[ajross]

The point was that skype has no x86_64 version. So if you have a 64 bit install (random aside: I hope you're on an Atom netbook and not running a 32 bit linux on a desktop/laptop) it will pull all the i686 versions of its dependencies.

This probably works now on Ubuntu, which has finally rolled out a multilib implementation (that I haven't kicked the tires on yet).

[reidrac]

This a i3 M370, but I run a 32 bits OS because I got tired of running 64 bits with applications with no support for 64 bits (read: Flash browser plugin and Skype).

After some time I've found that there's no real advantage for me on a 64 bits OS for a laptop (ie. I have only 3GB of RAM, performance looks the same, etc).

[rmk2]

Flash has been X86_64 compatible for a while now...

  sh-4.2$ rpm -q flash-player
  flash-player-11.2.202.236-91.1.x86_64

(rpm query on openSUSE Tumbleweed)

  sh-4.2$ file /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so
  /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped

[reidrac]

Choppy sound (if not completely broken depending on the audio codec), crashes (I got core dumps daily), absurd CPU usage and made Firefox unstable.

I'm not a heavy flash user, but after 6 months I was really frustrated. The 32 bits version works great in comparison.

[jablan]

I apologize for the digression, but what's wrong with running 32bit linux on a desktop/laptop?

[ajross]

Apart from it being a measurably slower architecture (15-20% is typical) and the only sane way of dealing with large memory machines? (Laptops with 8G are routine today, and require a PAE kernel on i686). Refusing to upgrade is the reason that products like Skype continue to refuse to support 64 bit targets.

Just try it. Chances are you won't even notice the difference, except that your battery will last a tiny bit longer if you do compute-heavy stuff.

[jablan]

Tried it couple years ago and the only thing I noticed was that it used more memory (almost twice as much as 32bit IIRC). So I returned to 32bit and am still using it, with PAE kernel so I can use all 4 gigs that I have right now. I really don't feel a bit responsible because Skype refuses to support 64bit.

Another reason that I keep 32bit is portability, as I have quite a peculiar setup: I keep my Linux on a removable HDD, and boot off it on several different machines, which may or may not support 64bit. (So I don't have to tow my laptop to work and back every day.)

[ars]

You can run a 64 bit kernel, with a 32 bit userspace BTW, this lets you access all the memory on your machine.

Personally I'm waiting for debian multiarch to switch, since I have no desire to reinstall everything from scratch. If debian multiarch did not exist I might have bitten the bullet, but since it does, I can wait a bit for it.

[ajross]

Of course. Even better (best of both worlds, really) would be to run a 64 bit kernel with an x32 userspace: https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/

But those are still bleeding edge options for people comfortable with tinkering with their systems. I was speaking to the simple choice of i686 vs. x86_64 in pre-cooked systems.

[wtracy]

This may surprise you, but every laptop and desktop that I own has a 32-bit processor in it.

[MBCook]

How many years has it been since AMD released the Hammer architecture? There was actually a recent post on the LKML that mentioned this.

http://lwn.net/Articles/501769/

At this point, I see no reason to run a pure 32 bit userspace. There are no real advantages. The performance impacts are minor, and most people are over 4 GB (or should be).