well, ubuntu is also dropping support for 32-bit. they tried to a little while ago and got a lot of backlash so they're supporting for a bit longer, but it's only a matter of time.
It works both ways. Axing 32-bit support is going to make it impossible to use a large collection of software. On the other hand, supporting legacy architectures, legacy APIs, etc. for decades also makes developers and users lazy. There needs to be some balance.
Honestly, the 32-bit support shouldn't have been removed. It should have been split off into a separate package like the XQuartz project, as some of us still use 32-bit applications daily.
Very disturbing that one of the biggest companies around can't keep 32-bit support, at least in some capacity.
The article says they are dropping support for 32 bit OS's but not 32 bit programs, essentially. You'll also still be able to emulate 32 bit OS's. they just can't own the hardware at boot.
They had two years to get ready for 64-bit only, though the writing was on the wall for more than 5. They didn't. Either they didn't care, didn't find it worthwhile, or they didn't even exist anymore.
Good luck with completely removing support to run 32 bit applications and all those 32 bit videogames (which is the vast majority of them). Or any other 32 bit application that won't ever receive updates.
Were people upset that they were stopping support for 32-bit hardware? Or that they were stopping support for running 32-bit apps on 64-bit installs?
It looks to me like most people were pissed about the latter, but I'm not clear if Canonical was actually planning to do the latter. It seems like their communication about it was poor, either way.
Dropping support for 32 bit software is super sucky.
reply