>"missed optimization", and this is for 64-bit data x86, not x86_64.
Look my point was there are some problems / issues. Searching the gcc bug database you can see that. I'm not saying it is a show stopper but there are problems / issues. Your view is there are no problems or "Gotchas". I say let the bug database tell the truth. I'm also not saying that going to 64bit is wrong or 32bit is better than 64bit. That is a losing argument. What I am saying is if you want stability go with 32bit for 6 months. Then make the switch to 64bit. If stability does not matter to you then use 64bit and enjoy. > you specifically said, "all 64-bit compiling gotchas are fixed in GCC". Yes i did use the word all but meaning most if any bugs that are still out there. >so, why wait until "any 64-bit kernel security issues are fixed", if >there are also issues with 32-bit? what is the difference? and if >people aren't using 64-bit platforms, how are these bugs going to be >found? There really is no difference. What I am hinting at is in another 6 months if you are using a enterprise quality kernel you should be in better shape than 6 months in the past. All I am saying is wait six months for more stable builds to come out for 64bit. I'm not saying 64bit is unstable but right now 32bit is a bit more stable than 64bit in some cases. If you really need that 64bit proc then go 64bit. If you don't need that 64bits right now then go with 32bits for another 6 months then make the switch. What this really comes down to is how comfortable you are with Linux and 64bit builds. > huh? please explain how "if anything ... will buy a small bit" > to "unbreakable". and just how is Windows more obscure than Linux > or OpenBSD? The point I was making was your security though obscurity philosophy is wrong. I don't even think Theo de Raadt would say it works or even buys you anything. > > Security by obscurity never works and > > always fails over time. > > not _always_. please be careful when making absolute statements! I may some times use absolute statements a bit too much. This is a statement that has been true for many years. Security though / by obscurity never works. > > It might work until some one figures out what > > you are using and then you will get owned. > > maybe. most script kiddies use prebuilt software though. of course, > the people creating the sploits know what they are doing, but the > kiddies out there using them are usually fairly clueless in all > reality. This is very true. > but as I said, security by obscurity is worth maybe $0.02. why you > have to try to make it sound like I said anything different is > beyond me. It's beyond me that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. My point with my post was to wait 6 months for stability. If you don't care about stability then go ahead and use at your own risk. > > When I give my $0.02. I say that because it is free advice and I'm > > not telling people what to do. I am only sharing information or > > knowledge. Then you can use that to do your own research. After you > > do your own research then and only then I think you can make a > > informed dissension. > > I did my research. I have been using amd64 for almost 2 years. > yeah, there was some pain at first, but these days it's pretty smooth > sailing. > > how much real experience do you have with modern 64-bit platforms? I started working with 64bit Systems in 1998 with Sun Sparc systems and then in 1999 HP-UX systems. I started working with Linux 64bit builds in 2004-2005. > fwiw, you have made my list of people whose advice I should ignore. You obviously like to pick fights to make up for what ever shortcomings you have. Mike Miller _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
