Do 32 bit apps run in x86_64?

Sam wrote:
> Todd writes:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in
>> 64 bit Linux?
>
> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.

Fairly full.

I've seen a few that dont work..


> Of
> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit versions of
> all shared libraries the application requires must also be installed. A
> 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it must also load 32
> bit libraries.
>
>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
>
> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key system
> libraries.

But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.

> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications
> provided that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well, by
> 32 bit RPMs of their own.
>

The only way is to simply try it.

And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
applications imply wont work.

At 26 Oct 2009 13:01:36 GMT General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Todd writes:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in 64 bit Linux?
> >>
> >> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.
> >
> > Fairly full.
> >
> > I've seen a few that dont work..
> >
> >
> >> Of
> >> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit versions
> >> of all shared libraries the application requires must also be
> >> installed. A 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it must
> >> also load 32 bit libraries.
> >>
> >>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
> >>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
> >>
> >> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key system
> >> libraries.
> >
> > But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.
> >
> >> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications provided
> >> that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well, by 32 bit
> >> RPMs of their own.
> >>
> >>
> > The only way is to simply try it.
> >
> > And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
> > applications imply wont work.
>
> I can't think of anything that doesn't work. The open source applications
> that are provided with the distro are all compiled for 64 bits. The only
> closed source driver you are likely to use is Nvidia's and they have
> always provided 64 bit versions. Adobe Flash has been available for 64
> bits for a long time, it's still a beta but it works just fine. Java
> plugins don't seem to work on 64 bit Fedora, but Java works. The only
> library problems that I've ever encountered had nothing to do with 64 bit
> vs 32 bit, they had to do with version of the library or the fact that
> Fedora replaced Motif with Lesstif which isn't entirely compatible. The
> solution to the library issue is to use a CentOS5 Virtual Machine.
> Commercial applications are all targeted to RHEL, CentOS is a clone of
> RHEL, which solves the library issue. The performance of a KVM CentOS VM
> on Fedora is practically native. You can run 32 bit and 64 bit VMs side
> by side and you can also use VMs to run Windows on top of Linux. If you
> are running a distro that has a 2.27 or older kernel you can use VMware
> Server which is the most stable VM system. KVM is the native VM for
> Fedora, it has better Linux performance than VMware but worse Windows
> performance. Another choice is VirtualBox from Sun. They provide support
> for all of the major distros and they keep it up to date for recent
> kernels (KVM is part of the kernel so by definition it supports every
> recent kernel).

The other weirdness with a 64-bit install: setting things up to build
32-bit binaries. You need to install the 32-bit devel packages and I am
not sure if that would conflict with the 64-bit devel packages. (Yes,
there are reasons to build apps for 32-bit -- generally if you have 32-bit
target environments, such as using older 32-bit systems as dedicated
systems. Sometime said machines don't have the wherewithall for a build
environment for various reasons.)

>

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
heller.TakeThisOut@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Sam wrote:
>> Todd writes:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in
>>> 64 bit Linux?
>>
>> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.
>
> Fairly full.
>
> I've seen a few that dont work..
>

Care to name some?

>> Of
>> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit versions
>> of all shared libraries the application requires must also be
>> installed. A 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it must
>> also load 32 bit libraries.
>>
>>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
>>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
>>
>> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key system
>> libraries.
>
> But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.

Care to name the mising ones?

>> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications
>> provided that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well, by
>> 32 bit RPMs of their own.
>>
>
> The only way is to simply try it.
>
> And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
> applications imply wont work.

Why not simply recompile to 64 bits?
--
Accident, n.:
A condition in which presence of mind is good, but absence of
body is better.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Sam wrote:
>> Todd writes:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in 64 bit Linux?
>>
>> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.
>
> Fairly full.
>
> I've seen a few that dont work..
>
>
>> Of
>> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit versions
>> of all shared libraries the application requires must also be
>> installed. A 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it must
>> also load 32 bit libraries.
>>
>>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
>>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
>>
>> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key system
>> libraries.
>
> But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.
>
>> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications provided
>> that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well, by 32 bit
>> RPMs of their own.
>>
>>
> The only way is to simply try it.
>
> And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
> applications imply wont work.

I can't think of anything that doesn't work. The open source applications
that are provided with the distro are all compiled for 64 bits. The only
closed source driver you are likely to use is Nvidia's and they have
always provided 64 bit versions. Adobe Flash has been available for 64
bits for a long time, it's still a beta but it works just fine. Java
plugins don't seem to work on 64 bit Fedora, but Java works. The only
library problems that I've ever encountered had nothing to do with 64 bit
vs 32 bit, they had to do with version of the library or the fact that
Fedora replaced Motif with Lesstif which isn't entirely compatible. The
solution to the library issue is to use a CentOS5 Virtual Machine.
Commercial applications are all targeted to RHEL, CentOS is a clone of
RHEL, which solves the library issue. The performance of a KVM CentOS VM
on Fedora is practically native. You can run 32 bit and 64 bit VMs side
by side and you can also use VMs to run Windows on top of Linux. If you
are running a distro that has a 2.27 or older kernel you can use VMware
Server which is the most stable VM system. KVM is the native VM for
Fedora, it has better Linux performance than VMware but worse Windows
performance. Another choice is VirtualBox from Sun. They provide support
for all of the major distros and they keep it up to date for recent
kernels (KVM is part of the kernel so by definition it supports every
recent kernel).

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:32:38 -0500, Robert Heller wrote:

> At 26 Oct 2009 13:01:36 GMT General Schvantzkoph
> <schvantzkoph RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> > Sam wrote:
>> >> Todd writes:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi All,
>> >>>
>> >>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in 64 bit Linux?
>> >>
>> >> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.
>> >
>> > Fairly full.
>> >
>> > I've seen a few that dont work..
>> >
>> >
>> >> Of
>> >> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit
>> >> versions of all shared libraries the application requires must also
>> >> be installed. A 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it
>> >> must also load 32 bit libraries.
>> >>
>> >>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
>> >>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
>> >>
>> >> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key
>> >> system libraries.
>> >
>> > But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.
>> >
>> >> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications provided
>> >> that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well, by 32 bit
>> >> RPMs of their own.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > The only way is to simply try it.
>> >
>> > And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
>> > applications imply wont work.
>>
>> I can't think of anything that doesn't work. The open source
>> applications that are provided with the distro are all compiled for 64
>> bits. The only closed source driver you are likely to use is Nvidia's
>> and they have always provided 64 bit versions. Adobe Flash has been
>> available for 64 bits for a long time, it's still a beta but it works
>> just fine. Java plugins don't seem to work on 64 bit Fedora, but Java
>> works. The only library problems that I've ever encountered had nothing
>> to do with 64 bit vs 32 bit, they had to do with version of the library
>> or the fact that Fedora replaced Motif with Lesstif which isn't
>> entirely compatible. The solution to the library issue is to use a
>> CentOS5 Virtual Machine. Commercial applications are all targeted to
>> RHEL, CentOS is a clone of RHEL, which solves the library issue. The
>> performance of a KVM CentOS VM on Fedora is practically native. You can
>> run 32 bit and 64 bit VMs side by side and you can also use VMs to run
>> Windows on top of Linux. If you are running a distro that has a 2.27 or
>> older kernel you can use VMware Server which is the most stable VM
>> system. KVM is the native VM for Fedora, it has better Linux
>> performance than VMware but worse Windows performance. Another choice
>> is VirtualBox from Sun. They provide support for all of the major
>> distros and they keep it up to date for recent kernels (KVM is part of
>> the kernel so by definition it supports every recent kernel).
>
> The other weirdness with a 64-bit install: setting things up to build
> 32-bit binaries. You need to install the 32-bit devel packages and I am
> not sure if that would conflict with the 64-bit devel packages. (Yes,
> there are reasons to build apps for 32-bit -- generally if you have
> 32-bit target environments, such as using older 32-bit systems as
> dedicated systems. Sometime said machines don't have the wherewithall
> for a build environment for various reasons.)
>
>

There are two ways to do that, use mock or to use a VM. I prefer using a
VM but I believe that mock is the more common method.

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Todd writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in
>>>> 64 bit Linux?
>>> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.
>> Fairly full.
>>
>> I've seen a few that dont work..
>>
>
> Care to name some?
>
>>> Of
>>> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit versions
>>> of all shared libraries the application requires must also be
>>> installed. A 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it must
>>> also load 32 bit libraries.
>>>
>>>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
>>>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
>>> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key system
>>> libraries.
>> But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.
>
> Care to name the mising ones?
>
>>> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications
>>> provided that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well, by
>>> 32 bit RPMs of their own.
>>>
>> The only way is to simply try it.
>>
>> And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
>> applications imply wont work.
>
> Why not simply recompile to 64 bits?

Well Peter, my story was that I started 32 bit, went to 64, and some
stuff didn't work. And some was only available as 32 bit precompiled.

I think I managed to get the flash plugin working OK for Firefox.

Firefox 3.5.X was not available 64 bit so I recompiled that from source.
Occasionally crashes - not sure why. IIRC the 32 bit didn't work at all.
Missing some libraries that are probably mozilla specific.

I would haver stuck with iceweasel, BUT I needed to check some features
of browser compatibility with 3.5

My complete failure was with the Xsane software driver for an HP
scanner. The only driver was precompiled 32 bit, from HP, so I gave
that to my wife for her Mac, and hit ebay for a scanner that did work
with standard Xsane drivers. I didn't know how to have a 32 bit Xsane
running in a 64 bit env. At £20 for he new scanner, it was better value
than spending days trying to figure out and write drivers. Or working
out how to install 32 bit Xsane.


Getting VMware to work was not too bad, BUT to get decent video on the
Intel chipset I am running the 2.6.30 kernel, and that didn't work with
vmware till I spent a day buggering around with some patches ..

Essentially, if you stick to what the distro provides, fine, once you
step off into 3rd party software, then all hell may break loose.


Now I am not complaining: I've got a fairly stable and very fast setup now.

BUT it hasn't been trouble free.

As an aside, my update manager keeps telling me to upgrade my klernel to
2.26.something..which I dont use anymore. Its it safe to use synaptic to
remove the whole original distro kernel?

General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:49:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Todd writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in 64 bit Linux?
>>> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.
>> Fairly full.
>>
>> I've seen a few that dont work..
>>
>>
>>> Of
>>> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit versions
>>> of all shared libraries the application requires must also be
>>> installed. A 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it must
>>> also load 32 bit libraries.
>>>
>>>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
>>>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
>>> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key system
>>> libraries.
>> But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.
>>
>>> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications provided
>>> that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well, by 32 bit
>>> RPMs of their own.
>>>
>>>
>> The only way is to simply try it.
>>
>> And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
>> applications imply wont work.
>
> I can't think of anything that doesn't work. The open source applications
> that are provided with the distro are all compiled for 64 bits.


That's true, BUT they may not be all you want or need. See prev post.

The only
> closed source driver you are likely to use is Nvidia's and they have
> always provided 64 bit versions.

Rubbish.

You cannot generalise as to what drivers a person may, or may not need.

Another choice is VirtualBox from Sun. They provide support
> for all of the major distros and they keep it up to date for recent
> kernels (KVM is part of the kernel so by definition it supports every
> recent kernel).

Have to look at that one.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Sam wrote:
>>>> Todd writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in
>>>>> 64 bit Linux?
>>>> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.
>>> Fairly full.
>>>
>>> I've seen a few that dont work..
>>>
>>
>> Care to name some?
>>
>>>> Of
>>>> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit versions
>>>> of all shared libraries the application requires must also be
>>>> installed. A 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it must
>>>> also load 32 bit libraries.
>>>>
>>>>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
>>>>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
>>>> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key
>>>> system libraries.
>>> But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.
>>
>> Care to name the mising ones?
>>
>>>> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications
>>>> provided that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well,
>>>> by 32 bit RPMs of their own.
>>>>
>>> The only way is to simply try it.
>>>
>>> And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
>>> applications imply wont work.
>>
>> Why not simply recompile to 64 bits?
>
> Well Peter, my story was that I started 32 bit, went to 64, and some
> stuff didn't work. And some was only available as 32 bit precompiled.
>
> I think I managed to get the flash plugin working OK for Firefox.
>
> Firefox 3.5.X was not available 64 bit so I recompiled that from source.
> Occasionally crashes - not sure why. IIRC the 32 bit didn't work at all.
> Missing some libraries that are probably mozilla specific.
>
> I would haver stuck with iceweasel, BUT I needed to check some features
> of browser compatibility with 3.5
>
> My complete failure was with the Xsane software driver for an HP
> scanner. The only driver was precompiled 32 bit, from HP, so I gave
> that to my wife for her Mac, and hit ebay for a scanner that did work
> with standard Xsane drivers. I didn't know how to have a 32 bit Xsane
> running in a 64 bit env. At £20 for he new scanner, it was better value
> than spending days trying to figure out and write drivers. Or working
> out how to install 32 bit Xsane.

Actually, I don't believe a single word of that bullshit.
*All* the stuff you mention is available as 64bit, without any exception

>
> Getting VMware to work was not too bad, BUT to get decent video on the
> Intel chipset I am running the 2.6.30 kernel, and that didn't work with
> vmware till I spent a day buggering around with some patches ..

Bullshit. There is no problem getting Vmware to work, and especially no
video problem. I have run Vmware since several years on 64bit machines

> Essentially, if you stick to what the distro provides, fine, once you
> step off into 3rd party software, then all hell may break loose.
>

Translation: You are waffling. Badly so

> Now I am not complaining: I've got a fairly stable and very fast setup
> now.
>
> BUT it hasn't been trouble free.

Naturally not. It takes a lot of "imagination" to have all your problems

> As an aside, my update manager keeps telling me to upgrade my klernel to
> 2.26.something..which I dont use anymore. Its it safe to use synaptic to
> remove the whole original distro kernel?

Just ask someone who cares
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.

>
>> Getting VMware to work was not too bad, BUT to get decent video on the
>> Intel chipset I am running the 2.6.30 kernel, and that didn't work with
>> vmware till I spent a day buggering around with some patches ..
>
> Bullshit. There is no problem getting Vmware to work, and especially no
> video problem. I have run Vmware since several years on 64bit machines


VMware Server isn't supported for kernels later than 2.6.27, there is a
patch but when I tried it it didn't work very well. VMware is terrible
about releasing new versions of Server, the last release was in March.
I've been migrating to KVM, it's baked into Linux so you don't have to
worry about kernel incompatibilities and you don't have to run a script
every time you update a kernel the way to do with VMware. For Linux
clients it's already better than VMware Server. For Windows clients it's
not as solid a solution. I've been keeping one of my machines, my
desktop, on Fedora 9 so that I can continue to run VMware server.
Actually the real reason that I stick with 9 is that it has the last
version of Evolution that works, KVM is pretty close to good enough
already and I'm confident that it will be as good as VMware, so when
Evolution gets fixed I'll move everything to the latest Fedora and KVM.

On Monday 26 October 2009 02:34 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as Todd wrote...

> Hi All,
>
> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in
> 64 bit Linux? Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?

32-bit compatibility is enabled by default in virtually all
distribution-supplied binary kernels. Such 64-bit distributions are
typically referred to as "multilib", which means that they contain both
the native 64-bit libraries and a set of 32-bit libraries for 32-bit
executables that require them.

That said, there were some problems in the past with certain
(proprietary) browser plugins that were only available as 32-bit
software, and which you could thus only use in a 32-bit browser, but
due to multilib you could install such a browser on an otherwise 64-bit
platform.

These problems however are now largely a thing of the past due to
the /nspluginwrapper/ project, which allowed the use of 32-bit browser
plugins in a 64-bit browser, and due to the fact that most of those
formerly 32-bit-only plugins have in the meantime been ported to
64-bit.

The above all said, and thereby confirming that 32-bit applications can
be made to work in a 64-bit GNU/Linux system, using natively 64-bit
applications would probably yield some benefits. In some cases,
performance might improve if the application was built for a 64-bit
environment.

There are of course people who claim that 32-bit performs better, but
they usually base their findings upon 32-bit applications that have
simply been recompiled for 64-bit without that the actual code had been
adapted. There is more to optimizing than just the compiler level.
Code that was specifically written with 64-bit implementation in mind
is much more efficient than code that was written with 32-bit in mind
and then simply recompiled to 64-bit.

Hope that answers your question adequately.

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:32:38 -0500, Robert Heller <heller RemoveThis @deepsoft.com>
wrote:

> The other weirdness with a 64-bit install: setting things up to build
> 32-bit binaries. You need to install the 32-bit devel packages and I
> am not sure if that would conflict with the 64-bit devel packages.

At least on RHEL 5 and simple command-line apps you can just give the
"-m32" switch to gcc and it does the right thing. I haven't tried it
with anything complicated.


--
-| Bob Hauck (Brother Nail Gun of The Short Path)
-| http://www.haucks.org/

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sam wrote:
>>>>> Todd writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, do 32 bit apps run in
>>>>>> 64 bit Linux?
>>>>> 64 bit Linux kernels have full support for 32 bit applications.
>>>> Fairly full.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen a few that dont work..
>>>>
>>> Care to name some?
>>>
>>>>> Of
>>>>> course, in order for a 32 bit application to run, the 32 bit versions
>>>>> of all shared libraries the application requires must also be
>>>>> installed. A 32 bit application cannot load 64 bit libraries, it must
>>>>> also load 32 bit libraries.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, must they be ported to 64 bit
>>>>>> before they will run? What about 32 bit RPMs?
>>>>> 64 bit Linux distributions also provide 32 bit RPMs for all key
>>>>> system libraries.
>>>> But not ALL libraries. Therein lies the problem.
>>> Care to name the mising ones?
>>>
>>>>> You'll be able to install 32 bit RPMs for your applications
>>>>> provided that their 32 bit dependencies are also satisfied as well,
>>>>> by 32 bit RPMs of their own.
>>>>>
>>>> The only way is to simply try it.
>>>>
>>>> And be prepared to drop back to a 32 bit install if some key
>>>> applications imply wont work.
>>> Why not simply recompile to 64 bits?
>> Well Peter, my story was that I started 32 bit, went to 64, and some
>> stuff didn't work. And some was only available as 32 bit precompiled.
>>
>> I think I managed to get the flash plugin working OK for Firefox.
>>
>> Firefox 3.5.X was not available 64 bit so I recompiled that from source.
>> Occasionally crashes - not sure why. IIRC the 32 bit didn't work at all.
>> Missing some libraries that are probably mozilla specific.
>>
>> I would haver stuck with iceweasel, BUT I needed to check some features
>> of browser compatibility with 3.5
>>
>> My complete failure was with the Xsane software driver for an HP
>> scanner. The only driver was precompiled 32 bit, from HP, so I gave
>> that to my wife for her Mac, and hit ebay for a scanner that did work
>> with standard Xsane drivers. I didn't know how to have a 32 bit Xsane
>> running in a 64 bit env. At £20 for he new scanner, it was better value
>> than spending days trying to figure out and write drivers. Or working
>> out how to install 32 bit Xsane.
>
> Actually, I don't believe a single word of that bullshit.

That is your prerogative.

> *All* the stuff you mention is available as 64bit, without any exception
>

Firefix 3.5 aint as far as I know.

The driver for my HP 2400 is certainly NOT.

>> Getting VMware to work was not too bad, BUT to get decent video on the
>> Intel chipset I am running the 2.6.30 kernel, and that didn't work with
>> vmware till I spent a day buggering around with some patches ..
>
> Bullshit. There is no problem getting Vmware to work, and especially no
> video problem. I have run Vmware since several years on 64bit machines
>

Oh dear. You didn't read what I said.

Look, it goes like this. The INTEL video drivers are slow ..very slow. I
had jerky Flash on 32 bit and 2.26 kernels. In order to get more speed I
first went 64 bit, definite speed up, then used the lenny backports to
go to 2.6.30 kernels. Thats got video a lot faster, to the point where
the machine would run full screen flash.

However Vmware would no longer run. There *is* an issue with 2.6.30 and
AM64 libraries and headers. There IS a patch and it DID eventually work,
but it was not trivial.

http://communities.vmware.com/thread/208963

Its on the vmware site as a known issue.

As is the intel video speed on other sites - ubuntu chiefly - where
2.6.30 is also a known fix.


>> Essentially, if you stick to what the distro provides, fine, once you
>> step off into 3rd party software, then all hell may break loose.
>>
>
> Translation: You are waffling. Badly so

Translation, I dunno what your problem is. Why would I lie?

I am telling you my experience.

>
>> Now I am not complaining: I've got a fairly stable and very fast setup
>> now.
>>
>> BUT it hasn't been trouble free.
>
> Naturally not. It takes a lot of "imagination" to have all your problems
>

When sonmeone who has honestly and faithfully related their actual
experience gets blatantly accused of lying by someone they dont know for
motives they cant even guess at, I have to say that person doing the
accusing, is either mentally unbalanced, or a complete cunt.

Which are you?

>> As an aside, my update manager keeps telling me to upgrade my klernel to
>> 2.26.something..which I dont use anymore. Its it safe to use synaptic to
>> remove the whole original distro kernel?
>
> Just ask someone who cares

General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
>>> Getting VMware to work was not too bad, BUT to get decent video on the
>>> Intel chipset I am running the 2.6.30 kernel, and that didn't work with
>>> vmware till I spent a day buggering around with some patches ..
>> Bullshit. There is no problem getting Vmware to work, and especially no
>> video problem. I have run Vmware since several years on 64bit machines
>
>
> VMware Server isn't supported for kernels later than 2.6.27, there is a
> patch but when I tried it it didn't work very well.

Ah? Is that it ..I was under teh impression it wasn't sup[ported on _64
bit only_, beyond 2.6.27..

The patch actually worked very well for me. Making it work required a
lot of diving into how the Vmware installation script worked, and a bit
of scurrying for the right headers.

>VMware is terrible
> about releasing new versions of Server, the last release was in March.
> I've been migrating to KVM, it's baked into Linux so you don't have to
> worry about kernel incompatibilities and you don't have to run a script
> every time you update a kernel the way to do with VMware. For Linux
> clients it's already better than VMware Server. For Windows clients it's
> not as solid a solution. I've been keeping one of my machines, my
> desktop, on Fedora 9 so that I can continue to run VMware server.
> Actually the real reason that I stick with 9 is that it has the last
> version of Evolution that works, KVM is pretty close to good enough
> already and I'm confident that it will be as good as VMware, so when
> Evolution gets fixed I'll move everything to the latest Fedora and KVM.

Interesting. I just need solid windows performance for 3 CAD apps that
don't work on Linux, and have no real alternatives.