4 ms·

I think it's almost entirely due to flash. Most users won't notice the difference between 32 and 64 bit machines, and it's still much simpler to use flash in a

I think it's almost entirely due to flash. Most users won't notice the difference between 32 and 64 bit machines, and it's still much simpler to use flash in a 32 bit browser. 32 bit chrome has flash bundled, and 64 bit chrome does not, which will cause confusion as well. At work, I use a 64bit OS with the pre-release of flash "square", but at home it's just easier to use 32 bit on my laptop.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
I run Ubuntu 64 bit on all of my systems and I've never had to do anything to get Flash to run, not with Firefox 3.6, Firefox 4 or Chrome Dev channel. Flash hasn't been an issue for quite some releases in Ubuntu.
- ominous_prime 15y ago
  > Flash hasn't been an issue for quite some releases in Ubuntu Your personal experience doesn't make it true for everyone. The official flash release has to be run through nspluginwrapper on 64-bit systems, which can be a pain when it doesn't work. Suggesting that the average user stick with the 32-bit release removes any support issues related to 32 vs 64-bit plugins (java included too) and nspluginwrapper, with no noticeable drawback for most users.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    That's simply not true any longer. It just isn't. It's not "my personal experience". If you install ubuntu-restricted-extras, all of this is done transparently without ANY work on the users' part. I would know, because I've never installed Flash manually on this system.
    - ominous_prime 15y ago
      Yes, this is done transparently, and most people won't have a problem. As with most things Ubuntu, as long as you go with the defaults, everything will work smoothly. What I'm saying, is that flash, java (plugin), and nspluginwrapper can be broken. It happens; and when it happens, it's not obvious what went wrong or how to fix it. Going 32-bit simply removes this support issue altogether.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

I run Ubuntu 64 bit on all of my systems and I've never had to do anything to get Flash to run, not with Firefox 3.6, Firefox 4 or Chrome Dev channel. Flash hasn't been an issue for quite some releases in Ubuntu.

ominous_prime 15y ago
> Flash hasn't been an issue for quite some releases in Ubuntu Your personal experience doesn't make it true for everyone. The official flash release has to be run through nspluginwrapper on 64-bit systems, which can be a pain when it doesn't work. Suggesting that the average user stick with the 32-bit release removes any support issues related to 32 vs 64-bit plugins (java included too) and nspluginwrapper, with no noticeable drawback for most users.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  That's simply not true any longer. It just isn't. It's not "my personal experience". If you install ubuntu-restricted-extras, all of this is done transparently without ANY work on the users' part. I would know, because I've never installed Flash manually on this system.
  - ominous_prime 15y ago
    Yes, this is done transparently, and most people won't have a problem. As with most things Ubuntu, as long as you go with the defaults, everything will work smoothly. What I'm saying, is that flash, java (plugin), and nspluginwrapper can be broken. It happens; and when it happens, it's not obvious what went wrong or how to fix it. Going 32-bit simply removes this support issue altogether.