-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Subway steel on Friday 12 September 2008 14:29 : \____
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1311060.HUKxdvdlQ3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> 64-bit Linux, is it time?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that
>> haven't
>> | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications
>> so
>> | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe has
>> not
>> | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however
>> its
>> | been said on one of Adobe's blogs that Flash 10 may be released 64-bit.
>> | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun's Java interpreter. 64-bit
>> Java is
>> | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It's
>> unsure
>> | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris
>> operating
>> | system.
>> |
>> | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the
>> Linux
>> | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should
>> start
>> | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit.
>> Software
>> | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages aren't
>> | available.
>> `----
>>
>> http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/
>
> The guy who wrote this blog is entitled to his own opinion but that doesn't
> make it right. I'm a developer and we have a very large enterprise level
> application that we sell. About 95% of our customers use the 32-bit version
> because the 64-bit version of the app generally runs between 5% to 10%
> slower and it requires more resources (memory). The few customers that do
> run the 64-bit version do so because they have such large amounts of data
> that they need the extra address space.
>
> So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then what
> is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's going
> to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see how
> a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing needs.
True. I think that it's still quite a good option for 'production' desktops
that do something like rendering and run just a couple of dedicated
applications anyway. Chip designers too seem to favour 64-bit GNU/Linux
laptops (seen it in some publications over the past few years).
- --
~~ Best of wishes
VISTA - Venereally-Infectious, Sexually-Transmitted Aliment
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjKmsAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7Y5gCgnhCQUl3xaFVfw/x/zXxYlgTL
MmoAoJ3K77UQ9pNmeX00zHmhga0WqdrC
=Kbg1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
