Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 75

Thread: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Beans
    11,650

    Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    This is so far only proposed, and would only affect Ubuntu. Other flavors would still be able to host and maintain 32 bit (i386) images:

    https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...ry/039161.html

    I think it makes sense since they dropped Unity 2-D after Precise. My only concern is how that might affect Edubuntu LTSP thin clients (which use flashback w/metacity), but I'll let the Edubuntu devs do the worrying about that.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    /dev/root
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    I agree that it makes sense to drop the 32-bit version of standard Ubuntu.

    But it is very important to keep the the 32-bit versions of the flavours, at least the light-weight flavours Lubuntu, Xubuntu and Ubuntu Mate, because there are still many 32-bit computers that work well (and need 32-bit linux). We should also keep the 32-bit mini.iso and Ubuntu Server.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Beans
    552
    Distro
    Ubuntu Budgie 19.04 Disco Dingo

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    All I can say is that 32-bit UEFI support better get fleshed out better so we can install 64-bit on those mixed-mode tablets and mini-PCs with newer Atoms based on Silvermont, etc. (like the Z3735F in the Quantum Byte). Even though trying to run 64-bit Debian on here is pretty unstable and I had to drop to 32-bit for everything so it wouldn't randomly decide to not boot correctly and force me to hard reset. The only reason I didn't use Ubuntu is because, while the 64-bit image does support mixed-mode and boots just fine into the Live session after you manually add the right bootia32.efi file, it refuses to actually install correctly at this point, and there is no UEFI support on the 32-bit image.


    Not that any of that is relevant to what that discussion is really about, but still. I do have a Pentium III machine that I've generally installed stock Ubuntu on, then pulled in Mate and LXDE, rather than going with one of the alternative flavors where those are immediately available. It's tradition, but at some point I do realize that switching over to Lubuntu or whatever becomes the relevant 32-bit LXDE flavor/distro is going to become a necessity.
    Last edited by qyot27; February 4th, 2016 at 05:37 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    South Gloucestershire, UK
    Beans
    3,099
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    Quote Originally Posted by kansasnoob View Post
    This is so far only proposed, and would only affect Ubuntu. Other flavors would still be able to host and maintain 32 bit (i386) images:

    https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...ry/039161.html
    Missed this. Perhaps this is yet another mailing list that I should join?
    Quote Originally Posted by sudodus View Post
    But it is very important to keep the the 32-bit versions of the flavours, at least the light-weight flavours Lubuntu, Xubuntu and Ubuntu Mate, because there are still many 32-bit computers that work well (and need 32-bit linux). We should also keep the 32-bit mini.iso and Ubuntu Server.
    Agreed sudodus.

    I'm fully 64-bit here but I see endless posts on these forums of users trying to run various *buntu flavours on ageing PCs which I would long have discarded.

    Edit: By the way, I've flagged the mailing list post for inclusion in the next issue of the Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter to bring this matter to a larger audience.
    Last edited by PaulW2U; February 4th, 2016 at 05:50 PM.
    The Bug Squad needs your help.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London, England
    Beans
    6,774
    Distro
    Xubuntu 19.04 Disco Dingo

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    Quote Originally Posted by sudodus View Post
    But it is very important to keep the the 32-bit versions of the flavours, at least the light-weight flavours Lubuntu, Xubuntu and Ubuntu Mate, because there are still many 32-bit computers that work well (and need 32-bit linux). We should also keep the 32-bit mini.iso and Ubuntu Server.
    Absolutely! I'be got a collection of netbooks that all run Xubuntu and can't run 64-bit.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    London, England
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    A lot of people think that they can bring new life to old hardware by installing Linux. Well, they can. But not with Ubuntu. In many cases the RAM is not enough & the video adapter is not capable.

    Ubuntu of 10 years ago would have run fantastically on the hardware of 10 years ago. The Ubuntu of today runs fantastically on the hardware of today. But people are wrong to think that the Ubuntu of today will run fantastically on the hardware of 10 years ago.

    It is good that there are developers who see the need and who are working to meet the need.

    Regards.
    It is a machine. It is more stupid than we are. It will not stop us from doing stupid things.
    Ubuntu user #33,200. Linux user #530,530


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tāmaki Makau-rau, NZ
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Xubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    Quote Originally Posted by sudodus View Post
    I agree that it makes sense to drop the 32-bit version of standard Ubuntu.

    But it is very important to keep the the 32-bit versions of the flavours, at least the light-weight flavours Lubuntu, Xubuntu and Ubuntu Mate, because there are still many 32-bit computers that work well (and need 32-bit linux). We should also keep the 32-bit mini.iso and Ubuntu Server.
    Totally agree. I have an EeePC 900 that still works very nicely with a barebones system, and I don't want to have to discard it just yet.

    But I also understand the point about standard Ubuntu. It won't run on the EeePC and there's no point in trying.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Beans
    27

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    There are still low-end, x86-based processors being manifactured by Intel. The HP Stream and Acer Cloudbook lines come into mind. These laptops have 2GB of RAM so there is really no point in having a x64 OS in this case, nor will it work. The hardware runs Windows 10 fine. Why not Ubuntu? Besides, the vast majority of software out there are still developped primarily in x86.

    Seeing that these budget machines are becoming popular (as they are more efficient than the older 'netbooks'), I don't think it is wise to drop Ubuntu 86x at this point.
    Last edited by night_sky2; February 5th, 2016 at 05:18 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Beans
    7,761
    Distro
    Ubuntu Mate 16.04 Xenial Xerus

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    I'm sorry I've read about the discussion on another site? Why do they want to drop 32 bit support? It seems like there are probably a lot of people still using this option.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Boise
    Beans
    35
    Distro
    Ubuntu 17.10 Artful Aardvark

    Re: Proposed end of Ubuntu 32 bit images

    Yeah, why drop it? As a software engineer, I can understand the cost of building, testing, etc, and I admit I take it for granted with Ubuntu.

    I run 32-bit on two ancient systems, my HP server, from 2006, and Acer netbook, from 2008. Both now on 14.04.3LTS, but started with 9.04, IIRC. Both came with XP, but I nuked that partition years ago. The former's Xeon can run 64-bit, but only has 4GB of RAM. The latter's Atom can't run a 64-bit OS. Both run Ubuntu fine. I've been debating whether or not I'll update these systems to 16.04LTS, but is this discussion saying that might not even be an option? My newer systems are already running 16.04LTS Alpha, and it seems stable.

    Not a huge deal. My server is running fine now, but I'd at least like the option, in my head anyway, of running all of my systems on the same OS. I thought that 16.04LTS might have been it. Maybe my old systems will have to be on 14.04 forever?

    (Ok, I am going to try upgrading my netbook to 16.04... worst that can happen is I'll have to wipe the drive and restore from a backup drive via clonezilla. It is going to take freaking forever, seeing as it only has wireless G, a slow HD, and a 1.6GHz Atom. I'm curious to see where the bottleneck in the process is. I'm guessing it is the cpu installing all the packages...)

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

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
  •