Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Can we get 64 bit for Linux? (Score 1) 39

If you say "which should be available in both architectures aren't" then I guess you're using Ubuntu not Debian. In Debian, all release architectures had >=98% archive coverage since forever with few exceptions, never below 96%, and non-moribund -ports are also >= 90%.

Things are worse outside Debian proper: for a time I maintained an out-of-archive arch but gave up because of the monstrosity that are binNMU version numbers. That's why derivatives (including even Ubuntu) use sourceful uploads for rebuilds.

As for appImages: they deserve no words other than an exorcism formula. Same for Snap.

Comment Re:I'm a trifle surprised (Score 1) 39

The whole 32-bit Windows brouchacha comes only because of people not being told which arch to install. Microsoft had to keep 32-bit for a while because of 1. broken BIOSes in computers sold before ~2010, and 2. their software sucking balls when it comes to DLL hell. But then, if the installer shown them a popup like "you're installing 32-bit system on a machine capable of 64-bit, are you sure?", there wouldn't be a non-negligible install base anymore.

Or alternatively, they could have implemented in-place upgrades like they do with Win7->Win10->Win11. Meanwhile, I'm still running a multiply migrated and crossgraded Debian system that was initially i386 potato.

Comment Re:Can we get 64 bit for Linux? (Score 1) 39

Why? The point of multiarch is precisely to allow you to upgrade some software to a different arch while keeping support for old binaries that can't be recompiled.

If not for political squabblings, we'd even have an arch for every major ISA bump or ABI break. But alas, some people are opposed to "arch proliferation" and we have to suffer stuff like that lib*t64 transition which added a lot of unnecessary work while breaking existing binaries.

What you're preaching is multilib, which had been transitioned away for a good reason.

Comment Re:Lucky me (Score 1) 39

Given that you say "game laptop" and that you can run Steam at all, that's obvious.

In the last two decades, all 32-bit machines were either embedded, or 64-bit CPUs with a broken BIOS made by idiot vendors for the lowest tiers of the market -- while laptops marketed as game are mid to high end. And I don't think those broken BIOSes were sold anymore after 2010 or so.

Meanwhile, Steam and games do use opcodes added to the ISA a lot later than that, with no fallback. They do use opcodes from newer ISAs, and fall back from those -- but they don't bother to support CPUs that old.

Case in point: recently, at my family place, invading kids blabbed about games. As all my newer machines there are either ARM or RISC-V, I had to attach a Phenom2 box (the very latest stepping, from 2010). An old game that worked before had an update, and boom! -- it kept crashing on startup. I actually looked into the crash dump and disassembled the failing code -- it used an SSE4.2 instruction. I mailed the game's maker, but they weren't amused. Understandably, as to have any playable frame rate on that machine I had to hack up a resolution not supported by the monitor's EDID.

And I hear that Microsoft dropped support for my home X86 desktop -- 2990WX, a fat 64-way Threadripper+, barely 6 years old. Fortunately I have no need for Windows at home, but it shows how much proprietary software companies care.

Comment Re:Minimum specs on Steam are clear, and pretty lo (Score 1) 65

Keep in mind, N-Shitty-A are deliberately restricting DLSS updates to the 40X0 series or later. The 30X0 series are unduly hamstrung by N-Shitty-A not properly updating the drivers, just so N-Shitty-A can try to force people to buy new cards every 3 years.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Working...