Kevin J. Cummings <cummings <at> kjchome.homeip.net> writes:
> > What issues?
>
> Issues, hassles, basically the same. The things that have to be worked
> around.
My question was: can you please list the actual issues, hassles or however you
want to call them? Because most of what you listed is either:
* no hassle at all (like a single yum install line will solve your problem) or
* not an issue with x86_64: you upgraded from FC6 to F9 at the same time as
your 32->64-bit migration. That's a big upgrade, skipping 2 releases even. So
saying "this worked better on my old FC6 i386" is completely irrelevant for the
question which started this thread, which is "should I go with F9 i386 or F9
x86_64?".
> > This has nothing whatsoever to do with x86_64, it's exactly the same on F9
> > i386.
>
> It wasn't when I first upgraded. The first problem was that the API
> changed and i386 worked and x86_64 didn't. Over time, ATI fixed that
> problem (took a couple of months), but not the Xorg version problem.
Fglrx just plain didn't work on F9, be it 32-bit or 64-bit. They now have a
beta out which should work, it's up at RPM Fusion for both i?86 and x86_64.
> >> 2) Many firefox plugins require nspluginwrapper because there are no
> >> x86_64 versions for them (Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader). Getting it to
> >> work correctly is straightforward and the Fedora Project Documentation
> >> is correct if you follow it.
> >
> > So what's the problem there?
>
> Maybe not a problem, but a big hassle. And, it didn't use to be that
> way on i386.
How is "yum install nspluginwrapper.i386" a hassle? It's one line!
> > But nspluginwrapper is used by default even on 32-bit installations for
> > security reasons (because running the plugin in a separate process allows
> > confining it with SELinux).
>
> Again, it didn't use to be that way. Its a hassle.
But that's a change in Fedora 9 (actually it was in Fedora 7 or 8 already, but
in any case it's like that in F9).
> > Or just don't use acroread at all, that's what Okular and Evince are for.
>
> When you say "don't use X" and "X" is written by the people who defined
> it, you are basically saying that the standard definers don't know what
> they are doing.... Seems very strange. None of the replacements ever
> work as well as the original. At least for me. Its a hassle.
The original is not Free Software, so of course it will cause more problems
than the replacements which are.
And if you believe the best software is always made by the people who defined a
standard, stop using Firefox and use Amaya instead, it's from the W3C. :-D
(FYI, don't bother, it's essentially useless as a browser. It may arguably have
some use as a website editor, but even there there are better alternatives.)
> > Konqueror can even embed Okular as a KPart if that's important to you.
>
> I don't use Konqueror.
Your loss. ;-)
> >> 3) Sometimes sound gets screwed up in the browser (firefox). Even when
> >> using gecko-mediaplayer. Restarting the browser, or sometimes
> >> restarting the X session is necessary.
> >
> > I don't think this is related to 64-bit either.
>
> Maybe not, but I never noticed it until I upgraded to x86_64.
But that doesn't mean it is relevant for the i386 vs. x86_64 discussion.
> >> 4) If you want to run vmware-server you might want to upgrade to the
> >> version 2.0 BETA which has an X86_64 RPM. (the version 1 version is
> >> i386 only). I had no trouble running the .i386 version of vmware-server
> >> with the appropriate compatibility libraries. Now I'm running the
> >> x86_64 BETA and it runs my 32-bit virtual machine just fine. You *MAY*
> >> need to find the latest version of vmware-anyanyupdate (or you may not)
> >> for vmware-server version 1.
> >
> > So where's the problem?
>
> Hassle! Please stop changing the intent of my words!
How's running the latest version of your software a hassle?
> > OK, this is one valid argument. But the addons most people actually use
> > should be available for x86_64.
>
> OK, so you're telling me I'm using the wrong addons? B^)
^^
> >> So can finding addons that support firefox 3.0 in some cases.
> >
> > This has nothing whatsoever to do with x86_64, it's exactly the same on F9
> > i386.
>
> Maybe so, but its a hassle.
But that doesn't mean it is relevant for the i386 vs. x86_64 discussion.
> The problem is not with alsa-plugins-pulseaudio, its with
> jack-audio-connection-kit, needed by wine-jack.
You don't need wine-jack to get sound in WINE. JACK is not the default sound
server in Fedora, PulseAudio is.
> >> 7) FC6 used cubbi-suspend2 kernels in order to suspend and hiberate
> >> correctly. I was unable to make the tuxonice kernels work for me on F9,
> >> but the stock kernel support works fine with F9. (It may not be as fast
> >> as tuxonice, but it does suspend/hibernate and restore without any major
> >> problems.)
> >
> > This has nothing whatsoever to do with x86_64, it's exactly the same on F9
> > i386.
>
> Maybe so, bu I ran into it after I upgraded to x86_64.
But that doesn't mean it is relevant for the i386 vs. x86_64 discussion. The
fact that you happened to upgrade from FC6 to F9 at the same time is completely
irrelevant here.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
