One lesson I learned from this latest upgrade: DON'T SKIP READING THE DOCUMENTATION BEFORE UPGRADING.
I rebooted after upgrade and found myself dropped in a console-only environment. Turns out the (proprietary) drivers for my video card are not supported anymore. Now I'm on nouveau and it sucks.
My fault for having an Nvidia card, I guess, but an AMD equivalent is on its way.
For this exact reason I enable Timeshift on every computer I run. If an upgrade fails spectacularly like that, recovering and reverting to the old edition is as simple as picking a pre-upgrade snapshot from the boot menu.
If you're not on btrfs, I'm sure there are similar tools for your favorite file system. For me, it's been a life saver.
Similarly, Trixie contains an updated version of Dovecot that (even though the version number seems to indicate otherwise) has a new configuration format that is not backwards compatible. This is clearly stated in the release notes but may be surprising nevertheless.
I have too developed PTSD from nvidia + debian (even worse, nvidia optimus on a laptop).
To the point where I would not upgrade my system for months at a time, when I was in the midst of important work, because I didn't want to spend a day on tty trying to make the DE work again.
If your card is that old, shouldn't the nouveau drivers be quite full-featured anyway? Regardless, you may also want to run a Bookworm kernel with a full Trixie userspace. It should install cleanly once you add the Bookworm repos, and you'd be fully supported for quite some time thanks to LTS. It would technically be a FrankenDebian, but one that might be quite acceptable nonetheless.
Debian Trixie drops 32-bit x86 support. Ubuntu dropped 32-bit support already earlier, which meant that lightweight Lubuntu and Xubuntu don't support it either. It's sad to see old hardware support getting dropped like that. They are still good machines as servers and desktop terminals.
Are there any good Linux distros left with 32-bit x86 support? Do I have to switch to NetBSD?
> They are perfectly good machines as servers and desktop terminals.
On the power usage alone surely an upgrade to a still extremely old 64bit machine would be a significant upgrade. For a server that you run continuously a 20+ year old machine will consume quite a bit.
> It's sad to see old hardware support getting dropped like that.
The problem is that someone needs to work to support different hardware architectures. More exotic hardware, more complicated and expensive the work becomes.
People who run these 32-bit machines are unlikely to vouch in terms of work contributed or money contributed to get the people paid for this work, so it is better to drop the support and focus the same developer resources on areas which benefits larger user base.
32-bit userspace packages are still supported, though with increased hardware requirements compared to Bookworm. You may find that you're able to run a more-or-less complete 32-bit Trixie userspace, while staying on Bookworm wrt. the kernel and perhaps a few critical packages.
If 32-bit support gets dropped altogether (which might happen for 'forky' or 'duke') it can probably move to the unofficial Debian Ports infrastructure, provided that people are willing to keep it up-to-date.
I kept my old 32-bit laptop alive for quite a bit using archlinux32 but in the end more and more software started breaking, so that is not really a route I can recommend anymore. I was using the laptop mainly if I was traveling or on holidays, so not so very often so it felt wasteful to to buy a new one. But this year the software breakages really started costing too much time, so I bought a new one. RIP old laptop (2007-2025).
Alpine still supports x86 and other 32bit platforms. It’s also very lightweight, though I’d say it targets a very different userbase than Debian or Ubuntu — the default install is quite minimal and requires more setup.
Does dropping 32-bit support just mean that there are no supported x86-32 OS images, or that 32-bit applications are generally not supported?
If it means that no 32-bit apps are supported, how does Steam handle this? Does it run 32-bit games in a VM? Is the Steam client itself a 64-bit application these days or still stuck on 32-bits?
Just keep in mind that this does not apply to armhf, which is 32 bits and all old Raspberry Pi boards use.
What's your use case for 32-bit x86 where you are still keeping Debian at its latest version? Alone for the power consumption you might be better off by switching to a newer low-spec machine.
>It's sad to see old hardware support getting dropped like that. They are still good machines as servers and desktop terminals
How many 32 bit PCs are still actively in used at scale to make that argument? Linux devs are now missing kernel regression bugs on 64bit Core 2 Duo hardware because not enough people are using them anymore to catch and report these bugs, and those systems are newer and way more capable for daily driving than 32 bit ones. So then if nobody uses Core 2 Duo machines anymore, how many people do you think are using 32bit Pentium 4/Athlon XP era machines to make that argument?
But let's pretend you're right, and assume there's hoards of Pentium 4 users out there refusing to upgrade for some bizarre reason, and are unhappy they can't run the latest Linux, then using a Pentium 4 with its 80W TDP as a terminal would be an insane waste of energy when that's less capable than some no-name Android table with a 5W ARM SoC which can even play 1080p Youtube while the Pentium 4 cannot even open a modern JS webpage. Even most of the developing world now has more capable mobile devices in their pockets and don't have use for the Pentium 4 machines that have long been landfilled.
And legacy industrial systems still running Pentium 4 HW, are just happy to keep running the same Windows XP/Embedded they came from the factory since those machines are airgapped and don't need to use latest Linux kernel for their purpose.
So sorry, but based on this evidence, your argument is literally complaining for the sake of complaining about problems that nobody outside of retro computing hobbyists have who like using old HW for tinkering with new SW as a challenge. But it's not a real issue for anyone. So what I don't get is the entitled expectations that the SW industry should keep writing new SW for free to keep it working for your long outdated 25+ year old CPU just because you, for some reason, refuse to upgrade to more modern HW that can be had for free.
There are good faith arguments to be had about the state of forced obsolescence in the industry with Microsoft, Apple, etc, but this is not one of them.
>Are there any good Linux distros left with 32-bit x86 support? Do I have to switch to NetBSD?
Yes there are, tonnes: AntiX, Devuan, Damn Small Linux, Tiny Core Linux, etc
Is there any reason to run Debian as a user, as opposed to a sysadmin? I love running Debian on my servers, it's boring and rock-solid, but why should I run it on my PC instead of a derivative distro?
There are many reasons to run Debian as a user, why wouldn't there be? I'm sure there's also many reasons not to. By "derivative distro" I assume you mean for example Ubuntu, or maybe Linux Mint -- personally my love for Debian is that it's _not_ Ubuntu. There's no "firefox installed as snap", it just feels cleaner and snappier while still being very similar to what I'm used to. Debian used to be slightly more difficult to install, but I don't feel that's the case anymore, especially not since they ship non-free firmware on the install media now.
Well... it just works, so it's fine. I remember a time when I was a student where I would change distribution every six months: Fedora, Debian, Archlinux, Gentoo, FreeBSD, etc. but I finally landed on Debian and stayed there as I grew older.
In the stable distribution, packages tend to be a little dated obviously, but at least it is _stable_. And you can go with the _testing_ distribution for more up-to-date packages.
Also, as a sysadmin, I like having it on my computer to develop and test scripts without having to SSH in a dedicated environment (I still have to eventually but only for the final tests).
Well, right now I'd say it would be _consistent_, at least. I run Fedora on my desktop/laptop/remote devboxes and use Debian as either a base container image (for Docker/LXC) or as a server (whenever the option is there), and I must say I like Trixie's little CLI quality of life improvements.
Not really sure I'd swap Fedora's _really good_ driver support for it, but since I'm running Silverblue and most of my "civilian" apps are flatpaks I probably wouldn't notice the difference.
Yes. I've been running Debian unstable as my desktop for almost two decades. Especially nowadays its usually less hassle, more stable and more up-to-date than the derivatives.
I don't really see a difference between using Debian for workstations and servers.
The only real reason to use Debian is that you think what Debian is trying to do is a good thing. They have a very clear definition of what they consider acceptable software engineering practices, how they think things shoud work, what's acceptable from free software and they do a lot of work to ensure what they ship fit that. They value portability to an extreme, have strong opinions about how linking should be done, separations of concern and what can be considered free software. It's an extremely political distribution with a lot of patching happening to try to shoe horn things into their vision.
I personally think it's extremely misguided, breaks a lot of good sotfware, mostly unsafe, a significant drag on the people actually developping what they ship, and basically the embodyment of everything that is wrong with Linux distribution as a concept. Others will tell you they are fighting the good fight for their users freedom and the guardian of the kingdom.
How you stand on this will determine if Debian - and its derivatives which bring its flaws with the Debian inheritance - makes sense for you.
I installed it on my Dada laptop and for me its great since I can forget about it until the next major version releases.
The unattended updates also ensure he gets the latest security patches without me coming over and running apt every other week.
I would think more than 90% of all computer users (be it in their personal life or profession) do not need the latest versions of anything, but would prefer a stable system with no sudden changes. It's also much less on a burden on those that manage the systems for them.
What a silly, uneducated and trolling point to make. Yes, and "as always" Red Hat Enterprise Linux is dragging its feet compared to Debian Trixie -- why do you think that is? Maybe Fedora, Debian and RHEL are different Linux distributions with different goals and trade-offs?
Yea gotta get rid of the 32bit x86 code that's been around forever.
So we can add support for RISC-V which has a fraction of x86 installed base and still doesn't have an appreciable hardware standard that allows for broad compatibility between chips.
[+] [-] JimDabell|7 months ago|reply
Debian 13 “Trixie”, 412 comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44848782
[+] [-] klez|7 months ago|reply
I rebooted after upgrade and found myself dropped in a console-only environment. Turns out the (proprietary) drivers for my video card are not supported anymore. Now I'm on nouveau and it sucks.
My fault for having an Nvidia card, I guess, but an AMD equivalent is on its way.
[+] [-] jeroenhd|7 months ago|reply
If you're not on btrfs, I'm sure there are similar tools for your favorite file system. For me, it's been a life saver.
[+] [-] misterdata|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] 4gotunameagain|7 months ago|reply
To the point where I would not upgrade my system for months at a time, when I was in the midst of important work, because I didn't want to spend a day on tty trying to make the DE work again.
In the words of Linus: FUCK NVIDIA
[+] [-] zozbot234|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] peterbecich|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] stavros|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mikae1|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] gardaani|7 months ago|reply
Are there any good Linux distros left with 32-bit x86 support? Do I have to switch to NetBSD?
[+] [-] pedrocr|7 months ago|reply
On the power usage alone surely an upgrade to a still extremely old 64bit machine would be a significant upgrade. For a server that you run continuously a 20+ year old machine will consume quite a bit.
[+] [-] hnarn|7 months ago|reply
I would rather be surprised if there isn't. I think antiX is one option,[1] PuppyLinux and probably Alpine Linux.
[1]: https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic/will-antix-24-suppor...
[+] [-] miohtama|7 months ago|reply
The problem is that someone needs to work to support different hardware architectures. More exotic hardware, more complicated and expensive the work becomes.
People who run these 32-bit machines are unlikely to vouch in terms of work contributed or money contributed to get the people paid for this work, so it is better to drop the support and focus the same developer resources on areas which benefits larger user base.
[+] [-] shellac|7 months ago|reply
When your kernel stopped support over a decade ago (iirc) it does seem inevitable that distros will slowly evaporate.
[+] [-] eloisant|7 months ago|reply
They're no longer providing 32-bit images. However if you have a 64-bit processor, and a 64-bit image, you can still run 32-bit binaries.
[+] [-] ethan_smith|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zozbot234|7 months ago|reply
If 32-bit support gets dropped altogether (which might happen for 'forky' or 'duke') it can probably move to the unofficial Debian Ports infrastructure, provided that people are willing to keep it up-to-date.
[+] [-] cjfd|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] WhyNotHugo|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] flohofwoe|7 months ago|reply
If it means that no 32-bit apps are supported, how does Steam handle this? Does it run 32-bit games in a VM? Is the Steam client itself a 64-bit application these days or still stuck on 32-bits?
[+] [-] qwertox|7 months ago|reply
What's your use case for 32-bit x86 where you are still keeping Debian at its latest version? Alone for the power consumption you might be better off by switching to a newer low-spec machine.
[+] [-] tmtvl|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] FirmwareBurner|7 months ago|reply
How many 32 bit PCs are still actively in used at scale to make that argument? Linux devs are now missing kernel regression bugs on 64bit Core 2 Duo hardware because not enough people are using them anymore to catch and report these bugs, and those systems are newer and way more capable for daily driving than 32 bit ones. So then if nobody uses Core 2 Duo machines anymore, how many people do you think are using 32bit Pentium 4/Athlon XP era machines to make that argument?
But let's pretend you're right, and assume there's hoards of Pentium 4 users out there refusing to upgrade for some bizarre reason, and are unhappy they can't run the latest Linux, then using a Pentium 4 with its 80W TDP as a terminal would be an insane waste of energy when that's less capable than some no-name Android table with a 5W ARM SoC which can even play 1080p Youtube while the Pentium 4 cannot even open a modern JS webpage. Even most of the developing world now has more capable mobile devices in their pockets and don't have use for the Pentium 4 machines that have long been landfilled.
And legacy industrial systems still running Pentium 4 HW, are just happy to keep running the same Windows XP/Embedded they came from the factory since those machines are airgapped and don't need to use latest Linux kernel for their purpose.
So sorry, but based on this evidence, your argument is literally complaining for the sake of complaining about problems that nobody outside of retro computing hobbyists have who like using old HW for tinkering with new SW as a challenge. But it's not a real issue for anyone. So what I don't get is the entitled expectations that the SW industry should keep writing new SW for free to keep it working for your long outdated 25+ year old CPU just because you, for some reason, refuse to upgrade to more modern HW that can be had for free.
There are good faith arguments to be had about the state of forced obsolescence in the industry with Microsoft, Apple, etc, but this is not one of them.
>Are there any good Linux distros left with 32-bit x86 support? Do I have to switch to NetBSD?
Yes there are, tonnes: AntiX, Devuan, Damn Small Linux, Tiny Core Linux, etc
[+] [-] orthoxerox|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] hnarn|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] torium|7 months ago|reply
Boring and rock-solid is also how I like my desktop.
[+] [-] lgeorget|7 months ago|reply
In the stable distribution, packages tend to be a little dated obviously, but at least it is _stable_. And you can go with the _testing_ distribution for more up-to-date packages.
Also, as a sysadmin, I like having it on my computer to develop and test scripts without having to SSH in a dedicated environment (I still have to eventually but only for the final tests).
[+] [-] joren-|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rcarmo|7 months ago|reply
Not really sure I'd swap Fedora's _really good_ driver support for it, but since I'm running Silverblue and most of my "civilian" apps are flatpaks I probably wouldn't notice the difference.
[+] [-] jampekka|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] StopDisinfo910|7 months ago|reply
The only real reason to use Debian is that you think what Debian is trying to do is a good thing. They have a very clear definition of what they consider acceptable software engineering practices, how they think things shoud work, what's acceptable from free software and they do a lot of work to ensure what they ship fit that. They value portability to an extreme, have strong opinions about how linking should be done, separations of concern and what can be considered free software. It's an extremely political distribution with a lot of patching happening to try to shoe horn things into their vision.
I personally think it's extremely misguided, breaks a lot of good sotfware, mostly unsafe, a significant drag on the people actually developping what they ship, and basically the embodyment of everything that is wrong with Linux distribution as a concept. Others will tell you they are fighting the good fight for their users freedom and the guardian of the kingdom.
How you stand on this will determine if Debian - and its derivatives which bring its flaws with the Debian inheritance - makes sense for you.
[+] [-] fletchowns|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] juliangmp|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tasuki|7 months ago|reply
I ran away from Ubuntu to Debian and am very happy: it's still the same system, just without the things that were becoming annoying (eg snaps).
[+] [-] AlecSchueler|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rendx|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] kriops|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mrheosuper|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] attentive|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] whydoyouasking|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Unirely01|7 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] IlikeKitties|7 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hnarn|7 months ago|reply
What a silly, uneducated and trolling point to make. Yes, and "as always" Red Hat Enterprise Linux is dragging its feet compared to Debian Trixie -- why do you think that is? Maybe Fedora, Debian and RHEL are different Linux distributions with different goals and trade-offs?
[+] [-] themafia|7 months ago|reply
So we can add support for RISC-V which has a fraction of x86 installed base and still doesn't have an appreciable hardware standard that allows for broad compatibility between chips.
Seems highly illogical to me.
[+] [-] bayindirh|7 months ago|reply
As a bootable system only. This is an important distinction. It's still possible to install :i386 libraries and run multiarch.
> As always debian is like fedora 3 years ago.
Apples and oranges much?
[+] [-] extraduder_ire|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] zekrioca|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] blackhaz|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] AdiAnanomious|7 months ago|reply