Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:52:03 +0100 Christian Seiler wrote: > On 03/20/2016 06:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks > > for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. > > But its not, currently

Re: x86_64 vs i386 now firefoxish

On 03/22/2016 04:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: On Tuesday 22 March 2016 18:43:54 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > What do I put in /etc/apt/sources.list to gain access to the newer > > one? > > So far as I can see, you can't, not in Wheezy. The one you have is > the most recent available via the repo.

Re: x86_64 vs i386 now firefoxish

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 19:38:00 Lisi Reisz wrote: > (Private copy sent as well in case attachment doesn't get through on > list.) > > On Tuesday 22 March 2016 23:14:00 Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 March 2016 18:43:54 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > What do I put in /etc/apt/sources.list to

Re: x86_64 vs i386 now firefoxish

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 18:43:54 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > What do I put in /etc/apt/sources.list to gain access to the newer > > one? > > So far as I can see, you can't, not in Wheezy. The one you have is > the most recent available via the repo. > http://mozilla.debian.net/ > > You could always

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 18:54:30 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Tuesday 22 March 2016 13:17:26 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 March 2016 01:04:44 Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > > You

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 13:17:26 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 22 March 2016 01:04:44 Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit > > >

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 01:04:44 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote: > > > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff > > > in quite a while? > > > > Quote at the end of last week

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On 21/03/16 07:23 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 21 March 2016 15:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus", and What do you mean by that? There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the chromium package?

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote: > > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff > > in quite a while? > > Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs a 32 > bit computer (Debian

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:39 PM, John Hasler wrote: > Tom Broder writes: >> I just upgraded to Deb 8 (Jessie), 64bit, and tried Chromium but it >> didn't work for me. Downloaded Chrome from Google and it works fine. > > That doesn't mean it isn't 32 bit. Debian has

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 21 March 2016 15:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus", >> > and >> >> What do you mean by that? >> There won't be any new versions of Debian's

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote: > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff in > quite a while? Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs a 32 bit computer (Debian 7 and TDE 3.5.13.2): My computer is telling me I have 75

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 15:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus", > > and > > What do you mean by that? > There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the > chromium package? > > > Stefan I don't know what is

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 17:09:52 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 21 March 2016 12:08:15 The Wanderer wrote: > > On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > >>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under > > >>>

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 12:08:15 The Wanderer wrote: > On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote: > >>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under > >>> the bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff >

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On 2016-03-20, David Christensen wrote: > > I would do a backup-wipe-install-restore cycle. (Yes, I'm predictable.) > LOL. -- Hypertext--or should I say the ideology of hypertext?--is ultrademocratic and so entirely in harmony with the demagogic appeals to cultural

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote: > >>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under >>> the bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff >>> left behind. >> >> What do you mean by that? >> >> >>

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 11:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the > > bus", and > > What do you mean by that? > There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the > chromium package? > > > Stefan Exactly. Cheers,

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the > > bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left > > behind. > > What do you mean by that? > > > Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much

Re: x86_64 vs i386

> to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus", and What do you mean by that? There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the chromium package? Stefan

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 14:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, > > and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind. > > What do you mean by that? > > > Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much

Re: x86_64 vs i386

> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, > and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind. What do you mean by that? Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Monday 21 March 2016 00:20:28 David Christensen wrote: > On 03/20/2016 04:08 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote: > >> I'm curious about "2 new drives". What's the intended purpose of > >> the machine? What drive(s) are already installed? Any

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On 03/20/2016 04:08 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote: I'm curious about "2 new drives". What's the intended purpose of the machine? What drive(s) are already installed? Any spares on the shelf? Some, but with 60k plus spinning hours on them.

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 15:35:54 David Christensen wrote: > On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks > > for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. > > But its not, currently running kernel

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:35:54PM -0700, David Christensen wrote: > On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > >Or should I bite the bullet, go buy 2 new drives and do a fresh x86_64 > >install? > I'm curious about "2 new drives". What's the intended purpose of the > machine? What drive(s)

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On 03/20/2016 10:45 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. But its not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently installed 32 bit application has a

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:59:14 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:51:03 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote: > > > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, > > > > Why?? > > > > Lisi > > How is that avoidable? > > Cheers, Gene

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:53:02 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote: > > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a > > clue if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc > > will run on a jessie install. > > You can

Stupid ERRATUM was Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:53:02 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote: > > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a clue > > if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc will run > > on a jessie install. > > You can

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:51:03 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote: > > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, > > Why?? > > Lisi How is that avoidable? Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap,

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On 2016-03-20 at 14:51, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote: > >> And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, > > Why?? Because a new Debian install, with current install media, installs systemd. You can go out of your way and take extra steps to

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote: > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, and I've not a clue > if the real app, one that must run, the sim version of linuxcnc will run > on a jessie install. You can install 32 bit Wheezy - though I agree that I wouldn't at this

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 18:43:03 Gene Heskett wrote: > And since all this is also going to bring in systemd, Why?? Lisi

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sunday 20 March 2016 13:54:09 Dan Ritter wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Greetings all; > > > > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks > > for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. > > But its not,

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for > some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. But its > not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no

Re: x86_64 vs i386

On 03/20/2016 06:45 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for > some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. But its > not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently > installed 32 bit application

x86_64 vs i386

Greetings all; One of the problems I have is architecture related, synaptic thinks for some unfathomable to me reason, that this is an i386 machine. But its not, currently running kernel 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64, and no currently installed 32 bit application has a problem. But now all the