[ALUG] 32 versus 64 bit

Jonathan McDowell noodles at earth.li
Mon Nov 17 13:38:50 GMT 2008


On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:58:15AM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 08:35 +0000, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
> > Definitely not.  In fact, the solution to my own problems might be
> > to do a clean install of a 32 bit environment.  Its just not worth
> > the aggravation.  Maybe if you need to be able to address more
> > memory.  Or if you don't install all kinds of odd things that are 32
> > bit only - something which has given me untold grief.  There don't
> > seem to be any gains, and there is lots of aggravation.
> 
> That's a shame, Here I have been 64bit on my main machine for almost 4
> years now. Initially I had some problems with 32bit only software and
> having to run a 32bit instance of Firefox for flash etc.

My only 64 bit on desktop issue these days is Flash, which works for a
bit and then dies (64 bit Iceweasel, nspluginwrapper and 32 bit Flash),
but I'm hopefully that Adobe's announcement of 64 bit Flash for Linux
will solve that one:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/17/adobe_64_bit_linux_flash_10_alpha/
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/

(I'll be trying it tonight when I'm back at my home box, which is the 64
bit one.)

J.

-- 
I just Fedexed my soul to hell. I'm *real* clever.




More information about the main mailing list