Flash, and 32 vs. 64

(=?iso-8859-1?q?=60=60-=5F-=B4=B4?=) -- BUGabundo BUGabundo at ubuntu.com
Thu Jun 18 00:52:05 UTC 2009

Olá Patrick e a todos.

On Wednesday 17 June 2009 19:57:56 Patrick Goetz wrote:
> Once we switched to using the 64-bit Flash alpha plugin, the 64-bit 
> firefox was slightly faster than the 32-bit version.  As far as I can 
> tell, the 64-bit Flash plugin is fairly stable and works with all the 
> content we could think to try out.

I've been using the 64 bits flash from adobe since the day it came out, without any major problem directly related to it.
I do notice it is *much* lighter then nspluginwrapper. The only downfall is not having auto-updates for it, but thats only because, from what gnomefreak told me, there isnt a tarball and MD5 with all we need to package it. :(

Hi, I'm BUGabundo, and I am Ubuntu (whyubuntu.com)
(``-_-´´)	http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net
Linux user #443786    GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20090618/67f6a3e7/attachment.sig>

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list