Hi Jonathan, See inline comments
Best regards Nio On 2013-06-16 21:23, Jonathan Marsden wrote: > On 06/16/2013 09:15 AM, Eric Bradshaw wrote: > >> On 06/16/2013 08:39 AM, Jonathan Marsden wrote: >>> On 06/16/2013 06:40 AM, Eric Bradshaw wrote: > >>>> One thing I'd like to add is I don't mess with the 64bit >>>> installers - there is nothing wrong with installing a 32bit >>>> Lubuntu on a 64bit machine and (for me) makes it easier going >>>> forward. > >>> Can you explain why? What is the issue with the 64bit installer, >>> and have you filed a Launchpad bug about it, so we can duplicate >>> the issue and (hopefully) fix it? > >> No bug. Nothing to fix. I just find it easier. > > If it is different, such that i386 is easier to install than amd64, > please describe that difference. It probably should not exist, and so > would be considered a bug :) Can you document that difference for us? > >> I may be accused of living in the past, but in my opinion, for now, >> there is more stability, less work-arounds needed, and more software >> available for 32bit. > > I can't think of any of the close to 30000 packages in the default > Ubuntu repositories that is available for i386 but not on amd64. There > may be something in multiverse where a commercial vendor has not > provided a 64bit version... which packages are you thinking of? > Likewise if you find Ubuntu software that is unstable on amd64 but > stable on i386, please do file a bug report about that. Do you have any > specific examples? Especially any that are reproducible? andrew.46 who is looking after mplayer (svn) wrote two weeks ago in post #1 in http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2149564 "Bear in mind that codecs for 64 bit users are pretty minimal, the real benefits here are for the 32 bit users. There is a continuing drive to bring access to these file formats under the libavcodec umbrella so hopefully one day these codecs will no longer be necessary." I think there can still be problems or limitations with some 64-bit multimedia packages and libraries. > >> Plus, as I am usually installing on smaller hard drives and almost >> never have more than 2GB of RAM on a single computer (in fact my >> usual is somewhere between 512MB and 1 GB); > > Oh, it's 100% fine to choose 32bit on smaller machines... but that is > different from saying the i386 install "makes it easier", or that 64bit > software is inherently less stable, or that software is not available > for 64bit Lubuntu that is available for 32bit Lubuntu. The experience > should basically be the same, the available software from the official > Ubuntu repositories should be the same. > > I'm not suggesting loading a 32bit OS on older hardware with low RAM is > bad; it probably makes sense. But it should be a choice. I'm just > wanting to make sure that any issues with installing and running the > 64bit version on 64bit capable hardware are known about, and clearly > described. > >> there is less memory usage with a 32 bit OS and software. > > Have you quantified this difference running Lubuntu, and documented your > tests and their results somewhere? That could be useful info. Actually > we are (Ali is!) about to do some RAM usage tests for 13.10, and I had > not made testing 64bit vs 32bit a part of that... do you have solid test > showing the difference is big enough that we need to test both > architectures, because the installer may need more RAM for amd64 than > for i386 installs to succeed? I tested it but did not document it but a couple of years ago, probably when 12.04 was released. I think the 64-bit version is stepping forward all the time, so new tests are welcome :-) My result was that the 64-bit version uses significantly more memory, at least below 3-4 GB total installed RAM. It is easy to compare doing the same thing and running the system monitor or htop at the same time. I have also made a script, that logs the ram and swap with 5 seconds interval. And it does not work faster (I tested a few tasks, cpu intensive, ram intensive and read/write intensive), some tasks were a little faster, some tasks a bit slower with 64-bits. (I had expected the 64-bit version to be significantly faster.) So I prefer 32 bits in computers with less or equal to 3-4 GB RAM. My family has three computers with 4 GB and one with 8 GB. All the others (aging and suitable for Lubuntu) have 2 GB RAM or less. > >> Since this 32bit OS works on both 32bit and 64bit machines, I >> would choose, for now, the 32bit version. > > That's 100% fine. It is your choice. But saying that you make the > choice because it is "easier" clearly implies that amd64 installs are > "harder" for you... which IMO ought not to be the case. And we can't > fix bugs we do not know about. > >> For me its like the difference between the IPv4 and IPv6 Internet >> protocols. The IPv6 technology is great for the future, but in my >> opinion, for the average user today; it isn't quite ready for >> prime-time. > > I take it you do not live in Japan or other S.E Asian locations where I > am told you can't get a public IPv4 address from some ISPs any more :) > > Have you actually tried using IPv6 in Lubuntu with an IPv6-friendly ISP? > What happened? Did you document your experience online somewhere, so > others can benefit from that? I've played with IPv6, but don't have an > IPv6-friendly ISP, and setting up tunneling etc. works, but is not what > I'd expect a normal novice user to want to do :) > > I'd actually be *very* interested in someone who does have an > IPv6-friendly ISP testing an Lubuntu install that is IPv6 only, perhaps > deliberately blocking all IPv4 at their firewall router and then doing > the install, and reporting how well it goes, how easy it is to do, etc. > Why? Because it may not be all that long before home users in the USA > and Europe also start getting "only" an IPv6 address rather than an IPv4 > public address, and I think we would do well to be ready for that. I > have not tested it, but I am told MS Windows is already fully capable of > working in such an IPv6-only environment. We should be too. > >>>> I also think you should wipe the hard drive clean first with DBAN > >>> Can you explain the reason for this? How and why would the installed >>> 10.04 break the 12.10 installer? > >> I don't think the installed 10.04 would break the 12.10 installer at >> all. However, a "clean" install of the OS is better - in my opinion. >> The 12.10 installer doesn't truly erase the old info off the hard >> drive when it says, "Erase and Install..." but DBAN does. > > Right. So, basically you are saying that it is "better" only for data > security purposes. It is better if someone with a scanning electron > microsope has the time and money to use it on your hard drive to try to > recover the previous 10.04 filesystem. > > Which may well be technically true, but for most people, that is not a > major concern... have you tried to recover an "old" Linux install after > a new Linux install has been written to the disk over it, and succeeded? > In the system in question, since it has been sitting around unused for > 2 years, I doubt it contained highly security sensitive information. So > the "you should" statement was somewhat theoretical, rather than being a > practical suggestion for how to overcome the installation issue being > presented. Fair enough. > > BTW, I'm not trying to "pick on you" here! I'd just like to get maximum > value for the community out of your experience and statements, by more > fully understanding what lies behind them. Your organization has > probably done a lot more Lubuntu installations than the average user > ever will :) Incidentally, a counter on your site showing how many PCs > you have given away running Lubuntu would be cool! > > Jonathan > -- Lubuntu-users mailing list Lubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users
