6 ms·

On Fedora (17 here, 32 bits) replaces the old package without installing any extra stuff. I haven't tested it deeply, but looks like runs smoother than the pre

by reidrac 14y ago

On Fedora (17 here, 32 bits) replaces the old package without installing any extra stuff. I haven't tested it deeply, but looks like runs smoother than the previous (quite unstable) version.

ajross 14y ago
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).
- reidrac 14y 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).
  - rmk2 14y 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
    - reidrac 14y 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.
- jablan 14y ago
  I apologize for the digression, but what's wrong with running 32bit linux on a desktop/laptop?
  - MBCook 14y 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/ 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).
  - ajross 14y 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.
    - ars 14y 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.
      - ajross 14y ago
        Of course. Even better (best of both worlds, really) would be to run a 64 bit kernel with an x32 userspace: https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ But those are still bleeding edge options for people comfortable with tinkering with their systems. I was speaking to the simple choice of i686 vs. x86_64 in pre-cooked systems.
    - 14y ago

by reidrac 14y ago

On Fedora (17 here, 32 bits) replaces the old package without installing any extra stuff. I haven't tested it deeply, but looks like runs smoother than the previous (quite unstable) version.

ajross 14y ago

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).

reidrac 14y 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).
- rmk2 14y 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
  - reidrac 14y 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.
jablan 14y ago
I apologize for the digression, but what's wrong with running 32bit linux on a desktop/laptop?
- MBCook 14y 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/ 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).
- ajross 14y 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.
  - ars 14y 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.
    - ajross 14y ago
      Of course. Even better (best of both worlds, really) would be to run a 64 bit kernel with an x32 userspace: https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ But those are still bleeding edge options for people comfortable with tinkering with their systems. I was speaking to the simple choice of i686 vs. x86_64 in pre-cooked systems.
  - 14y ago