It's not a well argumented thought, just a nagging feeling.
Maybe we need a simple posix os that would run on a simple open dedicated hardware that can be comprehended by a small group of human beings. A system that would allow communication, simple media processing and productivity.
These days it feels like we are at a tipping point for open computing. It feels like being a frog in hot water.
Let's look at the lowest end chip in the discussion. Almost certainly the SAM9x60.... it is a $5 ARMv5 MMU chip supporting DDR2/LPDDR/DDR3/LPDDR3/PSRAM, a variety of embedded RAM and 'old desktop RAM' and mobile RAM.
Yes it's 32-bit but at 600MHz and GBits of RAM support. But you can seriously mass produce a computer under $10 with the chip (so long as you support 4-layer PCBs that can breakout the 0.75mm pitch BGA). As in, the reference design with DDR2 RAM is a 4-layer design.
There are a few Rockchips and such that are (rather large) TQFP that are arguably easier. But since DDR RAM is BGA I think it's safe to assume BGA level PCB layout as a point of simplicity.
---------
Everything smaller than this category of 32-bit / ARMv5 chips (be it Microchip SAM9x60, or competing Rockchips or AllWinner) is a microcontroller wholly unsuitable for running Linux as we know it.
If you cannot reach 64MBs of RAM, Linux is simply unusable. Even for embedded purposes. You really should be using like FreeRTOS or something else at that point.
---------
Linux drawing the line at 64MB hardware built within the last 20 years is.... reasonable? Maybe too reasonable. I mean I love the fact that the SAM9x60 is still usable for modern and new designs but somewhere you have to draw the line.
ARMv5 is too old to compile even like Node.js. I'm serious when I say this stuff is old. It's an environment already alien to typical Linux users.
A $1 Linux capable ARM: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/the-$1-linux-...
I'd expect that there were even cheaper processors now since it's eight years later.
Open source is one thing, but open hardware - that’s what we really need. And not just a framework laptop or a system76 machine. I mean a standard 64-bit open source motherboard, peripherals, etc that aren’t locked down with binary blobs.
The problem here is scale. Having fully-open hardware is neat, but then you end up with something like that Blackbird PowerPC thing which costs thousands of dollars to have the performance of a PC that costs hundreds of dollars. Which means that only purists buy it, which prevents economies of scale and prices out anyone who isn't rich.
Whereas what you actually need is for people to be able to run open code on obtainium hardware. This is why Linux won and proprietary Unix lost in servers.
That might be achievable at the low end with purpose-built open hardware, because then the hardware is simple and cheap and can reach scale because it's a good buy even for people who don't care if it's open or not.
But for the mid-range and high end, what we probably need is a project to pick whichever chip is the most popular and spend the resources to reverse engineer it so we can run open code on the hardware which is already in everybody's hands. Which makes it easier to do it again, because the second time it's not reverse engineering every component of the device, it's noticing that v4 is just v3 with a minor update or the third most popular device shares 80% of its hardware with the most popular device so adding it is only 20% as much work as the first one. Which is how Linux did it on servers and desktops.
Open hardware you can buy now: https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/precursor
The open OS that runs on it: https://betrusted.io/xous-book/
A secret/credential manager built on top of the open hardware and open software: https://betrusted.io
His blog section about it: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/category/betrusted/precur...
"The principle of evidence-based trust was at work in our decision to implement Precursor’s brain as an SoC on an FPGA, which means you can compile your CPU from design source and verify for yourself that Precursor contains no hidden instructions or other backdoors. Accomplishing the equivalent level of inspection on a piece of hardwired silicon would be…a rather expensive proposition. Precursor’s mainboard was designed for easy inspection as well, and even its LCD and keyboard were chosen specifically because they facilitate verification of proper construction with minimal equipment."
Which means, "open" has nothing to do with openness. What you want is standardization and commoditization.
There are practically no x86 hardware that require model-specific custom images to boot. There are practically no non-x86 hardware that don't require model-specific custom images to boot. ARM made perceptible amount of efforts in that segment with Arm SystemReady Compliance Program, which absolutely nobody in any serious businesses cares about, and it only concern ARM machines even if it worked.
IMO, one of problems in efforts going in from software side is over-bloated nature of desktop software stacks and bad experiences widely had with UEFI. They aren't going to upgrade RAM to adopt overbloated software that are bigger than the application itself just because that is the new standard.
also this is what happen to prusa, everyone just take the design and outsource the manufacture to somewhere in china which is fine but if everybody doing that, there is no fund to develop next iteration of product (someone has to foot the bill)
and there is not enough sadly, we live in reality after all
This needs money. It is always going to have to pay the costs of being niche, lower performance, and cloneable, so someone has to persuade people to pay for that. Hardware is just fundamentally different. And that's before you get into IP licensing corner cases.
FreeBSD is dumping 32 bit:
https://www.osnews.com/story/138578/freebsd-15-16-to-end-sup...
OpenBSD has this quote:
>...most i386 hardware, only easy and critical security fixes are backported to i386
I tend to think that means 32bit on at least x86 days are numbered.
https://www.openbsd.org/i386.html
I think DragonflyBSD never supported 32bit
For 32bit, I guess NetBSD may eventually be the only game in town.
I think people here are misunderstanding just how "weird" and hacky trying to run an OS like linux on those devices really is.
If you want a hardware architecture you can easily comprehend - and even build your own implementation of! - that's something which RISC-V handles much better than ARM ever did, nommu or otherwise.
Simple and POSIX would be a BSD like NetBSD or OpenBSD.
This is why I gravitated to Plan 9. Overall a better design for a networked world and can be understood by a single developer. People can and have maintained their own forks. Its very simple, small and cross platform was baked in from day one. 9P makes everything into a IO socket organized as a tree of names objects. Thankfully it's not POSIX which IMO is not worth dragging along for decades. You can port Unix things with libraries. It also abandons the typewriter terminal and instead uses graphics. A fork, 9front, is not abandoning 32 bit any time soon AFIK. I netboot an older Industrial computer that is a 400MHz Geode (32 bit x86) with 128 MB RAM and it runs 9front just fine.
Its not perfect and lacks features but that stands to reason for any niche OS without a large community. Figure out what is missing for you and work on fixing it - patches welcome.
That isn't necessarily the case. You can have memory protection without a MMU - for instance, most ARM Cortex-M parts have a MPU which can be used to restrict a thread's access to memory ranges or to hardware. What it doesn't get you is memory remapping, which is necessary for features like virtual memory.
That was part of the plan for Minix 3.
Clean separation in a microkernel, simple enough for teaching students, but robust.
But Intel used it and gave nothing back, and AST retired. :-(
Most likely I won't be around this realm when that takes shape, but I predict the GNU/Linux explosion replacing UNIX was only a phase in computing history, eventually when everyone responsible for its success fades away, other agendas will take over.
It is no accident that the alternatives I mention, are all based on copyleft licenses.
This is a young mans' game, and I am very much not.
The industry has a lot of experience doing so.
In parallel, the old hardware is still supported, just not by the newest Linux Kernel. Which should be fine anyway because either you are not changing anything on that system anyway or you have your whole tool stack available to just patch it yourself.
But the benefit would be a easier and smaller linux kernel which would probably benefit a lot more people.
Also if our society is no longer able to produce chips in a commercial way and we loose all the experience people have, we are probably having a lot bigger issues as a whole society.
But I don't want to deny that it would be nice to have the simplest way of making a small microcontroller yourself (doesn't has to be fast or super easy just doable) would be very cool and could already solve a lot of issues if we would need to restart society from wikipedia.
Note ELKS is not Linux.
There's also Fuzix.
Linux remains open source, extendable, and someone would most likely maintain these ripped out modules. Just not at the expense of the singular maintainer of the subsystem inside the kernel.
Linux's master branch is actually called master. Not that it really matters either way (hopefully most people have realised by now that it was never really 'non-inclusive' to normal people) but pays to be accurate.
It will be relegated to the computing dustbin like non-8-bit bytes and EBCDIC.
Main-core computing is vastly more homogenous than when I was born almost 50 years ago. I guess that's a natural progression for technology.
I wish the same applied to written numbers in LTR scripts. Arithmetic operations would be a lot easier to do that way on paper or even mentally. I also wish that the world would settle on a sane date-time format like the ISO 8601 or RFC 3339 (both of which would reverse if my first wish is also granted).
> It will be relegated to the computing dustbin like non-8-bit bytes and EBCDIC.
I never really understood those non-8-bit bytes, especially the 7 bit byte. If you consider the multiplexer and demux/decoder circuits that are used heavily in CPUs, FPGAs and custom digital circuits, the only number that really makes sense is 8. It's what you get for a 3 bit selector code. The other nearby values being 4 and 16. Why did they go for 7 bits instead of 8? I assume that it was a design choice made long before I was even born. Does anybody know the rationale?
IIRC, in most countries the native format is D-M-Y (with varying separators), but some Asian countries use Y-M-D. Since those formats are easy to distinguish, that's no problem. That's why Y-M-D is spreading in Europe for official or technical documents.
There's mainly one country which messes things up...
When your RAM is vacuum tubes or magnetic core memory, you don't want 25% of it to go unused, just to round your word size up a power of two.
For the representation of text of an alphabetic language, you need to hit 6 bits if your script doesn't have case and 7 bits if it does have case. ASCII ended up encoding English into 7 bits and EBCDIC chose 8 bits (as it's based on a binary-coded decimal scheme which packs a decimal digit into 4 bits). Early machines did choose to use the unused high bit of an ASCII character stored in 8 bits as a parity bit, but most machines have instead opted to extend the character repertoire in a variety of incompatible ways, which eventually led to Unicode.
But why? The brilliance of 8601/3339 is that string sorting is also correct datetime sorting.
Doing numbers little-endian does make more sense. It's weird that we switch to RTL when doing arithmetic. Amusingly the Wikipedia page for Hindu-Arabic numeral system claims that their RTL scripts switch to LTR for numbers. Nope... the inventors of our numeral system used little-endian and we forgot to reverse it for our LTR scripts...
Edit: I had to pull out Knuth here (vol. 2). So apparently the original Hindu scripts were LTR, like Latin, and Arabic is RTL. According to Knuth the earliest known Hindu manuscripts have the numbers "backwards", meaning most significant digit at the right, but soon switched to most significant at the left. So I read that as starting in little-endian but switching to big-endian.
These were later translated to Arabic (RTL), but the order of writing numbers remained the same, so became little-endian ("backwards").
Later still the numerals were introduced into Latin but, again, the order remained the same, so becoming big-endian again.
YYYY-MM-DD to me always feels like a timestamp, while when I want to write a date, I think of a name, (for me DD. MM. YYYY).
For better or worse, PowerPC is still quite entrenched in the industrial embedded space.
[1] Ok I admit, not trivially when it comes to unpaired surrogates, BOMs, endian detection, and probably a dozen other edge and corner cases I don't even know about. But you can offload the work to pretty well-understood and trouble-free library calls.
UTF-16 is annoying, but it's far from the biggest design failure in Unicode.
Also ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) should be the default date format.
Hey, you! You're supposed to be dead!
May be someone can develop such thunking for legacy Linux userland.
The only thing I can think of is games, and the Windows binary most likely works better under Wine anyways.
There are many embedded systems like CNC controllers, advertisement displays, etc... that run those old applications, but I seriously doubt anyone would be willing to update the software in those things.
that said, i sometimes think about a clean-room reimplementation of e.g. the unity3d runtime -- there are so many games that don't even use native code logic (which still could be supported with binary translation via e.g. unicorn) and are really just mono bytecode but still can't be run on platforms for which their authors didn't think to build them (or which were not supported by the unity runtime at the time of the game's release).
Yeah, that's a reasonable workaround, as long as it doesn't hit that OpenGL problem above (now it mostly affects DX7 era games, since they don't have Vulkan translation path). Hopefully it can be fixed.
Win64S?
I think that there is a shitload of old desktop and laptop computers from 10 to 15 yrs that are still usable only with a linux distribution and that will not be true anymore.
Now Linux will be in the same lane as osx and windows running after the last shiny new things, and being like: if you want it, buy a new machine that will support it.
If you install 6.12 today (via e.g. Debian 13) then you'll be good until at least 2035. So removing it now de-facto means it will be removed in >10 years.
And as the article explains, this mostly concerns pretty old systems. Are people running the latest kernel on those? Most of the time probably not. This is really not "running after the last shiny thing". That's just nonsensical extreme black/white thinking.
Lots of distros already dropped 32 bit kernel support and it didn't cause much fuss.
Maybe it is not that the architecture was not compatible as much as it was restricted or limited by Intel and co for these cpus
For mainstream laptops/desktops, the 32 bit era ended around 2006 (2003, if you were smart and using Athlon 64s instead of rancid Pentium 4).
Netbooks and other really weak devices held out a few years longer, but by 2010, almost everything new on the market, and a good chunk of the second-hand market, was already 64 bits.
Case in point, I'm writing on a x86_64 laptop that was a free give away to me about a year ago with a CPU release year that is 2012.
I have personally given away a x86_64 desktop unit years ago that was even older, might have had DDR1 memory.
Circa 2013 my old company was gifted a x86_64 motherboard with DDR2 memory that ended up serving as our in-office server for many years. We maxed the RAM (8GB) and at some point bought a CPU upgrade on ebay that gave us hardware virtualization extensions.
Same for WASM -- 32-bit pointers, 64-bit integers.
Both of these platforms have a 32-bit address space -- both for physical addresses and virtual addresses.
Ripping out support for 32-bit pointers seems like a bad idea.
RAM limitations were one reason to use arm64_32, but a bigger reason is that the first watches were only ARMv7 (32-bit) so by sticking with 32-bit pointers, Apple was able to statically recompile all the 3rd party (ARMv7) apps from LLVM bitcode to arm64_32.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/16/watchos-26-moves-apple-...
It follows the latest LTS which I think is reasonable especially since phone vendors wants to have support for the device for several years.
The costs of distros and the kernel steadily dropping older x86 support over the last few years never causes an outcry but it's an erosion of what made Linux great. Especially for non-English speaking people in less developed countries.
Open-source maintenance is not a obligation, but it's sad there is not more people pushing to maintain support. Especially for the "universal operating system" Debian which was previously a gold standard in architecture support.
I maintain a relatively popular live Linux distro based on Ubuntu and due to user demand will look into a NetBSD variant to continue support (as suggested in this thread), potentially to support legacy 586 and 686 too.
Though a Debian 13 "Trixie" variant with a custom compiled 686 kernel will be much easier than switching to NetBSD, it appears like NetBSD has more commitment to longer-term arch support.
It would be wonderful to develop systems (eg emulation) to make it practical to support architectures as close to indefinitely as possible.
It does feel like a big end of an era moment for Linux and distros here, with the project following the kind of decision making of big tech companies rather than the ideals of computer enthusiasts.
Right now these deprecation decisions will directly make me spend time working at layers of abstraction I wasn't intending to in order to mitigate the upstream deprecations of the kernels and distros. The reason I have used the kernel and distros like Debian has been to offload that work to the specialist maintainers of the open-source community.
E.g. there's some stuff like erratum workarounds for old x86 CPUs that would be nice to drop, but they are part of a big framework for handling x86 diversity. Dropping individual workarounds doesn't let you drop the framework.
Exceptions are gonna be cases where dropping the support removed something significant from the lowest common denominator. Big stuff like word size, memory ordering (I assume dropping Alpha would be quite handy), virtual address space limitations.
You can be so flexible that it turns everything into a giant slog. I doubt 32 bit support is anywhere near that horrid; commenting on the idea more than this specific case.
Part of the problem with these discussion is that often when people say "64-bit" vs "32-bit" they are also considering all the new useful instructions that were added to the new instruction set generation. But a true "apples-to-apples" comparison between "32-bit" and "64-bit" should be using almost identical whose only difference is the datapath and pointer size.
I feel that the programs and games I run shouldn't really need more than 4GB memory anyway, and the occasion instance that the extra precision of 64-bit math is useful could be handled by emulating the 64-bit math with the compiler adding a couple extra 32-bit instructions.
When you factor in memory fragmentation, you really only had a solid 0.75-1.5GB of space that could be kept continuously in use. That was starting to become a problem even when 32-bit was the only practical option. A lot of games saw a benefit to just having the larger address space, such that they ran better in 64-bit with only 4GB of RAM despite the fatter 64-bit pointers.
Really the ALU width is an internal implementation detail/optimisation, you can tune it to the size you want at the cost of more cycles to actually complete the full width.
Lots of machines are capable of running with 32-bit pointers and 64-bit integers ("Knuth mode" aka "ILP32"). You get a huge improvement in memory density as long as no single process needs more than 4GB of core.
I saw this last in SmartOS.
I couldn't tell if your comment was a joke, but it is worth mentioning the 8-bit microcontrollers like TinyAVR still fill a niche where every joule and cent counts.
Compared to ARM-based systems? Nope.
I'm pretty shocked to see comments like "the RAM for a 32-bit system costs more than the CPU itself", but open source isn’t supposed to be about market pricing or what’s convenient for vendors; it’s about giving users the freedom to decide what’s worth running.
I understand that maintainers don’t want to drag around unmaintained code forever, and that testing on rare hardware is difficult. But if the code already exists and is working, is it really that costly to just not break it? The kernel's history is full of examples where obscure architectures and configs were kept alive for decades with minimal intervention. Removing them feels like a philosophical shift, especially when modern hardware is more locked down and has a variety of black box systems running behind it like Intel ME and AMD PSP.
Not really. The discussion is about cost, benefits and available resources. Projects are not immune because they are open source or free software. Actual people still need to do the work.
> Open source has always been about making hardware outlive commercial interest and let it run long after the hardware vendor abandons it.
Again, not really. Open source has always been all about freely modifying and distributing software. This leaves some freedom for anyone to keep supporting their pet hardware, but that’s a consequence. In this case, I don’t think it would be a real problem if anyone would step up and commit the ressources necessary to keep supporting older hardware. This freedom was not taken away because a project’s developers decided that something was not worth their time anymore.
It depends on the feature, but in many cases the answer is in fact 'yes.' There's a reason why Alpha support (defunct for decades) still goes on but Itanium support (defunct for years) has thoroughly been ripped out of systems.
Well, there really wasn't much support for atomic instructions in x86 before the introduction of compare-exchange in the 486. Any time you wanted guaranteed atomicity on a 386 you had to disable interrupts, which among other things means that if you lock up during a critical section your entire system hangs. Another implication is that nearly all of our lockless data structure constructs depend on compare-exchange instructions.
It vastly simplified some very tricky sections of the kernel to remove support for systems that don't have hardware atomic instructions, so it ended up being done.
There's not a compelling reason to run a bleeding edge kernel on a 2004 computer, and definitely not one worth justifying making the kernel devs support that setup.
Ehhh, it's about users having the ability to run whatever they like. Which they do.
If a group of users of 32 bit hardware care to volunteer to support the latest kernel features, then there's no problem.
If no one does, then why should a volunteer care enough to do it for them? It's not like the old kernel versions will stop working. Forcing volunteers to work on something they don't want to do is just a bad way to manage volunteers.
It's not just the case that you need people to support 32bit/nommu; you also have to account for the impact on other kernel devs working on features that are made harder.
This is called out in the article around keeping highmem support.
The other dynamic here is that the direction in Linux does come from the top. When you have maintainers like Arnd Bergmann saying they would "like" to remove support for hardware (like the ARM boards), that sets the tone, and other contributors will naturally follow that lead. If leadership encouraged a philosophy closer to "never break existing hardware" the same way we’ve had "never break userspace" for decades, we probably wouldn’t even be debating removing 32 bit.
I’m not saying kernel devs need to carry the weight alone, but it would be nice if the community’s baseline stance was towards preservation rather than obsolescence. :(
> The kernel is still adding support for some 32-bit boards, he said, but at least ten new 64-bit boards gain support for each 32-bit one.
And
> To summarize, he said, the kernel will have to retain support for armv7 systems for at least another ten years. Boards are still being produced with these CPUs, so even ten years may be optimistic for removal. Everything else, he said, will probably fade away sooner than that.
So, no, he does not think that at all.
Wild, like some kind of virtual cache. Reminds me a bit of the old Macintosh 68k accelerators; sometimes they included their own (faster) memory and you could use the existing sticks as a RAM disk.
$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.18-419.0.0.0.2.el5PAE ... (gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-55)) #1 SMP Wed Jun 28 20:25:21 PDT 2017The "steam client" is still a 32 bits ELF executable, which statically loads openGL and x11 libs... (namely not even a wayland->x11 fallback or a opengl->CPU rendering).
We would be all better with a nogfx static PIE executable, even a nogfx dynamic PIE executable if they want to explore the ELF setup of a distro.
Ohhh yes!
So, a couple of weeks ago I came across a discussion where some distro (I don't remember which one) contemplated removing 32-bit user space support, suggesting to users to simply run a VM running a 32 bit Linux instead. It was a stupid suggestion then, and this statement is a nice authorative answer from the kernel side, where such suggestions can be shoved to.
"Linking against 32-bit multilib packages has been removed. The *.i686 packages remain supported for the life cycle of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9."
https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_...
I've been pushing hard for us to move off SLES as a result, and I do not recommend it to anyone who wants a stable distribution that doesn't fuck over its users for stupid reasons.
Like on Armv7-M it's said "Nobody is building anything with this kind of hardware now" - this is just wrong to the point of ridiculousness. Thousands of new products will be designed using these microcontrollers and still billions of units will be produced with them in them - now, true that almost none of those will run Linux on those MCUs but it's crazy to say "nobody" is building things with them. Many of course are moving to Armv8-M microcontrollers but those are 32 bit too!
On the Linux side, there are things like the AMD/Xillinx Zynq-7000 series that will be supported for many years to come.
It's not the worst idea in the world to deprecate support for 32-bit x86 but it is not time to remove it for ARM for many years yet.
2. That sentence wasn't about 32-bit, it was about devices without MMUs.
I am also surprised how little attention the 2038 problem gets. However, I also wonder how big a problem it is. We've known about it for years and all the software I've touched is not susceptible to it.
date -u --date='2038-01-19T03:14:08' +%s | perl -ne 'printf "%#x\n", $_'
[1]: https://perldoc.perl.org/Time::Piece#Use-of-epoch-seconds
I'm sure it'll cause someone some issues, but it'll be very niche by 2038. Most of the sorts of systems that it could cause problems for aren't being used to plan things years in advance, some probably don't even do anything with the date. So it's a niche within a niche (unupdatable systems used for future planning) that's likely to have problems soon, and overall probably no longer a big deal.
TL;DR: It's solved upstream, only an issue for some systems that don't get updates.