Re: Do one thing well... (Flash)
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 course for a 32-bit program to run on a 64-bit OS, the OS must provide the proper envirnonment. Most Linux systems provide the facilities to add 32-bit libraries in addition to the native 64-bit libraries. Most distros set up 32-bit as the default. For instance, in Fedora, 565 MB, ISO format image for Intel-compatible PCs (32-bit) More download options... http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options You have to click another link to get DVD or 64-bit images. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well... (Flash)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org 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-bit mode, for whatever reason. (Inertia being a big one.) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well... (Flash)
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..., now I find myself fielding questions from users (though only occasionally!) about whether my packages are `known to work on 32-bit systems', and I know that I'm not alone-- I've seen messages on the mailing-lists for some of the embedded projects with which I'm involved, where people ask things like: Is it possible to get a build of the toolchain that runs on 32-bit hosts? I have a single 32-bit x86 machine left running in my workshop, and don't have any plans to replace it with a similar vintage when if it ever finally dies--I wouldn't even know where to get x86-32 hardware, anymore. Thank goodness for chroots and virtual machines, I guess. Reminds me of maddog's remark in his section on linuxpromagazine.com: http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Paw-Prints-Writings-of-the-maddog/Do-not-say-Closed-Source-or-Proprietary-Software-instead-say-Legacy-Software ... that `closed source' it's not merely closed source, but `legacy'-- from the moment that the binaries ship. Seeing Adobe's comments, I posted this remark on identi.ca, yesterday: Adobe suprised that only 1% of downloads are for legacy software that doesn't work or doesn't exist (wait—what?): http://lwn.net/Articles/447576/ Having been in the 64-bit world for 15 years I can comment to some extent. For the most part a 32-bit program will run fine on a 64-bit Linux. The main issue is that the vendor provide the appropriate 32-bit libraries, and Red Hat certainly does this with Fedora and RHEL. Also, you can expect a 32-bit application to run a bit faster on a 64-bit Linux than on a 32-bit Linux on the same hardware platform. 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 Mozilla although most Linux distros carry the 64-bit version. I've worked with companies who had native 32-bit and 64-bit builds of their products on various Unixes. Some vendors' 32-bit builds ran faster than their 64-bit builds, and others found their 64-but build ran faster. Additionally, AFAIK, neither AMD nor Intel make 32-bit chips any longer. My issue with 64-bit flash is that a couple of web sites don't render on the latest 64-bit flash, so I downgrade to the older flash. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well... (Flash)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org 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 Mozilla although most Linux distros carry the 64-bit version. I wonder how Google Chrome does it because, as far as I know, they include their own version of flash with the browser and I see on their download page for Linux that you can get both 32 and 64-bit packages. I'm guessing it's just a wrapper of some kind. - Chris ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well... (Flash)
Michael ODonnell michael.odonn...@comcast.net 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. Even the low end of the market, nettops and netbooks, now mainly ship with 64-bit processors. Yet it seems Adobe is unable to maintain a 64-bit Flash player for any platform: not for Windows, not for MacOS, and certainly not for Linux. 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..., now I find myself fielding questions from users (though only occasionally!) about whether my packages are `known to work on 32-bit systems', and I know that I'm not alone-- I've seen messages on the mailing-lists for some of the embedded projects with which I'm involved, where people ask things like: Is it possible to get a build of the toolchain that runs on 32-bit hosts? I have a single 32-bit x86 machine left running in my workshop, and don't have any plans to replace it with a similar vintage when if it ever finally dies--I wouldn't even know where to get x86-32 hardware, anymore. Thank goodness for chroots and virtual machines, I guess. Reminds me of maddog's remark in his section on linuxpromagazine.com: http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Paw-Prints-Writings-of-the-maddog/Do-not-say-Closed-Source-or-Proprietary-Software-instead-say-Legacy-Software ... that `closed source' it's not merely closed source, but `legacy'-- from the moment that the binaries ship. Seeing Adobe's comments, I posted this remark on identi.ca, yesterday: Adobe suprised that only 1% of downloads are for legacy software that doesn't work or doesn't exist (wait—what?): http://lwn.net/Articles/447576/ -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well...
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-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well...
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Jeffry Smith jsm...@alum.mit.edu 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 good. If not better. I also sarcasm level=drippinglove/sarcasm sites that use JavaScript instead of A HREF= tags for links. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well... (Flash)
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/
Re: Do one thing well...
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 back in the day, The archive may still be there. On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio k...@jots.org wrote: Today, I noticed a link near the bottom of the page: Unix/Linux. Thinking that this might be Unix/Linux-themed strips, I clicked on it. And was presented with today's strip. Looking at it, I thought to myself, How does this relate to Unix/Linux? Then I realized that the URL pointed to by the link was http://www.dilbert.com/fast/;, and that the page was stripped down to navigation of past strips, and the most rudimentary of advertising. Some days, I enjoy Scott Adams more than usual. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well...
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio k...@jots.org 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.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well...
On 06-Jun-2011, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com sent: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio k...@jots.org 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 current comic was only viewable in a Flash widget. Since Flash on Unix/Linux sucked back in the day, a lot of Linux user complained that they couldn't read the strip anymore, which is likely why the link is labelled Unix/Linux to get the low-fat Flash-less version. -- Chip Marshall c...@2bithacker.net http://weblog.2bithacker.net/ KB1QYWPGP key ID 43C4819E v4sw5PUhw4/5ln5pr5FOPck4ma4u6FLOw5Xm5l5Ui2e4t4/5ARWb7HKOen6a2Xs5IMr2g6CM pgpdSOpLzKott.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Do one thing well...
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Chip Marshall c...@2bithacker.net 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-discuss/
