But the message is not just "we will require Rust and here's the timeline (and some things may break)", it's also "I know what I'm going to break and it's your problem to fix it" (via the CC line) and ends in a passive-aggressive way (the phrase "Thank you for your understanding." is basically a polite way of saying "and fuck you too."). This gets people off-side, and makes it more likely they're going to throw up barriers rather than either do what you ask or find some other way to collaborate/achieve the ideal outcome.

Right. I do have some nostalgia for installing Linux on a brand new PC which had less total RAM than my computer today has cache, but we need to be clear eyed about what makes sense for a maintained piece of software. I also have feelings about steam trains, but burning coal is not a sensible way to power a train in 2025.

A nostalgia-fuelled Linux distro, maybe using a deliberately slimmed down or retro kernel, and chosen software could make a lot more sense than keep trying to squeeze Debian onto hardware that was already obsolete at the turn of the century while also promoting Debian as a viable choice for a brand new laptop.

> I also have feelings about steam trains, but burning coal is not a sensible way to power a train in 2025.

Solved problem:

United States Patent Application 3127321 Date of Patent March 31, 1964 NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR A RAILWAY VEHICLE

Very Fallout

Or those annoying nagging "well, what if I don't have an X86_64 CPU that was made in the last five years?", to which obviously our response should be: "get different hardware LOL, closedwontfix"

Is your point that rust doesn't run on a computer built in 2020?

No, but that if it did not, I am not so sure that would even be seen as a problem.

Oh, that sounds like a personal ignorance problem. You are in the right place to be educated though!

Feel free to enlighten me. Nothing I have seen thus far indicates anything to the contrary.

Spend more effort on looking before posting then!

I'm not gonna waste effort on a fool's errand. So far, neither claim has been backed up whatsoever.

It's obviously more likely it's just fans of the language with a knee-jerk reaction of "ackshully you're totally definetely wrong, but uh... don't ask me how, you just are" than legitimate talking points.

stay ignant then, keep making stupid claims and asking people to correct them lol

> stay ignant then, keep making stupid claims and asking people to correct them lol

It aint stupid if its the truth lol

Feel free to stay "ignant" though, making stupid claims and refusing to back them up when asked.

Has Linux dropped support for older x86 CPUs?

Rust hasn't either AFAIK.

Yeah, in... late 2012 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/12/292

No, supporting 5 year old mainstream hardware is a very reasonable thing to do. Supporting 20 year old hardware that barely anyone used even when it was new is not.

Indeed. Four targets are identified as potentially affected:

alpha, hppa, m68k and sh4

To be fair, lots of people did use Motorola 68xxx CPUs when those were new, it's just that it was 40+ years ago in products like the Commodore Amiga. The SH4 is most popularly connected to the Dreamcast, Sega's video game console from back when Sega made video game consoles.

The Alpha and PA Risc were seen in relatively recent and more conventional hardware, but in much tinier numbers, and when I say relatively I mean early this century, these are not products anybody bought five years ago, and when they were on sale they were niche products for a niche which in practical terms was eaten by Microsoft.

Alpha and PA Risc where the predecessors of Itanium fwiw if you want to feel old in an easy to understand way.