[Chugalug] Linux removes support for 386

Aaron Welch n2nightfall at gmail.com
Thu Dec 13 05:17:41 UTC 2012


Well crap... and here I was about to update my toaster oven to run Samba 4.0.  Gotta scrap that idea.  Maybe it will run on the garage door opener?

-AW



On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:17 PM, Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Which is about 5 times more powerful than the most powerful 386.
> 
> But I'm hoping that NASA isn't using a vanilla Linux kernel for its work, and if it is, they don't have to upgrade to the latest version.
> 
> Only machines that are being upgraded to the latest kernel will be affected, and if you haven't changed the processor in 28 - 5 years, you probably aren't that big on being "up-to-date" on things...
> 
> - Chad W. Smith
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Sean Brewer <seabre986 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Radiation hardened ones, yes. 
>> 
>> Radiation hardened processors are super expensive to develop and manufacture. Pretty much no one could afford to build a current generation rad-hard processor.
>> 
>> The RAD750, which is just a rad-hardened PowerPC 750, is used in the Curiosity rover that landed on Mars back in August. It has two of them with one acting as a backup. They cost about $200,000 each.
>> 
>> Yes, you can land on Mars with just 200MHz of processing power.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Rod-Lists <rod-lists at epbfi.com> wrote:
>>> I read somewhere that 386 & 486 are used in space due to the fact that they are more resistant to cosmic radiation than modern processors.
>>> 
>>> ----- Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Because PLCs and many embedded systems don't need power, or even
>>> > efficiency. They just need a dirt cheap processor to parse things as they
>>> > come along.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > But WHY?!?!?
>>> > >
>>> > > The 486 came out in 1989.  NINETEEN EIGHTY-NINE.  That means before the
>>> > > 1990s even started, the 386 was outdated and replaced.  This is over 20
>>> > > years after that.  Our $8.99 prepaid cell phones have more processing power
>>> > > than that.  It would have to be more expensive to run a 386 for a month
>>> > > than to buy a brand new system with more power.  There are $50 tablets with
>>> > > more power - and they have WiFi, a touchscreen, and a battery.
>>> > >
>>> > > So even saying "I already have this system" doesn't mean you are actually
>>> > > saving money by using it.  An order-of-magnitudes more powerful system that
>>> > > takes less electricity to run would save you money in the long term.  And
>>> > > by "long term" I mean a few weeks.
>>> > >
>>> > > *- Chad W. Smith*
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Chad,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> There are plenty of 386 based PLCs and embedded systems....
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> Some things I just don't understand.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Like why anyone would be using a 386 in 2013 (which it almost is).  The
>>> > >>> "last ones" were made in 2007 - which is about to be 6 years ago - but in
>>> > >>> 2007, we already had Core 2 Duos, so I don't know what they were being used
>>> > >>> for even then.  386 is an 80s chip!  Unless you got some missions critical
>>> > >>> data on a 30 year old computer - (I'm sure I'm looking at you US
>>> > >>> Government) - you should not be using a 386 in 2013.  Or 2007.  Or any year
>>> > >>> starting with a 2.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> If you do have missions critical stuff on a computer not made
>>> > >>> this millennia - start getting it off of there immediately.  What is your
>>> > >>> problem?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> *- Chad W. Smith*
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>> Chugalug mailing list
>>> > >>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>> > >>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> Chugalug mailing list
>>> > >> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>> > >> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Chugalug mailing list
>>> > > Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>> > > http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chugalug.org/pipermail/chugalug/attachments/20121213/d3fafc5d/attachment.html>


More information about the Chugalug mailing list