Please note: we have made some forum changes regarding user data and privacy.
More info here: Planned downtime for the forum and changes.

What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Support and discussions for the x86/x64 Linux version of Pale Moon.

Moderators: trava90, satrow

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6211
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-09-11, 09:19

Pale06 wrote:
2019-09-11, 08:39
OK, thanks.
With all that said. For as long as I am doing the linux builds and as long as we are offering the 32bit build.. I will do my very best to provide the most compatible legacy-bent build that I can reasonably produce.

This I promise to the Linux 32bit users. Just keep it updated ;)
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

User avatar
Tokia
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 16
Joined: 2018-08-16, 12:02

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by Tokia » 2019-09-11, 12:10

Thank you very much for all the hard work toward 32bit.

I believe you're respected and thanked from all those who still runs 32bit system, and while there are still distro supporting it Debian, Devuan, Alpine, Void, MX and many others, I think you are doing a commendable job helping tremendously users of these systems.

Well, when the final last tick comes for 32bit that will come naturally (or rapidly), 2020 or 2022 let's call it a closed chapter.

For now, BIG THANKS!

Best Regards!
Devuan | Fluxbox | Pale Moon (x86)
---
Nothing beats peace and quiet - Tomoki Sakurai

Walter Dnes
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 610
Joined: 2015-07-30, 20:29
Location: Vaughan, ON, Canada

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by Walter Dnes » 2019-09-12, 21:14

The 32-bit tarball seems to be available at http://linux.palemoon.org/datastore/rel ... 86.tar.bz2 Shouldn't there be an announcement in the release announcements thread viewtopic.php?f=37&t=19907 ?
There's a right way
There's a wrong way
And then there's my way

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6211
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-09-12, 21:54

Yeah, I cannot post in that thread. Also screw that thread. I declare it old and insecure.

How can a thread be insecure you ask? Well, I don't have to answer or prove that it is. No one else does so why are you asking me to.

ANYWAY. The Linux announcement thread is redundent at any rate. Has been since the updater was enabled. I released only slightly after Pale Moon for Windows was scheduled to be released. Not my fault the Windows builds were released early.. I was asleep.

Bottom line, be thankful there are any Linux releases.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

User avatar
Mike_Walsh
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 19
Joined: 2019-09-14, 20:09
Location: King's Lynn, UK

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by Mike_Walsh » 2019-09-14, 20:58

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2019-09-11, 08:16
Quite frankly I am not happy with the combination of obviously old hardware, operating system, and lack of keeping up on browser updates.
From another 'Puppy' user, new to this board:-

I have to confess, I'm curious about this remark. For those of us in the Puppy community, many have no choice but to run older hardware. At least with Puppy, we're able to run reasonably up-to-date OSes, due to Pup's tiny size and lightweight requirements.

And there are obvious dichotomies with recommended requirements. I run a 'kennels' of 11 Puppies, currently.....on a 2005, Compaq Presario desktop PC (highly-modded, and upgraded to within an inch of its life..! :lol: )

- 'UPup Raring', based on the Ubuntu 13.04 release (glibc 2.17), that's just started complaining - it's the libstdc++ thing.

- Racy 5.5 (last of the old 'T2' builds, from several years ago), well; one of our community members has just produced a workaround for that, involving a re-compile of the GLib stuff, and a self-contained version of glibc 2.19, called via LD_PRELOAD. (Racy's native glibc is an ancient 2.11).

- Tahrpup 6.0.6 (glibc 2.19) still working OK. Ditto Xenialpup, BionicPup, DPup 'Stretch. Plus various others...

- Curiously, however, 'Slacko' 5.6.0 (based on Slackware 14.0 (glibc 2.15) is running current 28.7.1 without any complaints....

As I said, sometimes stuff just doesn't seem to add up..!


Mike. ;)
Last edited by Mike_Walsh on 2019-09-14, 22:14, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6211
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-09-14, 21:35

Request denied. RESOLVED FIXED.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

User avatar
Mike_Walsh
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 19
Joined: 2019-09-14, 20:09
Location: King's Lynn, UK

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by Mike_Walsh » 2019-09-14, 22:06

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2019-09-14, 21:35
Request denied. RESOLVED FIXED.
:eh: ??

Actually, no request was made (that I'm aware of). Merely making a couple of observations, and recounting one 'workaround'.....in case anybody was curious.

(NO intention to 'rock the boat'. Certainly hope it didn't come across that way... :oops: )


Mike. :)

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6211
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-09-14, 23:27

Pale Moon 28.7.0 was the odd man out due to the adhoc and emergency nature of which it was produced. 28.7.1 is now using GCC 4.9 and requires at least glibc 2.12 also GTK 2.24. This will be maintained for the lifetime of Pale Moon for Linux 32bit. So whatever last minute workarounds and procedures a few distros did for 28.7.0 are not required going forward.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

User avatar
Mike_Walsh
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 19
Joined: 2019-09-14, 20:09
Location: King's Lynn, UK

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by Mike_Walsh » 2019-09-15, 00:37

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2019-09-14, 23:27
Pale Moon 28.7.0 was the odd man out due to the adhoc and emergency nature of which it was produced. 28.7.1 is now using GCC 4.9 and requires at least glibc 2.12 also GTK 2.24. This will be maintained for the lifetime of Pale Moon for Linux 32bit. So whatever last minute workarounds and procedures a few distros did for 28.7.0 are not required going forward.
Fair comment. That's good to know. Cheers for the info..!


Mike. :)

User avatar
AlexC
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 1
Joined: 2019-09-15, 17:15

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by AlexC » 2019-09-15, 17:18

I just wanted to say "thanks" to New Tobin Paradigm for keeping the 32-bit package alive in this way. Some of us on old, quirky hardware or hobby-type systems really appreciate it.

greyowl
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 184
Joined: 2013-10-06, 20:58
Location: canada

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by greyowl » 2019-09-15, 18:36

AlexC wrote:
2019-09-15, 17:18
I just wanted to say "thanks" to New Tobin Paradigm for keeping the 32-bit package alive in this way. Some of us on old, quirky hardware or hobby-type systems really appreciate it.
ditto

User avatar
Mike_Walsh
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 19
Joined: 2019-09-14, 20:09
Location: King's Lynn, UK

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by Mike_Walsh » 2019-09-15, 22:02

I, too, want to thank Tobin.

'Hobby' systems pretty much sums 'Puppy' up, and, despite 64-bit having been around for nearly 2 decades (we don't really count Itanium, 'cos it was one of the biggest 'white elephants' in the history of modern computing; the story really starts with the family to which my own CPU belongs.....the AMD Athlon64), many of us find that 32-bit Pups just seem to run faster.....even on 64-bit hardware. And the 64-bitzers aren't 'slow', by a long chalk.....even though 64-bit Puppies are a fairly recent development, given that Pup's 'raison d'étre' has always been that of keeping ancient hardware alive.

There's still a hell of a lot of perfectly functional 32-bit hardware around, in many cases going begging..... :thumbup: I'm no 'green warrior', but it makes no sense to me at all to chuck out working gear, just to 'keep up with the Joneses', so to speak.....in the process clogging up the world's already over-full landfills even further.

So the maintenance of the 32-bit Linux builds is very much appreciated by the Puppy community as a whole, I feel. For which I just want to say, "Thank you", Tobin.


Mike. :)

User avatar
Moonraker
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2015-09-30, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by Moonraker » 2019-09-15, 22:24

ron_1 wrote:
2019-08-31, 22:14
Moonraker wrote:
I find it very f*****g annoying when large internet companies dictates what hardware etc we should be catering for.Once again freedom of choice is being taken away
It's called the free market place. Nobody wants 32 bit computers anymore, so why should anybody make 32 bit apps?
So what actual statistics or facts do you have which suggest people do not want 32 bit anymore.?.Or is that just an opinion of yours.?.

Not everyone wants or needs the latest and greatest shinies. :D
Xenial puppy linux 32-bit.
Tahrpup 6.0.5.32 bit.
Pale moon 28.7.2

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6211
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-09-15, 22:37

I appreciate your praise and thanks as fleeting as they may be. It might be just enough to keep me going in general for the short term.

However, I would prefer another 32bit discussion does not happen.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

User avatar
pr0fessor
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 9
Joined: 2018-08-31, 16:55

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by pr0fessor » 2019-09-23, 09:22

thank you that removed stupid requirement for version `GLIBC_2.17' or later from latest palemoon :)
in any way i am not going to update my linux for one browser (i can switch back to firefox -it's easier)...
my mobo is with old via chipset and on newer linux my graphics card wont run (and the problem is in the chipset - it supports only pci-e 4x and vga driver hang)

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 24907
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by Moonchild » 2019-09-23, 13:58

Just keep in mind that the different (ancient) glibc requirement was a side effect of having to set up a new build environment based on what information was available.
You make it sound like that was intentional -- it was not. And you'll have to face the very real possibility that you'll have to upgrade your system's HW&SW sooner rather than later.
"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne
Image

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6211
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

Re: What happened to 28.7 for Linux?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-09-26, 23:51

Up until 28.7.1 the specific glibc minimum required version wasn't much of a consideration that anyone really bothered with. As Moonchild stated, it was a consequence of the build environment namely CentOS that made that determination. For Pale Moon for Linux 32bit this was kept at CentOS 6 (which happens to have 2.12) while Linux 64bit is currently using CentOS 7 (which happens to have 2.17) this is what has determined the glibc requirements.

I am sorry that 28.7.0 temporarily increased the glibc minimum to 2.17 but as documented in this very thread we were in an emergency situation. Going forward, as I have also stated in this very thread, for as long as Pale Moon for Linux 32bit is being produced it will be considered a legacy and compatibility release. This means, CentOS 6 with its glibc 2.12 and using the GCC 4.9 compiler which seems to produce superior results for older and non-64bit hardware than GCC 7.x does according to feedback I have been given.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

Post Reply