Ubuntu 19.10 To Drop 32-bit x86 Packages

[zyxxel]

I don't much care for the world open source built, where users are more dis-empowered than ever, and their software is written by people who hate them.

This make me wonder - were you born and old enough to be using a computer before we got open source?

[Volta]

This is hilarious, and the smug responces are even better!

1. Seriously stop using Ubuntu like yesterday, they are a bunch of woke elitists who have contributed nearly nothing intentionally.

2. This is the real open source community, a bunch of toxic self-hating totalitarians, I regret spending so many working years in this cesspool.

I don't much care for the world open source built, where users are more dis-empowered than ever, and their software is written by people who hate them.

Go back to your cave m$ moron, but beware of winblows BSODs and viruses waiting for you. A true security hell. This is birdie's avatar for sure!

[techzilla]

This make me wonder - were you born and old enough to be using a computer before we got open source?

I couldn't have spent so many working years, and not have been around to see what we were trying to correct. Here is what I can say, very simply.... The architecture and design of *NIX is not suited for the conditions we deal with today. I do not believe that there is anything special about licensing or code in of itself, at least not any longer. Some projects can deliver high quality and value being open source or free software., or must be open source or free-software to deliver the highest value. Some projects can only ever hope to deliver quality or value as a proprietary product. ... and many others deliver low quality and minimal value either way. What does this mean? It means that to deliver the maximum productivity and empowerment to the user, and society, an OS must be versatile not only in itself... but within our social order.

The complexity of software is so much greater than it was when Unix was designed, and so is the complexity of our economic, social and cultural relations. If you want to change the world, empower the users of your software, don't use software to change the world the way you personally would most prefer. The criteria to judge is the voices of the users, and developers. Do they feel oppressed or chained? Do they feel stuck in a box, that they cannot escape from? Do they feel helplessly chained to a power structure, that they can't ever build something different without an army of maintainers?

Windows does chain us to MS, and that isn't great... but ironically, it frees us from more than the alternatives, and that isn't saying much at all. Linux freed multi-national corporations from having to pay huge amounts of money to UNIX venders, it did some other positive stuff to, in development culture and collaborative advances. Having open code is not a goal in of itself, exuding its benefit as instructional material and examples, and is not sufficient to result in a more free world.

At this point, we are all the mercy of Google, in more ways than one. Not regarding the mobile platform, in which they are more oppressive than MS ever was, but in having any hope for the next OS that frees developers from being chained to each other in one distributed central code base. Software development is not scalable enough, to be the main point in which we collaborate with each other, it is slow... extremely error prone, and innovation must come out of consensus. Git did great things, and when you can all operate under the same process, it can include tons of people from all over. What it can't do, is be our "social" API for building something as a society or civilization, that has to operate in a world with countless different processes, economic relations, and industries. It is not a sufficient replacement for thoughtful OS design, which frees hardware developers, volunteers, hobbyists, and students, from each other and a centralized bureaucracy. It's gone as far as we could go, and now it's time to move onward.

[zyxxel]

I couldn't have spent so many working years, and not have been around to see what we were trying to correct. Here is what I can say, very simply.... The architecture and design of *NIX is not suited for the conditions we deal with today. I do not believe that there is anything special about licensing or code in of itself, at least not any longer. Some projects can deliver high quality and value being open source or free software., or must be open source or free-software to deliver the highest value. Some projects can only ever hope to deliver quality or value as a proprietary product. ... and many others deliver low quality and minimal value either way. What does this mean? It means that to deliver the maximum productivity and empowerment to the user, and society, an OS must be versatile not only in itself... but within our social order.

The complexity of software is so much greater than it was when Unix was designed, and so is the complexity of our economic, social and cultural relations. If you want to change the world, empower the users of your software, don't use software to change the world the way you personally would most prefer. The criteria to judge is the voices of the users, and developers. Do they feel oppressed or chained? Do they feel stuck in a box, that they cannot escape from? Do they feel helplessly chained to a power structure, that they can't ever build something different without an army of maintainers?

Windows does chain us to MS, and that isn't great... but ironically, it frees us from more than the alternatives, and that isn't saying much at all. Linux freed multi-national corporations from having to pay huge amounts of money to UNIX venders, it did some other positive stuff to, in development culture and collaborative advances. Having open code is not a goal in of itself, exuding its benefit as instructional material and examples, and is not sufficient to result in a more free world.

At this point, we are all the mercy of Google, in more ways than one. Not regarding the mobile platform, in which they are more oppressive than MS ever was, but in having any hope for the next OS that frees developers from being chained to each other in one distributed central code base. Software development is not scalable enough, to be the main point in which we collaborate with each other, it is slow... extremely error prone, and innovation must come out of consensus. Git did great things, and when you can all operate under the same process, it can include tons of people from all over. What it can't do, is be our "social" API for building something as a society or civilization, that has to operate in a world with countless different processes, economic relations, and industries. It is not a sufficient replacement for thoughtful OS design, which frees hardware developers, volunteers, hobbyists, and students, from each other and a centralized bureaucracy. It's gone as far as we could go, and now it's time to move onward.

But the open source projects aren't created by people who hates the users. And users have never been more empowered than now.

Huge number of things I do at home, I would never have been able to do 20 years ago because I would either have had to pay large amounts of license fees or have to invest huge numbers of years of own time to implement the functionality. That not all tools are easy to use doesn't mean we aren't able to do way more now than before.

The world needs both open source projects and commercial projects. But for a very large number of tasks, the users are now free to select multiple - free - alternatives that will solve the problem good enough. And that is empowerment.