Re: [MLUG] any improvements in 64-bit Linux support (under Ubuntu)?

[ryan woodsmall <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I just bought a new Dell Vostro 200, and went through the all too  
familiar Distribution Dilemma.  I tinkered with 64-bit and it is  
much, much better than it was even a year ago.  Ubuntu and Fedora  
have come at least closer to first-class 64-bit support.  Flash still  
isn't there, nor are Java plugins if that's what you need, but  
otherwise you can't tell a difference between 32b and 64b.

Ultimately I went with Centos 5 32-bit for reasons of familiarity.  I  
don't have much compiled software but this is a box I needed to get  
up rather quickly, and I know all my old code will work with Red Hat/ 
Centos 5 32b.  But...

My next Linux install will be a fully-virtualized 64-bit Xen  
install.  With a 64-bit quad core box you have all the power you  
need, tons of RAM expansion and you can run 32-bit unprivileged Xen  
domains at a decent speed.  A dev, play and production domain for  
each environment, with the possibility of spawning of temporary VMs  
seems like a perfect setup.

  ryan woodsmall
    EMAIL:PROTECTED


"Be well, do good work, and keep in touch." - Garrison Keillor




On Oct 8, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Jonathan King wrote:

> We've got a 64-bit AMD system running Feisty Fawn at home, and it was
> (relatively speaking) hell on wheels to get things set up due to the
> lack of support for 64-bit architectures. Is this expected to change
> in the near future? If not, how much would we be missing if we just
> went for everything under the 32-bit world in Gutsy Goldfish (or
> whatever)? In particular, Flash is *still* not 64-bit, which is a
> major pain, and it looks like you would still need both 32 and 64 bit
> tool-chains to get everything else you might want compiled correctly.
>
> jking

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members