Follow-up: decision timeline for whether to include i386 in 20.04 [Was Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386]

Hello, A belated follow-up to this discussion. On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 02:43:57PM -0700, Walter Lapchynski wrote: > On 2018-05-14 12:38, Steve Langasek wrote: > > this is a cost largely paid by Canonical (both in terms of > > infrastructure, and in terms of engineering work to keep the base

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 13.05.2018 05:00, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Thomas Ward >>> wrote: However, killing i386 support globally could introduce issues, including

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

hi, Am Dienstag, den 29.05.2018, 12:31 +0100 schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov: >  > > > > with the i386 archive gone we'd need a new solution here ... > Which is to install libc6-i386:amd64 package no? Is this an all snap > system? Do you have any other :i386 packages installed? Imho, it may > make

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 13 May 2018 at 21:13, Oliver Grawert wrote: > hi, > Am Sonntag, den 13.05.2018, 14:33 -0400 schrieb Jeremy Bicha: >> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Colin Watson >> wrote: >> > >> > IIRC Steam is also relevant, and I guess that would involve talking >> > to >> > Valve? >> I think our users

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 2018-05-14 12:38, Steve Langasek wrote: > this is a cost largely paid by Canonical (both in terms of > infrastructure, and in terms of engineering work to keep the base system > working). It's not very compelling to say that Canonical should continue > bearing these costs out of pocket

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

I am not sure of the status of the following issue as I no longer have access to hardware to test the issue against current ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/1647184 however supporting mixed-mode systems, 64-bit system with 32-bit UEFI, like Debian Jessie 8.0's

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Gizmo Chicken wrote: > > I believe deleting i386 and armhf before 18.10 is the politest thing to do > Provided that i386 and armhf won't be supported in 20.04 LTS (which > seems to be the case), I fully agree that such support should be > removed *before*

AW: Proposal: Let's drop i386

> Von: dimitri.led...@surgut.co.uk [mailto:dimitri.led...@surgut.co.uk] Im > > On 11 May 2018 at 16:32, Fiedler Roman wrote: > > > > > Von: ubuntu-devel [mailto:ubuntu-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] Im > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Less and less non-amd64-compatible

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

Hi Tobin, On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 09:40:06AM -0700, Tobin Davis wrote: > I've been following this thread for a while, and have some questions. Are > we talking about dropping Ubuntu x86 images or i386 packages from the > repo? If the former, I don't see an issue here, as the subs (Lubuntu, >

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Sun, 13 May 2018 18:57:46 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 04:25:25PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote: >> However, killing i386 support globally could introduce issues, >> including but not limited to certain upstream softwares having to go >> away entirely, due to the

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

Colin Watson writes: > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 08:42:49PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: >> Henri Sivonen writes: >> > If 32-bit x86 support becomes mainly a thing that's run on x86_64 >> > hardware as a compatibility measure for things like Wine, it would

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

>> Provided that i386 and armhf won't be supported in 20.04 LTS (which >> seems to be the case), I fully agree that such support should be >> removed *before* 18.10. Those needing such support should be >> encouraged to remain on the current LTS, and not lured to 18.10 with a >> false hope of

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

The other question is does anyone test ubuntu on non SSE2 hardware anymore? On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 13.05.2018 05:00, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Thu, May 10,

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 13.05.2018 05:00, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Thomas Ward wrote: >>> However, killing i386 support globally could introduce issues, including >>> but not limited to

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 12.05.2018 18:40, Tobin Davis wrote: I work with FPGA accelerators, both at Intel and for a startup.  A majority of the tools we use (Quartus, Modelsim in particular) only support 32bit (and very old at that).  The companies developing these tools are all too happy to ONLY support Redhat

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

hi, Am Sonntag, den 13.05.2018, 14:33 -0400 schrieb Jeremy Bicha: > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Colin Watson > wrote: > > > > IIRC Steam is also relevant, and I guess that would involve talking > > to > > Valve? > I think our users would be better served by Steam

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 08:42:49PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote: > Henri Sivonen writes: > > If 32-bit x86 support becomes mainly a thing that's run on x86_64 > > hardware as a compatibility measure for things like Wine, it would > > make sense to bring the instruction set

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 02:33:08PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Colin Watson wrote: > > IIRC Steam is also relevant, and I guess that would involve talking to > > Valve? > > I think our users would be better served by Steam becoming a Snap. I

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

Henri Sivonen writes: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Thomas Ward wrote: >> However, killing i386 support globally could introduce issues, including >> but not limited to certain upstream softwares having to go away >> entirely, due to the

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 13.05.2018 05:00, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Thomas Ward wrote: >> However, killing i386 support globally could introduce issues, including >> but not limited to certain upstream softwares having to go away >> entirely, due to the

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Colin Watson wrote: > IIRC Steam is also relevant, and I guess that would involve talking to > Valve? I think our users would be better served by Steam becoming a Snap. I have more explanation at https://launchpad.net/bugs/1759715 I suppose

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 04:25:25PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote: > However, killing i386 support globally could introduce issues, including > but not limited to certain upstream softwares having to go away > entirely, due to the interdependency or issues with how certain apps > work (read; Wine,

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On May 13, 2018 7:58:05 AM PDT, Jeremy Bicha wrote: >On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Tobin Davis >wrote: > Are >> we talking about dropping Ubuntu x86 images or i386 packages from the >repo? >> If the former, I don't see an issue here, as the subs

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Tobin Davis wrote: > I've been following this thread for a while, and have some questions. Are > we talking about dropping Ubuntu x86 images or i386 packages from the repo? > If the former, I don't see an issue here, as the subs (Lubuntu,

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

All: I hate to interject this late in the thread, but I think we need to clarify what the discussion actually entails. On the #ubuntu-release IRC channel, it became clear that the purpose of this thread was not entirely clear, so we need to clarify specifically: Are we discussing dropping

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05:09PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > I do believe that the real question before us is that of dropping the > architectures from the archive. > > However, please note that as of 18.04, i386 and armhf are still supported > architectures by Canonical for Ubuntu Core.

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Thomas Ward wrote: > However, killing i386 support globally could introduce issues, including > but not limited to certain upstream softwares having to go away > entirely, due to the interdependency or issues with how certain apps > work

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 05:13:48PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Ward wrote: > > So with the scope of this email chain, I would like to request a > > clarification before we go forward much more with this email chain: Are > > we

AW: Proposal: Let's drop i386

> Von: ubuntu-devel [mailto:ubuntu-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] Im > > Hello, > > Less and less non-amd64-compatible i386 hardware is available for > consumers to buy today from anything but computer part recycling centers. > The last of these machines were manufactured over a decade ago, and >

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 5/12/18 5:31 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > HDDs consume more energy than SSDs; [...] Unless it's NVMe. > similarly newer (faster clock/dynamicly clocked, and operating at a lower > voltage / amps) RAM > consume less energy. Didn't RAM power consumption go up with frequency and especially

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

I've been following this thread for a while, and have some questions. Are we talking about dropping Ubuntu x86 images or i386 packages from the repo? If the former, I don't see an issue here, as the subs (Lubuntu, core, etc) can still build release images. But if Ubuntu is dropping i386

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

Hi Nrbtx et al, On 9 May 2018 at 21:59, Nrbrtx wrote: > Dear Bryan and all! > > Please do not forget about some special hardware configurations such as > Thin Clients. > For example we use about 50 machines as Fat LTSP clients with Intel > Celeron and Intel Atom. Their RAM is

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

> I believe deleting i386 and armhf before 18.10 is the politest thing to do Provided that i386 and armhf won't be supported in 20.04 LTS (which seems to be the case), I fully agree that such support should be removed *before* 18.10. Those needing such support should be encouraged to remain on

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

I don't know if we should base our decisions off of what microsoft does, but I would expect ubuntu to support 32 bit at least as long as windows does. I would also expect the 32 bit lubuntu and minimal installers to stick around longer than the other flavors/spins. I couldn't find a

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

>On 11 May 2018 at 16:32, Fiedler Roman wrote: >> b) Those, who do not want to consume more resources due to ethical >> considerations (that's the one for me): how many people could fed or >> how much CO2 prevented, if all systems were some percent smaller on >> disk/RAM,

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 11 May 2018 at 16:32, Fiedler Roman wrote: > > > Von: ubuntu-devel [mailto:ubuntu-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] Im > > > > Hello, > > > > Less and less non-amd64-compatible i386 hardware is available for > > consumers to buy today from anything but computer part

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

I definitely should have included more links to previous discussions - including this survey I did 4 years ago - https://bryanquigley.com/posts /crazy-ideas/32-bit-usage-survey-results.html. Is it ethical to continue to support a platform that we may not be able to provide meaningful security

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

Hello, On 05/09/2018 04:29 PM, Walter Lapchynski wrote: >> here are some i386 to amd64 ratios for 18.04: >> Lubuntu cdimage - 0.87 > > And there is my concern. That says the vast majority of Lubuntu's users > are using i386. The question becomes whether or not they have to. There > has been

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

Hello, On 05/09/2018 07:03 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > I have never seen yours or Olivers name recently fixing i386 and autopkg test > failures. Should be easily to do for you, it's free, and there's no work > involved. I would agree with this point; although I rarely have had to fix i386-only

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 10.05.2018 00:12, Walter Lapchynski wrote: > On 2018-05-09 14:54, Oliver Grawert wrote: >> Am Mittwoch, den 09.05.2018, 16:07 -0400 schrieb Bryan Quigley: >>> Less and less non-amd64-compatible i386 hardware is available for >>> consumers to buy today from anything but computer part recycling

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 2018-05-09 14:54, Oliver Grawert wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 09.05.2018, 16:07 -0400 schrieb Bryan Quigley: >> Less and less non-amd64-compatible i386 hardware is available for >> consumers to buy today from anything but computer part recycling >> centers. > i386 is still very popular in the

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

hi, Am Mittwoch, den 09.05.2018, 16:07 -0400 schrieb Bryan Quigley: > Hello, > > Less and less non-amd64-compatible i386 hardware is available for > consumers to buy today from anything but computer part recycling > centers.  i386 is still very popular in the embedded and industrial world, so as

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

On 2018-05-09 13:07, Bryan Quigley wrote: > Machines running i386 Ubuntu which are capable of running > amd64 Ubuntu are vulnerable to the critical Meltdown vulnerability > where they wouldn't be if they were running amd64. (Some actual i386 > hardware simply isn't vulnerable, but some is). This

Re: Proposal: Let's drop i386

Dear Bryan and all! Please do not forget about some special hardware configurations such as Thin Clients. For example we use about 50 machines as Fat LTSP clients with Intel Celeron and Intel Atom. Their RAM is limited to 2Gb by hardware. They use Ubuntu 16.04 LTS with MATE desktop environment.

Proposal: Let's drop i386

Hello, Less and less non-amd64-compatible i386 hardware is available for consumers to buy today from anything but computer part recycling centers. The last of these machines were manufactured over a decade ago, and support from an increasing number of upstream projects has ended. Ubuntu and