> 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 gre
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> To me, the
> advantage of 64-bit is when you have more then 4G ram or are working
> with very large ( > 4G ) files. It is also useful if you are doing
> extensive numerical calculations that need high accuracy.
Another data point - AFAICT most of the key upstream toolchai
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 01:31:20PM +, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> There might be problems with some AV apps or libraries, and perhaps
> java and OOo - all the AV I use seems to work ok on x86_64-64
> (unlike on ppc, ppc64), and I avoid java and OOo (I tried a binary
> when it was staroffice and sti
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This even applies to Ubuntu 64bit which I have tried. I removed it
> within a few hours when I couldn't load Acrobat reader, various media
> codecs and several other apps...
>
I have been using Ubuntu Gutsy x86_64 since its
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 wi
Ioan Ionita wrote:
> 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.
What workloads? Are you comparing using the same hardwar
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 02:40:14PM +0200, Ioan Ionita wrote:
> > 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 p
Ioan Ionita wrote:
> 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?
Not FUD - This isn't some kind of OOXML war. I'm just
> 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
Alan Lord wrote:
>
> 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.
true
> Also, I have yet to see any dece
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
2008/3/24, Phillip Huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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/
>
> JH said the x86_64 LFS LiveCD was available in July 30,2007, and the above
>
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/
JH said the x86_64 LFS LiveCD was available in July 30,2007, and the above
link provide download address. However, I do not find any relev
13 matches
Mail list logo
