Do you still have a 32-bit computer? It’s not that weird, is it? I have an Acer Aspire One D250 to which I expanded the RAM to 2GB and put an SSD. It’s not the best computer in the world, but it defends itself. I used to use Ubuntu on my AAOD250 until the environment change to Unity, and even already with the new environment. But that could change, as the ISO’s Ubuntu for 32-bit computers are being the subject of debate.
Developers know that we are still many users who have a 32-bit computer. But Dimitri John Lekov doesn’t think the same and has suggested that developers shouldn’t waste their time developing the 32-bit Ubuntu ISO images and leave it at stake in the i386 architecture to move on to something better. What do you think of this idea?
Ubuntu only for 64-bit
It seems to me a futile effort. In my humble opinion, we should only test the relevant parts of i386 multiarch that are supported by third party applications, i386 only applications on an amd64 desktop. This is about creating, validating, and submitting ubuntu-desktop-i386.iso, specifically for the Ubuntu Desktop taste. What I suggest is to put it aside.
The system that Canonical is developing would not be the first distribution to stop developing for 32-bit computers. Nor is it a tragedy. I think it would be if they still used the graphical environment they used years ago, but not since they use Unity. If we want to use a good Ubuntu on our little computers, we can always use Ubuntu MAT or Lubuntu, two systems that have performed very well on my AAOD250. In addition, today it has also released the first version of Remix US, So these little computers still have rope for a while.
What would you think if Ubuntu set aside 32-bit computers?