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

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 01:23:11PM -0500, Kilz _ wrote:
> Well up to this point I have been providing the 32bit Firefox deb file
> that most 64bit users use.

If you are willing to maintain this deb, why not do so in the official
Ubuntu repositories rather than keeping it separate?  If you are already
doing the work, and all that you see missing is to include it in the
distribution, then it seems that you are in a position to address this
problem yourself, directly, rather than searching for someone else to take
it on.  What assistance do you require in order to proceed?

> 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.

In general, any package which is freely redistributable and meets basic
quality standards can be added to the official repository.  You don't need
permission from anyone, only for the package to be reviewed and uploaded.
We very much prefer to have packages in the official repository rather than
having a proliferation of smaller third-party repositories.

> 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.

You're correct, this seems to be the case now.

> >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.

I wouldn't draw the same conclusion based on a hit counter myself, but if
you feel strongly that this is important, I urge you to contribute the
necessary changes to the official wine package to produce the result you
desire.

> >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.

I don't understand why you adopt this tone.  Too often, topics like this
which arrive at the development list seem charged with anger and
dissatisfaction, rather than a desire to improve Ubuntu.  My best guess is
that you've been waiting for things to move in the direction you feel they
should, and growing frustrated at an apparent lack of progress.

Instead, I encourage you to start discussing and working on a solution
from the beginning.  Clearly you've already done some work in this area, but
have shared it only with the forum community while waiting for someone else
to implement an official solution.  Why not become a part of that effort
instead, since you have spent so much time already working with these
issues?

It's right there in the Code of Conduct: "Be collaborative"!

Meanwhile, running the 32-bit version of Ubuntu is a perfectly valid
solution for users with the needs you describe, and to dismiss it out of
hand without justification is not productive.

> >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..

64-bit Ubuntu *exists* to provide the option of running a complete, 64-bit
native operating system on these platforms.  However, where what you want is
to be able to run 32-bit programs conveniently, sometimes a 32-bit operating
system is a better choice.  A number of very large scale IT organizations
run 32-bit Linux on 64-bit hardware for various reasons, and we should
remain open to providing this option.  It is not incompatible with
continuing to improve 64-bit Ubuntu.

> >> 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?

To claim that "no developer knows about [these issues]" because they do not
frequent the same forums that you do is absurd, or even insulting.
Constructive comments promote improvements and solutions, which is what we
are interested in here.

This mailing list has always been the canonical way to raise issues for
discussion with the development team.  Not the forums, not the bug tracker,
not #ubuntu.  It predates all of those.  I am very pleased with the growth
and diversity of the Ubuntu forums, but you should not expect all
communications within the project to migrate there.

There is an unfortunate communication gap between the forums and other
communication channels such as IRC and the mailing lists, and I would like
to find a way to address it.  Grieving over this fact doesn't help, but I am
always open to hearing *constructive* ideas about how to promote better
communication within the project.

-- 
 - mdz