| Xenguy | For some reason my audio has become very low volume and I can't find a way to return it to normal levels, any tips or tricks | 02:58 |
|---|---|---|
| Xenguy | Or do I just (gawd forbid) reboot | 02:58 |
| UsL | start at the cables. One time I picked at alsa for fem minutes before I realized a cable wasn't in all the way | 02:59 |
| jjSuper1 | there is an alsa mixer you can use from the terminal, or depending on your desktop environment, mouse controls for volume; assuming you have not tried. | 02:59 |
| jjSuper1 | Good point; plug it in | 03:00 |
| Xenguy | I tried alsamixer | 03:00 |
| Xenguy | I'll check that again | 03:00 |
| Xenguy | I can hear the audio but it is very muted and faint | 03:00 |
| UsL | any forgotten hardware volume knob/button/settings? | 03:01 |
| Xenguy | Ok, alsamixer seems to have corrected the volume, thanks | 03:02 |
| UsL | alsa mixer is great. Too bad firefox demands pav nowdays | 03:02 |
| joerg | alsamixer for ncurses "GUI", and amixer for the hardcore cmdline stuff :-) | 04:05 |
| Sompi | volunteering to free software projects is hard nowadays because everything is so complex and requires a very specific setup to even build properly | 11:06 |
| Sompi | I cannot even compile SeaMonkey and Firefox anymore because I don't have enough memory - thanks to rust | 11:06 |
| Sompi | And that ruins the whole purpose of free software | 11:06 |
| Sompi | What's the point of being allowed to modify it if you cannot compile it anyway | 11:07 |
| djph | heh, fair point. | 11:07 |
| Sompi | Compiling stuff used to be easy | 11:07 |
| Sompi | maybe use the default kernel from Slackware to avoid any systemd and wayland specific crap? | 11:08 |
| djph | well, I wouldn't call it "easy", but yes it was able to be done on a potato... though I htink we might be veering off towards -offtopic | 11:12 |
| Sompi | It's still unclear to me what it means in practice that Debian is going to drop 32-bit x86 support | 11:13 |
| Sompi | They are going to remove the support "from the installer" | 11:13 |
| Sompi | How is that even possible, isn't the installer platform-agnostic anyway? | 11:13 |
| djph | 32bit hardware is long dead. practically nothing. | 11:13 |
| Sompi | It isn't. | 11:13 |
| djph | *sigh* | 11:13 |
| Sompi | It isn't even rare, but of course people are forced to get rid of it if everything suddenly stops supporting it | 11:14 |
| djph | 32bit consumer hardware hasn't been made in like 18 years. | 11:15 |
| Sompi | The "fun" thing is that a relatively small portion of 64-bit x86 hardware can actually boot other operating systems than Windows properly and be fully featured without it. So much Microsoft-specific crap baked in the hardware and firmware itself. | 11:15 |
| Sompi | djph: So? | 11:15 |
| Sompi | That doesn't mean that they are not still being used... | 11:16 |
| djph | So why should linux developers continue spending limited time and money on long-dead architectures? | 11:16 |
| Sompi | Because it isn't a "long-dead architecture"? | 11:16 |
| djph | "it was last produced 20 years ago" -- that's long dead. Just because your hobby is playing with antiques, doesn't mean everyone has to cater to you. Same as if you buy an antique car, or anything else. | 11:17 |
| Sompi | This isn't just about me, this is about everyone who still has 32-bit hardware. | 11:18 |
| djph | who, as previously asserted, is "practically nobody" | 11:18 |
| Sompi | Also, if the computer supports 64-bit but has less than 5 gigabytes of memory, it makes more sense to use the 32-bit versions of everything, because the pointers (and therefore binaries) are so much smaller | 11:18 |
| Sompi | djph: You are referring to yourself? | 11:19 |
| Sompi | Or quoting yourself? | 11:19 |
| djph | Sompi: I'm saying I'm making hte assertion, that you as an enthusiast of antiques, is the outlier here. Not Debian (etc.) | 11:20 |
| Sompi | And now you are assuming things about me | 11:20 |
| Sompi | And you are derailing the whole discussion away from the point just to advocate a microsoft-friendly computing monoculture | 11:21 |
| djph | You're hellbent on some crusade that 32-bit hardware is "common" in 2025. I'm saying that 32-bit hardware hasn't be.. | 11:21 |
| djph | *sigh* | 11:21 |
| Sompi | Of course it's common, and then there are also the 64-bit computers that don't have enough memory to benefit from 64-bit operating systems | 11:24 |
| Sompi | Probably majority of "old computers" that people often use to try Linux the first time | 11:24 |
| Sompi | Actually even new computers from the lower price segments | 11:25 |
| Sompi | It's not uncommon to have only four gigabytes of memory. I have seen even new computers being sold with only three or two gigabytes and Windows 10, not very long ago | 11:26 |
| Sompi | Probably now when everything is forced (and often also boot-locked) to Windows 11, four gigabytes becomes the new norm for cheap entry-level stuff | 11:27 |
| Sompi | So 32-bit Linux is still the best option for them | 11:27 |
| Sompi | They don't benefit from 64-bit pointers | 11:28 |
| Sompi | But again, all this crap is just Linux moving towards a Microsoft-friendly monoculture and eventually ceasing to exist. Same stuff with the systemd+wayland+rust crap | 11:31 |
| Sompi | My spreadsheet program, compiled with -march=i386, is 61 kilobytes. When compiled with -march=x86-64, it is 71 kilobytes | 11:35 |
| Sompi | And I have seen alot larger relative size differences in some programs | 11:35 |
| Sompi | Probably depends on how heavily they use pointers | 11:35 |
| Sompi | And larger programs tend to grow more for many reasons | 11:36 |
| Sompi | Those old 64-bit computers with 2 or 4 gigabytes of memory usually have hundreds of megabytes more free memory with 32-bit Linux distribution than they do with 64-bit | 11:37 |
| Sompi | A computer with 8 gigabytes of RAM can easily have more than one gigabyte of free memory when using 32-bit Linux, compared to what it would have when using 64-bit | 11:46 |
| Sompi | So if there aren't any program that alone requires more than four gigabytes, it still gets a significant benefit from "downgrading" to 32-bit | 11:47 |
| cousin_luigi | Sompi: I still don't get why you come here to vent about the lack of 32-bit support. Wouldn't #debian-devel on OFTC be more appropriate? It's not like a downstream distro can do much about it. | 12:39 |
| Sompi | I still don't even know what it means when they "drop" the 32-bit support | 12:46 |
| Sompi | Everywhere only the installer is mentioned but AFAIK it is target-agnostic | 12:46 |
| rustyaxe | Its 2025. This reminds me of when support for 486s was dropped some years back :O | 12:58 |
| Sompi | Please, don't derail the discussion again... | 12:59 |
| cousin_luigi | Damn, don't get me started on these newfangled petrol carriages. What was wrong with horse and buggy? | 12:59 |
| rustyaxe | by dropping 32 bit support means no one will spend their time building for a deprecated platform anymore, which means they can spend their time maintaining things that 99% of people use in the 21st century | 13:00 |
| Sompi | Shut up. | 13:00 |
| Sompi | That does not answer the question. | 13:00 |
| cousin_luigi | Still barking up the wrong tree. | 13:00 |
| Sompi | Why is it that this subject always immediately spawns so much trolls everywhere? | 13:01 |
| jjSuper1 | Dropping support means that it will no longer be officially actively maintained, no patches, security updates, or active development of bug fixes will be made to anything in the I guess i386 branch? | 13:02 |
| rustyaxe | There are distros targetting legacy hardware but at this point 8gb of ram has been commonplace in the desktop for about a decade; modern machines are 16-48gb of ram typically. it's a lot of effort to maintain a build for a platform very few people use | 13:02 |
| Sompi | 8 gigabytes of RAM is not that common even in new computers | 13:03 |
| jjSuper1 | Just like MS dropping support for Win10, it doesn't mean those softwares will magically stop working on day 1. It just means those people with way too many panic attacks over securty might want to worry. | 13:03 |
| Sompi | Entry-level PCs usually have four gigabytes or even less | 13:03 |
| rustyaxe | i havent seen a machine with 4gb of ram in a very long time | 13:04 |
| rustyaxe | at least a decade | 13:04 |
| Sompi | jjSuper1: But how do Debian maintainers remove the support for 32-bit targets from the installer, which is platform-agnostic? | 13:04 |
| rustyaxe | chromebooks are 4-8gb and they're below entry level PCs | 13:05 |
| jjSuper1 | Same way they add support for new targets, like riscv64. They write a new line of code in the installer base, and likely as not comment out the 32-bit platforms. | 13:05 |
| rustyaxe | by not building i386 packages anymore, what will there be to install? did they say they are removing it from installer or dropping i386 releases? | 13:05 |
| jjSuper1 | The only i386 packages I worry about are steam related, but there is enough support for gaming on linux that its likely a non-issue | 13:06 |
| Sompi | Seems that I have to stop using all debian-based stuff anymore, since this community is also infiltrated by M$ trolls | 13:06 |
| jjSuper1 | Do go on | 13:07 |
| rustyaxe | ms trolls? lol. my oldest machine is 12+ years old and still has 16gb of ram. Ram is very cheap nowadays. | 13:07 |
| jjSuper1 | Hmm, I thought mine was older, but I guess its only 8 years old. | 13:09 |
| Sompi | Cheap for you. Unfortunately you are not the center of the world. | 13:10 |
| jjSuper1 | Sompi: What is your actual concern? I missed the first part of the convo | 13:10 |
| Sompi | Most people buy only entry-level PCs | 13:10 |
| jjSuper1 | Most people are stupid | 13:10 |
| Sompi | jjSuper1: That I don't know how exactly the 32-bit support is even going to be removed. Every news article seems to mention only the installer, but isn't the installer platform-agnostic anyway? | 13:11 |
| Sompi | jjSuper1: The developers of Linux distributions should take into account what's best for the computers that actually exist out there, and not what's best for a hypothetical optimal computer that everyone "should" buy | 13:12 |
| Sompi | People may also have different preferences on what's "optimal" | 13:12 |
| Sompi | And all technological diversity is always good for freedom | 13:13 |
| Sompi | It's a fact that those 32-bit computers are still common out there, and it's also a fact that most new computers are entry-level cheap PCs that have so little memory that 32-bit software is better for them | 13:17 |
| jjSuper1 | well, that seems subjective; anyhow - debian is dropping support for building 32-bit only kernels upstream, it has already been done. As far as the installer, they will not make one for pure 32-bit machines. You have plenty of other options. | 13:18 |
| Sompi | Though I would say that there's definitely something wrong with the software if it does not work with less than 4 gigabytes of memory | 13:18 |
| Sompi | And the fact that four billion octets of memory is considered a "small amount" | 13:19 |
| rustyaxe | 20 years ago 4gbytes was reasonable, nowadays 16gb is typical. More complex applications and often more of them running concurrently as CPUs have the power to do so | 13:21 |
| Sompi | 20 years ago most had less than one gigabyte | 13:21 |
| Sompi | It was 2005 | 13:21 |
| jjSuper1 | Look, x86_64 / AMD64 came out 25 years ago. The Apple g5 was 64-bit, | 13:22 |
| rustyaxe | yup 2005 i was runnning an athlon 64 with 4gbyte of ram | 13:23 |
| jjSuper1 | If you were, like me, running a core 2 duo in 2015, it was time to upgrade. | 13:23 |
| Sompi | rustyaxe: But the world still isn't turning around you. | 13:24 |
| jjSuper1 | It doesn't seem to be working in your favor either? | 13:24 |
| rustyaxe | most people i knew where running similar setups in the era | 13:24 |
| Sompi | New computers in 2005 didn't usually have more than 512 megabytes of memory. Most computers that people actually used were old and they had much less memory. | 13:24 |
| Sompi | Having only 64 megabytes was common. | 13:25 |
| rustyaxe | i mean i still use my kaypro ii with a z80 and 64kbytes | 13:25 |
| rustyaxe | 64mb was not at all common even in 2005 lol | 13:25 |
| Sompi | It was. | 13:25 |
| Sompi | It was 2005, you should remember that even Pentium II wasn't that old back then | 13:26 |
| rustyaxe | no it really wasnt. in the ppro era it was | 13:26 |
| Sompi | It was less than ten years | 13:26 |
| Sompi | People often used computers from the late 90s. | 13:26 |
| rustyaxe | by the time we got to win2k 256mb+ of ram or more was common | 13:27 |
| Sompi | And those computers still cost some money back then. They were cheap, but not worthless. | 13:27 |
| Sompi | 256 megabytes was considered to be a large amount of memory when Windows 2000 came out. | 13:27 |
| Sompi | It requires 32 megabytes and most people ran it with 128 megabytes. | 13:28 |
| fsmithred | Take it to off-topic. You've been ranting for 2.5 hours in the wrong channel. This one is for devuan support. | 13:28 |
| djph | ha, I remember 512M starting to be "common" around then, and 1G being the "enthusiast" amount. | 13:29 |
| djph | mornin fsmithred | 13:29 |
| fsmithred | hi | 13:29 |
| jjSuper1 | speaking of support! why does dmesg tell me my imx219 driver is already registered when the system boots, but no mention of the driver/module is listed before that time in dmesg | 13:30 |
| djph | race condition in the kernel, or is it bad wording? | 13:31 |
| jjSuper1 | I'm not sure, still trying to figure out the actual issue | 13:32 |
| Sompi | djph: In 1999? | 13:32 |
| gnarface | jjSuper1: just guessing but maybe it's because it's using one of the generic usb drivers so you're looking for the wrong thing? | 13:32 |
| jjSuper1 | Hmm, possible, but this is on a dev-board, and the camera is on the CSI bus; but its not impossible that MIPI/CSI is on the usb bus on this particualr board. I'll keep digging | 13:34 |
| gnarface | well if it's not a devuan x86 kernel then maybe the driver is statically built in? | 13:34 |
| jjSuper1 | Also possible, I think its a standard debian kernel, just thought I would ask the hive mind. | 13:35 |
| djph | hm, been a long time since i've poked at (linux-capable) devboards ... those stackups get weird | 13:36 |
| fsmithred | does it work? If so, maybe don't mess with it. | 13:36 |
| gnarface | Sompi: i think the answer to the actual question you were trying to ask is they are just not gonna build the kernels with 32-bit x86 code anymore, and they're not building any binaries in 32-bit x86 format anymore. you should still be able to debootstrap and use an old kernel binary (or build from source) | 13:36 |
| gnarface | ... and that's just going forward, it's not like they're going to take down the 32-bit support that's already up | 13:36 |
| gnarface | it's just for future releases | 13:37 |
| fsmithred | yesterday I discovered that multiarch-support is no longer a package but is built into excalibur. | 13:37 |
| gnarface | (and FYI when that eventually gets left too far behind for you, BSD will probably still support your hardware) | 13:37 |
| jjSuper1 | Yes, BSD | 13:38 |
| jjSuper1 | Um, no, it does not work | 13:38 |
| gnarface | jjSuper1: that was to Sompi | 13:38 |
| jjSuper1 | ha, sorry | 13:39 |
| fsmithred | I think he was replying to my question about it working | 13:39 |
| fsmithred | lsmod shows that it got loaded? | 13:39 |
| fsmithred | my kernel configs say imx219 is not set | 13:39 |
| gnarface | oh | 13:40 |
| jjSuper1 | well, modprobe imx219 returns no errors but lsmod does not list the module | 13:40 |
| gnarface | is this some arm dev board you guys are working on? | 13:40 |
| fsmithred | not me. I just jumped into the conversation. | 13:41 |
| jjSuper1 | Anyhow, yes, its a dev-board of riscv flavor; but I'll take that elsewhere. I don't need any devuan support because it works great! | 13:42 |
| fsmithred | I'm not a kernel guru. Does it need to set to m in the config to be able to modprobe it? | 13:42 |
| djph | 'm' in the kernel config is "loadable module", else it's compiled in ('c'?) or not included at all (blank, I think) | 13:47 |
| fsmithred | /boot/config-5.10.0-34-amd64:# CONFIG_VIDEO_IMX219 is not set | 13:49 |
| fsmithred | modprobe -v imx219 | 13:50 |
| fsmithred | modprobe: FATAL: Module imx219 not found in directory /lib/modules/5.10.0-34-amd64 | 13:50 |
| greenjeans | Question: Daedalus-Openbox; when I first boot-up and open task manager, there's 6 instances of Bash listed, with their ppid indicating they are login related, does that seem right? | 23:52 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!