> I hope this isn't teaching you to suck eggs, but my experience with > various 64bit versions of Linux is - frankly - don't bother currently. > > There are too many issues and non-supported applications for native > 64bit platforms. So you end up needing to build a multi-lib system (both > 64 and 32bit libraries) which, to me anyway, feels like bloat that I can > do without.
FUD. No examples. What issues? What applications? of those, how many are closed-source? In my experience, Flash works flawlessly with nspluginwrapper, so no need for 32-bit firefox. Anything else problematic? Skype? > Also, I have yet to see any decent data that provides compelling reasons > such as performance improvement etc to make we want to go to 64bit. I'm, > sure the time will come, and maybe you have specific apps that would > really benefit from bigger address space etc, but I'm a "regular" kind > of Desktop user and there is more headache than benefit in it for me. I'm a regular kind of Desktop user myself and I'd never move back to 32-bit. I've been on x86_64 for almost 2 years now and it's been wonderful. My benchmarks have shown a 20% performance gain on some workloads. of course, distro comes into play too. I used to be a devoted LFS user. Until I tried to build a x86_64 LFS. Never got it working and gave up. I installed Ubuntu Feisty x86_64 a while later and I've been running it and upgrading smoothly all the way to Hardy beta. It's been absolutely great. So don't blame 64bit, blame LFS for not properly supporting it. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
