|
Rationale
Hi,
Being that all the 32 bit users are complaining about moving to i686 (from i386) and how it will break their old systems, why don't we just officially support the 64bit edition as the primary standard. All new processors are 64 bit now anyway, and you automatically get all the processor enhancements when switching to 64bit (guaranteed to support sse2, extended register sets, etc)
Problem is now that if you want to run 64bit, you lose compatibility with lots of stuff. Its not as well tested. It isn't the default installation being used. So you are either stuck with a low performance i386 distribution of an untested 64bit distribution.
Its tiring hearing about the i386 users who will be adversely affected if we move to i686. Well, lets just forget it all together and move straight to 64bit and leave them all with i386 as the backup. It should kill two birds with one stone (get us all on 64bit which is the future, and get us all on modern -march settings in gcc) and all the i386 lovers out there can still have their i386 compiled binaries.
Tags:
(none)
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Auzy
wrote on the 26 May 08 at 02:44
|
|
|
|
I agree. But we should be aiming for this in 2 years maybe. For now we should just get ready.
|
|
glibik
wrote on the 26 May 08 at 03:21
|
|
|
"Being that all the 32 bit users are complaining about moving to i686 (from i386)"
I wasn't aware of any complaints along those lines. :-( Am aware of a few users (me being one of them) who would like to see support for i686 architecture in addition to the existing i386 architecture.
Personally, I don't have any 64bit capable hardware (other than an old MIPS box) and don't look like having any in the near future given the way my mortgage payments are going. :-( As a result, I would not like to see i386/i686 dropped to legacy support ... just yet.
"if you want to run 64bit, you lose compatibility with lots of stuff".
Have to say, I don't understand this. In my last job, my desktop box ran 64bit SuSE10.2 without any issues that I recall. Even had some 3rd party applications (eg: VMware) running on it without a problem. :-\
Vote = -1 ... for now
|
|
Magnes
wrote on the 26 May 08 at 07:01
|
|
|
+1
It's important for the 64-bit version to be as great as possible.
|
|
|
|
Why can't we just support both equally?
|
|
holizz
wrote on the 26 May 08 at 09:14
|
|
|
I don't know about anybody else, but all the machines I work with are 32-bit x86.
-1
|
|
|
|
I'd suggest putting x86_64 as a primary download on the Ubuntu page. 64b needs more widespread usage, since soon we'll run out of memory (on 32b at least).
|
|
flammon
wrote on the 26 May 08 at 10:39
|
|
|
|
Be careful how you promote the 64bit platform. Ubuntu is trying to be the most user friendly and not the most advanced distribution. At the moment, some third party software such as drivers, codecs, other proprietary software, is only available in 32bit and this would regress our position of user friendliness. 64bit is definitely the way to go but only when it does not compromise the user experience.
|
|
glotz
wrote on the 27 May 08 at 10:55
|
|
|
|
Let's go directly to 128 bit, it's the future anyways...
|
|
|
I believe the comments by flammon and others are precisely why this needs to be done. With 64-bit Ubuntu at the forefront there is more pressure to develop 64-bit drivers, codecs, and proprietary software (I'm looking at you, Adobe). Until someone takes the initiative and jumps to 64-bit, nothing will be done.
I own two 64-bit computers (a laptop and a desktop) and the desktop is several years old. It's hard to find 32-bit machines in the consumer market right now. Most everything is X86_64. I don't see that trend going down any time soon.
Yes, some folks still use X86, and those folks can continue to be supported. What I believe idea here is, is to make 64-bit the front-runner.
+1 from me.
|
|
gjoellee
wrote on the 27 May 08 at 15:05
|
|
|
|
Indeed +1
|
|
mp3phish
wrote on the 27 May 08 at 15:16
|
|
|
@glibik:
Not ALL of the i386 users are complaining, just the small vocal minority that think if we move to i686, that all their hardware will break.
These are the same people who claim to be running 15 year old hardware on ubuntu (ie, they aren't, 15 years ago motherboards didn't support enough memory to run ubuntu) but they are still claiming that they are running i386.
My idea is an attempt to bypass all those crybabies, and just move to x64 so we can all have a high performance platform that works, Rather than a low speed, unoptimized, slow as moses version of ubuntu (i386) like we currently do as the mainstream distro.
|
|
viraptor
wrote on the 30 May 08 at 00:18
|
|
|
@mp3phish:
Don't you forget about laptop users who will not upgrade their hardware for about next 2-3 years and are still using 32b systems. Those people would really gain something by moving to i586/i686 and have no possibility to migrate to 64b anytime soon.
|
|
|
Voted up, though I'm not sure I quite agree with leaving the i386 guys in the dust.
Unfortunately, I don't think 64-bit compatibility is working well enough for Canonical to start favoring it just yet. We'd need a few things first:
Adobe needs to get 64-bit flash out for Linux. This is one of the chief problems 64-bit is facing. nspluginwrapper is useful, but implementing it (Especially in Hardy, with FF3) can be a bit of a pain. (Though, you can use nspluginwrapper with FF3, just remember you have to copy the "wrapped" plugin to FF3's plugins directory.
Java on FF is much harder in 64-bit. I remember I finally broke down and grabbed a 32-bit version of Firefox just to get Java to work.
I voted up, but not without realizing first that there's probably going to be a few more things to do that Canonical has no control over before they can do this.
|
|
|
I like the idea. The key here, though, is that either the developers begin making 64-bit software (drivers, codecs, flash, java...) and then people start to transition, or we transition to 64-bit first as an initiative for the developers to support it. The second option might spark some 64-bit development, but it won't all happen instantaneously. The first option makes much more sense, and that's how it's going to play out. People aren't just going to switch to 64-bit unless things work right. That's why I'm (sadly) using the x86 version on my dual-core processor.
Still gave it a +1, though, because I don't want to be stuck with x86 forever.
|
Post your comment
|
