Comment by notepad0x90

I think eventually 32 bit hardware and software shouldn't be supported. But there are still plenty of both. We shouldn't get rid of good hardware because it's too old, that's wasteful. 16bit had serious limits but 32 bit is still valid for many applications and environments that don't need >3GB~ ram. For example, routers shouldn't use 64bit processors unless they're handling that much load, die size matter there, that's why they use Arm mostly, and that's why Arm has thumb mode (less instruction width = smaller die size). I'm sure the tiny amounts of money and energy saved by not having that much register/instruction width adds up when talking about billions of devices.

Open source isn't where I'd expect abandonware to happen.

> We shouldn't get rid of good hardware because it's too old, that's wasteful.

Depends on how much power it's wasting, when we're looking at 20 year old desktops/laptops.

> 32 bit is still valid for many applications and environments that don't need >3GB~ ram.

Well my understanding is that if you have 1GB of RAM or less you have nothing to worry about. The major unresolved issue with 32 bit is that it needs complicated memory mapping and can't have one big mapping of all of physical memory into the kernel address space. I'm not aware of a plan to remove the entire architecture.

It's annoying for that set of systems that fit into 32 bits but not 30 bits, but any new design over a gigabyte should be fine getting a slightly different core.

> For example, routers shouldn't use 64bit processors unless they're handling that much load, die size matter there

I don't think that's right, but correct me if I missed something. A basic 64 bit core is extremely tiny and almost the same size as a 32 bit core. If you're heavy enough to run Linux, 64 bit shouldn't be a burden.