[SATLUG] flash on 64-bit linux, sound under virtualbox

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed Oct 21 23:28:42 CDT 2009


Tweeks wrote:
> I find no real advantage to running a web browser in 64 bit.  It's not like is 
> needs to access > 4GiB of RAM.  Plus NOTHING works right in 64bit mode.

This brings up the whole issue of 32-bits vs 64-bits.  In the current Linux From 
Scratch book, I wrote:

"Some other facts about a 64-bit systems need to be added here. When compared to 
a 32-bit system, the sizes of executable programs are slightly larger and the 
execution speeds are only slightly faster. For example, in a test build of 
LFS-6.5 on a Core2Duo CPU based system, the following statistics were measured:

Architecture Build Time     Build Size
32-bit       198.5 minutes  648 MB
64-bit       190.6 minutes  709 MB

As you can see, the 64-bit build is only 4% faster and is 9% larger than the 
32-bit build. The gain from going to a 64-bit system is relatively minimal. Of 
course, if you have more than 4GB of RAM or want to manipulate data that exceeds 
4GB, the advantages of a 64-bit system are substantial."

Everything I've tried works fine in both a 32-bit system and 64-bit system.

I still believe that a 64-bit system for most users is unnecessary.  However, 
it's probably relatively difficult to find a new hardware system that does *not* 
support 64-bits.  Eventually, I think we'll see support for 32-bit systems drop 
away like we saw support for real mode software dropped.  The current mixed-mode
systems that have /lib and /lib64 are an inelegant hack and I think we will see 
less and less need for any 32-bit libraries.  Even today, the only real need for 
32-bit libraries is to support proprietary code like flash and other older code. 
  Nvidia already has 64-bit versions and Adobe is going that way with the flash 
player.  The only other proprietary code I run is vmware and I'm pretty sure 
that comes in native 64-bit versions too.

   -- Bruce


More information about the SATLUG mailing list