Canonical announces Ubuntu will no longer be shipping 32-bit libraries for apps or games starting on 19.10

[Chunchunmaru_]

17 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

I made this

  Hide contents

 

Pretty much explains it well 

[rcmaehl]

8 minutes ago, Johners said:

I do think there's a bit of confusion but it's a case of:

1. 32-bit only Ubuntu releases being dropped
2. 32-bit packages being released for 64-bit operating systems

The first one ending isn't really an issue as the vast majority of computer hardware from the past 15 years can run a 64-bit operating system without issue and if you're hardware is unable to do so, it's probably old enough and slow enough for a modern operating system to not be a viable option. However, dropping 32-bit packages on a 64-bit Ubuntu release is something with a very large impact, especially to proprietary games and software. I do understand why they're doing it, as 32-bit is dead for current and future applications but removing the ability to run existing applications on newer releases of Ubuntu would be a downgrade in some regards.

 

Apple have already ended 32-bit support for iOS and it's slowly being phased out on macOS. In it's current state you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system but there's no 32-bit macOS for recent releases. I'm not a big macOS user so if someone knows more, it would be great if you shared.

 

I'm very interested to see when Microsoft do the same thing. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they do the same thing and while it would be a massive blow to backwards compatibility, especially for people have a games library that goes back in time more than 4-5 years, it does make sense to develop the next version of Windows for 64-bit only.

I do agree with this. @Chunchunmaru_ can I recommend a title along the lines of "Canonical announces Ubuntu will no longer be able to run 32-bit apps or games starting on 19.10"? It's more descriptive of the actual issue.

[Doobeedoo]

Kinda surprised it still lingered though 64bit modern OS is really the only offering that should exist by now. 

[descendency]

18 hours ago, floofer said:

No surprises. MacOS will not run any 32-bit applications either now. The transition period has been long enough anyway - you could probably just emulate your 32-bit program with the same efficiency.

While it has been long enough, I think the right thing to do was say "All programs must be 64bit by 2019 or lose compatibility with our OS" in like 2009 or something. 

[Chunchunmaru_]

1 hour ago, Johners said:

Apple have already ended 32-bit support for iOS and it's slowly being phased out on macOS. In it's current state you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system but there's no 32-bit macOS for recent releases. I'm not a big macOS user so if someone knows more, it would be great if you shared.

 

I'm very interested to see when Microsoft do the same thing. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they do the same thing and while it would be a massive blow to backwards compatibility, especially for people have a games library that goes back in time more than 4-5 years, it does make sense to develop the next version of Windows for 64-bit only.

As I said before it's not really a matter of is it right deprecating 32 bit or not, it is right to moving forward in 2019 because some developers will be sticking to it for no reason at all.

But is it worth in a situation where currently Linux gaming requires 32 bit support because a lot of Windows games will still be using 32 bit?
Speaking of wine compatibility, this makes Ubuntu which is probably the most user-friendly distribution useless for that purpose. 

I would at least understand this if Windows dropped it too at first, but it's not the case. It was all of a sudden decision

Ubuntu is the only distribution supported by nvidia-prime in optimus laptops, and so far it's the only way to play Vulkan games decently on Linux.

In this case rather than wasting time on putting 32bit libs back on ubuntu, sticking back to Windows becomes a viable option again until some other time developers (development on linux is always slower) will figure it out.

I just do not agree to do that in this period, and in this particular context, Linux just became a really viable option and Ubuntu is the user-friendliest of all distros.

At least MacOS announced this 1 year before
 

1 hour ago, rcmaehl said:

I do agree with this. @Chunchunmaru_ can I recommend a title along the lines of "Canonical announces Ubuntu will no longer be able to run 32-bit apps or games starting on 19.10"? It's more descriptive of the actual issue.

Done

[dalekphalm]

18 hours ago, Sauron said:

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here - first of all Ubuntu is just one distro, there are hundreds to pick from if this is a big problem for you; on the other hand, Canonical is in a position where they can put pressure on developers to drop legacy nonsense that shouldn't be required. As @floofer pointed out, legacy software can be emulated quite easily - the problem only presents itself with dynamically linked libraries. By the way, snaps and flatpak completely solve this if you really want to package something that won't work without legacy libraries.

 

As for Steam - the only reason this is a problem is that Valve won't make Steam open source or update their codebase. If you want to complain, complain to Valve.

 

Also I'm sure there will be unofficial PPAs that let you circumvent this issue.

I agree with this assessment.

 

Is this going to cause headaches? Yep. Should devs update their shit and get off legacy 32-bit libraries? Yep.

 

Keep in mind, folks, this only takes effect on Ubuntu 19.10 and onward, which releases in October. Devs have like 4 months to prepare for this.

 

And for those who must use legacy applications that are no longer in development? Y'all just need to stay on Ubuntu 18.04 or something.

[The King of the Undead]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

I agree with this assessment.

 

Is this going to cause headaches? Yep. Should devs update their shit and get off legacy 32-bit libraries? Yep.

 

Keep in mind, folks, this only takes effect on Ubuntu 19.10 and onward, which releases in October. Devs have like 4 months to prepare for this.

 

And for those who must use legacy applications that are no longer in development? Y'all just need to stay on Ubuntu 18.04 or something.

knowing the open source community we will be able to find these libraries albiet with little to no support.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, will1432 said:

knowing the open source community we will be able to find these libraries albiet with little to no support.

And that's a perfectly acceptable alternative. If devs want to continue to use legacy libraries, they'll make it work.

 

Canonical has no obligation to support legacy libraries that devs should have moved off of years ago anyway.

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Johners said:

I do think there's a bit of confusion but it's a case of:

1. 32-bit only Ubuntu releases being dropped
2. 32-bit packages being released for 64-bit operating systems

The first one ending isn't really an issue as the vast majority of computer hardware from the past 15 years can run a 64-bit operating system without issue and if you're hardware is unable to do so, it's probably old enough and slow enough for a modern operating system to not be a viable option. However, dropping 32-bit packages on a 64-bit Ubuntu release is something with a very large impact, especially to proprietary games and software. I do understand why they're doing it, as 32-bit is dead for current and future applications but removing the ability to run existing applications on newer releases of Ubuntu would be a downgrade in some regards.

 

Apple have already ended 32-bit support for iOS and it's slowly being phased out on macOS. In it's current state you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system but there's no 32-bit macOS for recent releases. I'm not a big macOS user so if someone knows more, it would be great if you shared.

 

I'm very interested to see when Microsoft do the same thing. In my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they do the same thing and while it would be a massive blow to backwards compatibility, especially for people have a games library that goes back in time more than 4-5 years, it does make sense to develop the next version of Windows for 64-bit only.

MacOS drops 32 bit completely this year. The latest OS release which is in beta now is 64 bit only and just to be clear that means 32 bit applications won't run. Public release should be around September. It has also issued warnings for at least a year every time you launch a 32 bit application. I think Apple has recommended developers make 64 bit applications for the last 10 years. In other words 64 bit has been the primary target in that timeframe. I don't think developers in the Mac ecosystem could be any more prepared.

[The King of the Undead]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

And that's a perfectly acceptable alternative. If devs want to continue to use legacy libraries, they'll make it work.

 

Canonical has no obligation to support legacy libraries that devs should have moved off of years ago anyway.

true. knowing some devs theyed rather create there own libs than switch though.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

I do agree with this. @Chunchunmaru_ can I recommend a title along the lines of "Canonical announces Ubuntu will no longer be able to run 32-bit apps or games starting on 19.10"? It's more descriptive of the actual issue.

But that would be blatantly false.

32bit programs will continue to work, unless:

1) The program relies on one or more 32bit libraries.

AND

2) The program has to assume that the OS hosts those libraries instead of having them embedded in the program themselves (which is how a lot of programs do things).

 

If you try to run a 32bit program on Ubuntu 19.10, and that program has the libraries it relies on embedded, then you will not notice any difference. Things will keep working like nothing changed.

 

 

Seriously people, the developers of Ubuntu are not idiots. They won't just all of a sudden break compatibility with a ton of software. There will be compatibility issues caused by this. No doubt about it. But it will most likely be far less frequent that you're lead to believe by alarmists.

 

Saying that 32bit programs won't work is like saying "Microsoft announces Vulcan will no longer work on Windows", just because Microsoft doesn't ship Windows with the Vulcan APIs.

[Misanthrope]

It's been what, 15 years? But I feel an "I fucking told you so" is warranted here: all those other distros should have avoided fucking with Ubuntu and instead work off Debian instead.

 

Which by the way it should still be an option. It will imply quite a bit of development but hey, MX Linux (Debian based) did it right it's about time they share the top spot with Manjaro (Arch based)

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Seriously people, the developers of Ubuntu are not idiots.

Well they are behind the crap fest that is Unity so I wouldn't go as far.

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Well they are behind the crap fest that is Unity so I wouldn't go as far.

Unity is better than gnome or KDE so....

Spoiler

Change my mind

 

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Unity is better than gnome or KDE so....

  Reveal hidden contents

Change my mind

 

Perhaps now it is but it was unnecessary at the time specially in the state it launched initially: a stupid attempt at trying to enter the mobile phone market and you see how THAT turned out.

 

I can't really change your mind when it comes to preference but when it comes to Cannonical as a company the record speaks for itself.

[WereCatf]

Eh, I'm just glad this doesn't affect me. The only 32bit app I use is Steam.

[Chunchunmaru_]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Perhaps now it is but it was unnecessary at the time specially in the state it launched initially: a stupid attempt at trying to enter the mobile phone market and you see how THAT turned out.

 

I can't really change your mind when it comes to preference but when it comes to Cannonical as a company the record speaks for itself.

Funny thing Mir was one of the best Canonical projects ever made.

[suicidalfranco]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Perhaps now it is but it was unnecessary at the time specially in the state it launched initially: a stupid attempt at trying to enter the mobile phone market and you see how THAT turned out.

 

I can't really change your mind when it comes to preference but when it comes to Cannonical as a company the record speaks for itself.

Rather have canonical do their own thing and fail while trying than them simply doing what everyone does.

Ubuntu phone was a cool concept, crushed by a late entry into an over saturated market dominated by iOS and Android. It was different from the 2 top dogs and Windows Phone and gave a new perspective on how a phone can be further used.

Ubuntu Core is a great idea, hope that it picks up pace cause it's better than what's being used in IoT devices that aren't running a cut down version of Android, Amazon AWS or the iOS homekit API.

Unity actually brought stylean, subjectively good looking, easy and functional desktop environment, and brought cool features throughout the years (lenses and HUD most notable ones).

Ubuntu TV cool concept, sad never saw it perform.

FlatPaks a more open source alternative to snaps.

 

[Sauron]

15 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Rather have canonical do their own thing and fail while trying than them simply doing what everyone does.

People sometimes forget how atypical Ubuntu was when it first launched and how much of the modern Linux landscape has been shaped by its release.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Chunchunmaru_ said:

But is it worth in a situation where currently Linux gaming requires 32 bit support because a lot of Windows games will still be using 32 bit?
Speaking of wine compatibility, this makes Ubuntu which is probably the most user-friendly distribution useless for that purpose. 

It occurs to me that the simplest solution, would be for Canonical to provide the 32-bit libraries as an optional download after installation.  No support (official or otherwise), but simply provided for backwards compatibility.

[Misanthrope]

38 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Rather have canonical do their own thing and fail while trying than them simply doing what everyone does.

Ubuntu phone was a cool concept, crushed by a late entry into an over saturated market dominated by iOS and Android. It was different from the 2 top dogs and Windows Phone and gave a new perspective on how a phone can be further used.

Ubuntu Core is a great idea, hope that it picks up pace cause it's better than what's being used in IoT devices that aren't running a cut down version of Android, Amazon AWS or the iOS homekit API.

Unity actually brought stylean, subjectively good looking, easy and functional desktop environment, and brought cool features throughout the years (lenses and HUD most notable ones).

Ubuntu TV cool concept, sad never saw it perform.

FlatPaks a more open source alternative to snaps.

 

There's 2 types of projects and companies working on Linux:

 

1) Those working on "their own thing and failing"

2) Those getting shit done

 

I agree that the expectation shouldn't be "Cannonical shouldn't be 1) and instead needs to be 2)" but if you recall, my beef was with everybody else in the Linux world assuming Cannonical was a good 2) and investing their projects into their base when they're clearly 1)

[Chunchunmaru_]

8 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

It occurs to me that the simplest solution, would be for Canonical to provide the 32-bit libraries as an optional download after installation.  No support (official or otherwise), but simply provided for backwards compatibility.

That would a clever thing to do, provide base functionality as an optional... At least for drivers and basic utilities like Alaa, pulse, etc

 

They ditched it completely, and expect people to compile by their selves, so much for the user friendly distro 

 

As an owner of a PPA, there is a data limit of 2gb so my guess is eventual support should be provided by a third party

[Guest]

4 hours ago, descendency said:

While it has been long enough, I think the right thing to do was say "All programs must be 64bit by 2019 or lose compatibility with our OS" in like 2009 or something. 

64 bit’s Introduction was like 2004/2003. I think it’s been a fair amount of time.

[Nowak]

Ubuntu is just one distribution. If people need a 32-bit distribution there's tons of others out there.

 

6 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

I made this

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I give it a 66/66.

[suicidalfranco]

16 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

There's 2 types of projects and companies working on Linux:

 

1) Those working on "their own thing and failing"

2) Those getting shit done

 

I agree that the expectation shouldn't be "Cannonical shouldn't be 1) and instead needs to be 2)" but if you recall, my beef was with everybody else in the Linux world assuming Cannonical was a good 2) and investing their projects into their base when they're clearly 1)

Ubuntu core

Ubuntu server

JuJu

Mir

Ubiquity

MAAS

GNU Bazaar

 

Seems they're doing fine doing their own thing. sure some have failed, phone, and some never realised, TV, but Canonical has been doing fine and brought many things that have become vital to the Linux community