Do you still have a 32-bit computer? It's not that strange, is it? I have an Acer Aspire One D250 to which I expanded the RAM to 2GB and I put an SSD disk. It is not the best computer in the world, but it fights back. I used to use Ubuntu on my AAOD250 until the environment change to Unity, and even with the new environment. But this could change, since the ISOs of Ubuntu for 32-bit computers are being debated.
The developers know that there are still many of us who have a 32-bit computer. But Dimitri John Lekov does not think so and has suggested that developers should not waste their time developing the 32-bit Ubuntu ISO images and leave the i386 architecture in the lurch for something better. What do you think about this idea?
Ubuntu 64-bit only
It seems to me a wasted effort. IMHO we should only test the relevant parts of multiarch i386 that are supported by third party applications, only i386 applications on an amd64 desktop. This is about creating, validating, and shipping ubuntu-desktop-i386.iso, specifically for the Ubuntu Desktop flavor. What I suggest is to put it aside.
The system developed by Canonical would not be the first distribution to stop developing for 32-bit computers. And it's not like it's a tragedy either. I think it would be if they still used the graphical environment they used years ago, but not since they used Unity. If we want to use a good Ubuntu on our small computers, we can always use Ubuntu MATE or Lubuntu, two systems that have performed very well on my AAOD250. In addition, today it has also released the first version of Remix OS, so these little computers still have a rope for a while.
What if Ubuntu left 32-bit computers aside?
With this Cannonical would shoot himself in the feet since there are many people who still use 32-Bit PC's. I believe that the support of 32 Bits is fundamental and we cannot get to think like Microsoft, which in my opinion if they could give themselves that pleasure since they have a high market share in desktop PC's.
Hello, in my opinion it would be disastrous because you would already be making enemies of loyal Ubuntu users who use 32-bit architecture because their computers would not work with 64-bit.
I use a 32 bit version of ubuntu.
bad idea ... on the contrary, development for 32-bit should still be encouraged! Without a doubt!
It contradicts everything that was said or said about the system, that it is free and everything else, it is not so much work to continue supporting those who use 32 bits, if not, it is already looking like microphones. , and many would withdraw from Ubuntu, total, with mic. you can do many things the same.
I think it is a mistake, since we are tired of listening and saying that thanks to Linux, old computers that cannot run versions of Windows, can continue to work perfectly for quite some time with light Linux distributions.
Ubuntu is a reference and for many, the favorite distribution (Unity or Mate). It would be a contradiction if they leave aside the 32-bit machines whose fleet is known to be still very large (I still cannot conceive of obsolete 64-bit machines).
In addition, how many users have known Linux precisely because they want to continue using their "old" PCs, instead of permanently withdrawing them because the great Microsoft has decided to do so? A bit of sanity and consistency.