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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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*
> 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
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,
>
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,
>
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
hi,
Am Montag, den 14.05.2018, 17:49 +0200 schrieb Nafallo Bjälevik:
>
>
> There's still a lot of new boards coming out which are still armhf
> hardware, with manufacturers pledging to keep shipping boards at
> least
> until 2020. Hardkernel's Samsung-based boards would be a perfect
> example.
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
Hi,
On 10/05/18 23:13, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
And maybe dropping armhf completely should be a third thread since
that hopefully will be easier than i386.
I won't speak for or against i386, since I don't use it, but for armhf.
There's still a lot of new boards coming out which are still armhf
>> 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
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,
> 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
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
>> 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
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,
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*
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
> 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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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.
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
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
> 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
>
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
>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,
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
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
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
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
Nice catch! I just looked for error stack traces that matched between the
i386 version and amd64 and then compared them. I only removed duplicates
that we're in the flavors I was comparing - my mistake.
Xubuntu error (thunar) - 0.10 - thunar also included in Ubuntu studio
The general process
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.
> 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
>
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
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
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:07:23PM -0400, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> 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
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 discussing dropping 32-bit for *installer images* this cycle, or are
> we
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
80 matches
Mail list logo