How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?

[Kilz _]

I'm not sure the last reply went through, sorry if you get the old and the 
new.
Don't make this a "flash" problem because it isn't. Its a functionality 
issue. Flash is available to 32bit users if they want to install it. Its in 
the 32bit repositories. It can be forced installed to 64bit systems. If they 
are unsupported why are they in the 32bit repositories?
But the question is why do 64bit users have to jump through hoops to get it 
to work. Why cant we have 32bit versions of selected applications available 
while we wait for full multiarch? Why cant a 32bit Firefox be available? Why 
cant the packages that are in the 32bit repositories for the plugins be made 
available to 64bit users?
Why cant we have a 32bit wine? its not proprietary. Why cant we have a 32bit 
media player in case the user decides to install codecs that are not 
default? Saying to use "free codecs" is a good buzz word. But it isn't going 
to solve Bug #1. Getting users to chose Ubuntu may require that these codecs 
be avaialable.
I'm not asking at this point for full multiarch. But because my howto's 
work. We know that these packages will work. They are not a lot of them. 
Take a look at the sticky in the 64bit section for work arounds. 
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=191205 . What Im asking for is 
that 64bit Ubuntu come a little bit closer to "just working"



>From: Alex Jones <alex at weej.com>
>To: ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>Subject: Re: How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?
>Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 15:56:32 +0100
>
>Hi
>
>I am not very qualified to comment on this subject, but it seems that
>your main beef is with Firefox plugins (Flash?) and multimedia codecs
>(WMV?).
>
>Both of the "best" implementations of these plugins/codecs are *closed
>source* and *unsupported*.
>
>It is simply out of our hands. Please support open, free codecs.
>
>Thanks for using Ubuntu.
>
>On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 09:38 -0500, Kilz _ wrote:
> > Hi Developers
> > I love Ubuntu, I have it as my main desktop. I also use it as a server. 
>I am
> > also active on the forums helping 64bit users and beginners where I can. 
>I
> > have written howto's on how to install 32bit firefox with plugins, and 
>wine
> > to 64bit.
> > I have asked this question a few times. Now I'm asking it here. How much
> > longer will 64bit systems users be second class citizens? How much 
>longer
> > will we have to jump through hoops to get the 64bit version to work like 
>the
> > 32bit one does? How much longer will 64bit system users be told to 
>install
> > the 32bit version of Ubuntu on the forums. Don't think I'm asking for 
>things
> > that cant be done. Its just things I cant do, even though I have tried.
> > I know multiarch is being worked on by Debian and for some strange 
>reason
> > 64bit users have to wait on Debian to do the development. All along I
> > thought one of the reasons for using Ubuntu was so users didn't have to 
>wait
> > on the insanely slow Debian development process. I am also not that 
>happy
> > that the expected version keeps slipping back until Ubuntu becomes
> > multiarch. When rpm and source distro's are already multiarch. SuSE, 
>Fedora,
> > Gentoo, etc.
> > In Edgy's release announcement 64bit users were given a slim hope.
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2006-April/000064.html 
>we
> > were told of a first taste of multiarch. I cant seem to find that spec 
>in
> > Edgy, can someone point me to it with a link? The more I read I find it 
>may
> > not be until Edgy +2 or +3 before we see it. Is this true? With Intel 
>and
> > AMD both making 64bit chips now, just how long do you think its going to
> > take until the 64bit platform is a majority?
> > Next I would like to know why 64bit users cant have a distro that "just
> > works" while we are waiting. Why cant we have a 32bit Firefox and 
>plugins
> > available? Why cant we have a 32bit Wine? Why cant we have a 32bit media
> > player available? They don't even need to be defaults. But why do 64bit
> > users have to follow howto's to install them? Don't tell me it cant be 
>done.
> > I wrote the howto's that install them. I created a 32bit Firefox .deb 
>file
> > most 64bit users use. Don't think it isn't necessary. There are 24,317 
>hits
> > on my howto http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1174435 . Don't 
>say
> > that there was no spec, someone else wrote one long ago.
> > https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/32bit-browser-on-amd64 .
> > Don't think I haven't asked these questions or I am alone in thinking 
>this
> > way. http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=253127 and
> > http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=203182 . But I haven't 
>gotten a
> > good answer. When I do I don't see anything done. Please tell me I'm 
>wrong
> > and point me towards where its being done if it is.
> >
> > Thanks for reading and providing Ubuntu.
> > Kilz
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search
> > 
>http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.336065~-109.392273&style=r&lvl=4&scene=3712634&trfc=1
> >
> >
>--
>Alex Jones <alex at weej.com>
>
>
>--
>ubuntu-devel mailing list
>ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Spaces is here! It’s easy to create your own personal Web site. 
  http://spaces.live.com/signup.aspx