On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Johnny Hughes <email@example.com> wrote:
> Most people responding are probably running the 32bit (i386) version of
> CentOS. If you are running the x86_64 arch and also running the
> Mozilla.org firefox then you are PROBABLY doing so via the 32bit
> compatibility libs.
I have the same stability problems with Seamonkey on both my 32-bit
workstation at work and my 64-bit desktop at home. In fact, they have
grown worse since SM 1.10 a couple of months ago (they're up to 1.12
and it's more unstable than ever, with the same problems and worse).
> It has been my experience that this is far less stable (32bit
> compatibility libs on x86_64) for many things, not just firefox.
Actually, I have almost no stability problems other than SM on my
64-bit machine at home. However, I should add the caveat that I don't
use every single newfangled, shiny app that comes out just because
it's there. I have a strong preference for proven, stable apps, so
that could be a part of it. I also tend to prefer 64-bit apps where
possible/available because they tend to run better than their 32-bit
counterparts (on a 64-bit OS). My personal, big exception: OOo,
because I like the newer version (2.4.1) a lot better than the distro
version (2.3.0), which is just ok.
> I have never personally recommended running the x86_64 arch on a desktop
> workstation ... and in fact, I have several 64bit capable machines that
> I personally use as workstations where I install the 32bit (i386
> version) of CentOS.
I'd say it's a matter of personal taste and experience - if your
experience with 64-bits on your desktop is not as good as your
experiences with 32, chances are you'll feel that way. If you run
gobs of 32-bit apps that are not available in 64-bit versions and they
tend to be a bit flaky on the 64-bit platform, that's also a good
reason to stick to 32.
> I know everyone THINKS that they want/need the x86_64 arch ... however,
> the rest of the world outside the base OS are really not quite ready for
> I personally only use x86_64 on servers where I can remove all the
> i[3,4,5,6]86 RPMS and go "x86_64 only" ... where it works great.
> This is, of course, one man's opinion
> Also, there are newer versions of Adobe Reader
> (AdobeReader_enu-8.1.2_SU1) and Adobe Flash
> (flash-plugin-10.0.12.36-release) that are a bit more stable than the
> earlier ones. Specifically, the SU1 version of Adobe Reader is better
> than the standard 8.1.2 version.
This certainly seems to be true for the 32-bit versions, at least of
AR (I don't think I have the 10.x version of flash yet...). On my
home desktop, I run AR 7.9 because the 8.x versions don't print
landscape PDFs properly at all, and they also have fewer options for
printing, like scaling that works. This could be a 64-bit issue, but
I run the 32-bit plugins with nspluginwrapper, and although MOST
plugins run just fine that way, nppdf and flash do not. Sometimes I
think Adobe just doesn't like 64-bits yet.
That's just _my_ $0.02 ($4 in today's money...).
CentOS mailing list