12.04 LTS: 64-bit desktop by default?

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On 04/15/2012 11:03 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Back at last UDS in November, we discussed whether it was time to switch to
> presenting 64-bit images as the default image for desktop, like they already
> are for server, now that all new desktop hardware is 64-bit and multiarch is
> a reality.
>
> There was a rough consensus at UDS that the blockers were solved, but that
> the question should be taken to ubuntu-devel to gather more input.  That
> input-gathering is happening much later than intended, but here we are now.
>
> The blueprint at
> <https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-p-64bit-by-default>
> includes links to some data gathered by the inimitable Colin King, showing
> that in terms of performance, there are both pros and cons for switching to
> amd64: memory consumption goes up, and therefore power consumption goes up
> if the system is making more use of swap, but on the other side, most
> CPU-bound operations will be faster on amd64.  So there is no clear
> performance argument for preferring one over the other.
>
> Where multiarch is concerned, we've made good progress on library coverage;
> over 400 library packages are multiarch coinstallable in 12.04, including
> most of the usual suspects in the desktop stack, and indeed there are two
> packages in the partner repository now that are available only as i386
> packages installable using multiarch, instead of using ia32-libs which is
> now just a compatibility wrapper package.  So from what I've seen
> compatibility with 32-bit binary software is in pretty good shape as well.
>
> 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.
>
> And regardless of which we decide to use as the default, both of amd64 and
> i386 will continue to be supported architectures for the length of 12.04 LTS
> and will remain available for download.
>
> Feedback welcome!
>
>
>
>

Hello,

I am personally unaware of any 32-bit binary software that is not 
supported on amd64 via multi-arch it would seem most of the desktop
applications common to end users is supported well.

I think if there is the potential for better performance using the amd64
images that it might be beneficial for us to default to these images so
users get the best experience from the gate but I think the differences
in power consumption should be well announced via planet and other areas 
so as to educate users who are unfamiliar with not only the 
compatibility but also the pros and cons.



-- 
Benjamin Kerensa
benjaminkerensa.com | bkerensa at ubuntu.com
"I am what I am because of who we all are" - Ubuntu