Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:It gets hard but... (Score 1) 103

Once you learn the path to follow, Tubular is a piece of cake. Yes, many lost lives and much profanity is used in the finding of that path. Also, don't grab the second P balloon right away -- Wait until you're about to lose the one you have. That will give you the extra 10 seconds you need to properly dodge those stinking footballs.

Comment Re:64 bit flash .... Why? (Score 1) 172

Yep. The problem isn't getting the binaries to run, the problem is with getting 32bit versions of all the libraries they need to work alongside the 64 bit versions of the libraries (A whole new walk through "Dependency Hell". Those "incompetent fools" in Redmond have a much tighter control over which libraries ship with their OS (Most of them are still of the 32bit variety). You see, you can run 32bit code and 64bit code on the same machine, but not in the same process. Since 64bit Windows runs a 64bit kernel, it still had it's problems when it was new, mainly in the area of device drivers, which all had to be recompiled in 64bit to work with the new 64bit kernel. The rest of it's still pretty much 32bit (with the new Exchange server being a notable exception, but it ships with it's own set of 64bit dll's).

Comment Re:64 bit flash .... Why? (Score 1) 172

To run the 32-bit flashplayer natively, because your browser and all it's pluigns have to have the same number of bits, so to speak.

Yes, I know about nspluginwrapper. Yes, it works OK, but it has it's own quirks, and it takes slow to a whole new level.

So, there's 3 choices, 32-bit firefox with 32-bit flashplayer, 64-bit firefox with nspluginwrapped 32-bit flashplayer, and 64-bit firefox with 64-bit flashplayer. The first isn't an option for me without a reinstall, the second sucks, and the third also sucks, but, IMHO, sucks less.

So, to sum up a way-too-long answer; What's a convincing reason to use 64-bit flashplayer? Answer: Because or all the options for 64-bit Ubuntu, it sucks the least.

Comment Re:64 bit flash .... Why? (Score 1) 172

So it can use up to 2TB of RAM at once? :)

Not speaking from personal experience or anything...
If you decide to load a 64-bit version of a popular distro that doesn't have decent packages for 32-bit firefox (thank you very much, Ubuntu). Last I tried, 32-bit firefox won't even build or run on 64-bit ubuntu, even with copious use of getlibs.

Those of us (OK, those of YOU. I obviously fail.) with a modicum of foresight installed 32-bit, because, really, what does 64-bit anything gain you that's not outweighed by problems?

Comment Re:Getting Flash to Work (Score 2, Informative) 223

Adobe has an 'Alpha' 64-bit Flash player out for Linux. It's kept up-to-date (well, sort of). I would consider it mid-Beta quality. Actually, it works just about as well as the 32bit official version, so, draw whatever conclusions you like. It's available on their 'Labs' section. Don't bother with the installer, it breaks things. Important things. Instead, just extract the .so and link it up yourself.

Comment Re:Not Chrome's Fault (Score 2, Informative) 223

Psshhh... ultra-stable? 9.10 is the worst distro Ubuntu has had since I started using it back at Fiesty (7.04). I'll give you one example -- Upstart. Upstart is absolute crap. It tries to do away with a convention (Init) that has worked for years, and is standard across many distros, and replace it with one that was never ready for prime-time. They didn't even get the script for frackin' X right -- they had to push a patch through to stop upstart from constantly restarting X if, for some reason, your configuration was bad. That really pissed off those of us that had intel on-board graphics that made the driver Karmic shipped with poo itself.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...