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 co
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
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 har
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 be
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
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 ac
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 bugg
64-bit Mint 8 works fine, but I haven't noticed any dramatic speed
increase. The only problem I have had is accessing the scanner on an
Epson multipurpose printer, since their driver software apparently only
comes in 32-bit mode. (The printer part works fine through CUPS.)
Jon.
Josh Smith wro
-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
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 availa
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 Use
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 ha
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
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
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
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.
I
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
--- On Sat, 21/11/09, Daniel Pittman 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,
--- On Sat, 21/11/09, Dean Hamstead 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
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-
Robert Collins 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 th
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
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. Ot
mark adrian bell 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
> 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
Robert Collins 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
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-bi
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
jam wrote:
performance differences are 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
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,
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 proces
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
hi,
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:23 AM, 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 browsin
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 C
2009/11/19 Richard Ibbotson :
> 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?
>
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 w
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)
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 annoyin
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 mi
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
fos...@tpg.com.au writes:
> Quoting Daniel Pittman :
>
>> 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
>
Quoting Daniel Pittman :
> 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 ho
Ken Foskey 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
pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au writes:
>> "heracles" == heracles 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
> "heracles" == heracles 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
-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-
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.
> Herac
-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 writes:
>
>> Has anyone had much luck with the 64 bit flash plugin. I
-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 fla
Heracles 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 m
-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+DypmOnqyUr
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 6
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 wor
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
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.
-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 s
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 us
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,
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 librar
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 lib
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
61 matches
Mail list logo
