[SLUG] 64 bit.
Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- Josh Smith Insist on yourself, never imitate... Every great man is Unique. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
I use 64 bit ubuntu 9.10 and haven't noticed anything wrong. The only thing that I suspect that doesn't work for me because of 64 bit, and I never got around to investigate, is the Yammer Adobe Air application. It installs and runs, but some parts don't work. From home on 32 bits it works well. In case this matters - a few weeks ago I asked the same question here in the forum, maybe you can dig the archives for the thread. --Amos On 8 February 2010 20:37, Josh Smith joshua.smi...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- Josh Smith Insist on yourself, never imitate... Every great man is Unique. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
i have been running 64bit linux (admittedly debian not ubuntu) for 5 years now, never had any issues - although i have also run linux on sparc and powerpc... so what i consider issues and what others consider issues may vary :) x86_64 is as stable as any other port of linux, most companies are now deploying it as standard (in the large company i work for, you have to justify why you cant run on x86_64 with multi-arch. yes you can run 32bit programs perfectly in a 64bit install) running 32bit OS on 64bit hardware is a little bit like recording bluray audio on to an audio cassette ;) Dean Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 20:56 +1100, Dean Hamstead wrote: you can run 32bit programs perfectly in a 64bit install) I suspect this needs to be tested application-by-application. I use VueScan commercial package (supports more scanners than xsane), and it does not like running directly, but if I run it in a 32-bit chroot it works correctly. -- Peter Miller pmil...@opensource.org.au -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 20:37 +1100, Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Ubuntu 64 bit, about 2 years on the computer with upgrades. Speed is awesome. Might just because my hardware so much faster than the one that died a natural death. Skype. There were some issues with this but it simply installs now. Flash. Flash is still buggy. If you remove all flash support and install the beta flash player directly it works OK. Package manager keeps moving me back to the 32 wrapper version though. Wrapper version is 'mostly' OK. Ta Ken -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
Just (this week) moved from 32 (old machine that dies) to 64 Ubuntu. Not one single glitch due to 64bit. That may have been pure luck, but I've got quite a lot of stuff installed. I went from 32bit to 64bit on a laptop last year and the speed differential was very obvious when booting. It's hard to tell about the speed of apps when you are doing email though :) Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
Ken Foskey wrote: Flash. Flash is still buggy. This has nothing to do with 64 bit. Flash is just as buggy on 32 bit (I have and use both). Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On 08/02/10 20:37, Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Pitfalls are usually encountered when running poorly written proprietary apps, but are always able to be worked around. Anything available in a source tarball, or packaged in a repository, will work without any issues though. For example, I ran XLink Kai http://www.teamxlink.co.uk/ the other day, which is basically and Xbox multiplayer tunneling app, allowing you to set up ad-hoc multiplayer games, bypassing Xbox Live. The app is a proprietary 32-bit Linux binary, which requires wxWindows installed. Because I run 64-bit Linux, when I install the required libwxbase2.6-0 package, kaiengine complained that it couldn't find the libraries. I did have the libraries, but the 64-bit versions. 32-bit applications require 32-bit libraries. So I downloaded the i386 libwxbase2.6-0 package, extracted it relative to kaiengine, and then launched it like this: $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/jeremy/Applications/kai/usr/lib ./kaiengine Which made the application work fine. On the other hand, some precompiled 32-bit applications (for example, Google Earth, Second Life, or Skype) work fine with no tweaks. My main point in showing you the above example is that while some things may not appear to work, there is always a way to get it working, even if you have to resort to grabbing the odd library (or if you're really screwed, you can run your app in a 32-bit chroot — I for one would be happy to help you set that up if you ever need it). Jeremy. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Visser wrote: On 08/02/10 20:37, Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? - Snip Jeremy. Been using 64 bit for about 3 or 4 years now. The only issue I have is Firefox 3.5.7 is very slow to start (usually 90 seconds or more after I click on it before it starts). Heracles -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktwPyQACgkQybPcBAs9CE8bYwCghqQMGgZ++MWNTnw4I1JjcvpK 8mIAoJPkzcTC501S1SLnEM7vK89gZ837 =dcUs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:12:07PM +1100, Ken Foskey (kfos...@tpg.com.au) wrote: On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 20:37 +1100, Josh Smith wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Flash. Flash is still buggy. If you remove all flash support and install the beta flash player directly it works OK. Package manager keeps moving me back to the 32 wrapper version though. Wrapper version is 'mostly' OK. I have a few machines (centos,f12) all running 64 bit with wrapper and adobe repo (meaning it gets upgraded) and I have no problems at all. Jobst -- Goldwaithe's lemma of Murphy's third law: The line in which you are waiting is always the slowest. If you move, the line you move to stops. If you move back, both lines stop, and everyone is angry with you. | |0| | Jobst Schmalenbach, jo...@barrett.com.au, General Manager | | |0| Barrett Consulting Group P/L The Meditation Room P/L |0|0|0| +61 3 9532 7677, POBox 277, Caulfield South, 3162, Australia -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
I actually did something that was NOT suggested, I upgraded a few machines from Fedora 7 (32) to CentOS 5.4 (64). This is actually a downgrade, as a lot of packages and the kernel have LOWER version numbers. I did not want to go through the hassle to get all the users/config/packages/whatever across into a complete new install. RPM is clever enough to keep the higher version numbers as 32 bits, but as the new packages arrive they get exchanged with the newer 64 stuff. All of those are rock solid. Jobst On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 08:37:45PM +1100, Josh Smith (joshua.smi...@optusnet.com.au) wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? -- Josh Smith Insist on yourself, never imitate... Every great man is Unique. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- Passwords are like underwear. You don't share them, you don't hang them on your monitor, or under your keyboard, you don't email them, or put them on a web site, and you must change them very often. | |0| | Jobst Schmalenbach, jo...@barrett.com.au, General Manager | | |0| Barrett Consulting Group P/L The Meditation Room P/L |0|0|0| +61 3 9532 7677, POBox 277, Caulfield South, 3162, Australia -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 06:37:38 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: you can run 32bit programs perfectly in a 64bit install) I suspect this needs to be tested application-by-application. I use VueScan commercial package (supports more scanners than xsane), and it does not like running directly, but if I run it in a 32-bit chroot it works correctly. All that tells you is that you have not got your 32 bit environment correctly setup, missing libs whatever. 32 bit programs run exactly the same on 32bit and 64 bit hardware. No need to test application by application. try ldd application to check libs The saga around flash arises from trying to get 32 bit plugins working on a 64 bit program. I do lots with ltsp where 64 bit servers (memory handling) is much better than 32 bit memory paging. Nobody *ever* complains about stability on 64 bit or non working apps and the thin-client paradigsm is 'keyboard mouse and display' being the server console. ie all the users run 64 bit versions of the app on the server. ltsp can do many cute things, including LOCAL_APPS but that is not relevant here. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 06:37:38 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Ubuntu 64 bit, about 2 years on the computer with upgrades. Speed is awesome. Might just because my hardware so much faster than the one that died a natural death. Skype. There were some issues with this but it simply installs now. Flash. Flash is still buggy. If you remove all flash support and install the beta flash player directly it works OK. Package manager keeps moving me back to the 32 wrapper version though. Wrapper version is 'mostly' OK. Sorry to butt in with more ... speed (in general) is just about undetectably different 32 bit and 64 bit. 1 app using gobs of memory will do just as well on paged memory as on 64 bit (linear memory) Lots of apps or even a number using gobs of memory do much better on 64 than on 32 (paged) IMHO 64 bit flash is a great step but does not yet work. ndiswrapper is robust. I can't recall my last failure. I can recall that there have been failures, so it was on years timespan. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 21:59 +1100, david wrote: Just (this week) moved from 32 (old machine that dies) to 64 Ubuntu. Not one single glitch due to 64bit. That may have been pure luck, but I've got quite a lot of stuff installed. Well, not to be underestimated is that people have worked hard over the last 5 years to make Linux and their applications run well on 64 bit. Sure, there were many glitches early on. That's porting for you. But lots of hackers and early adopters (as they then were) put the hard work in, and now, many years on things work great. That's our luck. Yeay open source, etc. [my recent experience along these lines was taking the 5 month old (amd64) LiveUSB stick with the Ubuntu Karmic release on it to a store and being able to boot Linux on a laptop I was considering - zero problems, brand spanking new hardware. I was impressed. Very impressed. We've all come a long way] Anyway, this comes up on the SLUG list fairly frequently. I think the consensus is clearly established that 32 vs 64 bit is well and truly past the point of being something we need to worry about. AfC Sydney signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Tuesday 09 February 2010 06:37:38 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: Those of you who are running 64 bit versions of Ubuntu . . are there any pitfalls? Any problems with applications? Speed? Pitfalls are usually encountered when running poorly written proprietary apps, but are always able to be worked around. Anything available in a source tarball, or packaged in a repository, will work without any issues though. Jeremy, utter respect, but this is soapbox crap. If *you* installed your environment correctly then good, bad and indifferent software will run the same on a 32 or on a 64 OS. For example, I ran XLink Kai http://www.teamxlink.co.uk/ the other day, which is basically and Xbox multiplayer tunneling app, allowing you to set up ad-hoc multiplayer games, bypassing Xbox Live. The app is a proprietary 32-bit Linux binary, which requires wxWindows installed. Because I run 64-bit Linux, when I install the required libwxbase2.6-0 package, kaiengine complained that it couldn't find the libraries. I did have the libraries, but the 64-bit versions. 32-bit applications require 32-bit libraries. So I downloaded the i386 libwxbase2.6-0 package, extracted it relative to kaiengine, and then launched it like this: You say 'I did have the libraries' but that is wrong you did not have the libraries. $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/jeremy/Applications/kai/usr/lib ./kaiengine Which made the application work fine. On the other hand, some precompiled 32-bit applications (for example, Google Earth, Second Life, or Skype) work fine with no tweaks. My main point in showing you the above example is that while some things may not appear to work, there is always a way to get it working, even if you have to resort to grabbing the odd library (or if you're really screwed, you can run your app in a 32-bit chroot — I for one would be happy to help you set that up if you ever need it). I accept your opinion and your experiences smile but your woes would not have got me as I'm an old fart and to wit wiser. I'm not writing this to show that *you* ... anything ... but I've googled and found nearly 10 year old slug posts that I wrote. So my comments are for anyone who reads this for reference and guidance. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit.
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:28 +0800, james wrote: I use VueScan commercial package (supports more scanners than xsane), and it does not like running directly, but if I run it in a 32-bit chroot it works correctly. All that tells you is that you have not got your 32 bit environment correctly setup, missing libs whatever. That problem I could fix. $ VueScan/vuescan /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgiogconf.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64 Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgiogconf.so /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgioremote-volume-monitor.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64 Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgioremote-volume-monitor.so /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgvfsdbus.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64 Failed to load module: /usr/lib/gio/modules/libgvfsdbus.so (vuescan:11840): Pango-WARNING **: libthai.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory (vuescan:11840): Pango-WARNING **: Failed to load Pango module '/usr/lib32/pango/1.6.0/modules/pango-thai-lang.so' for id 'ThaiScriptEngineLang' $ Turns out that VueScan _runs_ just hunky dory. But something within it (or a shared library that it uses) makes shite assumptions about modules, and the missing modules means that VueScan, while it runs successfully, doesn't actually work correctly. Regards Peter Miller pmil...@opensource.org.au /\/\*http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/ PGP public key ID: 1024D/D0EDB64D fingerprint = AD0A C5DF C426 4F03 5D53 2BDB 18D8 A4E2 D0ED B64D See http://www.keyserver.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
--- On Sat, 21/11/09, Dean Hamstead d...@fragfest.com.au wrote: This seems rather pointless when you can install a chroot 32bit system and run 32bits apps in it, or set up the ia32-libs see http://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30192/21/debian-amd64-howto.html#id292205 http://ornellas.apanela.com/dokuwiki/pub:multiarch im sure ubuntu process would be similar if not identical Dean Thanks, Dean! Those look like great links. I got my program to run with ia32-libs under Intrepid, but I never got it to work under Intrepid. I'll have another try when I upgrade to Karmic. I've never tried a chroot. - mark __ Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7. Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
--- On Sat, 21/11/09, Daniel Pittman dan...@rimspace.net wrote: Out of curiosity, what convinces you to keep using Vuescan rather than getting SANE to talk to your scanner, providing an open source derived set of drivers? (...or is it a lack of open drivers for the hardware?) Daniel Hi Daniel, You guessed right, the real problem is that I need a closed source driver from Epson to make my scanner work, with Vuescan or without. Aside from that, I find Vuescan better for scanning negatives than Xsane, so I prefer it even though it's closed source. - mark __ Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7. Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. I confess that I still dual boot 32-bit for one legacy application: Vuescan. But with enough tinkering with ia32-lib or VirtualBox, I bet I could get it to work. It used to work on 64-bit Intrepid. Other than that, I've been running a 64-bit desktop happily for years. This seems rather pointless when you can install a chroot 32bit system and run 32bits apps in it, or set up the ia32-libs see http://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30192/21/debian-amd64-howto.html#id292205 http://ornellas.apanela.com/dokuwiki/pub:multiarch im sure ubuntu process would be similar if not identical Dean -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
on x86_64 is that a python issue or a variable size issue ? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net writes: On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:00 +0800, jam wrote: On Friday 20 November 2009 05:57:09 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: otherwise, 32bit is better. Pray wax lyrical Memory footprint. For instance, bzr memory use under 32-bit builds of python is less than half that of the same workload on 64-bit builds. db db.pub.m...@gmail.com writes: [... I cited the email to which you are responding, because it is next to impossible to make sense of your comment without that. In general, doing this yourself will help get you answers sooner and more effectively. ...] on x86_64 is that a python issue or a variable size issue? The later: pointers are necessarily 64-bit rather than 32-bit when working with the longer word ISA. Naive software that simply uses the native word size of the machine can also waste memory, since it now allocates 8-byte rather than 4-byte integers. That tends to be more an issue with worse-is-better languages like Perl, Python and Ruby, which don't abstract the platform numeric model at all, because they export the larger words. C is hardly immune, of course... On the other hand, you *also* get a much larger register file, an improve ISA and the ability to assume a much more modern baseline system, so the performance difference for most use is about zero with AMD64 vs i386. Daniel Now, if we used a sane platform this would be different, and we would all be running a 32-bit userspace on a 64-bit kernel anyhow. :) -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
On Saturday 21 November 2009 21:37:14 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. I confess that I still dual boot 32-bit for one legacy application: Vuescan. But with enough tinkering with ia32-lib or VirtualBox, I bet I could get it to work. It used to work on 64-bit Intrepid. Other than that, I've been running a 64-bit desktop happily for years. This seems rather pointless when you can install a chroot 32bit system and run 32bits apps in it, or set up the ia32-libs Setting your 64 to run 32 apps is so trivial I can't remember the 1 liner. something like apt-get install lib32 or ia32 something like that. (browse with app-cache search) James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. I confess that I still dual boot 32-bit for one legacy application: Vuescan. But with enough tinkering with ia32-lib or VirtualBox, I bet I could get it to work. It used to work on 64-bit Intrepid. Other than that, I've been running a 64-bit desktop happily for years. - mark http://www.flickr.com/photos/m487396/ __ Win 1 of 4 Sony home entertainment packs thanks to Yahoo!7. Enter now: http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
mark adrian bell m487...@rocketmail.com writes: I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. I confess that I still dual boot 32-bit for one legacy application: Vuescan. But with enough tinkering with ia32-lib or VirtualBox, I bet I could get it to work. It used to work on 64-bit Intrepid. Other than that, I've been running a 64-bit desktop happily for years. Out of curiosity, what convinces you to keep using Vuescan rather than getting SANE to talk to your scanner, providing an open source derived set of drivers? (...or is it a lack of open drivers for the hardware?) Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
On Thursday 19 Nov 2009 05:23:33 Amos Shapira wrote: I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. What's the collective wisdom/experience on the list? Is it worth moving to 64-bit or should I stay away? Works for me for the past two years with Ubuntu and Debian and openSuSE. I use these because it's easy to install Nvidia drivers. I'd also like to move my home desktop to 64 bit when I get around to buy extra RAM (it's 2Gb now). 2 Gb works fine. No need to upgrade. I'm running Gnome and KDE 4.3 and AWN together on the same desktop. -- Richard www.sheflug.org.uk -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
2009/11/19 Richard Ibbotson richard.ibbot...@gmail.com: On Thursday 19 Nov 2009 05:23:33 Amos Shapira wrote: I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. What's the collective wisdom/experience on the list? Is it worth moving to 64-bit or should I stay away? Works for me for the past two years with Ubuntu and Debian and openSuSE. I use these because it's easy to install Nvidia drivers. The work desktop will come with an on-board Intel chip, which as far as I followed should be supported using open-source drivers. Do you use Skype and Flash? Any issues with them? I'd also like to move my home desktop to 64 bit when I get around to buy extra RAM (it's 2Gb now). 2 Gb works fine. No need to upgrade. I'm running Gnome and KDE 4.3 and AWN together on the same desktop. Yes, I'm sure 2Gb will be enough for 64 bit but until I start installing amount of memory which requires 64 bit I'm not sure what's the benefit (a little more speed? I just use it for browsing, skype, email and ssh). Thanks for the input, much appreciated. --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
Amos Shapira wrote: Hi, I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. It'll have 4Gb RAM, which should be enough for my work needs. Skype is an absolute must. I use the system for mostly browsing/ssh/thunderbird (managing a few dozens of remote CentOS 5 servers), I might want to have Windows in VMware/kvm/whatever and maybe a private virtual CentOS for testing. I found links like: http://blog.dipinkrishna.info/2009/10/how-to-install-skype-on-ubuntu-910.html (installing skype) and http://technologycrowd.com/2009/11/01/installing-64-bit-flash-player-in-ubuntu-9-10-karmic-koala/ (installing 64-bit flash) which look encouraging. What's the collective wisdom/experience on the list? Is it worth moving to 64-bit or should I stay away? I'd also like to move my home desktop to 64 bit when I get around to buy extra RAM (it's 2Gb now). Thanks, --Amos I've been running 64 bit since 9.04 so I can use the same repos as my TV. (cache the updates) Seems to be fine in every day use now that flash is out for it. Haven't used skype much but as I recall it seemed to work ok. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
hi, On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Amos Shapira amos.shap...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. It'll have 4Gb RAM, which should be enough for my work needs. Skype is an absolute must. I use the system for mostly browsing/ssh/thunderbird (managing a few dozens of remote CentOS 5 servers), I might want to have Windows in VMware/kvm/whatever and maybe a private virtual CentOS for testing. I found links like: http://blog.dipinkrishna.info/2009/10/how-to-install-skype-on-ubuntu-910.html (installing skype) and http://technologycrowd.com/2009/11/01/installing-64-bit-flash-player-in-ubuntu-9-10-karmic-koala/ (installing 64-bit flash) which look encouraging. What's the collective wisdom/experience on the list? Is it worth moving to 64-bit or should I stay away? I'd also like to move my home desktop to 64 bit when I get around to buy extra RAM (it's 2Gb now). running 64bit here for with 9.04 and 9.10, i use skype and flash with no issues. i'd say go for it. this is probably unlikely to be an issue anymore, but just in case - make sure your new work desktop's CPU supports KVM, some intel dual core duos don't. cheers justin -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
FWIW, the things that affect me using 64 bit on a given machine are: more than 3GB of RAM or need more than 2GB in a single process or doing 64 bit math (nb this isn't strict, you can get at the opcode in 32-bit installs, just requires effort) or want to do 64 bit port testing/development - 64bit otherwise, 32bit is better. Some 64bit capable CPU's actually do 32-bit mode better than 64, and vice-verca, but I don't recall which ones - and unless you're on the performance edge it won't matter anyway. -Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
On Friday 20 November 2009 05:57:09 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: 32bit is dead Not on subnotebooks. It'll have 4Gb RAM, which should be enough for my work needs. Which is a good enough reason to move to 64 bit. If you want to address more than 2GB of RAM in a single process reliably (i.e. without using odd memory addressing tricks) then you'll want 64 bit. If you only have 128MB of RAM total or something like that then there's not much point. Actually Del the magic number is 960M not 2G James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
On Friday 20 November 2009 05:57:09 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: FWIW, the things that affect me using 64 bit on a given machine are: more than 3GB of RAM or need more than 2GB in a single process or doing 64 bit math (nb this isn't strict, you can get at the opcode in 32-bit installs, just requires effort) or want to do 64 bit port testing/development - 64bit otherwise, 32bit is better. Pray wax lyrical Some 64bit capable CPU's actually do 32-bit mode better than 64, and vice-verca, but I don't recall which ones - and unless you're on the performance edge it won't matter anyway. performance differences are yawn and it depends on what you are doing in particular things like video editing with lots of ram (or ltsp server) do much better with 64bit clean memory handling. Sounds like intel talking about AMD :-) James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
jam wrote: performance differences are yawn and it depends on what you are doing in particular things like video editing with lots of ram (or ltsp server) do much better with 64bit clean memory handling. For what it's worth, my disgusting-useless-never-buy-another Asus boots much faster since installing 64 bit. I don't notice the difference once it reboots though. 64 bit has done nothing to increase my keyboard performance. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:00 +0800, jam wrote: On Friday 20 November 2009 05:57:09 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: otherwise, 32bit is better. Pray wax lyrical Memory footprint. For instance, bzr memory use under 32-bit builds of python is less than half that of the same workload on 64-bit builds. -Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
The lesson here may be not to use python :) Dean Robert Collins wrote: On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:00 +0800, jam wrote: On Friday 20 November 2009 05:57:09 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: otherwise, 32bit is better. Pray wax lyrical Memory footprint. For instance, bzr memory use under 32-bit builds of python is less than half that of the same workload on 64-bit builds. -Rob -- http://fragfest.com.au -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net writes: On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:00 +0800, jam wrote: On Friday 20 November 2009 05:57:09 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: otherwise, 32bit is better. Pray wax lyrical Memory footprint. For instance, bzr memory use under 32-bit builds of python is less than half that of the same workload on 64-bit builds. This is true, and on most 64-bit platforms it makes a difference because their 32-bit ISA is reasonable. On AMD64 and i386, this mostly comes out in the wash in terms of performance: the gain of doubling the size of the register set outweighs the cost of extra memory use in almost every case. Also, memory is very, very cheap these days. :) Daniel -- ✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707 ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
Hi, I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. It'll have 4Gb RAM, which should be enough for my work needs. Skype is an absolute must. I use the system for mostly browsing/ssh/thunderbird (managing a few dozens of remote CentOS 5 servers), I might want to have Windows in VMware/kvm/whatever and maybe a private virtual CentOS for testing. I found links like: http://blog.dipinkrishna.info/2009/10/how-to-install-skype-on-ubuntu-910.html (installing skype) and http://technologycrowd.com/2009/11/01/installing-64-bit-flash-player-in-ubuntu-9-10-karmic-koala/ (installing 64-bit flash) which look encouraging. What's the collective wisdom/experience on the list? Is it worth moving to 64-bit or should I stay away? I'd also like to move my home desktop to 64 bit when I get around to buy extra RAM (it's 2Gb now). Thanks, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
32bit is dead flash works perfectly (linux vs windows aside) in 64bit and has done for ages. by default the gpl flash is installed, youll just need to install the nonfree adobe flash package and use update-alternatives to make sure its selected as your flash plugin. any archaic and annoying nonfree apps like skype which arent 64bit yet can still be run in amd64, just have to install a few 32bits to support them. /rant Dean Amos Shapira wrote: Hi, I'm going to get a new desktop at work and was wondering whether it's worth moving to 64-bit. It'll have 4Gb RAM, which should be enough for my work needs. Skype is an absolute must. I use the system for mostly browsing/ssh/thunderbird (managing a few dozens of remote CentOS 5 servers), I might want to have Windows in VMware/kvm/whatever and maybe a private virtual CentOS for testing. I found links like: http://blog.dipinkrishna.info/2009/10/how-to-install-skype-on-ubuntu-910.html (installing skype) and http://technologycrowd.com/2009/11/01/installing-64-bit-flash-player-in-ubuntu-9-10-karmic-koala/ (installing 64-bit flash) which look encouraging. What's the collective wisdom/experience on the list? Is it worth moving to 64-bit or should I stay away? I'd also like to move my home desktop to 64 bit when I get around to buy extra RAM (it's 2Gb now). Thanks, --Amos -- http://fragfest.com.au -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64-bit Karmic Koala or not?
Dean Hamstead wrote: 32bit is dead Not on subnotebooks. It'll have 4Gb RAM, which should be enough for my work needs. Which is a good enough reason to move to 64 bit. If you want to address more than 2GB of RAM in a single process reliably (i.e. without using odd memory addressing tricks) then you'll want 64 bit. If you only have 128MB of RAM total or something like that then there's not much point. -- Del Babel Com Australia http://www.babel.com.au/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:01 +1000, Heracles wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All, Just found my own answer. I still had the old libswfdecmozilla plugin loaded so it was trying to display the flash. Removed the link and it now works EXCEPT for the sound. Heracles Heracles wrote: Has anyone had much luck with the 64 bit flash plugin. I can't seem to get it to work properly. All I get is a black screen. Make sure you are using the genuine alpha for Flash. There is a nswrapper thing that is really dodgy. This might help, have only scanned it but looks pretty good http://ubuntulinuxhelp.com/adobe-flash-10-64-bit-use-the-alpha-version-instead/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ken Foskey wrote: Snip... Make sure you are using the genuine alpha for Flash. There is a nswrapper thing that is really dodgy. This might help, have only scanned it but looks pretty good http://ubuntulinuxhelp.com/adobe-flash-10-64-bit-use-the-alpha-version-instead/ Thanks Ken, I checked and I am using the official alpha plugin libflashplayer-10.0.22.87.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz to be exact. I can now get silent video perfectly, that is I get no sound. My sound card is a Creative Sound Blaster Live! and the onboard sound is turned off in the BIOS so all shpuld be fine. I have sound in all other applications and if I capture a flash file and play it back using Totem 2.22.1 I get sound. Heracles -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ/vRHybPcBAs9CE8RAvuWAKCAgVDpcMM1UrkL22w8D+vzIOfaogCdGoTR WjAy0YE93pReRg5DbQCcINo= =y77T -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
heracles == heracles herac...@iprimus.com.au writes: heracles -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 heracles Ken Foskey wrote: Snip... heracles Thanks Ken, I checked and I am using the official alpha heracles plugin libflashplayer-10.0.22.87.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz to heracles be exact. I can now get silent video perfectly, that is I heracles get no sound. My sound card is a Creative Sound Blaster heracles Live! and the onboard sound is turned off in the BIOS so all heracles shpuld be fine. I have sound in all other applications and heracles if I capture a flash file and play it back using Totem heracles 2.22.1 I get sound. Last I remember, Mozilla+Flash tries to use the (obsolete) OSS framework instead of ALSA. I think there's a wrpper programme you can use to force use of ALSA, but its name currently escapes me. On a related topic, has anyone been able to get the GNU Flash replacement, gnash, working well? For me, it seems to leak memory, and use up lots of processor time without displaying things correctly --- same as the non-free flash player. Peter c -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au writes: heracles == heracles herac...@iprimus.com.au writes: heracles Ken Foskey wrote: Snip... heracles Thanks Ken, I checked and I am using the official alpha heracles plugin libflashplayer-10.0.22.87.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz to heracles be exact. I can now get silent video perfectly, that is I heracles get no sound. My sound card is a Creative Sound Blaster heracles Live! and the onboard sound is turned off in the BIOS so all heracles shpuld be fine. I have sound in all other applications and heracles if I capture a flash file and play it back using Totem heracles 2.22.1 I get sound. Last I remember, Mozilla+Flash tries to use the (obsolete) OSS framework instead of ALSA. No longer, in Flash 10, which is nice. I think there's a wrpper programme you can use to force use of ALSA, but its name currently escapes me. Historically, libflashsupport, which the OP indicated he had an older version of installed that caused some of the problems with crashing. On a related topic, has anyone been able to get the GNU Flash replacement, gnash, working well? Well? No. For me, it seems to leak memory, and use up lots of processor time without displaying things correctly --- same as the non-free flash player. Just like my experience, only non-free Flash gets it right occasionally, at least. ;) More seriously, none of the free Flash replacements worked correctly outside of the Firefox environment when I last tested them, which was very disappointing. Regards, Daniel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
Ken Foskey fos...@tpg.com.au writes: On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:01 +1000, Heracles wrote: Just found my own answer. I still had the old libswfdecmozilla plugin loaded so it was trying to display the flash. Removed the link and it now works EXCEPT for the sound. Heracles Heracles wrote: Has anyone had much luck with the 64 bit flash plugin. I can't seem to get it to work properly. All I get is a black screen. Make sure you are using the genuine alpha for Flash. There is a nswrapper thing that is really dodgy. I think you mean nspluginwrapper, which is a tool that runs Netscape compatible plugins in a separate process from the main Firefox process. The underlying model is sound[1], but since nspluginwrapper is not as well integrated into the browser — being separately developed — it has some minor rough edges. Generally speaking, keeping up to date with the latest release of nspluginwrapper if you are updating your plugins is a good plan. Regards, Daniel Footnotes: [1] Opera have used it for years, and it works extremely well. Flash crashing never peturbed the browser, which was good when it did that approximately every time it was used. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
Quoting Daniel Pittman dan...@rimspace.net: More seriously, none of the free Flash replacements worked correctly outside of the Firefox environment when I last tested them, which was very disappointing. Flash crashes in Firefox occasionally and gives up on some of my son's flash games which frustrates him however I always get good results from vlc playing flash. I use an extension to grab the media file then play it outside firefox. Ta Ken -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
fos...@tpg.com.au writes: Quoting Daniel Pittman dan...@rimspace.net: More seriously, none of the free Flash replacements worked correctly outside of the Firefox environment when I last tested them, which was very disappointing. Flash crashes in Firefox occasionally and gives up on some of my son's flash games which frustrates him however I always get good results from vlc playing flash. I use an extension to grab the media file then play it outside firefox. Apropos my other comment, the latest releases of nspluginwrapper support native mode where they run a 32/32 or 64/64 plugin in their out of process model. You might find it worthwhile to try that and see if it insulates you from having the entire browser crash just because flash did. (Plus, the flashblock extension is your friend, so that you don't get a dozen competitive pages with flash at ones, but you probably already knew that. :) Regards, Daniel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
On 05/05/2009, at 12:09 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote: (Plus, the flashblock extension is your friend, so that you don't get a dozen competitive pages with flash at ones, but you probably already knew that. :) I used to run a plugin which i think was called aniblock, which gave you options of not running animated gifs (or running once only), but you could right click the gif and run it if you wanted. Anyone know how to do this now? ATM I've turned animated gifs off via about:config but I've lost the option of right clicking running them. -- http://chesterton.id.au/blog/ http://barrang.com.au/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] 64 bit flash
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Has anyone had much luck with the 64 bit flash plugin. I can't seem to get it to work properly. All I get is a black screen. Heracles -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ/mD0ybPcBAs9CE8RApnBAKC+PdQd/Tu+DypmOnqyUrDj4q4HgQCggs5W rcmn6fbWbfgwsShEHTYePUA= =FSv9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
Heracles herac...@iprimus.com.au writes: Has anyone had much luck with the 64 bit flash plugin. I can't seem to get it to work properly. All I get is a black screen. Yes, but. The first but is that you told us exactly nothing about your environment, so the fact that it works fine for me under Opera on Debian/sid may not mean anything if you run a different browser, distribution or whatever. The second but is that if you have a 64-bit CPU without LAHF support the JIT engine behind 64-bit flash will emit those instructions anyway[1] and cause the flash plugin to crash. This is a known issue, reported to Adobe, and they have given no indication of any response to it at all. Regards, Daniel Footnotes: [1] Apparently 64-bit Windows emulates them in software if they are absent, but Linux doesn't, so this work fine for Windows... -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All, Just found my own answer. I still had the old libswfdecmozilla plugin loaded so it was trying to display the flash. Removed the link and it now works EXCEPT for the sound. Heracles Heracles wrote: Has anyone had much luck with the 64 bit flash plugin. I can't seem to get it to work properly. All I get is a black screen. Heracles -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ/miUybPcBAs9CE8RAhQXAKC+YdM27K7p2I2b4jXmkucWC6ITmwCgxVUQ d/rTNReGEi/sYx9pLZ94SvQ= =x2Rj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit flash
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just found out that one of the flags is LAHF_lm. Environment is Ubuntu 8.04 X86_64 with 1.5GB RAM Flash now works with no sound. Thanks Heracles Daniel Pittman wrote: Heracles herac...@iprimus.com.au writes: Has anyone had much luck with the 64 bit flash plugin. I can't seem to get it to work properly. All I get is a black screen. Yes, but. The first but is that you told us exactly nothing about your environment, so the fact that it works fine for me under Opera on Debian/sid may not mean anything if you run a different browser, distribution or whatever. The second but is that if you have a 64-bit CPU without LAHF support the JIT engine behind 64-bit flash will emit those instructions anyway[1] and cause the flash plugin to crash. This is a known issue, reported to Adobe, and they have given no indication of any response to it at all. Regards, Daniel Footnotes: [1] Apparently 64-bit Windows emulates them in software if they are absent, but Linux doesn't, so this work fine for Windows... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ/mrwybPcBAs9CE8RAs4pAJ9mT5pe5NwmY5GJXsK6nJfn0OvDzACgq4EY Ln9KsE3XVNm/SDOYntpMQes= =r3H0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit Ubuntu
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 18:36 +1100, Andreas Fischer wrote: So basically to answer your question, no. If you want to move to a 64bit kernel, you need to move everything to 64bit. I'm not sure if this has been clearly answered - perhaps I deleted the answers from my inbox ;). Anyhow, the 64 bit kernels can happily run 32-bit userspace applications. IIR the details correctly, its just the kernel calling api that gets modified in lib, or possibly nothing is modified, and the kernel side does all the thunking required. Individal apps need all their libraries to be available in the same bit-width as they are compiled in. So if you have a 32-bit gtk app, you will need 32-bit libgtk etc etc etc. Cheers, Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] 64 bit Ubuntu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I recently had a MoBo problem that meant that it was about the same cost to replace my old Athalon 2400+ with a 64bit system. Everything seems to work with fine so far, but I was wondering about switching to the 64bit kernel. Will all the 32 bit apps still work? Can I just do the kernel/module etc changes and expect all else to work? Is it worth the effort? TIA Ashley -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFRExYgu0BrMM6usYRAj9vAJ9dM6C41zBK/Fzu3BTL359hLU9UsACfYVf4 gl6QeChfYiVcJhzXEmWCA34= =hRIH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit Ubuntu
Hi ashley, When you change the kernel to a 64bit, or any architecture, your changing how the core of the OS works, and how it communicates with the software, so basically this means all the 32bit software you have installed won't work if you simply replace the kernel and then reboot your system. Fortunately, due the flexability of Open source software, the vast majority of software your likely to have, will probobly have a 64bit version available, with the exception of CPU specific programs (emulators, etc) and proprietary software binaries (such as the Flash plugin). So basically to answer your question, no. If you want to move to a 64bit kernel, you need to move everything to 64bit. Hope this helps - Andreas On 10/29/06, Ashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I recently had a MoBo problem that meant that it was about the same cost to replace my old Athalon 2400+ with a 64bit system. Everything seems to work with fine so far, but I was wondering about switching to the 64bit kernel. Will all the 32 bit apps still work? Can I just do the kernel/module etc changes and expect all else to work? Is it worth the effort? TIA Ashley -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFRExYgu0BrMM6usYRAj9vAJ9dM6C41zBK/Fzu3BTL359hLU9UsACfYVf4 gl6QeChfYiVcJhzXEmWCA34= =hRIH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit Ubuntu
Not quite. the amd64 architecture does have 32-bit code compatibility. Libc however is the problem. i.e. 32-bit dynamic binaries would require a 32-bit libc, amongst other 32-bit libraries that it linked to. The best way to run 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit Linux installation is via a 32-bit chroot. i.e. a virtual installation of a 32-bit Linux installation inside your 64-bit instruction. There are plenty of instructions on how to do that out there on the internet, and I suggest you google for 32-bit chroot in Linux. Regards, Bill On 29/10/06, Andreas Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi ashley, When you change the kernel to a 64bit, or any architecture, your changing how the core of the OS works, and how it communicates with the software, so basically this means all the 32bit software you have installed won't work if you simply replace the kernel and then reboot your system. Fortunately, due the flexability of Open source software, the vast majority of software your likely to have, will probobly have a 64bit version available, with the exception of CPU specific programs (emulators, etc) and proprietary software binaries (such as the Flash plugin). So basically to answer your question, no. If you want to move to a 64bit kernel, you need to move everything to 64bit. Hope this helps - Andreas On 10/29/06, Ashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I recently had a MoBo problem that meant that it was about the same cost to replace my old Athalon 2400+ with a 64bit system. Everything seems to work with fine so far, but I was wondering about switching to the 64bit kernel. Will all the 32 bit apps still work? Can I just do the kernel/module etc changes and expect all else to work? Is it worth the effort? TIA Ashley -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFRExYgu0BrMM6usYRAj9vAJ9dM6C41zBK/Fzu3BTL359hLU9UsACfYVf4 gl6QeChfYiVcJhzXEmWCA34= =hRIH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit Ubuntu
On Monday 30 October 2006 09:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi ashley, When you change the kernel to a 64bit, or any architecture, your changing how the core of the OS works, and how it communicates with the software, so basically this means all the 32bit software you have installed won't work if you simply replace the kernel and then reboot your system. Fortunately, due the flexability of Open source software, the vast majority of software your likely to have, will probobly have a 64bit version available, with the exception of CPU specific programs (emulators, etc) and proprietary software binaries (such as the Flash plugin). So basically to answer your question, no. If you want to move to a 64bit kernel, you need to move everything to 64bit. Hope this helps I don't know how Ubuntu fares here BUT SuSE has 32bit libs so [tigger] /home/jam [54]% uname -a Linux tigger 2.6.16.21-0.25-smp #1 SMP Tue Sep 19 07:26:15 UTC 2006 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux and I run 32Bit Mozilla (for flash) 32Bit Xine for all the Win32 codec support eg something.wmv that people send 32Bit skype [no options] So you can get all the 32Bit support you need. In addition running 32Bit OS on my AMD meant that cool-n-quiet did NOT work. Only runs on 64 eg [snipped lots] [tigger] /home/jam [55]% cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 43 model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ stepping: 1 cpu MHz : 1000.000 [snip] power management: ts fid vid ttp processor : 1 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 43 model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ stepping: 1 cpu MHz : 1000.000 [snip] James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] 64 bit flash chroot
Hi once again, I am running Ubuntu Breezy 64 bit for the first time, it seems stable and pretty good. I ran into a hurdle though, there is no 64bit flashplayer, and the mplayer codecs dont work on 64 bit. I read that I can run a 32 bit firefox in a chroot environment and therefore be able to use all the plugins etc. Can I do the same with mplayer and its codecs?? I really have no idea how to do this, can someone point me to a good howto? yes I did google but got frustrated, Im obviously not very good at finding what I am after. I am hoping I dont have to go back to 32 bit Ubuntu, it seems a shame not to use the hardware for what it was designed for. Also for the 64 bit desktop users out there, is there anything else I have to look out for other than flash and codecs not working? Thanks again Tuxta -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] 64 bit installation
you can just install a 32bit install which will solve your problem. however it would seem that your cpu has the emt64 extensions (something like that) ideally you should run a 64bit linux install. the perfomance will be much better. youll need to set up a 32bit chroot or install 32bit compat libraries to run 32bit aps. there should be suse documentation. but otherwise you can just install a full 32bit install. Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SLUG, I installed SuSe 10, and I inserted the DVD as suggested in the manual, and from then on the desktop took over. It automatically installed the 64 bit version. I have just re-installed it from the CD's which is a 32 bit version, however at re-boot my desktop tells me that I should have the 64 bit version installed. I am curious to know why did the desktop choose the 64 bit version over the 32 bit version. Could there be a bug, or maybe I have a 64 bit desktop? I have a Gigabyte Technology P4 Titan Series. Model Name:- GA-8S661FXM-775 Description:- SIS 661FX+964/Micro ATX P4 Socket775/AGP 8X 2 DDR400/LAN 6-CH AUDIO/USB 2.0 SATA/VGA Integrated http://www.giga-byte.com.au/MotherBoard/Products/Products_GA-8S661FXM-775.htm I have an I have an Intel P4 3.2 GHz processor. ** Furthermore I tried to install a game today ... but to no avail. I tried to log in as SU, and then typed sh ThinkTanks_v1.1.sh.bin (as I previously did when I had a 32-bit installation) I got the following error:- linux:/home/dllavero # sh ThinkTanks_v1.1.sh.bin Verifying archive integrity... All good. Uncompressing ThinkTanks This installation doesn't support glibc-2.1 on Linux / x86_64 (tried to run setup.gtk) This installation doesn't support glibc-2.1 on Linux / x86_64 (tried to run setup) The setup program seems to have failed on x86_64/glibc-2.1 Detecting libc... Binary file /lib/libc.so.6 matches Detected: os=Linux, arch=x86_64, libc=glibc-2.1 linux:/home/dllavero # Is there a way I can install this game if it is that I have a 64 bit desktop?? Thanks, Dom -- WWW: http://deanpatrick.tk LAN: http://www.bong.com.au EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Fwd: Re: [SLUG] 64 bit installation
Slug, If anyone knows where I can obtain 32bit chroot or install 32bit compat libraries to run 32bit aps I would appreciate it. Google searches haven't help me much. Please note that I am seeking to run them in SuSe. Regards, Dom - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:03:58 +0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SLUG] 64 bit installation To: Dean Hamstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean, Thanks for your help. I've tried to look everywhere for 32bit chroot or install 32bit compat libraries to run 32bit aps, but with no success. I also looked at the accompanying manual that came with SuSe but it has no help here either. Got any links, or maybe point me in the right direction if you don't mind?? Once again thanks for your help!!! Very much appreciated. Dom - End forwarded message - -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: Fwd: Re: [SLUG] 64 bit installation
On Sunday 27 November 2005 12:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Slug, If anyone knows where I can obtain 32bit chroot or install 32bit compat libraries to run 32bit aps I would appreciate it. Google searches haven't help me much. Please note that I am seeking to run them in SuSe. Regards, Dom With the AMD 64 (don't know about Intel) you can either install the 32 or 64 bit packages from the DVD. NOTE: The DVD contains far more packages than the 5 CD's and should be used as the installation source. When you are in the initial install/bootup screen you will see a function key indicating 64bit (can't remember the key, maybe F4). Just press the function key and you can either select a 64 bit or 32 bit install. This also applies to your screen resolution. With Yast -- Software -- Software Management you should be able to select and install any of the 32 bit libraries available. I suggest you read the following article on how to configure YAST although it is for SuSE 9.3 the same applies to 10.0 http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/11504.html Details on External YaST Repositories can be found here http://www.opensuse.org/YaST_package_repository For local mirrors please look at http://mirror.pacific.net.au For KDE upgrade to 3.5 insert this into Yast Server :mirror.pacific.net.au Directory: linux/suse/i386/supplementary/KDE/update_for_10.0/yast-source/ linux/suse/i386/supplementary/misc/update_for_10.0/yast-source/ -- A lot of information can be found on the following urls User contributed information - Index http://www.opensuse.org/User_Documentation wiki fully dedicated to SUSE http://www.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page SuSE Support knowledgebase Try the History section first. http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/index.html Hope that this information helps. -- Regards, Graham Smith -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] 64 bit installation
SLUG, I installed SuSe 10, and I inserted the DVD as suggested in the manual, and from then on the desktop took over. It automatically installed the 64 bit version. I have just re-installed it from the CD's which is a 32 bit version, however at re-boot my desktop tells me that I should have the 64 bit version installed. I am curious to know why did the desktop choose the 64 bit version over the 32 bit version. Could there be a bug, or maybe I have a 64 bit desktop? I have a Gigabyte Technology P4 Titan Series. Model Name:- GA-8S661FXM-775 Description:- SIS 661FX+964/Micro ATX P4 Socket775/AGP 8X 2 DDR400/LAN 6-CH AUDIO/USB 2.0 SATA/VGA Integrated http://www.giga-byte.com.au/MotherBoard/Products/Products_GA-8S661FXM-775.htm I have an I have an Intel P4 3.2 GHz processor. ** Furthermore I tried to install a game today ... but to no avail. I tried to log in as SU, and then typed sh ThinkTanks_v1.1.sh.bin (as I previously did when I had a 32-bit installation) I got the following error:- linux:/home/dllavero # sh ThinkTanks_v1.1.sh.bin Verifying archive integrity... All good. Uncompressing ThinkTanks This installation doesn't support glibc-2.1 on Linux / x86_64 (tried to run setup.gtk) This installation doesn't support glibc-2.1 on Linux / x86_64 (tried to run setup) The setup program seems to have failed on x86_64/glibc-2.1 Detecting libc... Binary file /lib/libc.so.6 matches Detected: os=Linux, arch=x86_64, libc=glibc-2.1 linux:/home/dllavero # Is there a way I can install this game if it is that I have a 64 bit desktop?? Thanks, Dom -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
