On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:03:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Are there problems that we've overlooked with regards to shipping 64-bit by > default on the desktop, or is it reasonable to make this switch for 12.04 > LTS? Is there 32-bit binary software that you know about which is not yet > supported on amd64 via multiarch, and ought to be before we consider making > 64-bit the default? > > Note that we're talking about three changes here: > > - Changing the default download link on ubuntu.com to point to 64-bit > desktop images > - Changing the pressed CDs distributed by Canonical to be 64-bit instead of > 32-bit > - Changing the architecture used for preformatted USB disks sold in the > Canonical shop > > In general, if people can think of reasons not to switch to 64-bit for one > of these, those arguments would apply to the other; so if we think we're > ready for a switch, that switch should be applied across the board.
I'm strongly in favor of making 64-bit the default. IMHO, most of the weird stuff I use (e.g. dosemu) actually runs better in 64-bit. Anything grossly weird (e.g. binary-only 32-bit MPlayer codecs) runs fine in a 32-bit chroot, and those kinds of things aren't even in the archive. -Kees -- Kees Cook -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
