The future of 32-bit Linux
Nitpick&#x2F;unclear area: why doesn&#x27;t this highlight the legacy of the 386 and the i386 architecture?<p>&gt; <i>Linux was first written as a desktop system for IBM PC compatibles, ...</i><p>&gt; <i>The earliest i386, ... processors all got phased out over time, ...</i><p>&gt; <i>The table shows the 32-bit desktop platforms that proved popular enough to make it into mainline Linux and stay there, supported mainly by loyal hobbyists:</i><p>&gt; ...<p>&gt; <i>Platform: IBM compatible PC</i><p>&gt; <i>Architectures: ia32</i><p>&gt; <i>Earliest supported machine: PS&#x2F;2 model 70 486</i><p>Wha...? Where is i386 in the table?<p>&quot;Nuke 386-SX&#x2F;DX support&quot; was submitted to 3.8 in Dec 2012 (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lkml.iu.edu&#x2F;hypermail&#x2F;linux&#x2F;kernel&#x2F;1212.1&#x2F;01152.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lkml.iu.edu&#x2F;hypermail&#x2F;linux&#x2F;kernel&#x2F;1212.1&#x2F;01152.html</a>), but explicit support existed up to that point since Linux&#x27;s inception in 1991. I mean, Linux was <i>written for</i> the 386! That was the chip you <i>had to be using</i> since Linux&#x27;s memory manager was built on top of its MMU.<p>I accept I may be completely misreading&#x2F;misunderstanding something here.