On Wednesday 19 October 2005 09:00 pm, lordSauron wrote: > couldn't you apt-build an i386 version of it? Or is the source not > public? In any case, wouldn't it be possible to re-label the i386 > version amd64, since the processor will run it natively anyway? I say > that because in my experience the only way to change the distro's > architecture identification is to reinstall - not a good idea if you > still want to use amd64 stuff.
He wishes to use it in a pure-64 environment. You're asking him to install and load a bunch of compatibility libraries just to do webmasters the favor of viewing their content. Plus, it's not enough to have the plugin run as i386. Your browser must also be a 32-bit application, which causes other problems, among them the inability (or at least added complexity) of using your packaging system. I know this applies to Firefox, I think 64-bit Konqueror can use 32-bit Flash. > The way I read you, you're campaigning to remove all flash content > from every web site - not going to happen in a million years. You'd > be better off campaigning for a amd64 version. Plus Flash adds too > much content to the web to safely dispose of - many sites would be > rendered much less interesting... though just think of all the > bandwidth we'd save.... I think you're right that that's not going to happen, as nice as it might be. But why not state our position? And why not agitate for both? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]