Fwd [ubuntu-release] Please promote 64-bit images by default on the download pages

[Valorie Zimmerman]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 05, 2013 21:52:49 Rohan Garg wrote:
>> On Thursday 05 Sep 2013 12:11:22 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 05, 2013 21:20:51 Rohan Garg wrote:
>> > > > >> Below is the summary of above changes on the ubuntu.com/download
>> > > > >
>> > > > >pages
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> for 13.10:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop
>> > > > >> ==================================
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> In both download boxes (LTS & 13.10):
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> * On the right hand side above the "Choose your flavour" replace:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> "If you have a PC with the Windows 8 logo or UEFI firmware, choose
>> > > > >the 64-bit download. Read more"
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> with
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> "If you have an older PC with less than 2GB of memory, choose the
>> > > > >> 32-bit download."
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> * Update the Choose your flavour drop-downs, with first option -
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> default: - 64-bit
>> > > > >> - 32-bit (for machines with less than 2GB RAM)
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> When the drop-down is expanded, 64-bit should be listed first.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> http://www.ubuntu.com/download/server
>> > >
>> > > Quote from original email ^^ ( specifically for the desktop edition )
>> >
>> > Thanks.  IIRC, there were Atom 32 systems sold with 2GB of RAM, but I'm
>> > not
>> > 100% sure.
>> >
>> > I particularly don't think this should be done for 12.04 (as this
>> > proposes)
>> > since multi-arch was in a much less deployed state back then.  For 12.04,
>> > I'd also worry about a user wanting to install some third party 32 bit
>> > only
>> > package and discovering it won't work due to some library not yet
>> > converted. They end up then having to reinstall their system (or give up
>> > in
>> > disgust).
>>
>> Your arguments are technically sound, but from a UI POV won't it look
>> ugly/inconsistent to have amd64 listed first for 13.10 and i386 for 12.04 ?
>>
>> > What advantage does running 64bit give a user that they would care about?
>>
>> I can only think of one, albeit a very important one. 32 bit ISO's don't
>> come with EFI support, only the 64 bit ISO's support machines with EFI /
>> Secure Boot. Hence this must be clarified somehow on the download page,
>> else people just get pissed off that Kubuntu won't even boot on their shiny
>> new computer.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I think list 32 bit first and say (as Ubuntu does now):
>
> "If you have a PC with the Windows 8 logo or UEFI firmware, choose the 64-bit
> download. Read more"
>
> Then some like to something about "How do I tell if I have UEFI firmware".
>
> Once we get to 14.04, then the "last LTS not so great on multi-arch" problem
> goes away.
>
> Scott K

I have to vote with ScottK on this one. While I've been running 64-bit
forever, I knew what I was doing, or at least where to go to read up
on the issues. Our hoped-for Windows user will not know the issues,
and the uname -a command will be unknown to them, and useless in
Windows as well.

Backporting this to 12.04 sounds dangerous. On the other hand 14.04
sounds like the perfect time to make the change.

Valorie

-- 
http://about.me/valoriez