• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Linux kernel to finally drop support for 386 processors

I do have to wonder how many people would try and run Linux on their 386 today anyways. I only know one person that does it and they're running Debian 2 and ircii. I don't think that any modern distros really run on anything older than a Pentium anyways, with the exception of the few like DSL.
 
Caluser2000 said:
Minix 3 is a modern operating system cause it's mimimal system requirements is an i586 http://wiki.minix3.org/en/UsersGuide/HardwareRequirements
Click to expand...

Modern because it has a minimal requirement of an i586? That seems like a random choice to me. :) If one was to use CPU requirement in some historically defining manner here, surely it would be the 386 that would make the dividing line - if not actually the 8088 and its contemporaries.

Regarding the book, I think that the 386 was still a hot item in 1992 when Tanenbaum titled it "Modern Operating Systems". So if the word modern applied then, it would obviously apply now. Unless of course, the word is used in the sense of "fashionable", which is what I was implying. I would suggest that historically, anything that can run on a microcomputer would be modern. IOW, MS-DOS, NEXXTEP, and UNIX are modern, SHARE (1959) and OS/360 are not.

I'm actually not nitpicking, but suggesting that NetBSD is using the word in an inappropriate manner. :) IMHO, NetBSD being a highly technical and formal undertaking, would do well to chose a more academically appropriate word. Dropping 386 support is not a matter of fashion, or even age, but a matter of relevance.
 
Compgeke said:
I do have to wonder how many people would try and run Linux on their 386 today anyways.
Click to expand...
The idea of even using an out-of-production chip is really just relevant from a vintage and re-enactment perspective, and I wouldn't expect main stream kernel developers to seriously consider those objectives. For practical purposes I wouldn't even run DOS on a 386 nowadays! I do have a lot of love for that chip though. :)
 
I don't see why current linux would support anything pre PCI era machines, heck or anything pre what you would find dumped on a curb these days (P4/Athlons). Linux seems as bloated as windows and mac os anymore, which is why I keep my old boxed copies of Redhat and FreeBSD for old machines.
 
A quick look down NetBSD ports shows that a port to Alpha was last updated in 2010, 68020 in 2012, VAX in 2009, HP9000 in 2011...

And 386 support was discontinued in 2007.

Something doesn't quite feel right about this.
 
Caluser2000 said:
Something else to ponder http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/i386.html
Click to expand...

Yep, you have to go back to version 4 to get generic 386 support. It's looking like Linux is about the last to drop it. I'm actually surprised that they lasted this long, but I suppose it's got to do with the (assumed) usage by hobbyists and tinkerers. Good thing DOS hasn't dropped it yet. ;)
 
5.0 will run on a 386, with a custom kernel. Installing 5.0 on a 386, when the stock kernel won't run on a 386, is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
Caluser2000 said:
But if you look at the 5.0 installation notes it definately states a 386 as a minimum cpu
Click to expand...
Indeed, but like Hatta says, it requires a custom kernel. The doc you quoted earlier says:
FreeBSD 6.0 and newer no longer supports the original Intel 80386 CPU; these computers are over seven years old and are only supported by FreeBSD 5.X and earlier. Note that the GENERIC kernel only supports 80386 CPUs in FreeBSD 4.X and earlier.
Click to expand...
 
Compgeke said:
I do have to wonder how many people would try and run Linux on their 386 today anyways. I only know one person that does it and they're running Debian 2 and ircii. I don't think that any modern distros really run on anything older than a Pentium anyways, with the exception of the few like DSL.
Click to expand...

The 386 was still in production as late as 2007 or 2008 I think so anyone with an embedded device bought prior to that time that has a 386 in it and was depending on Linux is now going to get the shaft.
 
animekenji said:
The 386 was still in production as late as 2007 or 2008
Click to expand...

True, it (386EX) was produced until 2007.

animekenji said:
I think so anyone with an embedded device bought prior to that time that has a 386 in it and was depending on Linux is now going to get the shaft.
Click to expand...

Embedded devices built around 386 while ago are obviously running older kernel versions. And if for whatever reason it will be a need to fix something in kernel most likely the fix will be applied to the kernel version that is already used on the device (or maybe a very close one). I can hardly see why the kernel version of an embedded device will need to be upgraded to the very latest 3.something.

Even when patching kernels in regular Linux distributions, vendors normally use the kernel version the distribution was originally released with, and back port fixes to it. So that the changes are kept to minimum, and so the additional testing, validation, and certification. It is even more true on embedded devices.
 
animekenji said:
The 386 was still in production as late as 2007 or 2008 I think so anyone with an embedded device bought prior to that time that has a 386 in it and was depending on Linux is now going to get the shaft.
Click to expand...

Many newer processors right up to the P4 are still shafted -- not by processor support but by support for other bits of hardware like power management. I've got a P2 Compaq lappy for example that due to a lack of proper APM support won't turn on the CPU fan on any kernel version newer than 2.4. My P3 laptop I'm using right now to copy stuff to C64 floppies using a XA1541 cable won't turn off the speakers when you plug in a pair of headphones in ANY linux build and refuses to plug and play configure the parallel port -- you HAVE to manually configure IRQ's to make it work. I've got a P4 era celery in the garage that refuses to turn the wireless back on if you let it go to sleep and linux also refuses to treat 'properly' when plug and play is enabled on 2.6/newer kernels.

APM support was never ported right to the 2.6 kernel or newer, and a lot of early allegedly AHCI devices are more hybrid between APM and AHCI... and linsux HATES such machines.

NOT that Linux as a desktop OS is useful/complete/properly supports any of my modern hardware either -- there's a reason I consider it a steaming pile of /FAIL/ so far as using it on the desktop is concerned... and why it's such a royal pain in the ass to try and take any Droid device and bring it past the version it was released with. (Which is why my ICOO D70GT is stuck running Gingerbread -- almost bricked it TWICE trying to go to Ice Cream Sandwich)

It's a great OS for servers and when the hardware base is specifically chosen to the OS... and when you don't use X11 stacks like on Android... but as a general purpose desktop OS it's less functional IMHO than a copy of Windows contemporary to the hardware. That's been the case of *nix based OS all along and a LOT of that falls squarely in the laps of X11 and unstable hardware API's.

There's a reason the major *nix success stories like OSX and Android threw the X server in the trash and used their own video/windowing API's. (Apple making their own X-Server emulation layer to run on their API instead of the other way around)
 
Last edited:
They drop 386... and they still have support for the XT keyboard module. Hmm, sounds logical to me!

I've got a PS/2 model 8580 with a 25 MHz 386/DX running Debian 2.1 (Slink). I telnetted into it just now:

Code: 
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 i386.rubbermallet.org

i386 login: mike
Password:
Linux i386 2.0.38 #2 Thu Dec 9 04:30:31 PST 1999 i386 unknown

Copyright (C) 1993-1999 Software in the Public Interest, and others

Most of the programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are
freely redistributable; the exact distribution terms for each program
are described in the individual files in /usr/doc/*/copyright

Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent
permitted by applicable law.
Last login: Sat Dec  1 11:57:23 on ttyp0 from 192.168.1.91.
No mail.
$ uname -a
Linux i386 2.0.38 #2 Thu Dec 9 04:30:31 PST 1999 i386 unknown
$ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:            13         13          0         13          1          4
-/+ buffers/cache:          7          6
Swap:           60          5         55

$ df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used  Avail  Capacity Mounted on
/dev/sda3             421M  358M    41M     90%   /

$ uptime
  1:10pm  up 80 days, 58 min,  4 users,  load average: 0.09, 0.02, 0.01

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
cpu             : 386
model           : 386 SX/DX
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
stepping        : unknown
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
fpu             : no
fpu_exception   : no
cpuid           : no
wp              : no
flags           :
bogomips        : 4.95

$

It runs great on there. It even runs Apache 1.3 around the clock, not hosting anything important but there are really good docs on there for x86 assembly, 6502 stuff, etc... the file wapple2-0.12.1.23.zip on there is the source and binary for an Apple ][ I was writing for a while, but haven't touched it for a year. Runs Oregon Trail very nicely. The sound output is awful though.

http://irc.rubbermallet.org:386/

^^^ Who needs eight cores and 16 GB of RAM? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top