| 1 |
On 12/29/06, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss03@××××××××××.net> posted |
| 3 |
> 200612281559.21743.bss03@××××××××××.net, excerpted below, on Thu, 28 Dec |
| 4 |
> 2006 15:59:15 -0600: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 10:01, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> |
| 7 |
> > wrote about '[gentoo-amd64] Browsing speed problems - possibly flash |
| 8 |
> > related': |
| 9 |
> >> Is this a firefox-bin thing? Maybe I should build firefox from |
| 10 |
> >> source? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Good luck getting flash to work if you do that. :P |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Oh, it should be no problem, as long as one is building a 32-bit firefox, |
| 15 |
> presumably in one's 32-bit chroot, following the Gentoo/amd64 32-bit |
| 16 |
> chroot guide. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Of course, if one is building a standard 64-bit firefox and expecting the |
| 19 |
> 32-bit flash shared object plugin to work in the 64-bit firefox process |
| 20 |
> address space, then one is in for a bit of disappointment, but that's only |
| 21 |
> common sense so should be expected and go without saying. =8^P |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
64 bit firefox & 32 bit plugins, heard of nspluginwrapper? =) WIP & |
| 24 |
I've seen varying reports of success from different people, but it |
| 25 |
works well for me. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As for the web page in question, I see the exact same behaviour Mark |
| 28 |
describes on my system. Sounds more like a windows / linux thing than |
| 29 |
a 32 / 64 bit thing. Just guessing tho. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Wil |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives