Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 252

Thread: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Beans
    146
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    There is a critical security issue for 64bit Flash that Adobe has not fixed and has no plans to fix in the immediate future. Might be a legitimate reason to avoid 64-bit Ubuntu for some people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimientito
    NEVER EVER give a gypsy player an unprotected guitar to play. It will end in tears!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Malta EU
    Beans
    592
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    I have been using Ubuntu 64-bit version for a couple of years now without problems.
    Yes, Flash does need more setting up in 10-04 than previous versions, but once setup it works great!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Beans
    6,541
    Distro
    Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by julio_cortez View Post
    "if you don't know what to choose, stick with the 32-bit one that will work even on 64-bit machines".
    IIRC, that's pretty much what the page used to say.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Beans
    295
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    Oh I didn't even see that. I just saw 64-bit and downloaded it. Flash isn't hard for 64-bit. You just copy some file into some folder. I remember doing it drunk, and somehow it worked. The damn thing still doesn't show Hulu, but whatever the site sucked, Hulu desktop is so much better. I think my AMD 64 can't run 32-bit applications anyways. I think I've tried and tons of error messages always appear. It happened on Windows also if I recalled, made some things for school a pain in the ****.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    UK
    Beans
    17,055
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    I had a chat on IRC with the website team a few days ago. Looks like I got some action on the bug report.

    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-we...40/comments/62

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Summerwind
    Beans
    11,660
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by philinux View Post
    I had a chat on IRC with the website team a few days ago. Looks like I got some action on the bug report.

    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-we...40/comments/62
    Thanks ! This is the third thread I've seen on this topic , and the only thing resembling an answer so far.
    “Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can."

    Ubuntu Documentation Search: Popular Pages
    Ubuntu: Security Basics
    Ubuntu: Manual

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Beans
    3,779

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by philinux View Post
    I had a chat on IRC with the website team a few days ago. Looks like I got some action on the bug report.

    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-we...40/comments/62
    Not your fault, and this is no reflection on you philinux (at least you've actually got a response) but...lame. Very lame. I'm particularly annoyed at " We will revisit when we update these pages for the 10.10 release.". 3 months of 'WTF?' responses to the change, and its going to be 'revisited' in another 3 months?

    How hard could it be to move back to the older version, if only for now. Or to write up a newer version. Not that hard IMO......

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    UK
    Beans
    17,055
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by cascade9 View Post
    Not your fault, and this is no reflection on you philinux (at least you've actually got a response) but...lame. Very lame. I'm particularly annoyed at " We will revisit when we update these pages for the 10.10 release.". 3 months of 'WTF?' responses to the change, and its going to be 'revisited' in another 3 months?

    How hard could it be to move back to the older version, if only for now. Or to write up a newer version. Not that hard IMO......
    I can't see the reason for delaying a change until 10.10. It's got to be a 2 minute edit.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Beans
    3,779

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by philinux View Post
    I can't see the reason for delaying a change until 10.10. It's got to be a 2 minute edit.
    Honestly, I think its got to be political. Not the 'left/right' kind of politics, more internal canonical politics. Probably the wording is the sticking point.

    Ohh well, least it will get looked at.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Atkins, Arkansas
    Beans
    256
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Canonical recommends against using 64-bit Ubuntu

    I have two machine that theoretically could run 64 bit. One has 2 gig ram, and the other 4. The 4 gig machine has 64 bit Vista and Ubuntu 904. I never run the Vista anymore. And, I had some problems on some programs because they didn't support 64bit. But, on the 2 gig machine, which would not benifit from 64 bit because 1) the only benefit from my perspective (there are other perspectives, but my perspective,) is that it supports 4gig+ ram. And 2) It seems no matter how many apps I load up, My monitor in conky never shows more than 20% ram in use. I've never seen any indication my swap is in use. So why would I want it?

    Perhaps for some more sophisticated applications, I might need the speed 64 bit may give me. As yet, I'm still getting used to the fact that my 32 bit Ubuntu is so much faster than my old 64 bit Vista was. The future may well belong to 64 bit machines, and when we get there, some of us will have to switch. But 32 is great for right now.

Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •