When should i386 support for Ubuntu end? Help Canonical decide

What would prevent you from simply using another distro? Canonical is only making a decision for Ubuntu, not for all of Linux.

Sorry, I guess I forgot to use the [sarcasm] tags. :)

I think that Ubuntu 32bits has no sense. Other thing is the light flavours of Ubuntu like Lubuntu and Xubuntu. I manage a lot of old machines (Pentium 4 with 1GB RAM) that with xUbuntu 32bits can do something useful in my job.

This exactly. The only desktops I needed 32bit linux on had such old CPUs that they were missing instruction sets needed to run newest chromium and flash, sigh. You don't run hogunity on such systems. Lubuntu on the other hand runs just fine.

I have a legacy x86 tower that I keep around as novelty but it runs Debian so I don't think I can participate in this survey. It would be sad to see 32 bit support drop but ultimately wouldn't affect anything important to me.

In my opinion 32 bit support should have died back in 2005. We have had 64 bit CPUs and operating systems for ages but they haven't killed off support yet. Think of the progress that could have been made elsewhere if resources and money weren't allocated to 32 bit support ?

If they drop 32 bit repos, it will be a disaster. The gaming industry still ships 32 bit-only applications. Wine is 32 bit only for 32 bit Windows software (because it's not an emulator).

If you want to run games on Linux, you cannot drop 32 bit software.

And no, it is not possible to ship the 64 bit version in every possible case.

Not to mention, that Windows and macOS are going to support 32 bit applications for years to come!

I think you're misunderstanding what is actually being discussed. Go to the survey page itself, and you'll find this disclaimer: "Running i386 (multiarch) software on amd64 will continue to work and is not part of the current survey."

So they're not contemplating dropping support for 32-bit software, only support for 32-bit operating systems.

Alright! I couldn't find this information in a hurry. Thanks a lot!

Actually they are contemplating the removal of multilib, and supporting 32bit only through Snap/Flatpak/Virtual Machines.

18.10+:
* Stop providing i386 port
* Run legacy i386 only application in snaps / containers / virtual machines

Remind me again why we still have i386? Oh yeah, because of the original EeePC ...

... which I use about once every week ;). But I'm running Debian on it. In fact, I run Debian everywhere except on my cellphone.

I've upgraded through three other laptops since then. And yes I do still use the EeePC - as a Shairport server (running Debian). But that's not the sort of thing I'd use Ubuntu for. I doubt the 800x480 screen is even compatible with a lot of modern software. Any kind of production server that's i386-only is surely out of warranty by now.

Incidentally, I ran a Debian derivative on my phone for years - the N900. Sadly it broke a few times, and it got too slow to load any kind of complex web-page so it had to go. But installing Python apps via apt-get on a phone with a hardware keyboard was so good.

I love(d?) my N900, and wish that I could put Maemo on my Note 4. I've been really tempted to pick up the Neo900, but unfortunately by the time it's actually released, the hardware will be 4 years old...

More on topic, I'd be okay with Canonical dropping 64bit install disks as well. Since that'd leave us with no Ubunut, and I'd be okay with that.

Seriously, how much work does it actually take to create a i386 installer? They mostly just repackage Debian's stuff and modify it with Unity as the desktop with their very basic installer anyhow, which I believe is written in a non-architecture dependent language. I started following Ubuntu since it was first announced and tried the betas. But they've steered so far off course of their original intent (make a Debian based distribution with the latest Gnome, and a 6 month release schedule to follow that). Now they've really gone off the deep end with snap and Unity is terrible. In fact that's probably why the survey... they figure Unity will soon take more than 4GB of ram to run...

Actually they are contemplating the removal of multilib, and supporting 32bit only through Snap/Flatpak/Virtual Machines.

18.10+:
* Stop providing i386 port
* Run legacy i386 only application in snaps / containers / virtual machines

So terrible... just... no....

Actually they are contemplating the removal of multilib, and supporting 32bit only through Snap/Flatpak/Virtual Machines.

18.10+:
* Stop providing i386 port
* Run legacy i386 only application in snaps / containers / virtual machines

So terrible... just... no....

Errr, isn't Steam only 32bit?

Actually they are contemplating the removal of multilib, and supporting 32bit only through Snap/Flatpak/Virtual Machines.

18.10+:
* Stop providing i386 port
* Run legacy i386 only application in snaps / containers / virtual machines

So terrible... just... no....

Errr, isn't Steam only 32bit?

Yup, sure is.

[code]
dpkg -l|grep steam
ii steam:i386 1.0.0.52-1 i386 Valve's Steam digital software delivery system
ii steam-devices 1.0.0.51-1 all Device support for Steam-related hardware
ii steamcmd:i386 0~20130205-1 i386 Command-line interface for Valve's Steam
[code]

Out of Curiosity, what is the actual cost of support? I was under the impression most of the builds are automated? or does it require substantial code modification to switch between 32 and 64 bit?

I use 32-bit on my HTPC - its an 10 year old laptop running Kodibuntu that we use for streaming. I suppose I could switch to a Pi3 if hardware support ended.

I have a family member who used a 32-bit Gateway PIII as a home file server until the past year or so (lasted 16+ years) so I can imagine a good number of people who use older hardware where they can't afford new hardware to play around with or replace. That was my case growing up. We had an 8086 until 1994 and I used my 286 all through school until 2002.

I think you're absolutely correct. The builds of the ISO are automated. The only work that is required is when it's a non-x86 port, in which case there are potential areas of code clean up and such that are required. It's one of the reasons the Debian m68k port is Unofficial, but if it can still be supported by an off-shoot group, why can't Canonical keep on supporting i386? Probably because they don't give a crap about old hardware and are trying for the Server/Phone/Heavy Desktop arena.

Maybe I should vote they drop i386, this way more people will move to Debian proper :D

I think that all the comments about Linux users who use Ubuntu 32-bit because they only have the old computers don't make any sense. In my view, this is only one of the many reasons.

I want to remind you that many Linux users want to use Ubuntu 32-bit on their new computers in order to run old applications and classic games for Linux. I believe it is much easier to install those old apps and games on new versions of Ubuntu 32-bit than on Ubuntu 64-bit.

I also use Mac, and I hate the situation when Apple remove something from the system because they do not care about the old applications or classic games. Those radical changes do not help Mac become the more popular operating system among Windows users.

Why are Linux users expecting the same decisions from companies like Canonical?

Here's the deal. I agree with everyone that 32 bit should no longer be a thing as far as building a 32 bit version of the OS. However, there are 2 things that concern me.

1. I still run old games on linux therefore it would be nice if the 32 bit librarys were not lost to the computing abyss.

2. If there is going to be a push to 64 bit entirely, then the powers that be need to get their stuff together and produce a version of wine that can run a 64 bit install of games and or clients like Steam so that we can install games like The Witcher 3 that require 64 bit systems :)

Just strange that they use a survey for this when they have download stats for their ISOs and their i386 repository. And "solving" multiarch via snap, please no.

In my opinion 32 bit support should have died back in 2005. We have had 64 bit CPUs and operating systems for ages but they haven't killed off support yet. Think of the progress that could have been made elsewhere if resources and money weren't allocated to 32 bit support ?

But virtualization features necessary to host 64-bit guests haven't been around as long.

32bit applications are dying at the speed of light, from day to day there are always fewer applications that run on 32bit OSs and the functionality is getting to the point where it would be better to put those resources in maybe something new... it is almost 2017, we need to move forward probably :)