Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit (was: InetBoot for Fedora/Ubuntu/KNOPPIX/VMKnoppix is released.)
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 15:28 +0100, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote: One more question: i just found out that there are no 64 bits packages... will there ever be? with a system with 4GiBs of RAM like mine, I can only see 3GiBs. For Intel/AMD systems, there are two options: 32-bit, using the I386 ISO/CD/... 64-bit, using the AMD64 ISO/CD/... Despite having AMD in the name, the 64-bit packages will install on 64-bit Intel processors, as well as the AMD Athlon family. Bear in mind that there are packages which are only available in 32-bit versions. In particular, there are a number of web browser plugins which are only available for 32-bit Linux. For this reason, many linux users are installing the 32-bit distribution on desktop systems, even though those systems would be quite capable of running a 64-bit linux distribution. I am in that category at home, because I access various sites that offer java/flash/adobe content, and I know that these (particularly Java) are not (or not fully) supported on a 64-bit platform. I am not affected by the memory restraints, because the motherboard on my PC supports a maximum of 3 GB. At work, I have chosen 64-bit Ubuntu for my desktop, because my new PC is a 4-core, 64-bit CPU with 4GB RAM. So far, I have not found anything that justifies switching back to 32-bit, although I do have to remember the restriction for one environment - our VPN servers are managed via a web interface. These systems offer 'manage from laptop' or 'manage server', and the latter uses a java interface that won't work because there is not a java plugin for browsers on 64-bit Linux. I am able to use the 'manage from laptop' option in that situation, as that doesn't use Java. Tim -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit (was: InetBoot for Fedora/Ubuntu/KNOPPIX/VMKnoppix is released.)
Olá Tim e a todos. On Wednesday 02 July 2008 10:34:34 Tim wrote: On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 15:28 +0100, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote: One more question: i just found out that there are no 64 bits packages... will there ever be? with a system with 4GiBs of RAM like mine, I can only see 3GiBs. For Intel/AMD systems, there are two options: 32-bit, using the I386 ISO/CD/... 64-bit, using the AMD64 ISO/CD/... Despite having AMD in the name, the 64-bit packages will install on 64-bit Intel processors, as well as the AMD Athlon family. Bear in mind that there are packages which are only available in 32-bit versions. In particular, there are a number of web browser plugins which are only available for 32-bit Linux. For this reason, many linux users are installing the 32-bit distribution on desktop systems, even though those systems would be quite capable of running a 64-bit linux distribution. I am in that category at home, because I access various sites that offer java/flash/adobe content, and I know that these (particularly Java) are not (or not fully) supported on a 64-bit platform. I am not affected by the memory restraints, because the motherboard on my PC supports a maximum of 3 GB. At work, I have chosen 64-bit Ubuntu for my desktop, because my new PC is a 4-core, 64-bit CPU with 4GB RAM. So far, I have not found anything that justifies switching back to 32-bit, although I do have to remember the restriction for one environment - our VPN servers are managed via a web interface. These systems offer 'manage from laptop' or 'manage server', and the latter uses a java interface that won't work because there is not a java plugin for browsers on 64-bit Linux. I am able to use the 'manage from laptop' option in that situation, as that doesn't use Java. Tim I'm sorry Tim, but is your email in response to mine? I know perfectly well the difference between both architectures, and been using 64 bits for a while. In the last year or so, i've found no reason to be restrained to 32 bits OSs. Some time ago, there were lots of packages that were not available at 64bits but that is no longer the case. -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) http://Ubuntu.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB My new micro-blog @ http://BUGabundo.net ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit (was: InetBoot for Fedora/Ubuntu/KNOPPIX/VMKnoppix is released.)
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am in that category at home, because I access various sites that offer java/flash/adobe content, and I know that these (particularly Java) are not (or not fully) supported on a 64-bit platform. For Flash, I use the swfdec plugin. It's not perfect, but then neither is Adobe's plugin. It works for YouTube, and that's pretty much all I'm worried about. It also has FlashBlock built in, essentially, since it doesn't auto-play Flash, just puts a big Play triangle that you have to click to activate the Flash...goodbye annoying ads. For sites done entirely in Flash, it doesn't work quite so well, though...the animations might be a bit jumpy or blank. -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com -my blog of Ubuntu stuff apt-get moo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
