32 or 64??

[Johnneylee Rollins]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can we please avoid personal attacks here?  While it's true that Karl's
>> "advice" tends to range from just plain incorrect to the most
>> extravagant flights of fancy, that kind of name-calling doesn't help the
>> situation (and only makes you look foolish as well).
>>
>
> Especially since Karl is right here.
He might be right in the sense that he knows a simple way to do things.
>
> Have you tried using Wine on 64 bit? Some apps work, some don't.
> Flash? I don't know about *buntu 9.10 (I personally use 32 bit) but in
> 9.04 installing Flash on 64 bit was a headache. Does Virtualbox still
> have problems with 64 bit?
My virtualbox install works perfectly in 64-bit. I've used it
extensively, maybe not every single feature
I've not been able to come across any applications that work in 32-bit
wine (which you can install instead of 64-bit) that don't work on
64-bit. I also have made progress in terms of configuring applications
that the winedb said are not able to run. That's me though, not any
new user.
We've covered that you can install and use 32-bit flash and 32-bit
applications in 64-bit linux.
>
> Now tell me, what advantage does 64 bit have? Sure, a user _might_not_
> have any problems with 64 bit, but then again he might. Why take that
> risk when 32 bit works fine?
You're being somewhat ignorant here, we've already said why one is
better than the other for both sides.
32-bit is safe, but lacks things 64-bit can do. Address 4 gigs
properly among other previously posted things.
Just having a working system is easy. Making something just work is
Ubuntu's slogan, so choose 32-bit.
Not really a problem, the OP asked for opinions and facts, we provided
them. 64-bit users have used fact and also want the user to move
forward. Some 32-bit advocates have used fear to push the 32-bit onto
them instead of just facts and pushing a user to move forward.
>
> The final straw for me is that many tutorials and guides directed at
> *buntu users assume 32 bit. The user saves himself quite a headache by
> stickin with 32 bit, even with 4 GB RAM.
Final straw? Really now. If you want to use the 32-bit version, you
can completely use it inside 64-bit. There is no extra configuration.
Maybe try 64-bit. If a application doesn't work in 64-bit, just
install the safe 32-bit in the 640bit operating system.

>
> I have a feeling that this thread has turned into another Karl bashing
> thread, and that's it. Karl is the new Microsoft now that Windows 7 is
> out and *buntheads can no longer complain that W1nder$ suxXx. Grow up.
> Give advice that helps the user, not advice that pushes your agendas.
> The people asking for advice on the *buntu lists do not need to be
> your 64-bit test bunnies, and Karl doesn't need to be your stepping
> stone to a big ego. I see some names here that I otherwise respect,
> and I am both disappointed and embarrassed to see what is going on
> here. I'm not a moderator, I'm a user, so feel free to send me right
> to hell but don't forget that Linux mailing lists are a forum for
> mature, knowledgeable people to discuss issues. Not for bashing, not
> for pushing your agenda (except for the Debian list :) and not for
> experimenting on new users.

It has become that, because he's being very inflammatory and rude. He
is not putting down facts or anything but opinions.
His opinion is welcome, but his denying the possibility that his
opinion isn't fact is really not.

~SpaceGhost

>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>