I've used many differnt Linux distributions over the years. I have briefly seen Ubuntu in action a few times but have never given it any serious usage. I'm thinking of downloading the latest Ubuntu and giving it a try in a virtual machine. I noticed that they recommend the 32-bit edition. In this day and age, does anyone know why they would recommend a 32-bit edition over a 64-bit edition? I did some Googling about it, and people say it's because some applications are only available in a 32-bit version, and Ubuntu has done more thorough testing with 32-bit software. However, for Intel processors, a 64-bit OS can typically run 32-bit software - Or is that not the case with Linux/Ubuntu? Since many computers these days have more than 4GB of RAM, I'd think that reason alone would be enough to go with a 64-bit OS.

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Ubuntu recommends 32-bit edition?
By: Nightfox to All on Sat Nov 10 2012 01:03 pm

and Ubuntu has done more thorough testing with 32-bit software. However, for Intel processors, a 64-bit OS can typically run 32-bit software - Or is that not the case with Linux/Ubuntu? Since many computers these days have more than 4GB of RAM, I'd think that reason alone would be enough to go
with a 64-bit OS.

they are probably recommending you use the 32bit version because you need to meet specific hw requirements to run a 64bit vm.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Ubuntu recommends 32-bit edition?
By: Mro to Nightfox on Sat Nov 10 2012 16:56:37

they are probably recommending you use the 32bit version because you need
to meet specific hw requirements to run a 64bit vm.

Perhaps.

I installed Ubuntu in a VM, and I'm not sure I like its GUI (particularly, the sidebar with the buttons on it).

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Ubuntu recommends 32-bit edition?
By: Nightfox to Mro on Sat Nov 10 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Ubuntu recommends 32-bit edition?
By: Mro to Nightfox on Sat Nov 10 2012 16:56:37

they are probably recommending you use the 32bit version because you
need to meet specific hw requirements to run a 64bit vm.

Perhaps.

ubuntu's gui tried so much to be like windows, it surpassed it.
you will probably be happier with xfce as a desktop env.

i prefer the cli in linux. i think all the gui's are shit.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Ubuntu recommends 32-bit edition?
By: Nightfox to Mro on Sat Nov 10 2012 11:29 pm

Subject: Ubuntu recommends 32-bit edition?
@VIA: DIGDIST
@MSGID: <509F45E4.3398.dove-hlp@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <509ECD95.1417.dove-hlp@bbses.info>
@TZ: 41e0
Re: Ubuntu recommends 32-bit edition?
By: Mro to Nightfox on Sat Nov 10 2012 16:56:37

they are probably recommending you use the 32bit version because you need to meet specific hw requirements to run a 64bit vm.

Perhaps.

I installed Ubuntu in a VM, and I'm not sure I like its GUI (particularly, t sidebar with the buttons on it).

Nightfox

me too. so I changed it to gnome classic.

"Practise safe Lunch, Use a Condiment"


---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: Ubuntu recommends 32-bit edition?
By: Mro to Nightfox on Sun Nov 11 2012 09:54:33

i prefer the cli in linux. i think all the gui's are shit.

I don't mind the CLI. I used to like Gnome up until around 2005-2006 (I think that was Gnome 2?). I thought it made sense, and I liked the built-in support for themes/skins.

Mint Linux with its Cinnamon desktop looks pretty good - Cinnamon is a fork of Gnome 2, so it's still the classic desktop environment without the new crap they've added to Gnome.

Nightfox


---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion BBS - digitaldistortionbbs.com