Can't Install Skype on Ubuntu 14.04 64-bit
jessejazza3.uk at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 10:48:25 UTC 2014
On 21 November 2014 09:54, Nils Kassube <kassube at gmx.net> wrote:
> James Freer wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Nils Kassube wrote:
>> > James Freer wrote:
>> >> Skype claim the download is dual arch... which it obviously isn't.
>> >> Those packages are 32 bit so a 32 bit ubuntu install would seem to
>> >> be
>> >> a solution.
>> > The skype version available for Ubuntu 14.04 from the Canonical
>> > partner repository is certainly a 32 bit application, that's why
>> > there are many i386 libs necessary.
>> I used the download from skype.com which is 10.04 32 bit or 12.04
> I suppose the packages from the Skype download page and from the
> Canonical partner repository are more or less identical, so there should
> be no difference where the package comes from. The advantage of the
> Canonical repository is that you don't have to check the Skype download
> page every now and then to find out if there is a new version available.
> And the claim of a dual arch package is correct. While the application
> itself is 32 bit, it can also run on a 64 bit system, if the necessary
> 32 bit libraries are installed. That's what the multiarch support means.
>> > However I could install that package on my 64 bit
>> > machine yesterday. So it should be possible to run skype on a 64 bit
>> > Ubuntu 14.04 system. The OP has a problem of package dependency
>> > conflicts for some reason.
>> I don't follow you. The 12.04 certainly works on 32 bit and I am using
>> xubuntu 14.10. It would seem that 64 it is best avoided.
> On my 64 bit Kubuntu machine I can install skype from the Canonical
> repository, IOW it is possible to run skype on a 64 bit 14.04 system.
> IMHO it doesn't make sense to claim, that 64 bit should be avoided, just
> because a single application can't be installed on one machine while the
> same application can be installed on another machine running the same
> Ubuntu version. Granted, I'm using Kubuntu and not the "real" Ubuntu,
> but there should be no difference.
>> > If he installed the 32 bit version of Ubuntu
>> > there might be the same dependency problems.
> The problem is that there is some dependency conflict due to another
> package installed on the machine of the OP. That dependency conflict
> seem to come from the fact that the OP first installed the server
> version and then added the desktop parts. If he did the same with the 32
> bit version, the dependency problem might be the same because the
> installation procedure would be the same. I don't know if he could
> install the 32 bit Ubuntu directly. But as he has problems with the
> graphics driver of the Ubuntu desktop, I think it is unlikely that the
> 32 bit version could be installed directly.
I'm not trying a 'flame war' chum. I saw that post and thought I'd
mention it that was all. I see repeated posts about using 64 bit. They
say use 32 bit as it works ok on 64 bit machines and that is what I
have always done. Mixing server-desktop etc is not something I'd want
More information about the ubuntu-users