On 2 February 2016 at 03:12, Bryan Quigley <[email protected]> wrote: > The plan from the session we did over a year ago was: > "Specifically the Ubuntu (x86_32) desktop CD will be moved to cdimage > around opening of 16.10". The argument is that it was easy to build > the CD and it was cheap to do. It would be a community build that > wouldn't be promoted on the Ubuntu website or officially tested. > > It doesn't make sense to stop building the CD unless: > * We make the unity packages x86_64 bit only (what's the point in > having less easy to test latest 32-bit unity packages?) > * We drop x86_32 bit kernel support (guessing not something to > consider until after 18.04?) >
Kernel support is a separate vector. E.g. in Debian it is common to install 32-bit userspace with the 64-bit kernel. Thus using all the CPU/kernel features, access all the memory, yet have lower memory utilisation. > I think it also makes sense to see if other derivatives want to go > x86_64-bit only like maybe Kubuntu (like I believe project Neon > targets just 64 bit). At some point we are going to want drop x86_32 > kernel support and just have 32-bit compatibility libraries, but I > don't know when that makes sense. > > Also, does Valve Steam product rely on i386 multiarch binaries? > Yes, it does, but it also downloads it's own Steam runtime with it's > own libraries. > > And Netflix - does that run on amd64-only without i386 > multiarch? I believe that runs completely with libs if you use Google Chrome. > Oh, and also Google Chrome is dropping Linux x86_32 bit support. > > I'm also happy to revisit my survey [2] and see where people are today. > I'm not sure it's about where people are, but rather where we want people to be. My argument for dropping .iso, but keeping the packages/archive is as follows: * we would like to support upgrades, for those that have 32 bit install * but we would like to prevent any new installations * because any new installation is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS * reduce releases.ubuntu.com mirror costs by about a third Otherwise, all survey results will remain constant. Building images is cheap, however I do not believe we can actually adequately support i386 ones for ubuntu desktop: * there is no i386-only certified hardware * image manual testing has a cost * no ubuntu developers use them =) Could we start the sunset period with removing flavour dropdown from the ubuntu desktop download pages for 16.04? (But keep the i386 images on releases.ubuntu.com?) http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop It has been switched to amd64 by default some time ago. Regards, Dimitri. > Thanks for bringing this up again! > Bryan > > [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/development-1411-drop-x86-32 > [2] https://bryanquigley.com/crazy-ideas/32-bit-usage-survey-results > [3] > http://summit.ubuntu.com/uos-1411/meeting/22353/when-should-we-stop-making-32-bit-images/ > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Ubuntu has an i386 port which is fully supported. >> >> There a bunch of 3rd party applications that rely on the Multi-Arch >> technology to support/use i386 binaries on amd64 (e.g. Skype from the >> partner archive). BTW, can we ask Microsoft to publish native amd64 >> binaries, rather than those that rely on multi-arch i386? Also, does >> Valve Steam product rely on i386 multiarch binaries? or is it fully >> amd64? (and e.g. downloads/bundles/ships any required i386 binaries >> that it needs)? And Netflix - does that run on amd64-only without i386 >> multiarch? >> >> However, it seems to me that this is done specifically on otherwise >> full amd64 installations. >> >> My guess is that: all currently shipped hardware, with enough support >> to run full Unity (7) Desktop, is amd64. Tested with amd64 kernel, and >> amd64 graphics drivers. And hardware validation is done on amd64 too. >> >> In 2016, people with i386-only hardware are unlikely to be capable to >> run Unity 7 Desktop, and probably run other Ubuntu variants. I guess >> there are some accidental i386 users, e.g. those that have installed >> i386 variant on amd64 hardware. >> >> Does it still make sense to build ubuntu-desktop-i386.iso? Validate >> it? Test it on amd64 hardware? Ship it? >> >> To me this seems like a futile effort. Imho, we should only test the >> relevant multiarch i386 pieces that are there to support 3rd-party, >> i386-only apps on amd64 desktop. >> >> This is specifically about building, validating and shipping >> ubuntu-desktop-i386.iso, specifically for the Ubuntu Desktop flavour. >> Which I am suggesting should be dropped. Without any other changes to >> the archive and/or publishing i386 binaries. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Dimitri. >> >> -- >> ubuntu-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- Regards, Dimitri. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
