| 1 |
On Sun, January 25, 2009 19:21, Tom wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi List! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> After following the thread about the icedtea build on amd64 I found |
| 5 |
> myself wondering if it would make sense for me to change to |
| 6 |
> a non-multilib setup. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So how is the status of that specific profile, how stable, and more |
| 9 |
> importantly how feature rich can it be? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Java seems to be getting close to a non issue, but what about flash for |
| 12 |
> instance? I know there's now a native 64version of adobe's plugin (I'm |
| 13 |
> using it right now) but I don't know about its dependencies. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Other things spring to mind, certain codec-packs, multimedia in |
| 16 |
> general. |
| 17 |
> And of course wine, virtualization etc. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> So can anybody provide some insight into how things are generally |
| 20 |
> going in non-multilib-land?! |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The only difference is that no 32 bits code is pushed into your system. |
| 23 |
Which in turn means you won't be able to run nor compile 32 bits stuff at |
| 24 |
all. Wine will plainly not work. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
mplayer will play about everything. I haven't used win32codecs for years. |
| 27 |
However I stay away from closed formats, but the few realplayer and window |
| 28 |
media files that I needed to play could be opened without problems by |
| 29 |
mplayer without the help of external codecs. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The flash alpha plugin for 64 bits works well. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
You should really check what 32 bits stuff you use. If you need wine you |
| 34 |
need multilib. Really, there's no advantage into going no-multilib. You |
| 35 |
only lose versatility and reduce the range of software that you can use. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
You could get a rough idea about the 32 bits you have installed by using |
| 38 |
file like this: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
file {,/usr}/bin/*|grep 32 |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Jesús Guerrero |
Archives