2006/3/2, alan <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Albert A. Modderkolk wrote: > > >> If you tell yum to "yum update ImageMagick" and it has only one > >> architecture of ImageMagick-c++ available, it will give you that warning > >> without telling you which architecture it is failing for. This is due to > >> the weird quirk that on that platform you can have both 32 bit and 64 bit > >> packages installed at the same time. (I have an AMD64 laptop. I see that > >> problem every once in a while. Especially if the i386 packages get > >> deprecated or never get added to the x86_64 repository.) > >> > > > > Yes, I should have taken a 32-bit system. 64 bits don't bring much in > > performance at this time and lots of problems... I sometimes dream of > > Firefox showing me a jigsaw piece and telling me to download the latest > > and greatest plug-in... which isn't there for 64-bit systems! > > I have considered making an alternate build of Fedora that has 32 bit > versions of the browser components instead of the usual 64 bit versions. > There is no technical reason why it would not work. It would solve the > plug-in issues and it would be "fast enough". > while its a workaround for some people it will slow down the real fixes in that area. who cares about a few proprietary browser plugins whose vendors suck enough to not provide the 64 bit version of their proprietary stuff? ;) also there are open source alternastives on the way for most of those ugly plugins ;) gcjwebplugin -> java browser support e.g. theres a new open source flash plugin in the makes aswell (but flash needs mp3 legacy (since there are better unencumbered formats) stuff) regards, rudolf kastl p.s. i use x86_64 too with no problems at all (since i reported the problems i had to bugzilla a while ago) > -- > "George W. Bush -- Bringing back the Sixties one Nixon at a time." > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list >
