undefined | Better HN

0 pointsajross13y ago0 comments

The point was that skype has no x86_64 version. So if you have a 64 bit install (random aside: I hope you're on an Atom netbook and not running a 32 bit linux on a desktop/laptop) it will pull all the i686 versions of its dependencies.

This probably works now on Ubuntu, which has finally rolled out a multilib implementation (that I haven't kicked the tires on yet).

0 comments

reidrac13y ago

This a i3 M370, but I run a 32 bits OS because I got tired of running 64 bits with applications with no support for 64 bits (read: Flash browser plugin and Skype).

After some time I've found that there's no real advantage for me on a 64 bits OS for a laptop (ie. I have only 3GB of RAM, performance looks the same, etc).

rmk213y ago

Flash has been X86_64 compatible for a while now...

  sh-4.2$ rpm -q flash-player
  flash-player-11.2.202.236-91.1.x86_64

(rpm query on openSUSE Tumbleweed)

  sh-4.2$ file /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so
  /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped

reidrac13y ago

Choppy sound (if not completely broken depending on the audio codec), crashes (I got core dumps daily), absurd CPU usage and made Firefox unstable.

I'm not a heavy flash user, but after 6 months I was really frustrated. The 32 bits version works great in comparison.

jablan13y ago

I apologize for the digression, but what's wrong with running 32bit linux on a desktop/laptop?

ajrossOP13y ago

Apart from it being a measurably slower architecture (15-20% is typical) and the only sane way of dealing with large memory machines? (Laptops with 8G are routine today, and require a PAE kernel on i686). Refusing to upgrade is the reason that products like Skype continue to refuse to support 64 bit targets.

Just try it. Chances are you won't even notice the difference, except that your battery will last a tiny bit longer if you do compute-heavy stuff.

jablan13y ago

Tried it couple years ago and the only thing I noticed was that it used more memory (almost twice as much as 32bit IIRC). So I returned to 32bit and am still using it, with PAE kernel so I can use all 4 gigs that I have right now. I really don't feel a bit responsible because Skype refuses to support 64bit.

Another reason that I keep 32bit is portability, as I have quite a peculiar setup: I keep my Linux on a removable HDD, and boot off it on several different machines, which may or may not support 64bit. (So I don't have to tow my laptop to work and back every day.)

ars13y ago

You can run a 64 bit kernel, with a 32 bit userspace BTW, this lets you access all the memory on your machine.

Personally I'm waiting for debian multiarch to switch, since I have no desire to reinstall everything from scratch. If debian multiarch did not exist I might have bitten the bullet, but since it does, I can wait a bit for it.

1 more reply

wtracy13y ago

This may surprise you, but every laptop and desktop that I own has a 32-bit processor in it.

MBCook13y ago

How many years has it been since AMD released the Hammer architecture? There was actually a recent post on the LKML that mentioned this.

http://lwn.net/Articles/501769/

At this point, I see no reason to run a pure 32 bit userspace. There are no real advantages. The performance impacts are minor, and most people are over 4 GB (or should be).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

reidrac13y ago

This a i3 M370, but I run a 32 bits OS because I got tired of running 64 bits with applications with no support for 64 bits (read: Flash browser plugin and Skype).

After some time I've found that there's no real advantage for me on a 64 bits OS for a laptop (ie. I have only 3GB of RAM, performance looks the same, etc).

rmk213y ago

Flash has been X86_64 compatible for a while now...

  sh-4.2$ rpm -q flash-player
  flash-player-11.2.202.236-91.1.x86_64

(rpm query on openSUSE Tumbleweed)

  sh-4.2$ file /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so
  /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped

reidrac13y ago

Choppy sound (if not completely broken depending on the audio codec), crashes (I got core dumps daily), absurd CPU usage and made Firefox unstable.

I'm not a heavy flash user, but after 6 months I was really frustrated. The 32 bits version works great in comparison.

jablan13y ago

I apologize for the digression, but what's wrong with running 32bit linux on a desktop/laptop?

ajrossOP13y ago

Just try it. Chances are you won't even notice the difference, except that your battery will last a tiny bit longer if you do compute-heavy stuff.

jablan13y ago

ars13y ago

You can run a 64 bit kernel, with a 32 bit userspace BTW, this lets you access all the memory on your machine.

1 more reply

wtracy13y ago

This may surprise you, but every laptop and desktop that I own has a 32-bit processor in it.

MBCook13y ago

How many years has it been since AMD released the Hammer architecture? There was actually a recent post on the LKML that mentioned this.

http://lwn.net/Articles/501769/

At this point, I see no reason to run a pure 32 bit userspace. There are no real advantages. The performance impacts are minor, and most people are over 4 GB (or should be).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse