Ubuntu Developers Discuss Again About Dropping Support For 32-bit x86

[sverris]

Ubuntu-variants are reskins, they lack the manpower to mantain 32bit packages themselves.

thanks...

[bug77]

I can make this simple for Ubuntu: has there been any distro that dropped 32bit and then regretted doing so?

hiddenmaverick Choosing Asus for Linux is on you. They're known for their "works on Windows" approach to building systems.

[r_a_trip]

And its Canonical's fault that ASUS uses a broken and bad proprietary UEFI implementation? There will certainly be a way to make it work, it is just insane to imagine supporting an entire architecture exclusively on the presumption that hardware vendors are going to ship broken firmware.

No, Canonical is not at fault for the insane firmware situation on "Windows 8/8.1" Baytrail systems. Intel and Microsoft are.

Microsoft had trouble getting their instant on implementation running in 64-bit mode, so they petitioned Intel to ship those Baytrail systems with a 32 bit UEFI and they shipped a 32 bit Windows 8.

OEM's loved it as well, as 32 bit Windows takes less space, so they could skimp on RAM and SSD storage.

The trouble with the above setup is that the UEFI specification kinda/sorta tells you that the bitness of the UEFI must match the OS. In practise this isn't necessary as the short lived upswell of community hybrid boot disks amply demonstrated. So what all the distributions should do, is spin an install disk with a 32 bit UEFI bootloader and an otherwise 64 bit OS. This will save a myriad of those 32 bit UEFI systems from the landfill.

[Azrael5]

I agree, nowdays i386 is obsolete and the limited CPus unable to manage Ubuntu as other distros.

[starshipeleven]

hiddenmaverick Choosing Asus for Linux is on you. They're known for their "works on Windows" approach to building systems.

They are also known for not pissing you off with retarded restrictions on device IDs (HP), using mostly linux-compatible components (unlike Dell that traditionally ships with broadcom crap apart from some models), for a relatively good quality of components (unlike Acer), for not locking down sites posting service manuals (unlike Toshiba), for not making five zillion revision numbers where they remove stuff but not changing the product ID so you will never know what board you're buying (unlike Gigabyte), and for not bunding auto-installing malware and crapware in their UEFI (unlike lenovo).

This 32-bit UEFI on 64-bit processor is an issue for all tablet-like devices, it's not ASUS-specific.

[bug77]

They are also known for not pissing you off with retarded restrictions on device IDs (HP), using mostly linux-compatible components (unlike Dell that traditionally ships with broadcom crap apart from some models), for a relatively good quality of components (unlike Acer), for not locking down sites posting service manuals (unlike Toshiba), for not making five zillion revision numbers where they remove stuff but not changing the product ID so you will never know what board you're buying (unlike Gigabyte), and for not bunding auto-installing malware and crapware in their UEFI (unlike lenovo).

This 32-bit UEFI on 64-bit processor is an issue for all tablet-like devices, it's not ASUS-specific.

Yeah, I didn't mean to say that everyone loves Linux, but Asus.
You really need to do your homework when choosing hardware for Linux, especially when you move outside desktop territory.

[torsionbar28]

To look at it another way, even Apple transitioned to 64 bit in Mac OS. One doesn't have to decide upon which version of Mac OS (32 or 64 bit).

That's an odd statement to make. "even Apple"? IIRC Apple was the *first* desktop OS to go 64-bit-only. While I'm not a big Apple fan, I do admit they were the desktop industry leader in moving to 64 bits, and they did it extremely smoothly with no software/driver confusion; it just worked.

[torsionbar28]

In Debian there is very bizarre community maintained hardware support like for s390x. Debian Stretch is stable in 2017, so Debian has i386 support for a long time. RedHat does not dominate everything.

I never said Red Hat "dominates everything" lol. I said they are a major player in Linux kernel development, which is a fact. If they stop maintaining a code that is used by others, then others have to pick up the slack. Pretty simple concept really.

[Passso]

That's an odd statement to make. "even Apple"? IIRC Apple was the *first* desktop OS to go 64-bit-only. While I'm not a big Apple fan, I do admit they were the desktop industry leader in moving to 64 bits, and they did it extremely smoothly with no software/driver confusion; it just worked.

It just worked?
Do you consider that, at every Mac OS version, saying "please burry all your applications and buy a new version" is acceptable?

[137ben]

I'm not an Ubuntu user, and all my machines are 64-bit, so I really have no connection to this debate at all, and my opinion shouldn't really count for anything. But since this is the internet, I'll chime in anyhow:

A major target of Ubuntu are converts from Windows and Mac. One of the arguments often made to Windows/Mac users considering switching to Linux is that Linux does not have planned obsolescence. Microsoft wants you to throw out your old 32-bit machines, so that you will buy a new machine with a new copy of Windows. If they push updates which make Windows less efficient in terms of CPU or memory usage, they might view it as a win. Apple does it to an even greater extent with iOS: software upgrades are free, but they take up more and more space in your phone's limited storage, in order to encourage you to either buy new iOS devices more frequently or pay more for the phones with more storage. With Linux, it's mostly free, so the incentive isn't there to make your old hardware obselete as quickly as possible.

To a potential Linux convert, the above arguent might seem undercut if the leading beginner-oriented distro dropped support for old CPUs before Microsoft did. Windows 10 comes with a 32-bit x86 version even now (though how much longer MS will continue supporting it is anyone's guess.) Is that a reason for Ubuntu to continue supporting 32-bit? Not really, but it would be mildly ironic (although I'm not sure Canonical has ever used the above argument, so maybe it wouldn't be ironic.)