Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

There's a wealth of 32-bit applications out there to handle any task other than web-browsing. 32-bit applications --at least to some extent-- do not make the same demands on CPU and RAM as do 64-bit applications. But to a large extent publishers of Web-browsers no longer publish 32-bit versions; while publishers of websites increasingly cater to those whose operating systems have all the RAM needed to display graphic rich web-pages, denying access to any web-browser not reasonably current.

What can you do if your computer was really designed for a time gone by?

peebee may have come up with a solution. Most computers manufacture in the last 20 years, maybe longer, can actually support a 64-bit operating system even if they shipped with only a 32-bit operating system. [What was Microsoft and computer manufacturers going to do with 32-bit operating system disks already in stock? And why not sell 64-bit systems at a premium?].

peebee has developed a 64-bit compatibility SFS which enables some 32-bit operating systems to run 64 bit applications. You can obtain the compatibility SFS from the link here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 284#p78284. As reported on that thread it was originally published for use with S15pup32 and LxPupSc32. To use it requires a 64-bit kernel which LxPupSc32 already had. Under S15pup32 you'd have to replace the Kernel. It also works with JammyPup32*, under which, AFAIK, the kernel also has to be replaced. https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 564#p55564

Edit: Use this 64bit Compatibility SFS, instead, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 523#p79523

Replacing the kernel is easy. Your Puppy may have an application built in to do so. Or you can download it from here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 1497#p1497. If not, exclusive of downloading time, it can be done manually in less than 5 minutes. All that's necessary to do it manually is to rename some files (Right-Click>rename): vmlinuz-SPECIFIC-INFORMATION-ABOUT-IT to just vmlinuz; kernel-modules-SPECIFIC-INFORMATION-ABOUT-IT.sfs to zdrv_YOUR-PUPPYS-SPECS.sfs. For example, if your puppy's main/core sfs was named puppy_upupbb_19.03.sfs you'd rename the 'zdrv' to zdrv_upupbb_19.03.sfs. The kernel-modules-SPECIFIC-INFORMATION-ABOUT-IT.sfs will always contain drivers needed to access hardware. But it may or may not contain firmware. You may need a firmware SFS. You can find some here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=5374. These would also have to be renamed to your Puppy's SPECS, e.g. fdrv_upupbb_19.03.sfs.

Caution: You can swap kernels from a running system. That, however, doesn't guarantee you'll be able to boot into it with the changed kernel. [As the Cardiac Surgeon said, "The operation was successful, but the patient died."]. I recommend Right-Clicking your Puppy's folder and selecting 'Duplicate' and giving the duplicate a unique name. Then add the duplicate to your boot-menu/grub.cfg. Delete the SaveFile/Folder from the duplicate. Its contents may conflict and prevent booting. Once you boot into your 'new puppy', you can copy over the SaveFile/Folder and test. Keep your old Puppy until you know the new version is fully functional.

Let us know what works, and what doesn't.

-=-=--=-=-=
* This is interesting and the reason for this post. S15pup32 is woofed from Slackware binaries; jammyPup32 primarily from Ubuntu binaries, but using some debian binaries as Ubuntu has entirely abandoned 32-bit operating systems. So peebee's work may have much further use than has yet been reported.

Well, peebee's creation was too irresistable not to explore ASAP. I'm posting using the latest firefox-quantum (64-bit) running under Xenialpup_7.5 (32bit) using peebee's 64-bit compatibility sfs. The latest 64-bit Iron and 64-bit Waterfox also ran. All those browsers were MikeWalsh's portables.

FYI, following the recipe for swapping kernels given in the prior post, I swapped in F-96's latest kernel (64-bit). Then booted up, SFS-loaded the compatibility SFS, filed-browsed to the portable web-browsers' folders and clicked their respective launch scripts. Each ran OOTB. Using firefox I was able to download (an albeit small) pet. However, both firefox and Iron crashed when I tried to upload a screenshot which shows pwidgets displaying that xenialpup 7.5 is using F-96's 6.x kernel, and both firefox and Iron are the latest. I'll have to boot into a different Puppy to attach it to this post. Edit: peebee has since replaced the original SFS alleviating this problem.

If memory serves (always a BIG IF) we've faced a similar problem even with a more orthodox system. Something to do with glib-schemas?

Edit, the aforementioned screenshot.

There's another issue you should take into consideration: This arrangement will NOT solve all your RAM problems. With only one web-browser opened after boot-up over 500 Mbs of RAM was required.

Much praise for peebee.
Does make you wonder why microsoft and apple etc could not create such a compatibilty layer.

Well. Well, well, well.....

Now then:-

Having followed the other Mike's recipe above, I'm now posting this from Brave-portable64, running in 32-bit Xenialpup 7.5 under Fossapup64's k5.4.53 kernel. And it's negated my one beef about 32-bit Puppies; the fact of Big Brother having arbitrarily deprecated the 32-bit build of Widevine, seemingly on a whim.

I've got my NetFlix back in a 32-bit Puppy. Yay!!

@peebee , mate, this is an astonishing bit of work. Well done. And "Thank you!" muchly.

(I'd read about this stuff years ago over on the SliTaz forums; they were experimenting with 64-bit kernels in 32-bit SliTaz 7, 8 years ago. But I never dreamt we'd see summat like this in Puppyland.)

I take my hat off to you, Peter. Thank you, sir!

Mike.

You’ll find a screenshot here of xenialpup (32-bit) employing peebee’s 64bit-compat-s15pup32-22.12.sfs to run MikeWalsh’s Brave-portable64 to upload a screenshot taken with xenialpup’s native Take-a-shot and resized using ifranview under Wine. https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 653#p78653

peebee’s creation has enabled users to combine and use various components in a versatile manner and extend the life of older computers a great deal. Nothing, however, is free. The above described arrangement used 756 Mbs of RAM on a computer with reasonably powerful CPUs. [The less powerful a computer’s CPUs, the more RAM and or time it will take to accomplish any task]. Still it was do-able. And still, acquiring and updating or replacing RAM is less costly than replacing computers. Even a klutz like me --with ‘Youtubes’ to guide me-- can replace RAM.

The xenialpup employed was a remaster. Some time ago I remastered the ‘official’ xenialpup to have ‘builtin’ wine in order to use its xenialpup_7.5.sfs in a Chroot. A remaster only modifies what a Puppy’s core/base system contains as built-in applications. You can download that xenialpup_7.5.sfs from here, https://www.mediafire.com/file/s51yruvz ... 5.sfs/file. You’ll notice it’s quite hefty: 987.34MB. It not only has wine builtin. IIRC, since I was remastering I took the opportunity to upgrade xenialpup’s applications to their, then, latest versions and added 32-bit applications I considered useful.

To obtain a similar system you aren’t stuck with what I did. There have been many fine 32-bit Puppys published since. To name just a few: the dimkr’s VanillaDpup32, peebee’s S15 and Kineticpup32, and the slightly older jammypup32 and voidpup32 and Josejp2424’s dpup-buster. Boot into any of then. Add everything you want: don’t leave anything not likely to change out. Then use one of nicOS-Utility-Suite’s, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 983#p12983, remaster modules to create a new core/base SFS.

To include wine, pick any of version2013’s 32-bit pets from this Section, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=103. Posts on that Section will explain how to download them. Some windows programs have to be installed. But many were published as portables you can locate anywhere and simply activate when you need them. See this thread about creating menu entries, https://oldforum.puppylinux.com/viewtop ... 66#p979566

FYI, about the time I remastered xenialpup, I also remastered radky’s dpup-stretch. It worked just as well. IIRC, the wine version I used was version2013’s 3.3_v2.1. It ran every windows program I actually need. But since then MikeWalsh and I worked on creating portable-wines based on the 4 and 5 series of wine. These are just as functional; perhaps more.

Untested: With peebee’s 64bit-compat-s15pup32-22.12.sfs loaded you should be able to run MikeWalsh’s wine-portable which employs a Wine AppImage using Wine 5.11. It’s available from here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 191#p68191. You might want to try that first. If it works, having wine built into your 32-bit Puppy would involve a lot of work for little, if any, gain.

Not really on topic but related nevertheless. It seems this compatibility package may be useful in the situation where a machine's cpu does not have 64-bit support (so we are talking really old here). The better option is to run 64-bit with 32-bit compatibility (I would restrict that to WINE). An avenue that should be explored (and I know I'm going against the grain of usual Puppy operation here), is operating Puppy with full install if you have very limited RAM....

@amethyst :-

I can't see THAT working.

Nic, if a CPU doesn't have 64-bit capability then there is no way it can possibly RUN a 64-bit application. Neither will your 32-bit Puppy be able to boot with that 64-bit kernel. And anyway, this doesn't fall into the category of "must-have"; it's one of those rare things that legend has it can't BE done, which some of us will play around with just for the hell of it. For the majority of folks, it makes zero sense to run an elderly 32-bit OS on a modern 64-bit machine - if you have a modern 64-bit machine, of course you'll want to run 64-bit OSs on there. (Or so the thinking goes. Why wouldn't you?)

Heh. Well, if you're an ornery cuss like me.....

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

I happen to have a perfectly set-up copy of Xenialpup 7.5 that I've been using for 3 years or more. The ONLY thing that 'spoils' it is Google deprecating 32-bit Widevine a couple of years back, thereby stopping me from watching NetFlix. Yes, I have several 64-bit Puppies, but I don't WANT to have to re-boot just to watch it. I'd rather do so exactly where I am. This package lets me do just that, especially given that all my browsers are portables anyway.....

Peebee may well be a miracle worker ( ), but even he can't perform the impossible.......OR "break the laws of physics", as Trek's Scotty was wont to say.

Mike.

@mikewalsh
I'll probably stick with 32-bit Puppy until there are no more 32-bit browsers. I can switch over to 64-bit right now but having to do the compatibility thingy just to run my Wine programs seems to be unproductive and unnecessary.

@amethyst :-

Nic, just out of curiosity, what WINE do you run? Shinobar's portable WINE, or one of version2013's full-install packages (an SFS, knowing you)?

Mike.

Further discussions specifically regarding the use of the 64-bit Compatibility SFS to run 64-bit Web-browsers under a 32-bit Puppy will be discussed here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 550#p78550: the Additional Software Browsers & Internet Section.

Please use this thread for posting about its use if your post is not primarily about Web-browsers.

mikewalsh wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:15 pm

@amethyst :-

Nic, just out of curiosity, what WINE do you run? Shinobar's portable WINE, or one of version2013's full-install packages (an SFS, knowing you)?

Mike.

Version 3.3, can't remember in which form it was but I'm running it as an extra sfs.

"Untested: With peebee’s 64bit-compat-s15pup32-22.12.sfs loaded you should be able to run MikeWalsh’s wine-portable which employs a Wine AppImage using Wine 5.11. It’s available from here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 191#p68191. You might want to try that first. If it works, having wine built into your 32-bit Puppy would involve a lot of work for little, if any, gain." https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 663#p78663

Still working with xenialpup32.

Tested. Failed.

Wouldn't life be boring if everything you could think of worked the first time OOTB?

Running MikeWalsh's Wine-portable employing the 64-bit WineAppImage --available from this post, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 191#p68191 -- Left-Clicking WINE-link script to create the necessary links, then typing 'wine32' in a terminal, the following is reported:

"wine32
basename: relocation error: /initrd/mnt/tmpfs/tmp/.mount_wine32C9v9Ai/usr/lib32/libc.so.6: symbol _dl_fatal_printf, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference
rm: relocation error: /initrd/mnt/tmpfs/tmp/.mount_wine32C9v9Ai/usr/lib32/libc.so.6: symbol _dl_fatal_printf, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference"

A solution to that is 'above my pay-grade'.

It is possible that Mike portable 32-bit build using the WINE 4.0.4 AppImage --also available from the link above-- might work. But I haven't downloaded it. So, I rebooted (to clear RAM), SFS-loaded the 64-bit Compatibility and registered my 'trusty' wine-portable series 3.3 [see this post, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... p=279#p279. It does not use AppImages, but rather the older technology that involves linking to a Wine SFS. Worked OOTB. Pupsys-Info revealed the following RAM usage:

On boot-up with 64-bit kernel = 183 MB
With Compat SFS-loaded = 214 MB
With both the 64-Compat SFS loaded and the 'Traditional Wine-portable' registered
RAM: 256 MB
With ifranview opened 279 MB
with Atlantis Word Processor opened 266 MB
With BibleTime 3.0.3 opened 338 MB
With BibleTime and Palemoon64 opened 545 MB

Note, without having to reboot, this portable wine can be 'unregistered' and the 64bit compatibility SFS unloaded. A Restart-x may be necessary to clear RAM.

Conclusion: Although achieved in a different way, even with only the amount of RAM considered reasonable for slightly 'old' 32-bit Puppys, you can have a fully functional operating system using a 'Current' 64-bit web-browser as and when you need to.

xenial wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 10:11 am

Much praise for peebee.
Does make you wonder why microsoft and apple etc could not create such a compatibilty layer.

apple is in the business of selling computers. microsoft is in the business of selling operating systems to manufacturers of computers. It's more profitable to convince people they 'need' a new computer than to convince them that by buying an 'after-market' product for your old computer and --heavens-to-Betsy doing something crazy like following installation instructions-- your computer will be almost as good as new.

Money makes the world go round. Sometimes dizzyingly so.

@mikeslr :-

Your v3.3 WINE-portable will work, Mike, because it's running in a tried & tested way.....'linking' & interfacing into a 32-bit system the way it was built to. However, the issue with the WINE AppImage is quite simple.

The readout says it can't function because of "version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference".

ld-linux.so.2

.....is the 32-bit glibc 'linker'. But when you're invoking the 64-bit compat stuff, what is being called is the 64-bit variant of the linker:-

ld-linux-x86-64.so.2

And that doesn't match/work with the remainder of the 32-bit glibc stuff, of course.....

Stymied at the first hurdle. I tried this a few days ago; it was almost the first thing I DID try. And I got exactly the same result as you have.

T'other Mike.

viewtopic.php?p=122219#p122219