12.04 LTS: 64-bit desktop by default?

Kees Cook kees at ubuntu.com
Mon Apr 16 21:57:13 UTC 2012

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:36:32PM -0700, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On 4/16/12 9:25 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:09:19AM -0400, Michael Terry wrote:
> >>On 16/04/12 02:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>>And regardless of which we decide to use as the default, both of amd64 and
> >>>i386 will continue to be supported architectures for the length of 12.04 LTS
> >>>and will remain available for download.
> >
> >>There seems to be an unstated assumption that the default
> >>recommended architecture needs to stay the same throughout the
> >>lifecycle of 12.04 LTS.  Is that true?
> >
> >I don't see us making such a change for a point release.  First, we don't
> >typically get CDs pressed of point releases; second, there is going to be
> >some confusion on the part of users about this change, and I think we can
> >better mitigate that if changing it as part of .0 instead of as a point
> >release.
> >
> >>If we end up deciding to stick with i386 for now to better support
> >>common hardware, this question will still be re-evaluated for a
> >>future release.  And when it changes, we could go back and change
> >>the default download link and what is installed on the store USB
> >>sticks for 12.04 LTS.
> >
> >We could, but I'm pretty sure it's not worth it at that point.
> >
> Relatedly, I'm worried about what happens when these 12.04 users
> upgrade to 14.04.  It would be really unfortunate to have them still
> on 32 bit by that point.

I think that's entirely out of scope. This was a question about the
default arch for downloads and CD pressing. Upgrades will continue on
the arch they had, which is totally fine since it remains a very support
arch. :)

> Unless, of course, we have ambitions of supporting automatic
> cross-architecture upgrades by then.

I'm sure people will attempt this, but doing this automatically is a
way off.


Kees Cook

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list