Neil Bothwick writes:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too
small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on
LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:16 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
Flash would be nice now. For some people it does work fine, but for
others this still is not the case it seems. Using firefox-bin or wine
might be workarounds, but I would not like that much - I like to use
konqueror.
Most flash works
On Wednesday 19 March 2008, 16:54, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:16 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
Flash would be nice now. For some people it does work fine, but for
others this still is not the case it seems. Using firefox-bin or
wine might be workarounds, but I would not
Anthony E. Caudel wrote:
I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I
Alex Schuster wrote:
Anthony E. Caudel wrote:
I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
compromises (admittedly some
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too
small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on
LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink
that to somewhere else.
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too
small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on
LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually
On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
[1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/
By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube
now works with swfdec.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM
On Feb 6, 2008 1:28 AM, Anthony E. Caudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall?
I've been using amd64 two years now, and the only 32 bit applications
that *I* use are firefox-bin and mplayer-bin. With swfdec[1] getting
better and better,
Anthony E. Caudel schreef:
I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Anthony E. Caudel wrote:
I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
it's worth the trouble with multilib
which trouble?
, chroot'ing,
never needed.
firefox-bin
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
[1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/
By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube
now works with swfdec.
emm, 'normal' flash does work
On Feb 6, 2008 3:03 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
[1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/
By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 3:03 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
[1]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with
snip
not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just fine.
Come again? I would be very glad to finally ditch the binary firefox, but using
nspluginwrapper
didn't
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote:
On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with
snip
not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just
fine.
Come again? I would be very glad to finally ditch the binary firefox, but
using nspluginwrapper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote:
On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with
snip
not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox
On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote:
Yeah, it seems nspluginwrapper works better now. The time I tried it, it
just crashed with a segfault and did nothing. But installing it again, it
seems to work. Thanks for your suggestion^^ --
thenybble.de/blog/ -- four bits at a time
I only
Jan Seeger schreef:
Yeah, it seems nspluginwrapper works better now. The time I tried it, it just
crashed with a
segfault and did nothing. But installing it again, it seems to work. Thanks for
your suggestion^^
I have used it before but because of some strange crashes. After that
I've
I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I should see some speed
increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling.
I just switched
I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
it. I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
compromises (admittedly some minor). I realize I should see some speed
increase but
21 matches
Mail list logo
