There was a lot of discussion on this, but rather less actual data.

Yesterday a friend turned up with an EEEpc 1000H with 1GB RAM and a
1.6GHz 32 bit Atom processor, loaded up with a corrupted version of
XP...and a request to make it work or chuck it.

To cut a long story short, with a display of 1024x600 it looked big
enough to take Linux Mint, so I downloaded an onsolete19.2 Mint MATE
version from somewhere (that's the latest 32 bit) threw that on a 1TB
USB drive (I simply have no pen drives!) and live booted it.

Was it slow? Yes. Especially booting, loading programs and updating
itself, BUT once booted it ran remarkably well.

So I installed MINT and looked to find its limits

Firefox was relatively fine, on a single tab anyway, and looking at
memory usage the machine decided to use less buffers and reserve more
program RAM accounting for its slower I/O speed . It had made a swap
partition, but was barely using it.

Wifi and display 'just worked' . As did the built in camera and microphone.

The only real drawback was that full video did not - at least via
Firefox. It was too choppy to be watchable.

So, if you have a machine of that class or better, Mint Mate at least
will work pretty well.

--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift

Am Donnerstag, 07. Juli 2022, um 11:20:36 Uhr schrieb The Natural
Philosopher:

> So, if you have a machine of that class or better, Mint Mate at least
> will work pretty well.

If it doesn't support i386 anymore, don't use it, it is then insecure.
First check if the CPU supports amd64 (Intel calls that EM64T/Intel-64).
If so, almost any distribution will work.
The Atom with 1.6 GHz is likely the N270, no amd64 support.

I use Debian 11 on such machines, if you like you might you a much more
lightweight window manager like mwm instead of Mate.
Debian with mwm can run on a Pentium 3 600 MHz with 384 MiB RAM.

On 07/07/2022 11:47, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 07. Juli 2022, um 11:20:36 Uhr schrieb The Natural
> Philosopher:
>
>> So, if you have a machine of that class or better, Mint Mate at least
>> will work pretty well.
>
> If it doesn't support i386 anymore, don't use it, it is then insecure.

I don't think the application that this is intended for has any issues
with that.

Support for 19.2 runs until 2023.

Really, you are not running nuclear power stations on a 16 (?) year old
netbook

Its for standalone word processing mainly. will never see the internet
probably

> First check if the CPU supports amd64 (Intel calls that EM64T/Intel-64).
> If so, almost any distribution will work.

Really, grandmothers and eggs, " i686 detected this distribution will
not boot unless X-64 is detected) or something"

> The Atom with 1.6 GHz is likely the N270, no amd64 support.

If you bothered to look at the spec of the actual machine whose type
number I quoted, you will see that this is exactly what is installed. No
'likely' about it

>
> I use Debian 11 on such machines, if you like you might you a much more
> lightweight window manager like mwm instead of Mate.
> Debian with mwm can run on a Pentium 3 600 MHz with 384 MiB RAM.
>

I installed Mint MATE because I can support it, the 32 bit is still
supported, and it was to hand.

And as far as I am concerned (I still run windows XP in a VM for
specialist apps) obsolete code that worked in its day will still work if
your usage doesn't change.

And not to reiterate the thread we just fished with the light weight of
the WM is completely irrelevant. When any browser or serious app will
take ten times the RAM

--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

Am 07.07.22 um 12:20 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
> There was a lot of discussion on this, but rather less actual data.
>
> Yesterday a friend turned up with an EEEpc 1000H with 1GB RAM and a
> 1.6GHz 32 bit Atom processor, loaded up with a corrupted version of
> XP...and a request to make it work or chuck it.
>
> To cut a long story short, with a display of 1024x600 it looked big
> enough to take Linux Mint, so I downloaded an onsolete19.2 Mint MATE
> version from somewhere (that's the latest 32 bit) threw that on a 1TB
> USB drive (I simply have no pen drives!) and live booted it.

Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 07.07.22 um 12:20 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>> There was a lot of discussion on this, but rather less actual data.
>>
>> Yesterday a friend turned up with an EEEpc 1000H with 1GB RAM and a
>> 1.6GHz 32 bit Atom processor, loaded up with a corrupted version of
>> XP...and a request to make it work or chuck it.
>>
>> To cut a long story short, with a display of 1024x600 it looked big
>> enough to take Linux Mint, so I downloaded an onsolete19.2 Mint MATE
>> version from somewhere (that's the latest 32 bit) threw that on a 1TB
>> USB drive (I simply have no pen drives!) and live booted it.
>
> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>
>
Please.

I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would have
used a megabyte of RAM less.

Show me the browser that uses 500 megabytes less, and I'll sit up and
take notice.

I am not on the business of promoting my ego by my choice of Linux
distro or window manager. My purpose was to show an example of what can
be done and give a rough idea of performance. I looked into the
possibility of upgrading the RAM , fitting an SSD, etc etc, bit it
simply wasn't worth it.

The task was to take a now dead child's machine and make it fit for a
new purpose. Mostly as a word processor.

To that end, as I may have to support it, my choice was for the distro I
am most familiar with. Not because am a genius for using it, but because
around ten years ago it happened to be the first satisfactory debian
based distro I stumbled on. Why Debian? People I knew were developing
and supporting it.

The answer to the unspoken question is simply this

1GB of RAM and an 1.6Ghz Atom is (just) enough to run a modern distro
pretty well, (as good as XP) but probably won't support video.

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:47:33 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, 07. Juli 2022, um 11:20:36 Uhr schrieb The Natural
> Philosopher:
>
>> So, if you have a machine of that class or better, Mint Mate at least
>> will work pretty well.
>
> If it doesn't support i386 anymore, don't use it, it is then insecure.

Especially on January 19th, 2038 after 03:14:07 UTC, when another problem arises.
--
Andreas

https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 14:00:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 07.07.22 um 12:20 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>> There was a lot of discussion on this, but rather less actual data.
>>>
>>> Yesterday a friend turned up with an EEEpc 1000H with 1GB RAM and a
>>> 1.6GHz 32 bit Atom processor, loaded up with a corrupted version of
>>> XP...and a request to make it work or chuck it.
>>>
>>> To cut a long story short, with a display of 1024x600 it looked big
>>> enough to take Linux Mint, so I downloaded an onsolete19.2 Mint MATE
>>> version from somewhere (that's the latest 32 bit) threw that on a 1TB
>>> USB drive (I simply have no pen drives!) and live booted it.
>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>
> Please.
>
> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would
> have used a megabyte of RAM less.

More than just one MB. It makes a difference, especially at boot time.

> Show me the browser that uses 500 megabytes less, and I'll sit up and
> take notice.

In a German language usenet group there is currently a discussion about
that. Some users notice that Firefox uses more RAM than for example
Chromium, others cannot confirm it. If the hard disk is large enough I'd
install both and see which uses less RAM.

[...]

> To that end, as I may have to support it, my choice was for the distro
> I am most familiar with. Not because am a genius for using it, but
> because around ten years ago it happened to be the first satisfactory
> debian based distro I stumbled on. Why Debian? People I knew were
> developing and supporting it.

Been there. About six years ago a completely new to computers 80 year old
neighbor approached me "Hey, you know computer, right?". Me "*SIGH*",
knowing what comes next. Yes, viruses on his Windows 7 or 8. Knowing he
has zero experience I installed Ubuntu, set me up a user account and
allowed me (not him - and that is important) root access.

Connected via his WIFI to do admin stuff (eventually had the computer do
automated package updates) and put his computer into the DMZ of the WIFI
router and setup DYN DNS. Worked fine for him for years and still does. He
moved out but apparently took the router with him. I can still access
this machine remotely.

Only problem, his Ubuntu is outdated and I don't dare to do a remote
upgrade, fearing it will fail and he's without working computer.
--
Andreas

On 07/07/2022 15:52, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:47:33 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, 07. Juli 2022, um 11:20:36 Uhr schrieb The Natural
>> Philosopher:
>>
>>> So, if you have a machine of that class or better, Mint Mate at least
>>> will work pretty well.
>>
>> If it doesn't support i386 anymore, don't use it, it is then insecure.
>
> Especially on January 19th, 2038 after 03:14:07 UTC, when another problem arises.

I doubt that any of the people involved will be alive by then

Do any of you guys live in the real world?

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

At Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:52:45 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> On 07/07/2022 15:52, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:47:33 +0200, Marco Moock wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Donnerstag, 07. Juli 2022, um 11:20:36 Uhr schrieb The Natural
> >> Philosopher:
> >>
> >>> So, if you have a machine of that class or better, Mint Mate at least
> >>> will work pretty well.
> >>
> >> If it doesn't support i386 anymore, don't use it, it is then insecure.
> >
> > Especially on January 19th, 2038 after 03:14:07 UTC, when another problem arises.
>
> I doubt that any of the people involved will be alive by then
>
> Do any of you guys live in the real world?

Actually, modern Linux, *including current vintage 32-bit kernels* already use
a 64-bit time_t.

>

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 11:50:13 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> At Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:52:45 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07/07/2022 15:52, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> >>
>> > Especially on January 19th, 2038 after 03:14:07 UTC, when another problem arises.
>>
>> I doubt that any of the people involved will be alive by then

Please don't be so morbid.

>> Do any of you guys live in the real world?

What's that? ;-)

> Actually, modern Linux, *including current vintage 32-bit kernels* already use
> a 64-bit time_t.

Not mine.

~$ date --date 01/01/2037
Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 EST 2037

~$ date --date 01/01/2039
date: invalid date ‘01/01/2039’

It runs 5.17.0-1-686-pae (Debian testing).

Do I have to install a certain package?
--
Andreas

Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 11:50:13 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:52:45 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2022 15:52, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> Especially on January 19th, 2038 after 03:14:07 UTC, when another problem arises.
>>>
>>> I doubt that any of the people involved will be alive by then
>
> Please don't be so morbid.
>
>>> Do any of you guys live in the real world?
>
> What's that? ;-)
>
>> Actually, modern Linux, *including current vintage 32-bit kernels*
>> already use a 64-bit time_t.
>
> Not mine.
>
> ~$ date --date 01/01/2037
> Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 EST 2037
>
> ~$ date --date 01/01/2039
> date: invalid date ‘01/01/2039’
>
> It runs 5.17.0-1-686-pae (Debian testing).
>
> Do I have to install a certain package?

32-bit kernels since 5.6 are capable of handling 64-bit timestamps.

However applications do not (normally) use the kernel directly in this
case; they are dependent on the API provided by Glibc. As far as I know
that still defaults to 32-bit time_t on 32-bit x86.

In my opinion it’s largely wasted effort by this point. 32-bit x86 is on
last-gasp life support. Anything that needs to process timestamps more
than a decade in the future will almost certainly need recompiling for a
64-bit platform anyway.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>
> Please.
>
> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would have
> used a megabyte of RAM less.

Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
as well.

> Show me the browser that uses 500 megabytes less, and I'll sit up and
> take notice.

I do most of my browsing in Dillo, but I doubt that you want to
hear that.

> The task was to take a now dead child's machine and make it fit for a
> new purpose. Mostly as a word processor.
>
> To that end, as I may have to support it, my choice was for the distro I
> am most familiar with. Not because am a genius for using it, but because
> around ten years ago it happened to be the first satisfactory debian
> based distro I stumbled on. Why Debian? People I knew were developing
> and supporting it.

So the topic is "Mint on a small memory PC", not Linux, because
that's all you're looking at.

> The answer to the unspoken question is simply this
>
> 1GB of RAM and an 1.6Ghz Atom is (just) enough to run a modern distro
> pretty well, (as good as XP) but probably won't support video.

Video in the browser maybe (I don't enable that in Firefox anyway
so I'm not sure what the overhead is), but standard-definition (and
maybe HD) video should play fine in mplayer or VLC.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 7/7/22 6:20 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> There was a lot of discussion on this, but rather less actual data.
>
> Yesterday a friend turned up with an EEEpc 1000H with 1GB RAM and a
> 1.6GHz 32 bit Atom processor, loaded up with a corrupted version of
> XP...and a request to make it work or chuck it.
>
> To cut a long story short, with a display of 1024x600 it looked big
> enough to take Linux Mint, so I downloaded an onsolete19.2 Mint MATE
> version from somewhere (that's the latest 32 bit) threw that on a 1TB
> USB drive (I simply have no pen drives!) and live booted it.
>
> Was it slow? Yes. Especially booting, loading programs  and updating
> itself, BUT once booted it ran remarkably well.
>
> So I installed MINT and looked to find its limits
>
> Firefox was relatively fine, on a single tab anyway, and looking at
> memory usage the machine decided to use less buffers and reserve more
> program RAM accounting for its slower I/O speed . It had made a swap
> partition, but was barely using it.
>
> Wifi and display 'just worked' . As did the built in camera and microphone.
>
> The only real drawback was that full video did not - at least via
> Firefox. It was too choppy to be watchable.
>
> So, if you have a machine of that class or better, Mint Mate at least
> will work pretty well.

I had an identical unit for a long time (before I dropped it while
standing on a ladder, trying to adjust an IP security camera). I was
using MX with LXDE. Again, everything "just worked". It was not a
"snappy" sub-lap but it was more than adequate for quite a number
of purposes. It'd handle two or three Firefox tabs OK depending
on content.

If I find one in a 2nd-hand shop I'll probably buy it. The
replacements were a couple of Dell P24t's - the newer one
was snappier than the older one of the same model type.
Heavily used for Zoom meetings during the lockdown. They
are also "adequate" - and a step above the EEEpc, but I did
like the EEEpc regardless.

Now if anybody needs like REALLY low-mem/cpu ... something
like Slitaz might do the trick. Hyper-slim but still more
or less "usable" for a number of purposes (playing video
games or YouTube vids are NOT any of said purposes on an
early-gen laptop :-)

That's the nice bit about modern Linux - so MANY options.
There's one to fit almost anybody's need.

On 2022-07-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Show me the browser that uses 500 megabytes less, and I'll sit up and
> take notice.

I'm currently running Chromium on my 2GB 2004-vintage Centrino laptop
and htop shows about 595MB currently in use. Closing the browser results
in 190MB in use, so that's pretty close. (This is with a single browser
window open playing a youtube video. Desktop is LXDE.)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 7/7/22 9:50 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-07-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Show me the browser that uses 500 megabytes less, and I'll sit up and
>> take notice.
>
> I'm currently running Chromium on my 2GB 2004-vintage Centrino laptop
> and htop shows about 595MB currently in use. Closing the browser results
> in 190MB in use, so that's pretty close. (This is with a single browser
> window open playing a youtube video. Desktop is LXDE.)

Check into browser settings. I know that with Firefox you CAN
tweak down the amount of memory it automatically grabs by
quite a bit. Chromium seems "less-well documented" but likely
something similar is possible.

In FF you can also considerably INCREASE the amount of memory
it uses for buffers. I have a PI that I use for streaming from
YouTube and the like - tripled the buffer space and a few
related items and it became much smoother. A lot of those
have a maximum AND minimum setting ... increase both, make
the min a lot closer to the max.

Am 08.07.22 um 03:50 schrieb Roger Blake:
> On 2022-07-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Show me the browser that uses 500 megabytes less, and I'll sit up and
>> take notice.
>
> I'm currently running Chromium on my 2GB 2004-vintage Centrino laptop
> and htop shows about 595MB currently in use. Closing the browser results
> in 190MB in use, so that's pretty close. (This is with a single browser
> window open playing a youtube video. Desktop is LXDE.)

My Mint Cinnamon 64bit immediately after the boot sequence without
manually started programs.

System: Kernel: 5.14.0-1044-oem x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: N/A
Desktop: Cinnamon 5.2.7
wm: muffin dm: LightDM Distro: Linux Mint 20.3 Una base:
Ubuntu 20.04 focal
Machine: Type: Laptop System: Dell product: XPS 13 9310 v: N/A serial:
<filter> Chassis:
type: 10 serial: <filter>
Mobo: Dell model: 0MK6WC v: A00 serial: <filter> UEFI: Dell
v: 3.6.0 date: 03/17/2022
Info: Processes: 268 Uptime: N/A Memory: 15.35 GiB used: 1016.4 MiB
(6.5%) Init:
systemd

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 07/07/2022 19:51, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 11:50:13 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:
>>
>> At Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:52:45 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 07/07/2022 15:52, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Especially on January 19th, 2038 after 03:14:07 UTC, when another problem arises.
>>>
>>> I doubt that any of the people involved will be alive by then
>
> Please don't be so morbid.

What is morbid about facts? Almost none of the people I know have a life
expectancy of much more than ten years. Another one goes tits up every
3-4 months.

Realistically one starts to make financial plans based on this
expectation. I should run out of money just about as the coffin lid
closes...

>
>>> Do any of you guys live in the real world?
>
> What's that? ;-)
>
>> Actually, modern Linux, *including current vintage 32-bit kernels* already use
>> a 64-bit time_t.
>
> Not mine.
>
> ~$ date --date 01/01/2037
> Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 EST 2037
>
> ~$ date --date 01/01/2039
> date: invalid date ‘01/01/2039’
>
> It runs 5.17.0-1-686-pae (Debian testing).
>
> Do I have to install a certain package?

My Pi doesn't do that date.

But seriously, who expects and old 32 bit netbook to be in any kind of
serious use in 2038?

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 07/07/2022 22:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> In my opinion it’s largely wasted effort by this point. 32-bit x86 is on
> last-gasp life support. Anything that needs to process timestamps more
> than a decade in the future will almost certainly need recompiling for a
> 64-bit platform anyway.

Amen to that. 32bit will of course persist in the embedded space, and in
IOT areas, but they can be expected to run their own date and time
software if its significant.

Heck people still build kit with 8 bit processors.

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>
>> Please.
>>
>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would have
>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>
> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
> as well.
>
No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU power.

>> Show me the browser that uses 500 megabytes less, and I'll sit up and
>> take notice.
>
> I do most of my browsing in Dillo, but I doubt that you want to
> hear that.
>
Whatever rocks your boat.

>> The task was to take a now dead child's machine and make it fit for a
>> new purpose. Mostly as a word processor.
>>
>> To that end, as I may have to support it, my choice was for the distro I
>> am most familiar with. Not because am a genius for using it, but because
>> around ten years ago it happened to be the first satisfactory debian
>> based distro I stumbled on. Why Debian? People I knew were developing
>> and supporting it.
>
> So the topic is "Mint on a small memory PC", not Linux, because
> that's all you're looking at.
>

Mint *is* linux. oh dear. The 'argumentum ad semanticum'.

Not only is it linux, its extremely representative of all the sorts of
desktop linices that one would want to install to upgrade old hardware.

You wont catch a philosopher out with the Problem Of Induction

"There exists a Linux that will outperform the one you happen to have
installed: prove me wrong"

>> The answer to the unspoken question is simply this
>>
>> 1GB of RAM and an 1.6Ghz Atom is (just) enough to run a modern distro
>> pretty well, (as good as XP) but probably won't support video.
>
> Video in the browser maybe (I don't enable that in Firefox anyway
> so I'm not sure what the overhead is), but standard-definition (and
> maybe HD) video should play fine in mplayer or VLC.
>
Well I may just try that. Since I will be in the same place as that
machine later.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 07/07/2022 22:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> In my opinion it’s largely wasted effort by this point. 32-bit x86 is on
>> last-gasp life support. Anything that needs to process timestamps more
>> than a decade in the future will almost certainly need recompiling for a
>> 64-bit platform anyway.
>
> Amen to that. 32bit will of course persist in the embedded space, and
> in IOT areas, but they can be expected to run their own date and time
> software if its significant.

Embedded can also much be more tolerant of ABI changes - if you change
the internal time_t representation in your embedded firmware then the
only people who care is your software engineers. Do the same on a
desktop platform and every library and application has to be recompiled,
lurking assumptions about representations are suddenly surface, and any
library or plugin ABI involving time_t has a compatibility break that
needs to be managed somehow.

It can be done (Linux had multiple complete ABI changes in the 1990s,
plus a more subtle approach to file offsets) but it’s disruptive and
painful.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 07/07/2022 16:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>
>> Especially on January 19th, 2038 after 03:14:07 UTC, when another
>> problem arises.
>
> I doubt that any of the people involved will be alive by then
>
> Do any of you guys live in the real world?
>

In the real world, professionally, I remember this causing a significant
production bug circa 1994. Date rules used to be the inane trivia we
needed to know intimately as programmers. Back then, we were using the
RougeWave library (before c++ STL).

I was chatting with a mate the other day about how programming had
become easier. Standard libraries, tools, and Google search removing
lots of the problems we used to have. But we decided the usual idiot
complexifiers had just spread an additional layer of crap on top, making
it just as difficult as ever.

In article <20220707214400@news.eternal-september.org>,
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>On 2022-07-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Show me the browser that uses 500 megabytes less, and I'll sit up and
>> take notice.
>
>I'm currently running Chromium on my 2GB 2004-vintage Centrino laptop
>and htop shows about 595MB currently in use. Closing the browser results
>in 190MB in use, so that's pretty close. (This is with a single browser
>window open playing a youtube video. Desktop is LXDE.)
>

Sounds to me Chrome is a big hog!

>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
> Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
> The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
> There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
> Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important sig!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Which truth is the correct one? -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:48:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 07/07/2022 19:51, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> Not mine.
>> ~$ date --date 01/01/2037
>> Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 EST 2037
>> ~$ date --date 01/01/2039
>> date: invalid date ‘01/01/2039’
>> It runs 5.17.0-1-686-pae (Debian testing).
>> Do I have to install a certain package?
>
> My Pi doesn't do that date.
>
> But seriously, who expects and old 32 bit netbook to be in any kind of
> serious use in 2038?

Who expected any old computer from the 60s or 70s still in service on
January 1st 2000?
--
Andreas

On 08/07/2022 19:04, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:48:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 07/07/2022 19:51, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> Not mine.
>>> ~$ date --date 01/01/2037
>>> Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 EST 2037
>>> ~$ date --date 01/01/2039
>>> date: invalid date ‘01/01/2039’
>>> It runs 5.17.0-1-686-pae (Debian testing).
>>> Do I have to install a certain package?
>>
>> My Pi doesn't do that date.
>>
>> But seriously, who expects and old 32 bit netbook to be in any kind of
>> serious use in 2038?
>
> Who expected any old computer from the 60s or 70s still in service on
> January 1st 2000?

They weren't. Just some legacy COBOL code was all.

I wont be here in 2038, so I couldn't care less.

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 19:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2022 19:04, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:48:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> But seriously, who expects and old 32 bit netbook to be in any kind of
>>> serious use in 2038?
>> Who expected any old computer from the 60s or 70s still in service
>> on
>> January 1st 2000?
>
> They weren't. Just some legacy COBOL code was all.

There was a lot. Starting with MS-DOS before 5.0. which weren't not
Y2K-compliant.

In 2003 I bought an already old Pentium I (1996-ish). The BIOS would not
allow to set 2003 as year and went back to 19-something (probably 1903,
but I forgot). Subsequently a fairly new Linux did the same. I seem to
remember that I told Linux in a start-script to add 100 years to the
date. I was at that time in a cheap hotel, and WIFI wasn't around there,
so no NTP to access which would have taken care of it.

There is more. I think early Apple ][ failed Y2K too.
--
Andreas