NetBSD-Users archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: would anybody use binary packages for NetBSD/i386 10?
Hi Greg
Greg Troxel wrote:
In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
people who:
are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)
are using the binary packges from quarterly branches on ftp.netbsd.org
are running NetBSD 10 already, or who intend to move to it soon or
after release
I still have several i386 systems and I intend to gradually switch some
or all of them to NetBSD 10 and binary packages are welcome.
My guess is that at this point, i386 use is limited to
a) old embedded-type systems (soekris)
b) systems that are running i386 because they were first installed many
years ago and haven't been converted to amd64 for no good reason or
for some odd special case odd reason
c) build systems to support category a/b systems, for testing or
building private binary package sets
d) retrocomputing
I am mostly in category a) or d). that is, pure 32bit systems of various
age. What can run 64bit has been upgraded.
I add as a category also VM systems, since for most of them 32bit is
enough, 64bit wll use more resources, but it is probably nowadays
negligible for powerful hosts.
Most of my systems are laptops, some just "old but good" and some...
more vintage (but heck, the older, the nicer the keyboard...)
If a system runs fine and is usable with 9.3, is there any good reason
why it shouldn't run well with 10? Slower? More resource usage?
Except where support of certain devices broke, it NetBSD has a long
history of upgrading well for me.
and that the amount of use with ftp.n.o binary packages is extremely
small.
With time, userland became very fat, so building a usable desktop
environment with gui on a laptop is not desiderable, especially given
RAM limitations of older laptops and ageing hard disks. So while I did
build everything from source 5 years ago, I now welcome binary
packages.... especially for things like GCC, browsers.... heck even
installing git and subversion is fat work.
It is no longer gcc 2.95 building cvs!
Riccardo
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index