Alan Lord wrote: > Phillip Huang wrote: > >> Hello folks, >> >> I want to build LFS on my new 64bit platform(Intel EM64T), and I googled >> CLFS, >> while according to another link: http://lwn.net/Articles/243695/ >> >> > > 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. > For those just starting, 32bit seems to be the only working choice. It's what I'm starting with, and what I'd recommend.
However, 64bit is no longer the future. It is here, and has been for some time. They don't make 32bit processors any more. As others have pointed out, addressability of >3.5GB is needed soon. And some of the 64bit ops will produce more speed advantages when they are more widely used. For now, though, Vista-64 is quite mangy. And 64bit Linux is quite mangy. We need to make a greater effort to resolve the 64bit problems now. <fud>Do you want Microsoft to win the 64bit war?</fud> ;-) I don't mean to be arguing against anyone here, but some of the whinging and resignation urks me. Take action. Tackle those problems. Fix 'em, or if you don't know how, file a quality bug report. [Roll that inspirational music.] c4 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
