS for the least performant hardware in circulation.

[mastax]

The "correct" solution to this problem is the x32 ABI [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not well supported in the real world, however.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI

[jbarbs]

Absolutely! I have a perfectly good little netbook currently running lubuntu 32-bit. If other distros were to follow suit then they would quickly render my netbook useless.

[sevensor]

I run Arch on most everything -- up to now it's worked great on old hardware as long as I'm judicious about what I install. When they stop updating 32bit, I suppose I'll switch to Tiny Core. Or rather, well after they stop updating 32bit and Tiny Core catches up.

[morganvachon]

Debian will likely support 32 bit until the heat death of the universe, and Slackware probably will as well. There are also the BSDs; OpenBSD and NetBSD in particular will enjoy a long life on non-x64 hardware.

[sevensor]

That's a good point about the BSDs. I've been meaning to try a BSD for a while -- it sounds like a good fit for my fleet of aging thinkpads.

[morganvachon]

I've had excellent results running OpenBSD on old laptops. I have a Dell Latitude CPx (Pentium III) that is 100% supported and runs very fast (relatively speaking) under that OS. I ran it on a Latitude D400 and D620 as well until I gave those machines away (I'm a bit of a Dell collector if you can't tell), and it works fairly well on an Acer Aspire One netbook I keep for when we go camping and my wife wants to have a machine to write her book reviews.

[weavie]

How well does suspend/resume work? I tried FreeBSD on my old laptop and couldn't get that to work. Its the only thing keeping me from trying again..

[morganvachon]

With OpenBSD, my experience has been generally good. On some laptops it just works by default, on others you have to configure it a bit and it will work fine after that. Here's the relevant man page:

http://man.openbsd.org/apmd

[km3k]

Good point about other distros catching up. Arch will be updating 32-bit until at least November and it could be another year or more until others like Tiny Core or Debian catch up to the package versions that Arch left off with. Will that now 8+ year old hardware still be worth using enough to switch distros when it is 10+ years old?

[imron]

> (once the drivers get fixed)

I suspect this means they'll end up in the landfill regardless.

[tbranyen]

Install an earlier (supported) version of Arch, or use a different distro are the options to try before a landfill.

[jonathonf]

That's not how Arch works... ;)

[recursive]

How does Arch work?

[LukeShu]

Arch is rolling release; there isn't really an older version that you can go back to, the installer just fetches the latest versions of the packages.

Of course, there's the Arch Linux Archive, which lets you sync packages as they were on a particular date.

[tbranyen]

Obviously, but there are also full offline images. Have you never used Arch before?