32bit multilib support in the future

[sunburnt]

I've been reading a lot about Ubuntu dropping 32bit multilib support, which is going to have a huge impact on being able to run old 32bit stuff through Wine. As Mint is dependent on Ubuntu this is causing me some anxiety because I have a lot of older stuff I need to run. Is there any discussion on what might be happening in the future re Mint's ability to use Wine 32bit?

[trymeout]

Just heard about this too and will like to know. Mint is my favorite distro since it is easy to use and stable. I heard Pop_OS is gonna keep supporting 32 bit.

[Pjotr]

Note that this doesn't become a matter of importance until May, 2023: the EOL date of Mint 19.x. So not urgent at all.

By then, you can re-evaluate. The Wine and Steam devs may then have switched to 64-bit as well.

[Mick-Cork]

A comment by Clem on this subject here: https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3751#div-comment-149635

[MadmanRB]

So that is some hope at least.
But yes sadly this does mean the end for Linux mint on 32bit hardware, but if it means they will try to maintain multilib support i will take it.

[michael louwe]

So that is some hope at least.
But yes sadly this does mean the end for Linux mint on 32bit hardware, but if it means they will try to maintain multilib support i will take it.

.
64bit hardware can run both 64bit and 32bit OS. 64bit OS can run both 64bit and 32bit software. 32bit hardware/CPU and 32bit OS can only run 32bit software.

I think it is also foolish of Linux developers to remove 32bit ISO/image files or 32bit OS which can also be run on 64bit hardware. Is there a rule/decree that says 64bit hardware must run 64bit OS and/or 64bit software.?

[rene]

Is there a rule/decree that says 64bit hardware must run 64bit OS and/or 64bit software.?

No. Much like there's no rule/decree that says one should walk forwards rather than backwards. I.e., feel perfectly free...

[michael louwe]

Is there a rule/decree that says 64bit hardware must run 64bit OS and/or 64bit software.?

No. Much like there's no rule/decree that says one should walk forwards rather than backwards. I.e., feel perfectly free...

.
That means, you are against backwards compatibility in computer hardware and software.
.

Compatible with earlier models or versions of the same product. A new version of a program is said to be backward compatible if it can use files and data created with an older version of the same program. A computer is said to be backward compatible if it can run the same softwareas the previous model of the computer.

Backward compatibility is important because it eliminates the need to start over when you upgrade to a newer product. A backward-compatible word processor, for instance, allows you to edit documentscreated with a previous version of the program. In general, manufacturers try to keep all their products backward compatible. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to sacrifice backward compatibility to take advantage of a new technology.

https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/backwa ... tible.html

https://www.technobuffalo.com/why-backw ... -important - Why Backwards Compatibility is Important

[MrEen]

But he's obviously not against walking backwards.

I do fail to see how rene's statement can be interpreted as being against backwards compatibility though.

[BenTrabetere]

I think it is also foolish of Linux developers to remove 32bit ISO/image files or 32bit OS which can also be run on 64bit hardware. Is there a rule/decree that says 64bit hardware must run 64bit OS and/or 64bit software.?

That is so much nonsense. Whether it is possible to run a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware is irrelevant - a big reason not to do this is a 32-bit OS is limited to 4GB addressable memory. My recently retired antique had an Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 4GB RAM, and a 1GB video card; if memory serves, a 32-bit OS (both Linux and Win7) could only "see" about 2.5GB RAM.

[rene]

That means, you are against backwards compatibility in computer hardware and software.

Clearly it means no such thing; means in the first place only what it in fact says, and which is that you are free to do dumb things. I.e., much like your proposal of running a 32-bit OS on any 64-bit system that adheres to Mint's current system requirements in the first place (note that there's many threads on the forum explaining the technical detail behind it being a bad idea to run a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware already with 1G of RAM, certainly with more; that I shan't do so again.)

Obviously means in second place that you should however not expect to be able to convince many others to also walk backwards --- and much less demand they do.

As to the actual subject of this thread, running 32-bit software on a 64-bit OS... this requires some entity having to in fact maintain that entire 32-bit software stack including rather involved parts such as X libraries and Mesa. With the demise of actual 32-bit systems this means that Ubuntu would and apparently already is chasing a fast bitrotting software base. You think much too lightly of the issues involved: someone with the budget (and control) of Microsoft could and does provide for this; having Ubuntu justify it requires quite a bit more than technically uninformed ramblings on internet fora...

[michael louwe]

I think it is also foolish of Linux developers to remove 32bit ISO/image files or 32bit OS which can also be run on 64bit hardware. Is there a rule/decree that says 64bit hardware must run 64bit OS and/or 64bit software.?

That is so much nonsense. Whether it is possible to run a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware is irrelevant - a big reason not to do this is a 32-bit OS is limited to 4GB addressable memory. My recently retired antique had an Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 4GB RAM, and a 1GB video card; if memory serves, a 32-bit OS (both Linux and Win7) could only "see" about 2.5GB RAM.

.
Fyi, today there are still many new budget OEM 64bit computers for sale that come with only 4GB or 2GB of RAM.

[michael louwe]

Clearly it means no such thing; means in the first place only what it in fact says, and which is that you are free to do dumb things. I.e., much like your proposal of running a 32-bit OS on any 64-bit system that adheres to Mint's current system requirements in the first place (note that there's many threads on the forum explaining the technical detail behind it being a bad idea to run a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware already with 1G of RAM, certainly with more; that I shan't do so again.)

.
I believe many threads on the forum explain in technical details behind it being a bad idea to run a 64bit OS on a 64bit hardware with 1GB to 2GB of RAM. .......

... .That is; if you have less than 2GiB of memory go 32-bit. If you have 4GiB or more definitely 64-bit, although not really in an "obvious" sense but in the above sketched one.... ....

viewtopic.php?t=225843 - On dual cores - 32bit or 64bit?

[michael louwe]

Obviously means in second place that you should however not expect to be able to convince many others to also walk backwards --- and much less demand they do.

As to the actual subject of this thread, running 32-bit software on a 64-bit OS... this requires some entity having to in fact maintain that entire 32-bit software stack including rather involved parts such as X libraries and Mesa. With the demise of actual 32-bit systems this means that Ubuntu would and apparently already is chasing a fast bitrotting software base. You think much too lightly of the issues involved: someone with the budget (and control) of Microsoft could and does provide for this; having Ubuntu justify it requires quite a bit more than technically uninformed ramblings on internet fora...

.
Like I said before, 64bit computer hardware can run both 64bit and 32bit OS, and in turn 64bit OS can run both 64bit and 32bit/i386 software = backwards compatibility provided by the manufacturers and most OS vendors.
....... By dropping 32bit ISO files and 32bit/i386 libraries/software, Canonical has broken backwards compatibility for 64bit computer hardware and 64bit Ubuntu(19.10+) = can only run 64bit Ubuntu and 64bit software. This is dumb and anti-consumer.

If Canonical does not have the resources to support 32bit/i386 libraries/software, she should walk back out of the OS vendor market. Imagine the mostly volunteer-based Debian and Archlinux have the resources to still support 32bit/i386 libraries/software but Canonical claims she doesn't have. What a crock.!

[lsemmens]

Seriously, backwards compatibility? We have been spoilt in computerland, not that I want that to change. These days if you purchase a new (insert product of choice here) what are the chances that items from a bygone product of the same type/manufacturer are going to fit/work with the new product? Even the ubiquitous car radio is becoming highly specialised these days and unless you are prepared to do a lot of work with a drill and hacksaw, brand A will not fit Brand B's home spot in your car.

If you want to run an old car, you purchase an old car, you don't purchase the latest and greatest and then "retro fit" it to behave like a Model T?

[michael louwe]

Seriously, backwards compatibility? We have been spoilt in computerland, not that I want that to change. These days if you purchase a new (insert product of choice here) what are the chances that items from a bygone product of the same type/manufacturer are going to fit/work with the new product? Even the ubiquitous car radio is becoming highly specialised these days and unless you are prepared to do a lot of work with a drill and hacksaw, brand A will not fit Brand B's home spot in your car.

If you want to run an old car, you purchase an old car, you don't purchase the latest and greatest and then "retro fit" it to behave like a Model T?

.
Backwards compatibility is normally for 1 generation back only, and not for bygone generations; ....... eg 64bit is backwards compatible with 32bit but no longer with 16 bit and 8bit; ... USB 3.0 and USB 2.0, no more USB 1.0; 4G and 3G; ipv6 and ipv4; Playstation 4 and PS3 games, etc.

[rene]

I believe many threads on the forum explain in technical details behind it being a bad idea to run a 64bit OS on a 64bit hardware with 1GB to 2GB of RAM. .......

None whatsoever (well, no informed ones certainly). Even my own old quote above says that up to 2G I personally find it technically okay to have the somewhat smaller footprint of 32-bit code and data compensate for the only 1G of permanently mapped RAM when using a standard 32-bit kernel (actually 896M) and more so with a custom compiled kernel that allows for a permanent mapping of the full 2G. With a standard distribution kernel 32-bit is still the technically wrong choice at 2G and, really, even at 1G; doubly when we factor in waning support for 32-bit applications.

To quote the Mint 19.1 system requirements: "1GB RAM (2GB recommended for a comfortable usage)".

Imagine the mostly volunteer-based Debian and Archlinux have the resources to still support 32bit/i386 libraries/software but Canonical claims she doesn't have. What a crock.!

And from where do you, dear ignoramus, expect that the fixes that go into the upstream projects that Debian and Arch then in turn pull down currently come from?

[bugeyedalien]

Seriously, backwards compatibility? We have been spoilt in computerland, not that I want that to change. These days if you purchase a new (insert product
<snip>
If you want to run an old car, you purchase an old car, you don't purchase the latest and greatest and then "retro fit" it to behave like a Model T?

If you have this attitude, use macOS .. or Windows, it has no place in Linux land - on the other hand, Windows HAS a lot of focus on bw compatibility.
And that is probably why they push Canonical (conspiracy theory) to make sure wine never again is a threat to Windows.

[michael louwe]

Imagine the mostly volunteer-based Debian and Archlinux have the resources to still support 32bit/i386 libraries/software but Canonical claims she doesn't have. What a crock.!

And from where do you, dear ignoramus, expect that the fixes that go into the upstream projects that Debian and Arch then in turn pull down currently come from?

Fyi, Canonical has already announced that they aren't providing any updates/fixes for the 32bit/i386 libraries in Ubuntu 18.04. So, who is the ignoramus.?

Steve Langasek; ... "I’m sorry that we’ve given anyone the impression that we are ‘dropping support for i386 applications‘. It is simply not the case. What we are dropping is updates to the i386 libraries, which will be frozen at the 18.04 LTS versions.”. ...

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/is- ... -after-all

[xenopeek]

This doesn't impact Linux Mint until development cycle of Linux Mint 20 next year. Clem has already commented they'll do what they can to make important 32-bit programs work on Linux Mint 20: https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3751#comment-149639. Right now is way too early to start worrying for Linux Mint 20; let the dust settle on the announcement, there's no impact till at earliest Linux Mint 20 mid next year though Linux Mint 19.x can keep running till mid 2023. To avoid discussion about the same in multiple places, locking this topic. For further discussion please join viewtopic.php?f=61&t=296292.