Comment 34 for bug 585940

Apart from the irrelevant comments of what "issues" people *think* that 64-bit Ubuntu "might" have, the bare facts are that for any definition whatsoever of "Daily Desktop Usage" 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04 is more than suitable.

The particular issue of Flash is easily solved by installing the native 64-bit plugin, and any other issues of people not being able to install 32-bit only 3rd party applications by definition means that these particular users are NOT using Ubuntu for "Daily Desktop Usage".

The facts are that for "Daily Desktop Usage" 64-bit Ubuntu is more than suitable, there have been no valid reasons given in this thread to counter that, so why is that obviously erroneous and misleading statement still on the web site?