32 or 64??

[Steve Lamb]

On 01/30/2010 11:30 PM, anubis wrote:
> The salient point, is that there is nothing unsafe about running
> natively 64bit. Regardless how much fear you pump.

     No, there is nothing unsafe in doing so.  Safety was never the issue. 
Safe in this context was meant as "the option with the least amount of 
anticipated problems."  That is just as true now as it was before your entry 
into the topic.

> Just admit YOU are too afraid to do so, and therefore are in no position
> to advise anyone else on the matter.  That would be a respectable
> position.

     It would also be an untrue position.  First off on my main Linux box I am 
incapable of running 64-bit since it is an LPIA machine.  Something I have 
posted about several times here.  Secondly on my 64-bit gaming rig I have 
installed, and use, 64-bit Linux along side Windows 7, 64-bit.  So I am 
neither afraid to run that platform nor unqualified based on the litmus test 
of what I do and do not use.


> I gave the user links, noticed you snipped the PPA which
> allows the 64bit plugin to build on the users machine, which allow
> her/him to make a choice. They can choose fear, and run a hack job, or
> knowledge and have a stable fast system.

     Yes, or they can go for option 3, run 32-bit and have a stable, fast 
system.  This isn't a competition or a race.

> I can comment from both standpoint as I doubt you know what running 100%
> bit is about. Speak only of what you know, please.

     I dare say I probably know a tad more than you give this would be the 3rd 
such jump I've experienced in my lifetime.  See, the mistake you're making is 
confusing what you think *I* would do vs. what *I* would advise others to do. 
  Personally I run Linux in three distinctly different contexts (LPIA netbook, 
64-bit gaming rig, VirtualBox VM) on a daily basis.  That is anecdotal to what 
I would advise people to do.

     What I would advise people to do is what I know will offer them the 
greatest compatibility with the least amount of issues.  Given that a 
well-known piece of widely used software is just now releasing a developer 
version for 64-bit and given that I do not know what other proprietary 
software they current use or *may wish to use in the future* the most 
conservative answer is to go with 32-bit because, as I said, it removes one 
variable from the table.  We know that if it is going to work at all it *will* 
work on 32-bit.

     As I said, that's not FUD, that is simply prudence when dispensing 
general advice to people in a public forum where the aim is stability over 
performance.  Given where this particular branch came from and the statement 
that was originally given I doubt that it was anything more than prudence.

-- 
          Steve C. Lamb         | But who decides what they dream?
        PGP Key: 8B6E99C5       |   And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------