> I believe we are arguing semantics? We are... :) Lisa Kachold writes: > Yes! > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, kitepilot@kitepilot.com < > kitepilot@kitepilot.com> wrote: > >> Lisa, what I was referring to specifically is 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux >> Server release 6.4 (Santiago)' (from /etc/issue) >> Those boxes '64-bit' boxes were unable to run 32-bit applications until I >> installed the 32-bit libraries. >> They technically were 'pure 64' until I 'fixed' them by installing such >> libraries... :-) >> ET >> > I believe we are arguing semantics? > > "fixed" them! > > The process for installation of any native 32 bit applications would, of > course, include the installation of the required libraries. > > They do not need "fixing"? > > >> >> >> Lisa Kachold writes: >> >>> This is patently incorrect: >>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM, kitepilot@kitepilot.com < >>> kitepilot@kitepilot.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, you can get 'pure 64' systems (think Red Hat). >>>> And you can 'fix them' by installing the hybrid 32-bit libraries, but I'd >>>> rather stay away from it. >>>> ET >>>> >>> >>> CentOs 6 using regular repo used both 32bit and 64 bit libraries - >>> seamlessly. >>> There is no reason to "fix" anything in modern linux distributions. >>> There once was, however this is no longer a factor. >>> >>>> >>>> Nathan England writes: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll expand *your* question! >>>>> Are there any *pure* 64-bit OS options out there? Beyond a linux from >>>>> scratch build, which I have currently that is still pure 64-bit, what is >>>>> there? >>>>> every distro I know of has 32-bit libraries band-aided on to make some >>>>> 32-bit that refuses to die run. >>>>> Nathan >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013 13:32:55 kitepilot@kitepilot.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Well, I'll expand the question... >>>>>> Performance and memory access considerations aside, the reason why I >>>>>> have >>>>>> always 'gone 32' is because applications availability. Back when, >>>>>> flash >>>>>> was >>>>>> the limiting factor because it was a PAIN to run it in 64 bits (if at >>>>>> all >>>>>> possible). >>>>>> And some other things... >>>>>> For years, I've been lazily sticking to 32 bits to avoid potentially >>>>>> problematic issues. Now, if that landscape has changed, and >>>>>> application-wise 32 and 64 bits are irrelevant, I'd certainly like to >>>>>> convert to 64. >>>>>> Question is (again, performance and memory access considerations >>>>>> aside): >>>>>> What are the potential problems of running on a pure 64 environment for >>>>>> as >>>>>> long as you stick to apt-get (or yum)? >>>>>> ET >>>>>> keith smith writes: >>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>> > > Even though I have 64bit hardware I always install the 32bit >>>>>> version >>>>>> of >>>>>> > Linux. I do so because of the past discussions on this list that >>>>>> made >>>>>> me >>>>>> > believe the 32bit OS was better because 64bit caching is actually >>>>>> slower >>>>>> > due to the requirement that the cache be filled to a certain point >>>>>> before >>>>>> > it is moved. I think I recall something about the amount of RAM >>>>>> having >>>>>> > some effect here also. >>>>>> > > Using a 32bit version over a 64bit version seems counter intuitive, >>>>>> > however that is what I have taken away from these conversations about >>>>>> > 32bit vs 64bit Linux. >>>>>> > > I'm using CentOS 6.x on a LAMP server that gets a low amount of >>>>>> traffic. > However I may make the jump to Linux on my desktop this >>>>>> summer. >>>>>> (this >>>>>> > will be my 3rd attempt to become M$ free except one VM so I can use >>>>>> IE >>>>>> > for testing) I think all of my hardware is 64bit. > > So that begs >>>>>> the question, is 32bit better than 64bit or do I not >>>>>> > understand the issue? >>>>>> > > Thank you for your feedback. >>>>>> > > Keith >>>>>> > > ------------------------ >>>>>> > > Keith Smith >>>>>> ------------------------------****--------------------- >>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.****org< >>>>>> PLUG-discuss@lists.**phxlinux.org > >>>>>> >>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/****mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>> <**http://lists.phxlinux.org/**mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Nathan England >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~****~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> NME Computer Services http://www.nmecs.com >>>>> Nathan England (nathan@nmecs.com) >>>>> Systems Administration / Web Application Development >>>>> Information Security Consulting >>>>> (480) 559.9681 >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------****--------------------- >>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.****org< >>>> PLUG-discuss@lists.**phxlinux.org > >>>> >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/****mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>> <**http://lists.phxlinux.org/**mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> (503) 754-4452 Android >>> (623) 239-3392 Skype >>> (623) 688-3392 Google Voice >>> ** >>> it-clowns.com >>> Chief Clown >>> >> ------------------------------**--------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.**org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/**mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> > > > > -- > > (503) 754-4452 Android > (623) 239-3392 Skype > (623) 688-3392 Google Voice > ** > it-clowns.com > Chief Clown --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss