On 06/19/2011 05:16 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> AFAIK, any x86-64 chip still runs 32-bit i386 code just fine. :) I
> expect most people asking about 32-bit software are prolly running
> their x86-64 hardware in 32-bit mode, for whatever reason. (Inertia
> being a big one.)
This is true. Of cou
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> Additionally, AFAIK, neither AMD nor Intel make 32-bit chips any longer.
AFAIK, any x86-64 chip still runs 32-bit i386 code just fine. :) I
expect most people asking about 32-bit software are prolly running
their x86-64 hardware in 32-bi
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> The issue with Flash is that the 32-bit flash library will work fine on
> a 64-bit system with Firefox 64-bit through a wrapper (nsplugin). Or you
> can run the 32-bit Firefox. AFAIK, you can only download 32-but Firefox
> directly from Mozi
On 06/17/2011 12:25 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
> Indeed--where `whether something is 64bit-clean' was a natural question
> to ask a few years back, 64-bit machines were unusual `specialty' hardware,
> and many sofware projects just didn't have anyone involved who had
> access to such machines..
"Michael ODonnell" writes:
>
> "One Year Later: Adobe Abandons 64-bit Linux Again":
>
> http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2011/06/one-year-later-adobe-abandons.html
"This decision makes even less sense than it did a year ago.
32-bit processors have effectively become legacy technology.
"One Year Later: Adobe Abandons 64-bit Linux Again":
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2011/06/one-year-later-adobe-abandons.html
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>> Since Flash sucked & still does
> No need to specify the system or the timeframe ...
Indeed. Flash is basically a browser crash that also plays videos.
> ... most Flash sites I've found could be programmed with HTML
> only and be just as
> Since Flash sucked & still does
No need to specify the system or the timeframe - most Flash sites I've
found could be programmed with HTML only and be just as good. With
HTML5, no need for Flash (IMHO).
jeff
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-disc
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Chip Marshall wrote:
> ... Flash on Unix/Linux sucked back in the day ...
Nothing's changed, then.
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-di
On 06-Jun-2011, Benjamin Scott sent:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> > ... "http://www.dilbert.com/fast/"; ...
>
> Scott Adams blogged about this here:
>
> http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbertcom_redesign/
IIRC, back in 2008, the redesign in question made it so the
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> ... "http://www.dilbert.com/fast/"; ...
Scott Adams blogged about this here:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbertcom_redesign/
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.
Nice touch by Adams. Make it easy for the people that will not read the ads
and might generate an extra email complaining.
Dilbert was one of the 1st daily comic strips available on the net. It was
daily in its own usenet group in 1992 sometime.
Another one was Dr. Fun on one of the sunsites ba
I'm not *positive* this is a comment on the Unix philosophy... but, if
not, I can't think of what else it would be. I like comics. I read a
handful of them with regularity. One of these, you'll be shocked to hear,
is Dilbert. Usually, I get my comic fix over at Yahoo, but, sometimes,
some strip
13 matches
Mail list logo
