How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?

[wyy yrm]

Hi Klaus,

I do see your point. This is a transition phase. Eventually I don't see why
we won't be using 64bit systems. Most users will do what they do: sit down
and wait. Nothing wrong with that. They don't need to know all these
complicated details.

But we are the ones that don't sit and wait. We play with these toys till
they break. When they don't, those users come and join the fun. As Kilz
pointed out, Microsoft has been very absent with respect to 64bit and I
agree that that's a big opportunity. Pretty much all systems from now on are
shipped with a 64bit processor.

I know that resources are scarce. So, to answer your question, I think it's
worth to spend our time on something that also works in amd64. So far we've
been doing fairly well. Most things already work in amd64. The devil is in
the details, though. And it seems that these details require some more
profound reforms.

In the unlikely yet not impossible scenario that microsoft starts to give
attention to 64bit, our users will demand a fully working 64bit system as
well. It may be better to start preparing our system now than later.

Best,
incubus



On 9/16/06, Klaus Bitto <klaus.bitto at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do you think it's worth to the user spending more time and efforts on 64
> bit ubuntu, or on 32 bit ubuntu?
>
> I don't think the average user will notice any difference - and have any
> advantage - from using a 64 bit system, no matter if their processor would
> theoretically be capable of that or not.
>
> Making the good 32bit system even better should do more good than trying
> to make the relatively bad 64bit system good.
>
> Just my 2c.
>
> -- Klaus Bitto
>
> On 9/10/06, wyyyrm at gmail.com <wyyyrm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I will join Kilz and ask for more attention to the 64bit platform. If
> > you check the 64bit section in ubuntuforums, you see that most of the posts
> > there are from users who are curious about trying out Ubuntu AMD64. However,
> > the majority of them get frustrated or are driven away, because other users
> > say 64bit is not well supported or is too hard to get working.
> >
> > Yes, firefox and its plugins are one example -- perhaps the best one --,
> > but then again most binaries around are compiled for 32bit. Even open source
> > ones. It's hard to expect that the average user will be interested in RTFM
> > to compile just a small program or dozens of libraries for that program.
> > Yet, as Kilz showed, we could have multiarch programs in Ubuntu.
> >
> > That barrier creates, of course, a perverse circle in which amd64 is
> > less "supported" because it has fewer users to debug it, but fewer users
> > debug it because they think amd64 requires too much work. Pretty much all
> > recent processors are 64bit that are used to run 32bit. It would be nice to
> > take advantage of that.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. I'm a chroot-lover myself and don't mind compiling.
> > But I do believe that Ubuntu has a big appeal to the public in that its
> > packages just work. They don't have to worry about dependency-hell, for
> > example. So, I guess my question would be: what can we do to help Ubuntu
> > AMD64 get multiarch? If that's not feasible right now, what other solutions
> > do we have?
> >
> > Best regards :-)
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was sent on behalf of wyyyrm at gmail.com at
> > openSubscriber.com
> >
> > http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com/4862621.html
> >
> > --
> > ubuntu-devel mailing list
> > ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060918/94d18477/attachment.htm