Intel 32bit packages on Ubuntu from 19.10 onwards

A lot of old software (including games) cannot be recompiled to 64-bit. Their developers may not be around anymore. And even if they are, sometimes it is not trivial to recompile for 64-bit. Yet people want to use the software/games they like and there is no technical reason why they shouldn’t be able to.

There is no need to use an older OS at all. If Ubuntu feels it is a financial burden to support 32-bit software, they should simply let a third-party or the community run the 32-bit repository. And I doubt Windows stops supporting WoW64 in the next decade.

3 Likes

Wine is a Linux application (in this case) and is an example of what will be affected by the changes proposed in this thread.

Don’t know from where did you get such phrase, but what we should care is what Ubuntu users needs. And if Wine is a important application for them (in the same way as a printer driver), then any change in the system that could break it should be think twice (just like Canonical is doing).

Told you before and will tell you again: many people of the community have different requirements than you, try to understand them before posting pointless statements.

I think this misses the point. People running 32-bit software that for some reason is not offered in 64-bits is not expecting security nor testing. Those concerns do not even apply in the majority of cases, because in most cases it is non-networked software or they have not had any changes/updates for years (so holes are assumed to exist).

I think the majority of people do not care about 32-bit applications from the Ubuntu repository, but about 32-bit libraries, to be able to run third-party software.

1 Like

To run Windows apps in Linux, right? Does that help Linux distros? Ppl are still using Windows apps with Wine in non-proprietary Linux distros. Existence of Wine is to prove that Windows apps are better, or at least give that feeling. No, Linux distros shouldn’t help to grow an app, that helps to advertise a proprietary OS. Linux distros should be used to run specifically Linux apps, not a competitors apps.

This is an incredibly misguided view on the situation. Without the ability to run mission-critical applications in Wine, people would simply give up and use Windows instead. It was like that before Wine compatibility was as good as it is today.

2 Likes

That’s not the problem of GNU/Linux distros. Wine’s existence doesn’t help Linux. It just stops development. It would’ve been better, if ppl forked that mission-critical app to Linux, or created a better one, rather than finding ways to use Windows apps in Linux. I never used Wine, and will ever do that, mission-critical or not. I strongly think Wine is a hindrance, and I’ll won’t change that thought.

Would you ever see an Apple executive using a Samsung, or Huawei? Or the Mercedes top executive coming to work in a Ford?

Yes

You may want to create a thread so Ubuntu removes all proprietary software then. Starting from Nvidia binary blobs that were added in 19.10 iso :smiley:

Writing code for multiple OS requires some extra work but not having some applications in our system is 99% of the time completely unrelated with a technical requirement. So, stating that the lack of support is due that Linux is “worst” than Windows is a complete bias.

You’re fighting for a philosophy of your own, completely unrelated with Ubuntu or this thread…

1 Like

I strongly think Ubuntu should drop support for 32bit software and get on with 64bit. There’s no future for 32bit any more. Ubuntu doesn’t have resources to waste either.

Except this isn’t about what the executives are doing. It’s about what the users are doing. I drive whatever I need when I need to. If you tried to force me to use a specific car there are times I won’t actually be able to use it due to various reasons.

You know, I normally read such statements from Windows users when a Linux user request a game dev to bring their game to our OS. Weird, doesn’t it?

There may no be future for 32bit (i386), but there is a huge past and a big number of users that requires support, so it isn’t a waste (and this was said so many times here… you may want to reread the thread at this point).

Unfortunately, legacy applications that aren’t being updated anymore still need this, especially games. Unlike consoles prior to Xbox One and PS4, PCs mainly use x86-64 processors, which is why legacy gaming is one of the biggest selling point of PC gaming.

Until we have a plug-and-play solution that allows i386 emulation without going to the terminal to set it up (kinda like what Xbox is doing to play Xbox 360 games (PowerPC) on Xbox One (x86)), those 32-bit libraries are necessary.

Though I think it’s time for them to retire most of the i386 packages that aren’t needed to exist in the repo (i.e. Firefox, Plasma, VLC, Nano, etc.)

1 Like

@YamiYukiSenpai ,You mentioned “PC Gaming” PC meaning Windows PC. Xbox etc, I think are owned by MS. They’d still run those 32bit software until, it stops bringing in profit. But, the 32 bit is getting retired, and one day would go way just as 8bit and 16 bit did.

I know, for a gamer, it is hard, but 32bit is dying, and Ubuntu doesn’t have time. You know, I don’t throw words into the wind. There’s no one to do the testing for 32 bit. Maybe the community, if they can, take the burden away. But, demanding Ubuntu to do that is not correct, I believe.

It’s neither… Storage is cheap, and this aproach solves several other more important issues.

You’re misinformed. 8-bit and 16-bit died because the hardware was old and future devices were not backwards compatible. x86_64 (64-bit) allows for running x86 (32-bit) software, extending the life of x86 software long beyond the original creation.

Please don’t conflate the term “PC” to “Windows / Xbox”. It’s not helpful to intentional mislead. A PC is a piece of hardware running an OS. It may be that many use Windows, but enough of us run Linux to make a dent.

While you may believe that 32-bit is dying, a considerable library of 32-bit software is available for users to purchase and use. That software is popular and widely installed. While new software may well be mostly 64-bit capable, the 32-bit software didn’t just disappear. Users need and love that software and want to continue using it.

While there are fewer people contributing to 32-bit software, and fewer community members contributing to maintaining and testing that software directly, that doesn’t mean we should all throw away our 32-bit software.

7 Likes

I disagree, users problems are problems for the platform.

That won’t happen, that is not how game developers work, and many games are now orphans, and simply can’t be rebuilt. Also Ubuntu is big on the Linux space, but Linux is “nothing” on the gaming space.

Unfortunately reality proves otherwise.

Ubuntu can still continue to move on with 64bits anyway.

A post was merged into an existing topic: Statement on 32-bit i386 packages for Ubuntu 19.10 and 20.04 LTS

My 1st “PC” was a 286 with a 20MB hard disk, so sort of know how that happened. Before that there were an Atari and a Commodore. I also had a chance to “play” with a Sinclair, but never owned it. I don’t think a 128bit PC would happen in my time. I am pretty glad that there are 64bit ones around.

Sure, I do, and it’d happen in my lifetime.

If they are Linux ones, no problem at all. But if they are those Windows ones, absolutely useless for Linux distros – Linux distros are not created to promote Windows apps. And, if they are games, the gamers would play games in any platform, are loyal to a game, but not to the platform – I’ve two in the family, and they are 30+.

Anyway, I’d prefer Ubuntu to concentrate on 64bit OS and software, rather than wasting resources on 32bit. That way, I just might see a 128bit Ubuntu in my lifetime.

We aren’t even close to needing 128-bit CPUs, and we won’t be for any human length of time. At the risk of sounding a bit too “128K is enough for anybody”, we’re just barely using the current 64-bit architectures to their full potential.

The biggest change that increased bitness brings for end-users is address space. In 32 bits, we can store 4.2 gigabytes worth of addresses. In 64-bit, we get 16 exabytes. With 128-bits, we end up with something around 10³⁶ bytes, which is large enough there isn’t even a metric prefix to describe it.

More bits does not mean something is better and there are consequences to increasing bitness where we don’t have to.

1 Like

Since much of the discussion in this thread is based upon the 18 June announcement,
and since that announcement has been superseded by the 24 June update and newer discussion thread,

I’m going to end this thread here to avoid confusion.

There are several interesting side-discussions going on, and several important issues raised that still seem important - those who wish to continue to develop those conversations, PM me and I’ll happily migrate those posts to a new thread.

5 Likes