32-bit firefox should be included in AMD64 (x86-64) distribution

[A.Kromic]

Binary package hint: firefox

There are several reasons to do this - first and foremost for 32-bit plugin compatibility and without using the quirky nspluginwrapper, and there are still some other rough edges including some java issues. 32-bit version also uses less memory .

Even the M$ includes 32-bit IE in their "x64" systems ;)

[Micah Gersten (micahg)]

Thank you for taking the time to make Ubuntu better. Since what you submitted is a Feature Request to improve Ubuntu, you are invited to post your idea in Ubuntu Brainstorm at [WWW] https://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ where it can be discussed, voted by the community and reviewed by developers. Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion!

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

MS didnt support 64bit until XP and it was flaky than not sure how vista is but either way please try not to compare what we do to what windows does. If you havent noticed that they are totally different use, packages, support, ect...

I can somewhat agree with you, However for the users that want 64bit app versions this will mean installing it and im going out on a limb to say that some people prefer 64 bit above 32bit. Without a control group of users being polled there is not really a way to know.

[A.Kromic (akromic)]

All I'm trying is to point out how a 32-bit browser on a 64-bit system is a good idea. My comparison of windows and linux is technically correct here.

I've also used 32-bit and 64-bit both linux and windows, including 32-bit vista (yuck), and also tried 32-bit firefox on the 64-bit ubuntu. The final conclusion is simply that 32-bit firefox always works better and more stable (more compatible with plugins and java), and also consumes less memory than the 64-bit.

I'm quite a bit diappointed with the 64-bit ff, not only it eats enormous amounts of memory, but java support is so broken that I cannot access my bank's e-banking applet on this computer at all, and it's quite a problem for me. I must say, if there isn't a 32-bit ff in the next ubuntu version, I guess I'll abandon the 64-bit distro altogether and install 32-bit ubuntu.

[Micah Gersten (micahg)]

If you're having an issue with Java support, then by all means open a
new bug report. I have been using the 64 bit version of Firefox for
quite a while and have no problems with Java support. As for the
request it has been registered. If you'd like to push it through
faster, you'll need feedback from the community and this is not the
place for it. You could make a proposal on http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com
Otherwise, it'll wait until someone has time and wants to work on it
like any other feature request.

akromic wrote:
> All I'm trying is to point out how a 32-bit browser on a 64-bit system
> is a good idea. My comparison of windows and linux is technically
> correct here.
>
> I've also used 32-bit and 64-bit both linux and windows, including
> 32-bit vista (yuck), and also tried 32-bit firefox on the 64-bit ubuntu.
> The final conclusion is simply that 32-bit firefox always works better
> and more stable (more compatible with plugins and java), and also
> consumes less memory than the 64-bit.
>
> I'm quite a bit diappointed with the 64-bit ff, not only it eats
> enormous amounts of memory, but java support is so broken that I cannot
> access my bank's e-banking applet on this computer at all, and it's
> quite a problem for me. I must say, if there isn't a 32-bit ff in the
> next ubuntu version, I guess I'll abandon the 64-bit distro altogether
> and install 32-bit ubuntu.
>
>

[A.Kromic (akromic)]

Actually, I've sorted java problems too, various browser plugins (most and foremost Adobe Flash) are more problematic. Fortunately there is at least an experimental 64-bit Adobe Flash plugin (alternative ones still don't work quite right for me)...

[A.Kromic (akromic)]

Yes, even though we didn't get a 32-bit browser, things are fortunately getting better. We now have at least alpha-stage 64-bit Adobe Flash, and having a 64-bit Java, we've covered most of the plugin needs without resorting to the awful nspluginwrapper...

[A.Kromic (akromic)]

I extend this "wish" to Oneiric and FF8 :)

I'm currently using upstream 32-bit FF and the difference is significant - it takes about 600MB in a session where the 64-bit one gets about 1100MB!

[Micah Gersten (micahg)]

Moving to firefox source now. This is in theory possible with multiarch someday, but we're not there yet.

[Juhani Numminen (jsonic)]

Marking as fixed because "sudo apt install firefox:i386" succeeds and gives 32-bit firefox on 64-bit Ubuntu 16.04 where I tested :)