32 or 64??
dotancohen at gmail.com
Sun Jan 31 17:00:18 UTC 2010
>> Especially since Karl is right here.
>He might be right in the sense that he knows a simple way to do things.
That's what users want: a simple way of doing things. This is not Gentoo.
> My virtualbox install works perfectly in 64-bit. I've used it
> extensively, maybe not every single feature
That is good to know. When incidents like yours become the norm
instead of the exception, I'll switch my users.
> 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.
I've got at least two!
> We've covered that you can install and use 32-bit flash and 32-bit
> applications in 64-bit linux.
If you're already doing that then why 64-bit to begin with?
>> 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.
For certain wide definitions of "fear". 32-bit has a higher chance of
getting one's applications installed with no hassle. That is a
definite advantage, especially on a distro like Ubuntu.
>> 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.
Final straw in the sense that users expect at least the tutorials to work.
>> 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.
I see "I'm right your wrong" on both sides of the fence here.
Please CC me if you want to be sure that I read your message. I do not
read all list mail.
More information about the ubuntu-users