Ubuntu Dropping All 32-bit Support Going Forward

[darry19662018]

@darry - I think it's just economics - they don't want to pay anyone to do 32bit. A community fork is a good idea, but I'm not savvy enough to contribute much.

Hi Ozsouth,

I am not up to the skill level required either to help out Ubuntu but I'm sure there must be people who can - hopefully.

[s243a]

@darry - I think it's just economics - they don't want to pay anyone to do 32bit. A community fork is a good idea, but I'm not savvy enough to contribute much.

Hi Ozsouth,

I am not up to the skill level required either to help out Ubuntu but I'm sure there must be people who can - hopefully.

Couldn't they just use Debian packages for any package that they don't want to compile? Granted even this might require some adjustments (e.g. startup scripts).

[nic007]

You try doing this in Windoze.... Rolling Eyes

Never even thought about it as a problem!!!

Comparing the difficulty of Linux compatibality with the ease of a one for all versions installation for windows is laughable. I use Racy, Precise, Tahr and Xenial. I need a different compilation of VLC for each of the distributions notwithstanding the fact that Precise, Tahr and Xenial are all ubuntu based. Really annoying.

[s243a]

You try doing this in Windoze.... Rolling Eyes

Never even thought about it as a problem!!!

Comparing the difficulty of Linux compatibality with the ease of a one for all versions installation for windows is laughable. I use Racy, Precise, Tahr and Xenial. I need a different compilation of VLC for each of the distributions notwithstanding the fact that Precise, Tahr and Xenial are all ubuntu based. Really annoying.

For compatibility, I think that the libc (AKA glibc) version is more inportant. Linux developers for greater compatibility could compile their software on older systems but people might worry that older versions of the libs might have security issues. Perhaps one price we pay for on linux by not having as great a need for anti-virus is a greater requirment to have the newest libs.

I wonder though if the older libs (actually have security issues if they?) could be patched (I.e. a minor version upgrade).

[nic007]

Never even thought about it as a problem!!!

Comparing the difficulty of Linux compatibality with the ease of a one for all versions installation for windows is laughable. I use Racy, Precise, Tahr and Xenial. I need a different compilation of VLC for each of the distributions notwithstanding the fact that Precise, Tahr and Xenial are all ubuntu based. Really annoying.

For compatibility, I think that the libc (AKA glibc) version is more inportant. Linux developers for greater compatibility could compile their software on older systems but people might worry that older versions of the libs might have security issues. Perhaps one price we pay for on linux by not having as great a need for anti-virus is a greater requirment to have the newest libs.

I wonder though if the older libs (actually have security issues if they?) could be patched (I.e. a minor version upgrade).

It's not only the version of libs that is the drawback...

[Mike Walsh]

@ nic007:-

You happen to like Windows. I don't.

'Nuff said. You're trying to compare apples & oranges. You can't.


Mike.

[nic007]

@ nic007:-

You happen to like Windows. I don't.

'Nuff said. You're trying to compare apples & oranges. You can't.


Mike.

Yet, you take every opportunity to talk down Windows even if Windows does some things better.....

[s243a]

@ nic007:-

You happen to like Windows. I don't.

'Nuff said. You're trying to compare apples & oranges. You can't.


Mike.

Yet, you take every opportunity to talk down Windows even if Windows does some things better.....

I don't think that windows is as back-compatible as you think. For instance they are always breaking stuff by changing their security model.

[musher0]

I suppose all of you have read this Q&A on this subject on the DistroWatch site?
Ubuntu's plan to drop 32-bit packages

Concluding paragraph:

However, if none of those alternatives appeal, there are still plenty of Linux distributions
which are either 32-bit or make it possible to run 32-bit packages on a 64-bit base. In fact, I
think there are about 75 in our database which offer a 32-bit build and are not based on
Ubuntu, so people still running 32-bit applications have plenty of options.

[peebee]

Good sense ?:

from: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 99#1032799

Here is Pi explaining away why they are sticking with 32 bit.

Simon Long says:
We cannot avoid focussing on backwards compatibility; it may not matter to you, but it is massively important to us. There are 27 million Pis in the wild; I don’t have exact numbers to hand for how many of those are Pis 1, 2 and Zero, but it’s well over 10 million of them. As soon as we move to a 64-bit OS, those devices are orphaned, because we do not have the resource to maintain two separate forks of Raspbian. (Not to mention to handle the support requests we will get from the thousands of users who download the wrong version and find it doesn’t boot.)

No-one has yet managed to provide us with a convincing use-case for where a 64-bit OS actually provides a real, quantifiable benefit to end-users. 32-bit accesses the entire RAM of the 4GB Pi 4. 64-bit code is invariably larger than 32-bit code – compare the sizes of the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows 7; the 64-bit version is 30-40% larger. That’s a lot of extra download bandwidth for us, and for our users. A lot of 64-bit code actually runs slower than the 32-bit equivalent – because it’s larger, it takes longer to pull in from backing store. There are numerous costs attached to 64-bit – and we have yet to find a proven use-case where it actually offers any benefit whatsoever to the vast majority of our user base.

So no, this is not the ideal platform for the transition, or the time to make it. When (and if) we have a board that has more than 4GB of RAM – and that is likely to be a good few years off from today’s launch – we will look at 64-bit. But until then, the advantages of 32-bit – backwards compatibility, size, speed; of which backwards compatibility is easily the largest – vastly outweigh the putative advantages of a move to 64-bit at this point in time.

[Mike Walsh]

@ nic007:-

You happen to like Windows. I don't.

'Nuff said. You're trying to compare apples & oranges. You can't.


Mike.

Yet, you take every opportunity to talk down Windows even if Windows does some things better.....

Nic:-

Mm.....not entirely true. I like older versions of Windows, yes. Newer versions (8,8.1, especially 10)....eeek. No, I don't like them. But if you take the time to scan through some of my posts over the years, you'll find that on many occasions I've stated that there's no shame in running applications from multiple different platforms.....as long as you can achieve what you want to do.

There's no getting away from the fact that Windows definitely does do some things better than Linux. Linux, in its turn, does some things better than Windows. I dare say there's the odd item that Macs do better than either, but I've not been a fan of Macs since trying to use a very balky Apple Lisa during the late 80's; it put me off Cupertino's products for life!

I've always agreed with you about the sound stuff. Running XP on this exact same hardware a few years ago, the Realtek AC'97 drivers made the sound chip perform noticeably better than my first Linux distro, Ubuntu was ever able to do.

I've never been what you might call an open-source 'disciple'. I've always believer that there's precious little point in being so 'dogmatic' about things that you end up shooting yourself in the foot.....

If a Linux app will do what I want better than a Windows one, I'll use it. If a Windows one will do the job better, I have no problem with that either.

It's not so much the software I don't like - even the OS ain't that bad, or would be miles better with a lot of the unnecessary bloat removed and the demise of Nanny Microsoft wanting to sell all your data.....it's the attitude of the company that I really don't understand.

I've used MooiTech's 'PhotoScape' ever since its initial release back in 2009; initially under XP, latterly running under Wine in Linux. Fortunately, it's one of the relatively rare 100%-compatible apps out there; absolutely everything functions as it should. In fact, I've got so used to using it for my graphic design hobby that I simply cannot translate the same work-flow to Linux apps.....so I shall keep using it as long as I can.


Mike.

[Illutorium]

32bit = 98SE [1GB RAM]/XP x32 [4GB RAM]|Puppy Precise 5.7.1 [Retro version]
64bit = XP x64 [128GB RAM]|Puppy Tahr Lite 6.1.1 [64GB RAM/PAE - Dropped from Meself but if Mesa are be of 10.4+ then Can be use of "Direct3D" when Every OS then are be has a Mesa 10.4+ can be affaid of a Playing some Games...]/FatDog64 [1TB RAM/x64]

RAM Cycles:

1GB: Windows 98SE
4GB: Windows XP x32/Puppy Precise (Retro) 5.7.1
64GB: Puppy Tahr Lite (PAE) 6.1
128GB: Windows XP x64
1TB: FatDog64
-----
but Add reason of dropping "32bit" it's a Drop support of "TLS 1.0" when some knows what's are be about...
-----
Also anyway: "KDEnLive 18.12" it's a last good due of "Pan & Crop" when Let's download at Source code and try to Find Framework of KDE and Upload at "Portable" or ".sfs only" form.

[peebee]

Ubuntu Focal Fossa 20.04 LTS......

http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/ ... nary-i386/

so far - so good!

[Moose On The Loose]

You try doing this in Windoze.... Rolling Eyes

Never even thought about it as a problem!!!

Comparing the difficulty of Linux compatibality with the ease of a one for all versions installation for windows is laughable. I use Racy, Precise, Tahr and Xenial. I need a different compilation of VLC for each of the distributions notwithstanding the fact that Precise, Tahr and Xenial are all ubuntu based. Really annoying.

While I have sympathy for your position, I should point out that I have a virtual machine with a copy of Win98 because a huge amount of Windows software I own has been orphaned but will install and run on the down rev OS.

BTW: I also run Puppy-528 on a virtual machine on Puppy-528 but for a different reason.