The idea of dropping i386 support seems like a step backwards to me. First, is Ubuntu GNOME supporting too many architectures for its available resources? If not, then there is no reason to drop one.
If an architecture needs to be dropped due to resource constraints, the obvious one to drop is amd64. Every computer capable of running amd64 is also capable of running i386. There are essentially no applications that inherently require a 64-bit address space (certainly none that ship with the operating system). So dropping amd64 will not leave any users stranded on an old release that never gets security updates. Whereas we already know that millions, probably hundreds of millions, of computers can run i386 without trouble, but cannot run amd64. (Yes, I do regularly use multiple computers, including an Atom-based netbook and a Pentium III server, that can't run amd64.) One of the advantages of Linux used to be that it would run great on old hardware that was too slow to run later bloated Windows releases. With each generation, Intel repeated over and over its practice or mistake of providing too few address pins on its processors. Older motherboards that, five or ten years later, could easily install $50 worth of dense RAM DIMMs, cannot actually address more than 512MB, 2GB or 8GB of RAM. (I run one server that is actually limited to half a gigabyte, which I unfortunately cannot decommission without significant trouble and expense.) Ubuntu-GNOME actually runs on many of these machines, but it would cease to run if i386 was dropped. Why is Ubuntu-GNOME throwing away this advantage that it has long held over Windows? For those who care about secure computing, the vendors who ship amd64 architecture chips have polluted them with embedded processors that subvert the security of the system. Every Intel amd64 chip can be subverted via its "Management Engine", a separate processor on the CPU chip which is internally hooked to the Ethernet interface and which runs poorly audited proprietary firmware that can't be examined or replaced. This processor runs from the "5V standby" power, even when the main CPU is powered down, and what it does is NOT under the control of the end user who owns the hardware. Anyone who truly cares about having full control over their computing environment is stuck with buying older CPUs and motherboards. Yes, those same older CPUs and motherboards that Ubuntu-GNOME is proposing to desupport. The FSF sees this as a major issue; see: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/intel-me-and-why-we-should-get-rid-of-me https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/active-management-technology i386 and amd64 releases are downloaded at approximately the same rate. I have served up torrents of all the major Ubuntu-GNOME releases since 12.10. E.g. my server has uploaded 86 full copies of ubuntu-gnome-14.04.1-desktop-amd64.iso and 60 full copies of the -i386. These numbers vary by release, with i386 more popular in some releases, and amd64 in others. The main reason to prefer amd64 over i386, despite the cost in compatability, seems to be simple trendiness. Processor chic. And that seems to be coming with a side of lemming, aka "other Linux distros are doing it too". It seems to me that if a bunch of other distros are dropping i386, that would make your i386 distro more valuable. Finally, there is the bold but false statement in the wiki page, "If you are running 64-bit capable hardware there are absolutely no valid reasons to be running a 32-bit operating system." https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGNOME/32bit_support What I think the author meant is that THEY could not conceive of a reason to run a 32-bit operating system. Or perhaps that every end user who has a reason to run a 32-bit operating system is not "valid" in their choice. This seems more like hubris than wisdom to me. Different users have different situations and different needs. Claiming that nobody who chooses differently than you has a "valid" reason is not a way to convince them, it's just bashing them for being different. In my case, I prefer to have every machine in my environment running the same binary release, for convenience of system administration. Since some of them can't run amd64, they all run i386. Some anonymous wiki author may claim that that's not a "valid" reason, yet it is my reason and I am likely to stick with it. Why the change? (says the wiki page) 1. Developers won't test i386 so we shouldn't either. 2. "Almost" all users can run amd64 so let's screw those who don't. 3. i386 is an irrelevant few percent slower for some workloads. 4. i386 is an irrelevant few percent smaller for some workloads. 5. A single security feature works slightly better in amd64. 6. Some other distros have dropped i386, so let's be sure that i386 users have nowhere else to go. Certainly we should not welcome them to Ubuntu-GNOME! 7. Two proprietary companies have dropped i386, therefore we should. These do not seem to me to be compelling reasons to drop anything. But if a drop is needed, dropping amd64 would continue to provide 100% usability on all x86 platforms. John Gilmore -- Ubuntu-GNOME mailing list Ubuntu-GNOME@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-gnome
