Ubuntu 16.04 Might Be The Distribution's Last 32-Bit Release

[peppepz]

There's a lot of 32-bit hardware out there. One of the key points of advantage of Linux is that it doesn't force hardware upgrades onto its users, and it can run even on the oldest hardware. And netbooks from 2010 aren't old hardware by any definition. Moreover, even if 64-bit-capable, setups with less than 2GB of RAM could actually experience worse performance when switching to a full 64 bit working set. In summary, I don't think 32-bit x86 support should be dropped. As of now it has probably much more users than Ubuntu Phone.

[schmidtbag]

There's a lot of 32-bit hardware out there. One of the key points of advantage of Linux is that it doesn't force hardware upgrades onto its users, and it can run even on the oldest hardware. And netbooks from 2010 aren't old hardware by any definition. Moreover, even if 64-bit-capable, setups with less than 2GB of RAM could actually experience worse performance when switching to a full 64 bit working set. In summary, I don't think 32-bit x86 support should be dropped. As of now it has probably much more users than Ubuntu Phone.

Eliminate people who are using 32 bit when they would have no downside of switching to 64 bit and you cut out a huge chunk of the 32-bit users. As I stated before, ubuntu is pretty heavy. Ubuntu is also focused on very new technologies. It is old news that canonical isn't on the same page as the rest of the linux community. With these points in mind, anybody who wants to use ubuntu and doesn't have 64 bit hardware probably shouldn't be using it. I'm not a fan of canonical by any means, but I think ditching 32 bit support is a healthy choice.

Linux is about freedom of choice. If you want to use an old and/or 32 bit system then fine, no problem - use another distro that actually properly caters to your needs. But everyone else shouldn't have to be held back just because these people prefer to stick with something outdated. Catering to older technologies is what really stifles innovation. All this being said, though I hate the amount of bloat in Windows Vista and newer, I approve of it because it forces people to move on.

[Mat2]

There are really people out there that cannot afford new boxes (I'm not speaking about myself).

And the whole argument: drop WinXP, install Linux stops making sense.

[Mat2]

With these points in mind, anybody who wants to use ubuntu and doesn't have 64 bit hardware probably shouldn't be using it. I'm not a fan of canonical by any means, but I think ditching 32 bit support is a healthy choice.

So what should they be using instead? Take a week and compile Gentoo (I'm not against Gentoo, it's very nice, but just not for everyone)? Ubuntu is (was?) the first choice distribution for many people and is still one of the easiest to use and install.
Linux Mint will probably follow suit so only OpenSuse would be left.

[Guest]

Does this include variants of Ubuntu as well?

With Ubuntu itself, I have no problems with losing 32-bit support; considering that any computer I'd run it on would likely be running a 64-bit CPU. Lubuntu on the other hand is pretty nice for lower-end machines, and it'd be nice to keep an updated LiveCD around just for 32-bit-only machines.

As for my usage scenario, I have 4 computers in-use primarily that all use 64-bit CPUs. One of them runs 32-bit Lubuntu though purely because:

1. It doesn't benefit anything to run a 64-bit OS on it (it either runs a game or Plex Home Theater; performance is hardly an issue)
2. The one game it runs (Stepmania) is more hassle to get setup on 64-bit
3. It only has 3GB of RAM, and a 256MB GPU

I have 5 older desktops not in-use also that are all 32-bit only. If they should become in-use, I'd like to throw Lubuntu onto them.

Worse-case scenario; I'd just use another distro for those machines. There's plenty of distro choices.

[Guest]

So what should they be using instead? Take a week and compile Gentoo (I'm not against Gentoo, it's very nice, but just not for everyone)? Ubuntu is (was?) the first choice distribution for many people and is still one of the easiest to use and install.
Linux Mint will probably follow suit so only OpenSuse would be left.

There's Arch Linux, Sabayon, Manjaro Linux, and Antergos.

[mwpow3ll]

So what should they be using instead? Take a week and compile Gentoo (I'm not against Gentoo, it's very nice, but just not for everyone)? Ubuntu is (was?) the first choice distribution for many people and is still one of the easiest to use and install.
Linux Mint will probably follow suit so only OpenSuse would be left.

There are way more linux distributions out there than just Ubuntu, Mint, and OpenSuse, but I am sure some community members are going to continue building 32-bit ISOs for Ubuntu.

[Baconmon]

Kabini is 64-bit, dawg

I have broken 32bit Debian Sid installed on Kabini for about 3 months , although that is with kernel 3.17 + all current graphics stack... So Jessie stable will be fine for me and this Ubuntu LTS... but bit after that, i am not sure

But upstream does not care, or care less and less how time goes, Debian will be of little help there... probably Debian will maintain it one release more and drop it, maybe after two releases... ah, it will probably go to ports after that

Ummm.. Why are you running 32-bit debian on kabini?? I am writing this on kabini laptop right now, and it is running 64-bit debian..ｏ＿Ｏ
AMD has had 64-bit support even before your grandpa was born, so why would you think you need to install 32-bit OS on it??..

[Shiba]

There are really people out there that cannot afford new boxes (I'm not speaking about myself).

It's not that I can't afford a new machine (I have 2 64bit PCs), but I'm not trowing away my working netbook because. That's a replay to the nonsense "get a new box", not related with Ubuntu.

[Mat2]

There's Arch Linux, Sabayon, Manjaro Linux, and Antergos.

Yup, but they're for people very experienced with Linux (power users).

----------

Old hardware may still be of use. E.g. it could run a backup (or web) server (yes, I know about the Raspberry Pi). Also, there are companies with lots of old computers and no real upgrade budget.

64-bit systems use more memory then the 32-bit ones. Because of that, systems with small amounts of RAM (1 GB or 2 GB) may run slower on 64-bit. That's why I'm not using a 64-bit Ubuntu (I have only 3GB of RAM and a habit of having many firefox tabs open, which takes up lots of memory).