#ia32 — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #ia32, aggregated by home.social.
-
Jenny’s Daily Drivers: Going 32-Bit With SliTaz In 2026
-
Jenny’s Daily Drivers: Going 32-Bit With SliTaz In 2026
-
Jenny’s Daily Drivers: Going 32-Bit With SliTaz In 2026
-
Hype for the Future 137B → Installation of Alpine Linux (32-bit)
Overview The system requirements for Alpine Linux for x86 are based on the 32-bit system architecture of the software, thus supporting both 32-bit and 64-bit systems largely associated with Intel and AMD processors. The architecture is also often known as i386, i486, i586, or i686, depending on the particular system kernel requirements and intended type of system. Usually, with Alpine Linux, the server-side distribution is designed to support certain legacy Intel Pentium processors, […] -
Hype for the Future 137B → Installation of Alpine Linux (32-bit)
Overview The system requirements for Alpine Linux for x86 are based on the 32-bit system architecture of the software, thus supporting both 32-bit and 64-bit systems largely associated with Intel and AMD processors. The architecture is also often known as i386, i486, i586, or i686, depending on the particular system kernel requirements and intended type of system. Usually, with Alpine Linux, the server-side distribution is designed to support certain legacy Intel Pentium processors, […] -
The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.
It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.
This message is very likely a red herring.
-
The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.
It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.
This message is very likely a red herring.
-
The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.
It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.
This message is very likely a red herring.
-
The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.
It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.
This message is very likely a red herring.
-
The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.
It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.
This message is very likely a red herring.
-
The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.
It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.
#RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders
-
The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.
It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.
#RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders
-
The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.
It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.
#RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders
-
The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.
It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.
#RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders
-
The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.
It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.
#RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders