Dimitri John Ledkov,
Simple question from someone who is not high on the Linux knowledge ladder.
Linux developers/distributions have made a big deal in the last two
years of how Linux could be the saviour of users of old machines running
Microsoft XP. If Ubuntu and others stop releasing i386
Hi,
It's a bit sudden for us. I did not find any prior announcement or
discussion (before 16.04 release) that Canonical would drop i386 images
right after 16.04 LTS.
We, at Medo, use Compaq 610 and Dell Vostro (core2duo). Although they
are capable of running 64 bit software, we use 32 bit
On 12/07/16 08:52, Colin Watson wrote:
> I would strongly prefer to keep the port building as normal, but
> deemphasise it in whatever ways are useful to discourage people from
> using it, and perhaps not worry too much about failures further up the
> stack.
+1
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:17:48PM -0400, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> * Keep a small amount of i386 libs/apps in 18.10+ including whatever
> it takes to build/run Wine (but drop the majority of packages)
I'd just like to point out that any solution involving selective package
building will likely be a
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Josh DuBois wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov
> wrote:
>
>> 18.10+:
>> * Stop providing i386 port
>> * Run legacy i386 only application in snaps / containers / virtual
>> machines
>
> In terms of running legacy
On 7/11/16 11:17 AM, Bryan Quigley wrote:
I could see us:
* Determine Snappy is the best way to distribute Wine (which would
require the bundling of 32-bit libs I think).
* Keep a small amount of i386 libs/apps in 18.10+ including whatever
it takes to build/run Wine (but drop the majority of
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel>> wrote:
/18.10+: />/* Stop providing i386 port />/* Run legacy i386 only application in
snaps / containers / virtual machines/
In terms of running legacy i386 applications in
snaps /
Dimitri John Ledkov schreef op 30-06-2016 20:14:
My current hunch is like this at the moment:
- 18.04 to still have an i386 port in the archive, and be upgradable
to.
- 18.04 not having desktop/server install media (however maybe even
releases before that)
- 18.04 has "ubuntu-desktop" but
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Charl Wentzel
wrote:
>
>
> On 01/07/2016 21:05, Bryan Quigley wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate on what specific systems you are purchasing today
> that use 32-bit x86 (I believe the only vendors ever were AMD, Intel
> and VIA)?
>
> The
On 01/07/2016 21:05, Bryan Quigley wrote:
Can you elaborate on what specific systems you are purchasing today
that use 32-bit x86 (I believe the only vendors ever were AMD, Intel
and VIA)?
The chipsets are mostly AMD and Intel as you've stated. The vendor I
purchase from mostly is iEi. They
> I use Ubuntu as my main platform on embedded system. There are still many
> viable 32-bit platforms that are being manufactured.
Can you elaborate on what specific systems you are purchasing today
that use 32-bit x86 (I believe the only vendors ever were AMD, Intel
and VIA)?
Also what is
On 29/06/2016 15:37, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
Folks, I think we need to understand whether i386 won't be widely used
for very small IoT devices and hence be important for developers
targeting those. I accept i386 i no longer relevant for PC's and
laptops, but I would not be surprised if 32-bit
OK, I'm reassured that we're thinking about this appropriately, thanks
Dimitri & friends.
Mark
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
OK, I'm reassured that we're thinking about this appropriately, thanks
Dimitri & friends.
Mark
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Hello Mark,
On 29 June 2016 at 14:37, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
> Folks, I think we need to understand whether i386 won't be widely used
> for very small IoT devices and hence be important for developers
> targeting those. I accept i386 i no longer relevant for PC's and
>
Hello Mark,
On 29 June 2016 at 14:37, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
> Folks, I think we need to understand whether i386 won't be widely used
> for very small IoT devices and hence be important for developers
> targeting those. I accept i386 i no longer relevant for PC's and
>
Hello,
On 28 June 2016 at 21:08, Seth Arnold wrote:
>> 18.04 LTS:
>> * continue to provide i386 port to run legacy applications on amd64
>> * stop producing i386 d-i / netboot installer
>> * stop producing i386 kernel
>> * stop producing i386 cloud-images
>> * stop
Hello,
On 28 June 2016 at 21:08, Seth Arnold wrote:
>> 18.04 LTS:
>> * continue to provide i386 port to run legacy applications on amd64
>> * stop producing i386 d-i / netboot installer
>> * stop producing i386 kernel
>> * stop producing i386 cloud-images
>> * stop
Hi,
Just to be clear, I'm not proposing that Ubuntu MATE absolutely want to
continue providing 32bit iso images.
My daughter has a Dell Mini 9 Atom netbook, it is 32bit only. I think
netbooks are in the category of computers sold fairly recently that are
still very usable. However, the main
hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 29.06.2016, 21:33 + schrieb Robert Ancell:
> It may be worth considering disabling i386 builds for individual
> packages to reduce the support costs. That way the core packages can
> build for i386 and be used in IoT systems while the graphical
> application stacks can
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:37 AM Stéphane Graber wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:33:24PM +, Robert Ancell wrote:
> > It may be worth considering disabling i386 builds for individual packages
> > to reduce the support costs. That way the core packages can build for
>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:33:24PM +, Robert Ancell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:41 AM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 08:18:54AM +0100, Martin Wimpress wrote:
> > > Excuse the top posting, only have a phone available.
> >
> > >
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:41 AM Steve Langasek
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 08:18:54AM +0100, Martin Wimpress wrote:
> > Excuse the top posting, only have a phone available.
>
> > Ubuntu MATE works with a few organisations around the world, one in my
> own
> >
Hi Bryan,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:02:02AM -0400, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> I'll work on creating a new public survey (and possibly a separate
> partner/customer one).
> Based on my previous one, my biggest concerns were for Lubuntu/Xubuntu.
> With recent memory testing [1] it's even more true
On 29.06.2016 15:37, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
> Folks, I think we need to understand whether i386 won't be widely used
> for very small IoT devices and hence be important for developers
> targeting those. I accept i386 i no longer relevant for PC's and
> laptops, but I would not be surprised if
On 29.06.2016 15:37, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
>
> Folks, I think we need to understand whether i386 won't be widely used
> for very small IoT devices and hence be important for developers
> targeting those. I accept i386 i no longer relevant for PC's and
> laptops, but I would not be surprised if
Hi Martin,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 08:18:54AM +0100, Martin Wimpress wrote:
> Excuse the top posting, only have a phone available.
> Ubuntu MATE works with a few organisations around the world, one in my own
> country, that refurbish donated computers, install them with Ubuntu MATE
> and give
Let's also factor in flavors like Lubuntu that aim to use very minimal
resources and that have the ability to run with ~ 300 MB of RAM on an
i386 machine. While I understand modern applications are removing i386
support, we have a nice application base for Lubuntu for both LXDE and
LXQt that
hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 29.06.2016, 14:37 +0100 schrieb Mark Shuttleworth:
> Folks, I think we need to understand whether i386 won't be widely
> used
> for very small IoT devices and hence be important for developers
> targeting those. I accept i386 i no longer relevant for PC's and
> laptops, but I
Greetings,
Let's also factor in flavors like Lubuntu that aim to use very minimal
resources and that have the ability to run with ~ 300 MB of RAM on an
i386 machine. While I understand modern applications are removing i386
support, we have a nice application base for Lubuntu for both LXDE and
Folks, I think we need to understand whether i386 won't be widely used
for very small IoT devices and hence be important for developers
targeting those. I accept i386 i no longer relevant for PC's and
laptops, but I would not be surprised if 32-bit x86 is used in small
'embedded' environments.
Folks, I think we need to understand whether i386 won't be widely used
for very small IoT devices and hence be important for developers
targeting those. I accept i386 i no longer relevant for PC's and
laptops, but I would not be surprised if 32-bit x86 is used in small
'embedded' environments.
Hi,
Excuse the top posting, only have a phone available.
Ubuntu MATE works with a few organisations around the world, one in my own
country, that refurbish donated computers, install them with Ubuntu MATE
and give (or sell them for next to nothing) to schools, disadvantaged
families and people
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
> I propose that 16.04 LTS should be the last release with i386 support.
> That way we don't leave anyone with a choice of (a) keep running
> known-insecure 17.10 in 2018 or (b) figure out how to do a downgrade
> back
hat the surveys say.
Anyway next steps I see:
* We discussed dropping Ubuntu-desktop i386 images for 16.10+ previously.
That seems like the obvious one to drop i386 first. Anyone against doing
that now?
* I'll write and distribute the surveys.
* Ask specific flavors if they want to drop i386 ah
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:54:13PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Let me resurrect this thread. In the context of what we should be
> doing in 18.04 and what to do between now and then.
Thanks for raising this again; it'd be nice to have a plan in place before
we wind up in a difficult
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:54:13PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Let me resurrect this thread. In the context of what we should be
> doing in 18.04 and what to do between now and then.
Thanks for raising this again; it'd be nice to have a plan in place before
we wind up in a difficult
r i386. I
> don't
> > see much reason to separate the userspace security support, but we will
> see
> > what the surveys say.
> >
> > Anyway next steps I see:
> > * We discussed dropping Ubuntu-desktop i386 images for 16.10+ previously.
> > That seems like the ob
8.04 kernel and d-i (and Lubuntu) for i386. I don't
> see much reason to separate the userspace security support, but we will see
> what the surveys say.
>
> Anyway next steps I see:
> * We discussed dropping Ubuntu-desktop i386 images for 16.10+ previously.
> That seems like t
hat the surveys say.
Anyway next steps I see:
* We discussed dropping Ubuntu-desktop i386 images for 16.10+ previously.
That seems like the obvious one to drop i386 first. Anyone against doing
that now?
* I'll write and distribute the surveys.
* Ask specific flavors if they want to drop i386 ah
amd64 kernel, and
>> amd64 graphics drivers. And hardware validation is done on amd64 too.
>>
>> In 2016, people with i386-only hardware are unlikely to be capable to
>> run Unity 7 Desktop, and probably run other Ubuntu variants. I guess
>> there are some accidental i38
amd64 kernel, and
>> amd64 graphics drivers. And hardware validation is done on amd64 too.
>>
>> In 2016, people with i386-only hardware are unlikely to be capable to
>> run Unity 7 Desktop, and probably run other Ubuntu variants. I guess
>> there are some accidental i38
ith Unity can't be upgraded any further. But then I don't see
the harm in saying click here to install Desktop Environment X.
>>>
>>> * because any new installation is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu
>>> Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS
>
On 02.02.2016 20:38, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Dimitri John Ledkov (x...@ubuntu.com):
>> On 2 February 2016 at 07:58, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> On 01.02.2016 23:14, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
Hello,
Ubuntu has an i386 port which is fully supported.
* because any new installation is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu
> Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS
>
> * reduce releases.ubuntu.com mirror costs by about a third
>
> Otherwise, all survey results will remain constant.
>
> Building images is cheap, however I do
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Jean-Baptiste Lallement
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/02/2016 08:58, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>>
>>> >My guess is that: all currently shipped hardware, with enough support
>>> >to run full Unity (7) Desktop, is amd64. Tested with amd64
l simply EOL.
>>
>> * because any new installation is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu
>> Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS
>>
>> * reduce releases.ubuntu.com mirror costs by about a third
>>
>> Otherwise, all survey results will remain co
still
> need to take some action even if it's just saying.. Sorry Ubuntu
> x86_32 with Unity can't be upgraded any further. But then I don't see
> the harm in saying click here to install Desktop Environment X.
>
>>>>
>>>> * because any new installation is amd64 ca
ith Unity can't be upgraded any further. But then I don't see
the harm in saying click here to install Desktop Environment X.
>>>
>>> * because any new installation is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu
>>> Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS
>
l simply EOL.
>>
>> * because any new installation is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu
>> Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS
>>
>> * reduce releases.ubuntu.com mirror costs by about a third
>>
>> Otherwise, all survey results will remain co
or 16.04 some i386 iso (by 18.04 the problem might be resolved through
> the crappy life-span recent hw seems to have)...
>
My argument here would be that, such a netbook already has Ubuntu on it.
And that one would not want to /install/ it, but only /upgrade/ it to 16.04 LTS.
And thus archiv
Hi,
On 02/02/2016 08:58, Stefan Bader wrote:
>My guess is that: all currently shipped hardware, with enough support
>to run full Unity (7) Desktop, is amd64. Tested with amd64 kernel, and
>amd64 graphics drivers. And hardware validation is done on amd64 too.
>
>In 2016, people with i386-only
* because any new installation is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu
> Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS
>
> * reduce releases.ubuntu.com mirror costs by about a third
>
> Otherwise, all survey results will remain constant.
>
> Building images is cheap, however I do
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Jean-Baptiste Lallement
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/02/2016 08:58, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>>
>>> >My guess is that: all currently shipped hardware, with enough support
>>> >to run full Unity (7) Desktop, is amd64. Tested with amd64
On 02.02.2016 12:27, Jean-Baptiste Lallement wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/02/2016 08:58, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> >My guess is that: all currently shipped hardware, with enough support
>>> >to run full Unity (7) Desktop, is amd64. Tested with amd64 kernel, and
>>> >amd64 graphics drivers. And hardware
hardware are unlikely to be capable to
run Unity 7 Desktop, and probably run other Ubuntu variants. I guess
there are some accidental i386 users, e.g. those that have installed
i386 variant on amd64 hardware.
Does it still make sense to build ubuntu-desktop-i386.iso? Validate
it? Test it on amd64
are are unlikely to be capable to
> run Unity 7 Desktop, and probably run other Ubuntu variants. I guess
> there are some accidental i386 users, e.g. those that have installed
> i386 variant on amd64 hardware.
>
> Does it still make sense to build ubuntu-desktop-i386.iso? Validate
are are unlikely to be capable to
> run Unity 7 Desktop, and probably run other Ubuntu variants. I guess
> there are some accidental i386 users, e.g. those that have installed
> i386 variant on amd64 hardware.
>
> Does it still make sense to build ubuntu-desktop-i386.iso? Validate
on is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu
Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS
* reduce releases.ubuntu.com mirror costs by about a third
Otherwise, all survey results will remain constant.
Building images is cheap, however I do not believe we can actually
adequately support i386 ones for ubunt
on is amd64 capable, or such is the Ubuntu
Desktop ISO installer requirement for 16.04 LTS
* reduce releases.ubuntu.com mirror costs by about a third
Otherwise, all survey results will remain constant.
Building images is cheap, however I do not believe we can actually
adequately support i386 ones for ubunt
nably
accelerated to cope. Not sure about unity 7. But maybe some reason to allow at
least for 16.04 some i386 iso (by 18.04 the problem might be resolved through
the crappy life-span recent hw seems to have)...
-Stefan
>
> Does it still make sense to build ubuntu-desktop-i386.iso? Validate
> i
61 matches
Mail list logo