32-bit Firefox (Re: How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have towait?)

[Kilz _]

>From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com>
>To: ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>Subject: Re: 32-bit Firefox (Re: How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have 
>towait?)
>Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:23:17 -0700
>
>On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:25:53AM -0500, Kilz _ wrote:
> > >The correct solution to this problem is 64-bit plugins, in which case 
>we
> > >need to petition Adobe (almost every issue of this type seems to lead 
>to
> > >one of their plugins).  More voices increase the likelihood of this
> > >happening.
> > >
> >
> > Yes and that is something I have done. But waiting on Adobe to produce a
> > 64bit plugin or application may take some time. Why then are we hurting
> > the 64bit users when its possible to run the existing 32bit version of 
>the
> > most needed ones. There are few people switching from Windows that do 
>not
> > require flash, or some other plugin that will not run on the 64bit
> > browser.
>
>All other major 64-bit distributions that I'm aware of ship 64-bit firefox,
>so please don't characterize this as Ubuntu specifically or intentionally
>"hurting" any users.  This is simply the status quo, and you are proposing 
>a
>new step beyond that.  Furthermore, you are asking for someone (who?) do a
>substantial amount of work on your behalf (both now and ongoing) in order 
>to
>provide it.  It is important to bear that in mind that when holding this
>type of discussion.
>

Well up to this point I have been providing the 32bit Firefox deb file that 
most 64bit users use. I know exactly how much work is involved. Not a huge 
amount. Had you not agreed to put one in the repo's I would still provide 
it.
Suse 10.1 64bit ships with a 32bit Firefox. But then SuSE is completly 
Multiarch. Every 32bit package is avaialable to the 64bit user. But 32bit 
firefox is installed by default. Sadly SuSE's community leaves a lot to be 
desired. They are full of know it all's who look down thier noses at users. 
Suggest they RTFM and "just deal with it". I think Ubuntu is different, but 
lately I'm having second thoughts.

> > >Multiarch was not on the Edgy roadmap, and there are currently no plans 
>to
> > >implement it.
> >
> > While I mentioned multiarch, I don't think any 64bit users expects full
> > multiarch from Ubuntu at this time. Most if not all would be happy 
>seeing
> > some progress or a step towards it. Remember both Intel and AMD are now
> > making 64bit chips, even the cheap ones are now 64 bit. Other source and
> > rpm based distro's are mostly multiarch or working on it. The reason its
> > important is because not every application is ready as 64bit. But if the
> > applications that don't work for 64bit users were available as 32bit
> > versions this is a form of multiarch, limited, but better than nothing. 
>As
> > it is we see eye candy being added while things don't work for us.
> > Functionality over eye candy any day for me.
>
>The word "multiarch" refers to a very specific concept and feature of the
>packaging system, one which represents a relatively large development
>project.  It currently doesn't make sense for Ubuntu to attempt this at the
>expense of other development projects.
>
>The current OpenOffice.org build, and the Firefox build we're discussing,
>are not multiarch, so it will avoid confusion if you don't use that
>terminology in this context.
>

Fine, since we dont have it anyway.

> > >I would not object to having a 32-bit firefox build available.  That 
>spec
> > >doesn't describe how to achieve the goal, but here are the basic 
>elements
> > >required for a developer to get it done:
> > >
> > >- Add its build-dependencies to ia32-libs or similar
> > >- Duplicate the firefox source package
> > >- Keep it up to date and respond to bug reports
> >
> > Thank you for at least seeing that 32bit Firefox is needed. But there 
>are
> > really 3 things that are needed. Another one of them is Wine. Wine is 
>open
> > source. But its not in the repositories. Only a dummy package that wont
> > install. It is almost impossible to compile a 64bit version. The 32bit
> > version works when forced in to a 64bit system with only 1 extra 
>library.
> > My wine howto has 16, 304 hits
> > http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=185557 . People coming over
> > from Windows expect to at least see wine and at least try to get that 
>one
> > or two application they need it for running.
>
>I don't agree with you that users migrating from Windows expect Wine, or
>even that they need it, and Wine (both Wine itself and our implementation 
>of
>it) requires a lot of work before we could promote it as an out-of-the-box
>solution for Windows application compatibility.
>

16,304 hits on a 32bit wine howto for 64bit dapper say its a pretty common 
request. It is one of the most common open source applications asked for on 
the 64bit section of the Ubuntu forum. It is IMHO one of the applications 
Windows users migrating to Linux look for. I spend a ton of time helping 
64bit users. In 4-5 months since installing Ubuntu I have a little over 1600 
posts. I visit the section mutiple times a day, I think I can honestly say I 
know whats asked for.
Im not saying it needs to be able to make all windows applications work. But 
it isnt even avaialable to 64bit users in the repo's. You cant open synaptic 
or use apt and install wine in the 64bit version.


> > Next, one, just one 32bit media player, you can pick whatever one you 
>want,
> > but one is needed.
>
>I assume you want this in order to use 32-bit Windows DLLs in your media
>player.  Presumably you also understand the reasons why this configuration
>is problematic to set up and support.
>
> > If these things were included the experience of people using the 64bit
> > version would at least be more positive and we may see more people
> > recommending it.
>
>I have an alternative recommendation for you: run 32-bit Ubuntu.  Rather
>than running half of the desktop 32-bit on an otherwise 64-bit system,
>simply install a complete 32-bit system.  All of your complaints vanish.
>

I refuse, and other 64bit users refuse to use a 32bit version. Suggesting it 
is a slap in the face. The reason I am using Linux right now is because I 
refuse to run the 32bit Windows operating system that came pre installed. 
Dont think for one second I will install 32bit ubuntu.
If it doesnt get better you might lose a few more people helping out 64bit 
users. The population of helpers shrinks. You have a few less howto's that 
give answers that are looked for. The people begging for help increases, or 
they go elseware.


>Note that if you purchase a 64-bit system from a major PC vendor, you
>generally get a copy of (32-bit) Windows XP Home on it.  This generally
>works quite well, in fact I'm running such a configuration on my home PC
>right now (though for different reasons).
>

Sadly you dont see that as an oppertunity to provide something that isnt 
avaiable to Windows users who own 64bit systems..


> > These three things are requested again and again. I'm shocked to see 
>that
> > no developer knows about them. But someone has told me developers do not
> > visit the user forums. I have no idea how someone can develop something
> > without feedback from the people that are using it.
>
>Making this kind of accusatory assumption isn't very constructive.  I
>suggest a more positive and collaborative stance if you expect to continue
>to receive constructive feedback in return.
>

That was constructive. If you look at the forum you will know that its 
common knowlage that the development team isnt active. On the top of the 
"development" section is " Please note developers are not very active here. 
If you wish to file a bug report please do so here." Do you think that 
developing something is easier doing it away from the people who use it?

>Of course the development team realizes that users want to use the official
>Flash plugin on 64-bit Ubuntu.  However, as I hope I've explained already,
>the issue is not as simple as it might at first appear.
>
>--
>  - mdz
>
>--
>ubuntu-devel mailing list
>ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

I wrote the 32bit Firefox/flash howto for 64 bit users. I know exactly how 
hard it is. Its not. Its not like Im asking for something I havent already 
done.  Here take a look.
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1174435 what Im asking for is 
to have packages so that new users dont have to jump through hoops like 
follow a howto. But it isnt as hard as you are making it sound. Heck, use my 
deb file if it will save you time.

_________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!   
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline