Canonical walks it back
Welcome, Guest.
“Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.” ― Linus Torvalds

Author Topic: Canonical walks it back  (Read 1136 times)

Offline fchaos

  • Contributor
  • *******
  • Posts: 976
Canonical walks it back
« on: June 30, 2019, 07:54:56 PM »
So, due to the uproar, Canonical is walking back it's decision to end 32 bit library support...

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3077878/canonical-backtracks-on-32-bit-ubuntu-cull

Offline Crimson

  • Contributor
  • *******
  • Posts: 571
  • Defeating a sandwich only makes it tastier.
    • «FC» FunHouse Clan
Re: Canonical walks it back
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2019, 09:14:22 PM »


...and just like that, they put the 32bit bandaid back on...
Custom Linux PC Intel® Core™ i7-4790K Radeon™ RX 5700 XT 16GB DDR3 256GB M.2 NVMe 5.5TB Storage

Offline Ironclaw

  • Terminal Multiplexer
  • Staff Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 369
Re: Canonical walks it back
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2019, 05:43:52 PM »
Was there a good, technical reason to completely get rid of the 32-bit libs?  I don't disagree with having the ability to install and maintain a 64-bit clean system if that's your preference, but there is a lot of software out there that relies on having those 32-bit libs available.
If you must persist, I will be forced to tar you, then gzip you and finally umount you.

Offline fchaos

  • Contributor
  • *******
  • Posts: 976
Re: Re: Canonical walks it back
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2019, 05:47:36 PM »
Was there a good, technical reason to completely get rid of the 32-bit libs?  I don't disagree with having the ability to install and maintain a 64-bit clean system if that's your preference, but there is a lot of software out there that relies on having those 32-bit libs available.

If there is a good reason, I have yet to hear it... it seems to me more like Canonical deciding "It's time to get rid of that old stuff"

Offline Crimson

  • Contributor
  • *******
  • Posts: 571
  • Defeating a sandwich only makes it tastier.
    • «FC» FunHouse Clan
Re: Canonical walks it back
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2019, 10:56:53 PM »
Everyone likes to argue about what the technical benefits are, one could even argue that the majority of programs out there still don't utilize 64bit memory which somehow makes 64bit exclusive OS's irrelevant, which would be a good point, except here's my argument, who cares?

Continued dependence on 32bit technology is nothing more than an excuse to avoid change. Consider how quickly we switched from 16bit to 32bit back in '95, and how that revolutionized how we used computers. Now here we are, over twenty years later, putting off forward progress even further because people refuse to adapt to change. Do we really want to put off change until it becomes a serious problem? Do we really have to wait for Big Papa Microsoft to make the first move to create a 64bit exclusive OS?
Custom Linux PC Intel® Core™ i7-4790K Radeon™ RX 5700 XT 16GB DDR3 256GB M.2 NVMe 5.5TB Storage

Offline CwF

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 421
Re: Canonical walks it back
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2019, 10:50:10 AM »
What does it matter? I think there are enough variations in what i386 means to see it's not a straight question. I'm not sure I uderstand the issue?

I'll guess it has to do with wine? I have no use case for any i386 contamination without it. My 3 amd64 variations have no i386 or multi-architecture, so good riddance i386...
On the other hand I do have a i386 image I play with a few times a year, it does have wine. I try to keep it at feature parity with my straight amd64 image and baremetal XP, but really I don't like it so much, it doesn't make the grade for me. Even though I have a few dual P3's I still haven't tried running anything. I did play with i386 as a VM base since it does save some memory.

...but then I ended up in a no-man zone. In probing memory use I uncovered a few good memory leaks. In reporting those leaks I made the point these occur on hardware not appropriate for i386, even though it runs well otherwise. Then, there are many things that have moved with good reason up the ladder of cpu feature functionality at which there is a point that it could run amd64! So why have a i386, or 686 that has such a narrow hardware profile? For wine?

Of course limiting my wine experience to a native i386 image perhaps I'm missing the use of 64 bit windows under wine. ?  Is it that wine is both on an amd64 setup, and users use win32 and 64, and there isn't a pure 64 wine install? Does anybody have multiarch enabled without wine, and only for an old 32 bit linux program?

   There seems a simple answer, run a vm for anything frozen in time. IMO, if all the effort in wine was redirected into reactOS and kvm video drivers we'd be way better off.

 I don't think this is the same as the 16 to 32 jump. We should jump to 64 for focus and uniformity moreso than need. This wasn't the case back then. I remember freaking out for hours trying to figure out why I was getting blank areas in cad plots only to realize the print drivers being 16 bit could only handle 32 or 65k objects or whatever. That was pre-95, I moved to NT and missed the 9x series of 16 bit stuff.

If i386 development stops, what do we loose?

Offline Crimson

  • Contributor
  • *******
  • Posts: 571
  • Defeating a sandwich only makes it tastier.
    • «FC» FunHouse Clan
Re: Canonical walks it back
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2019, 07:37:29 PM »
What does it matter? I think there are enough variations in what i386 means I don't think this is the same as the 16 to 32 jump.

You know, I was thinking that shortly after my post. Times were very different back then. Everything was advancing at a very fast rate, so the jump to 32bit was out of necessity. I was 10 at that time, so I didn't really have a full understanding of what was going on, I just remember a lot of people talking about how great and exciting it was. All the relief they felt that things were working better, etc.

I guess a lot of my feelings stem from that era when things kept breaking because of compatibility issues and seeing this topic come up time and time again just reminds me of that. Plus I just got done with some very frustrating issues with WINE relating to the same 32bit vs 64bit problem.

I still think my point stands, though. If not for technical advantage, if not for compatibility reasons, whatever the case may be, we should just switch to 64bit for the future proofing aspect.
Custom Linux PC Intel® Core™ i7-4790K Radeon™ RX 5700 XT 16GB DDR3 256GB M.2 NVMe 5.5TB Storage

Offline Spatry

  • Benevolent Dictator
  • Administrator - Sysop
  • **********
  • Posts: 5602
  • Cup of Linux Founder
    • Cup of Linux
Re: Canonical walks it back
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2019, 08:32:24 AM »
The 32bit libs are still needed to run some programs which were designed for 32bit... I have tons of 32bit libraries installed on my Arch box because I have software which needs them...
Example: on of my opensim viewers is 64bit but it has 32bit components so the necessary libs must be present in order to function. One of Linux's strengths is the ability to combat planned obsolescence and run legacy software. dropping 32 bit support leaves a lot of people out in the cold! Pfffft!
Sorry I have not posted much lately, I am working a new job and it is draining a lot out of me.... I am still around though and I have not forgotten you guys!
Windows assumes the user is an idiot... Linux DEMANDS Proof!

Offline swarfendor437

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
  • Not f'd:You won't find me on facebook/social media
Re: Canonical walks it back
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2019, 08:15:18 AM »
The decision to drop 32-bit was advertised in an Ubuntu newsletter I received some time ago, due in part to the Meltdown debacle. (Local LUG member asserts that Meltdown was an NSA directive but I guess we will never know. In the same letter it stated that as a result of Meltdown Developer's were facing a drop of 50% of CPU performance!