Re: 64-bit linux

[Amos Shapira]

2008/7/5 Noam Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 64-bit generally works, yes. It's just that the little things in the
>> edges can get annoying at some stage.
>>
>> Did you get Flash to work (I mean - to a level that allows you to view
>> all the Flash-using web sites that you care about)?
>
> Flash works in kubuntu 8.04 64bit, out of the box. (using nspluginwrapper)

:-) Thanks for the update.
I wonder whether this has something to do with Kubuntu (vs.
Ubuntu/GNOME), or maybe my Ubuntu was tainted from my attempt to stick
to Open Source before trying Adobe's plugin.

> Same goes for Acrobat Reader plugin.

Evince is just fine for my needs, even the older version I still have
on Debian Etch at work.

> It was such a joy for me to discover this after the upgrade...

I bet :)

Cheers,

--Amos

=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 64-bit linux

[Boaz Rymland]

Same with me - flash worked out of the box inc. its sound. I don't even 
remember any special packages that I needed to install for (this doesn't 
mean that they weren't any but I don't have bad memories of it).



Noam Meltzer wrote:




On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:



64-bit generally works, yes. It's just that the little things in the
edges can get annoying at some stage.

Did you get Flash to work (I mean - to a level that allows you to view
all the Flash-using web sites that you care about)?


Flash works in kubuntu 8.04 64bit, out of the box. (using nspluginwrapper)
Same goes for Acrobat Reader plugin.
It was such a joy for me to discover this after the upgrade...

This actually closed all the little edges which bothered me for 1.5 
years in kubuntu 64bit.

Re: 64-bit linux

[Noam Meltzer]

On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> 64-bit generally works, yes. It's just that the little things in the
> edges can get annoying at some stage.
>
> Did you get Flash to work (I mean - to a level that allows you to view
> all the Flash-using web sites that you care about)?
>

Flash works in kubuntu 8.04 64bit, out of the box. (using nspluginwrapper)
Same goes for Acrobat Reader plugin.
It was such a joy for me to discover this after the upgrade...

This actually closed all the little edges which bothered me for 1.5 years in
kubuntu 64bit.

Re: 64-bit linux

[Amos Shapira]

2008/7/5 Boaz Rymland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, to me, there was some hassle, but frankly its not that great. Just
> recently I've installed Kubuntu 8.04, 64bit version on my office desktop
> (some new Dell machine). I don't remember anything too special I needed to
> mess with.

64-bit generally works, yes. It's just that the little things in the
edges can get annoying at some stage.

Did you get Flash to work (I mean - to a level that allows you to view
all the Flash-using web sites that you care about)?

>
> Also, things are improving with time so I guess bad experiences from the
> past are becoming more and more - a thing of the past (like Linux usage in
> general, which is becoming more convenient, skipping the need to be a rocket
> scientist to get a common and useful functionality out of it).

Certainly! Though I reported about experience with 7.10 and 8.04, the
two latest Ubuntu releases, one about 4-5 months since it was released
so most of the trivial bugs should have been fixed and one was just
released with all the latest improvements.

--Amos

=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 64-bit linux

[Boaz Rymland]

Well, to me, there was some hassle, but frankly its not that great. Just 
recently I've installed Kubuntu 8.04, 64bit version on my office desktop 
(some new Dell machine). I don't remember anything too special I needed 
to mess with.


Also, things are improving with time so I guess bad experiences from the 
past are becoming more and more - a thing of the past (like Linux usage 
in general, which is becoming more convenient, skipping the need to be a 
rocket scientist to get a common and useful functionality out of it).



Boaz.


Amos Shapira wrote:


2008/7/5 Boaz Rymland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
  

Usually you'll come quite quickly on a need for the 32bit libraries, be it
for (I'm not sure I'm correct or updated with all my examples) Flash plug-in
for your browser (or other browser issues, like firebug extension, although
I think in FF3 this is solved), Sun Java JRE and some other propriety or
closed source applications/libraries (perhaps skype client as well, for
sound device usage, not sure).

In any case, I don't think there's any harm from installing those libraries
so I guess that either way is safe and ok to go.



My personal experience is that 64 bit (7.10 and 8.04) on Desktop
wasn't worth the hassle if you want to use proprietary software -
Flash never worked well (non-Adobe aren't there yet) and other
proprietary software (Picasa, possibly Google Earth but this week I
noticed that they have 64-bit version for that) also was a hassle to
install and then didn't work (don't remember details). I since
switched to 32-bit and forgot all about it.

Back when I had 64 bit, I followed all sorts of how-to's on getting
things working with it and it never was right (e.g. Flash never
worked).

Now with 32 bit on my desktop and laptop, I don't see any
disadvantages (it doesn't feel any slower and it can make use of the
2Gb RAM I have).

I don't use my desktops for C/C++ development. I do most of my dev in
Perl now and use (64bit) CentOS servers for production deployment.
Your requirements may vary.

--Amos

=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]


  

Re: 64-bit linux

[Eran Levy]

Hi Amos,
You are right. Yesterday I reinstalled the 32bit version. The 64-bit
compilation didn't work well and I had to waste my time to make SIMPLE
things work... so I just decided to move back to 32-bit compilation.
Anyway, it was a good experience.

Thanks

On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 2008/7/5 Boaz Rymland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Usually you'll come quite quickly on a need for the 32bit libraries, be
> it
> > for (I'm not sure I'm correct or updated with all my examples) Flash
> plug-in
> > for your browser (or other browser issues, like firebug extension,
> although
> > I think in FF3 this is solved), Sun Java JRE and some other propriety or
> > closed source applications/libraries (perhaps skype client as well, for
> > sound device usage, not sure).
> >
> > In any case, I don't think there's any harm from installing those
> libraries
> > so I guess that either way is safe and ok to go.
>
> My personal experience is that 64 bit (7.10 and 8.04) on Desktop
> wasn't worth the hassle if you want to use proprietary software -
> Flash never worked well (non-Adobe aren't there yet) and other
> proprietary software (Picasa, possibly Google Earth but this week I
> noticed that they have 64-bit version for that) also was a hassle to
> install and then didn't work (don't remember details). I since
> switched to 32-bit and forgot all about it.
>
> Back when I had 64 bit, I followed all sorts of how-to's on getting
> things working with it and it never was right (e.g. Flash never
> worked).
>
> Now with 32 bit on my desktop and laptop, I don't see any
> disadvantages (it doesn't feel any slower and it can make use of the
> 2Gb RAM I have).
>
> I don't use my desktops for C/C++ development. I do most of my dev in
> Perl now and use (64bit) CentOS servers for production deployment.
> Your requirements may vary.
>
> --Amos
>
> =
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Eran

Re: 64-bit linux

[Amos Shapira]

2008/7/5 Boaz Rymland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Usually you'll come quite quickly on a need for the 32bit libraries, be it
> for (I'm not sure I'm correct or updated with all my examples) Flash plug-in
> for your browser (or other browser issues, like firebug extension, although
> I think in FF3 this is solved), Sun Java JRE and some other propriety or
> closed source applications/libraries (perhaps skype client as well, for
> sound device usage, not sure).
>
> In any case, I don't think there's any harm from installing those libraries
> so I guess that either way is safe and ok to go.

My personal experience is that 64 bit (7.10 and 8.04) on Desktop
wasn't worth the hassle if you want to use proprietary software -
Flash never worked well (non-Adobe aren't there yet) and other
proprietary software (Picasa, possibly Google Earth but this week I
noticed that they have 64-bit version for that) also was a hassle to
install and then didn't work (don't remember details). I since
switched to 32-bit and forgot all about it.

Back when I had 64 bit, I followed all sorts of how-to's on getting
things working with it and it never was right (e.g. Flash never
worked).

Now with 32 bit on my desktop and laptop, I don't see any
disadvantages (it doesn't feel any slower and it can make use of the
2Gb RAM I have).

I don't use my desktops for C/C++ development. I do most of my dev in
Perl now and use (64bit) CentOS servers for production deployment.
Your requirements may vary.

--Amos

=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 64-bit linux

[Boaz Rymland]

Usually you'll come quite quickly on a need for the 32bit libraries, be 
it for (I'm not sure I'm correct or updated with all my examples) Flash 
plug-in for your browser (or other browser issues, like firebug 
extension, although I think in FF3 this is solved), Sun Java JRE and 
some other propriety or closed source applications/libraries (perhaps 
skype client as well, for sound device usage, not sure).


In any case, I don't think there's any harm from installing those 
libraries so I guess that either way is safe and ok to go.



Boaz.


Eran Levy wrote:


Hi All,
I've got a new duo-core laptop and installed the Ubuntu 64-bit 
compilation for the first time. Anything you can recommend? ALL 32-bit 
application can work on 64-bit? any exceptions? even GTK?

Should I install any 32-bit libraries?

Thanks for your help,
Eran


=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 64-bit linux

[Eran Levy]

Oren, thanks.
"Anything you can recommend?" - means, any specific recommendations? - like
- configurations, etc.
But I think you answered my questions. I will google for documents based on
your answer.

Thx
Eran

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Oren Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> x86_64 (recognized by 'lm' flag in /proc/cpuinfo) is fully backward
> compatible
> (16/32 bit).
>
> Of course, a 32bit binary would require 32bit libraries and vice versa (so
> you
> cannot use 32bit plugins in 64bit firefox without a hack, for example).
>
> Even though x86_64 is mature enough to have all foss in 64bit form, x86_64
> distributions (at least fedora/redhat) still supply popular libraries (i.e.
> libc) in 32bit form.
>
> I didn't understand your "Anything you can recommend?" question.
>
>  - Oren
>
> On Friday, 4 July 2008 19:35:46 Eran Levy wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > I've got a new duo-core laptop and installed the Ubuntu 64-bit
> compilation
> > for the first time. Anything you can recommend? ALL 32-bit application
> can
> > work on 64-bit? any exceptions? even GTK?
> > Should I install any 32-bit libraries?
> >
> > Thanks for your help,
> > Eran
>
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Eran

Re: 64-bit linux

[Oren Held]

x86_64 (recognized by 'lm' flag in /proc/cpuinfo) is fully backward compatible 
(16/32 bit).

Of course, a 32bit binary would require 32bit libraries and vice versa (so you 
cannot use 32bit plugins in 64bit firefox without a hack, for example).

Even though x86_64 is mature enough to have all foss in 64bit form, x86_64 
distributions (at least fedora/redhat) still supply popular libraries (i.e. 
libc) in 32bit form.

I didn't understand your "Anything you can recommend?" question.

 - Oren

On Friday, 4 July 2008 19:35:46 Eran Levy wrote:
> Hi All,
> I've got a new duo-core laptop and installed the Ubuntu 64-bit compilation
> for the first time. Anything you can recommend? ALL 32-bit application can
> work on 64-bit? any exceptions? even GTK?
> Should I install any 32-bit libraries?
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Eran



=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 64-bit linux and 32-bit applications

[Ilya Konstantinov]

On Dec 19, 2007 4:33 PM, Moshe Gorohovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I want to install 32-bit vlc, mplayer and xine on 64-bit CentOS system.
> Will I need to install 32-bit versions of all dependencies,
> 32-bit libxine, libavcodec, etc.?


Yes. yum should do it for you, assuming it has the proper sources available.

Will these 32-bit libraries work if I already installed
> 64-bit libavcodec?


Nope, the 64-bit libavcodec won't help a single bit.

Re: 64-bit linux and 32-bit applications

[Moshe Gorohovsky]

Hi list,

Thanks for your replies.

I want to install 32-bit vlc, mplayer and xine on 64-bit CentOS system.
Will I need to install 32-bit versions of all dependencies,
32-bit libxine, libavcodec, etc.?

Will these 32-bit libraries work if I already installed
64-bit libavcodec?

Ilya Konstantinov wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 9:32 AM, Moshe Gorohovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


What is the prevailing opinion about installing and running
32-bit applications and shared libraries on 64-bit Linux
operating systems?


It's a perfectly okay thing to do.

Naturally it's a waste of memory (cause you end up loading similar sets 
of libraries twice), but it's not a sin.


Do Red Hat based 64-bit operating systems support 32-bit
applications and shared libraries, but Debian based 64-bit
operating systems do not?


They both do. The 32-bit support is a kernel thing. IIRC, the userspace 
facilities are a bit different: RedHat stores the 32-bit programs in the 
same filesystem hierarchy as the 64-bit ones (/usr/lib vs. /usr/lib64) 
whereas Debian shelves 32-bit binaries away in some chroot.


Also, at least as of two years ago, RPM supported installing multiple 
architecture versions of a package whereas APT/dpkg did not (but 64-bit 
Debian maintains the 32-bit stuff in a chroot so I guess it maintains 
separate dpkg databases for it).


--
Moshe Gorohovsky

A6 CC A7 E1 C2 BD 8C 1B  30 8E A4 C3 4C 09 88 47   Tk Open Systems Ltd.
---
  - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -

=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 64-bit linux and 32-bit applications

[Micha]

Sorry, reply to list doesn't work with linux-il for some reason (at least with
sylpheed claws) re-posting to the list ...

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:31:42 +0200
"Ilya Konstantinov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Dec 19, 2007 9:32 AM, Moshe Gorohovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > What is the prevailing opinion about installing and running
> > 32-bit applications and shared libraries on 64-bit Linux
> > operating systems?
> 
> 
> It's a perfectly okay thing to do.
> 
> Naturally it's a waste of memory (cause you end up loading similar sets of
> libraries twice), but it's not a sin.
> 
> Do Red Hat based 64-bit operating systems support 32-bit
> > applications and shared libraries, but Debian based 64-bit
> > operating systems do not?
> 
> 
> They both do. The 32-bit support is a kernel thing. IIRC, the userspace
> facilities are a bit different: RedHat stores the 32-bit programs in the
> same filesystem hierarchy as the 64-bit ones (/usr/lib vs. /usr/lib64)
> whereas Debian shelves 32-bit binaries away in some chroot.
> 
> Also, at least as of two years ago, RPM supported installing multiple
> architecture versions of a package whereas APT/dpkg did not (but 64-bit
> Debian maintains the 32-bit stuff in a chroot so I guess it maintains
> separate dpkg databases for it).

I don't know exactly how things are run but on by amd64 debian system I have
under / the directories

drwxr-xr-x  15 root root 12288 2007-12-19 09:34 lib
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root root20 2007-10-12 01:01 lib32 -> /emul/ia32-linux/lib
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root root 4 2007-10-12 00:32 lib64 -> /lib

 I don't anything special to run the 32 bit stuff though

=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 64-bit linux and 32-bit applications

[Ilya Konstantinov]

On Dec 19, 2007 9:32 AM, Moshe Gorohovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What is the prevailing opinion about installing and running
> 32-bit applications and shared libraries on 64-bit Linux
> operating systems?


It's a perfectly okay thing to do.

Naturally it's a waste of memory (cause you end up loading similar sets of
libraries twice), but it's not a sin.

Do Red Hat based 64-bit operating systems support 32-bit
> applications and shared libraries, but Debian based 64-bit
> operating systems do not?


They both do. The 32-bit support is a kernel thing. IIRC, the userspace
facilities are a bit different: RedHat stores the 32-bit programs in the
same filesystem hierarchy as the 64-bit ones (/usr/lib vs. /usr/lib64)
whereas Debian shelves 32-bit binaries away in some chroot.

Also, at least as of two years ago, RPM supported installing multiple
architecture versions of a package whereas APT/dpkg did not (but 64-bit
Debian maintains the 32-bit stuff in a chroot so I guess it maintains
separate dpkg databases for it).