64-bit compat_libs package for 32-bit Puppies??!?

[Mike Walsh]

Afternoon, all.

Guys, is it just me.....am I going daft in my old age? Do I, or do I not, remember seeing somewhere on the Forum in recent weeks (can't remember where) a post about a "64-bit compatibility mode/SFS package" for 32-bit Puppies?

That can't be right, surely.....unless tech's moved on in ways I'm not even aware of. Tell me I'm not 'losing it'..!

I had a post in the Vivaldi-portable thread earlier, from someone who clearly stated they want to run Vivaldi64 in 32-bit Precise 571....

Huh??!?


Mike.

[s243a]

I don't think it will work but if it does work, then you'll at least need to boot using a 64bit kernel.

[musher0]

Hi Mike_Walsh.

That's a logical impossibility, I'm afraid.

To use an analogy:
if you have a 64-lane boulevard, you can reduce it to only 32 lanes.
If you have a 32-lane boulevard, you can't make it wider.

One can load a 32-bit compatibility package on a 64-bit PC
but not the reverse.

The "bus" on a 64-bits PC can handle 64 bits of data at once through the PC's
cables and circuits, whereas the "bus" on 32-bits PC can handle only 32-bits of
data at once.

My understanding. Someone more technical may want to chip in and explain more,
but I'm sure I'm basically right, even if my terminology may not be the exact one.

IHTH.

[mikeslr]

Hi s243a, musher0:

You're both right; but your points of reference are different. Musher0 is thinking about computers which are limited to 32-bit systems by their hardware. s243a is thinking about a 32-bit operating system which is run on a computer capable of handling 64-bit operating systems and the applications which run under them.

Just as Linux can 'hand-off' operations to Wine, theoretically a 32-bit operating system on 64-bit hardware can 'hand-off' operations to a 64-bit emulation layer. But, keep in mind that to run 32-bit applications under a 64-bit system, or wine under Linux, requires the presence of libraries whose cumulative size is almost that of the base operating system.

Running a 64-bit emulation layer from a 32-bit system would place similar demands. I'm having difficulty envisioning why anyone would devote time to create that system. If it is to take advantage of greater efficiency (less resource demands of) 32-bit applications except when a 64-bit application is actually needed, a 64-bit operating system with a 32-bit compatibility layer fleshed out with 32-bit applications would cover almost all needs.

[Mike Walsh]

@ musher0:-

Well, I agree with you. Everything I've ever learnt about computer hardware has always taught me that while 32-bit apps can run on 64-bit hardware, the reverse is a physical impossibility.

@ s243a:-

I know there's something like this goes on with the SliTaZ 'rolling' release. For a while now, they've been releasing a 32-bit OS that, nevertheless, runs a 64-bit kernel.....why, I confess I don't understand.

@Mike:-

Ya; absolutely. It's pointless to my way of thinking, too. A 64-bit OS running a 32-bit emulation layer (for when it may be required) does cover 'all the bases'.

Musta been dreaming it. (Or hallucinating.....eee, there's a worrying thought!)


Mike.

[watchdog]

Peebee has released a 64bit-compat-sc64-19.06.sfs in ScPup project thread. I have used in ScPup 19.06 a modded 64bit-compat and it did work. I had skypeforlinux in 32 bit ScPup. It does not work anymore with ScPup 20.01.

[Mike Walsh]

Peebee has released a 64bit-compat-sc64-19.06.sfs in ScPup project thread. I have used in ScPup 19.06 a modded 64bit-compat and it did work. I had skypeforlinux in 32 bit ScPup. It does not work anymore with ScPup 20.01.

Thank YOU, watchdog. I knew I wasn't dreaming it.....and I had an idea it was from peebee's pen..!

But I still don't quite see how it could work. Okay, you would need to have a 64-bit capable CPU.....and a 64-bit kernel, I assume? It sounds a bit of a 'concoction', if I'm honest.....

--------------------------

(Couple of items for you over on the Vivaldi-portable thread. Hope they help, though I can't guarantee they'll work.)


Mike.

[watchdog]

Okay, you would need to have a 64-bit capable CPU.....and a 64-bit kernel, I assume? It sounds a bit of a 'concoction', if I'm honest.....

I can confirm. I used the kernel of ScPup64-19.06 in ScPup-19.06. My CPU is 64 bit capable.

[watchdog]

Good news My 64bit-compat-sc64-19.06-1.sfs still works in ScPup 20.01:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wSh5vz ... sp=sharing

Load it and run:

Code: Select all

ldconfig

I have used the kernel of ScPup64-20.01.

[s243a]

Peebee has released a 64bit-compat-sc64-19.06.sfs in ScPup project thread. I have used in ScPup 19.06 a modded 64bit-compat and it did work. I had skypeforlinux in 32 bit ScPup. It does not work anymore with ScPup 20.01.

Thank YOU, watchdog. I knew I wasn't dreaming it.....and I had an idea it was from peebee's pen..!

But I still don't quite see how it could work. Okay, you would need to have a 64-bit capable CPU.....and a 64-bit kernel, I assume? It sounds a bit of a 'concoction', if I'm honest.....

--------------------------

(Couple of items for you over on the Vivaldi-portable thread. Hope they help, though I can't guarantee they'll work.)


Mike.

As for being a bit of a 'concoction`, I will note that some applications (e.g. pkg) might not correctly recognize that the OS is 32 bit without patching. I have done this patching on my own system but haven't pushed any changes to gitlab. See:
https://gitlab.com/sc0ttj/Pkg/-/issues/ ... _293084253

puppy doesn't really have good multi-arch support. For this reason, one might want to consider running the architecture that differes from the main architecture as a layer below the main OS. I have done this before with wine:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 1415406681

because of these extra complications, I would suggest that beginners understand that running a 32bit OS with a 64bit kernal will require more troubleshooting. That said there could be performance advantages in doing so. My perception with running Archpup20.02+10 was that there are performance advantage using this setup (32bit OS with a 64bit kernel) relative to both running either a pure 32bit system or a pure 64bit system. The performance advantage is likely most relevant to older 64bit systems. That said, I'm not sure what testing that we can do to verify this performance advantage and how to quantify what types of systems might benefit from such a setup.

[watchdog]

Yes, there is some troubleshooting to do. With the 64bit-compat loaded PuppyPin is resetted in my ScPup install at every boot. Caution.

[bigpup]

If you have to add a 64bit kernel, a 64bit--compat-sc64-19.06.sfs, and maybe, do some tweaking, to get everything working.
Are you actually just making a 64bit OS?

If you can take a 64bit Puppy version, add it's 32bit compatibility sfs package, making it able to now run 32bit or 64bit software.

Is that just the same thing, but in a more correct way to do it?

[s243a]

If you have to add a 64bit kernel, a 64bit--compat-sc64-19.06.sfs, and maybe, do some tweaking, to get everything working.
Are you actually just making a 64bit OS?

If you can take a 64bit Puppy version, add it's 32bit compatibility sfs package, making it able to now run 32bit or 64bit software.

Is that just the same thing, but in a more correct way to do it?

If you subscribe to the "Linux is the kernel" philosophy then...sure but my suspicion is that if the majority of the libs use use are 32bits than there will be less overhead. For older systems which have less ram and slower I/O this might mean performance benefits. Having the option to run 64bit applications on a system that is mostly 32bit seems like a nice plus to me.

Anyway, if people don't like this mixed setup then they don't like to use it. I like that the option is available.

[watchdog]

With the 64bit-compat loaded PuppyPin is resetted in my ScPup install at every boot. Caution.

PuppyPinRestore-0.7.pet solves the problem:

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 4dd#937002