A Call For Ending 32-bit Ubuntu Desktop ISOs

[phoronix]

Phoronix: A Call For Ending 32-bit Ubuntu Desktop ISOs

Ubuntu developer Dimitri John Ledkov has started a public conversation about dropping the Ubuntu Desktop i386 ISOs in favor of focusing resources on the 64-bit Ubuntu desktop...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=2016-Ubuntu-32-bit-Desktop-ISO

[DebianLinuxero]

There are 32 bit packages on 64bit systems for compatibility.

So, if those packages were to be, why couldn't re-distribute them on a 32 bit only distro?

[Michael]

There are 32 bit packages on 64bit systems for compatibility.

So, if those packages were to be, why couldn't re-distribute them on a 32 bit distro?

Because spinning the ISOs take time, require testing, consume storage and bandwidth, etc.

[Alcoholic_Nate]

What about my Dell Mini 10v netbook? It runs Ubuntu 14.04 just fine. Perhaps a little slow, but more than usable for sure. The idea that 32 bit computers can't handle Ubuntu Unity 7 or 8 is bullshit. Lots of 32 bit machines out there that can run modern Ubuntu with Unity 7 or 8. My netbook has an atom cpu and 1 gb ram. If my netbook can run Ubuntu then plenty of 32 bit machines with 2 or 4 GB Ram can too.

[cb88]

If your desktop is so slow that it requires a 64bit computer to run at all... you should drop your desktop and rewrite it this time without bloat.

[DebianLinuxero]

Because spinning the ISOs take time, require testing, consume storage and bandwidth, etc.

I don't know exactly how Ubuntu store the packages on their servers.
But I don't see how much space will take. If the 32 bit packages were there for the 64 bit distro, they don't need to be replicated to form a 32 bit only distro. Only enumerated and indexed on index texts files.

Following that reason, I don't see why it would give additional bandwith.

And for the ISOs ... well ... it's true. But today how many people downloads the whole set of ISOs? ... or the whole 1st DVD?
I think the most of us use the 300MBs net install ISO's, which is not so much space.

[Nille]

My netbook has an atom cpu and 1 gb ram.

And you can install the 64bit Version. Even on a 15 Years old AMD turion CPU with 512MB Ram you can run the 64bit Version without problems or a really drawback.

[ferry]

I think there are some strange lines of thought here:
- a 32bit image hardly take more bandwidth, you download either the one or the other. In fact if so much bandwidth is consumed by it, there is apearantly a substantial user base
- a 32bit image is hardly slower than a 64bit
- a 32bit image is limited to 4GB RAM, but many computers today still don't have more than that
- lots of code needs to be build for 32bit and tested anyway, f.i. my ubuntu MX7 phone runs on ARM7. How is that not Ubuntu? Or is that convergence never going to happen?
- in fact the need for 32bits code depends on just this: can the processor execute 64 bit instruction or not. And in fact lots of older processors can't and neither can lot of newer (ARM, certain ATOM)

[slacka]

And you can install the 64bit Version. Even on a 15 Years old AMD turion CPU with 512MB Ram you can run the 64bit Version without problems or a really drawback.

This is patently false. I have a netbook with a 64-bit CPU but only 1GB of RAM. I learned the hard way that 64-bit applications waste about 20-30% more RAM than 32-bit ones. On the same distro, switching to 32-bit made the difference between thrashing the swap and running smoothly with only 2 heavy HTML5 apps. I could not only feel the difference, I could see it with a free -h.

[Alcoholic_Nate]

This is patently false. I have a netbook with a 64-bit CPU but only 1GB of RAM. I learned the hard way that 64-bit applications waste about 20-30% more RAM than 32-bit ones. On the same distro, switching to 32-bit made the difference between thrashing the swap and running smoothly with only 2 heavy HTML5 apps. I could not only feel the difference, I could see it with a free -h.

Not only do 64 bit os take more ram, the cpu requires more effort. Also my atom is 32 bit. This netbook is from 2009 or 2010, somewhere around there.