Linux 64-bit editions current state


Recommended Posts

I have recently been moving to the 64-bit world... I replaced my Vista 32-bits with Vista 64-bits... The transition was flawless, everything just worked out of the box... All my old programs worked just as they used to...

I am a casual Linux user (below intermediate, but not a beginner - I usually use dual booting)... Is Linux 64-bits workable?! Is it well supported compared to 32-bits editions?! For example, in Windows, although 64-bit native applications are rare, 32-bit application are backward compatible, so it is won't let the user down... Are 64-bit packages abundant in Linux?! Or at least is Linux 64-bit backwards compatible with 32-bit packages?!

I understand that the answers to my questions might vary from one distro to another, so I would appreciate if we take openSUSE 11.0 as the reference -if possible- since thats the distro that I am going to use...

In short, would you advise a casual Linux user to use 64-bit editions?!

Edited by zaidgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i havnt had any problems with 64 bit specifically exept for.... :

I've never used 64 bit linux, but I here things like flash are hard to get working in 64 bit linux.

ive done like 6 different guides on getting it working and non of them have worked............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's not OpenSUSE, but I have flash working with my Ubuntu 8.04 amd64 setup with minimal effort under both Firefox and Opera. Considering that my sound card is an X-Fi, a royal pain in the rear, it worked out quite well for me using OSS (as there currently is no ALSA support for it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't have any problems with flash (most specifically, with the 32-bit-plugin-wrapper to be used inside a 64-bit browser). You can always install the 32-bit version of firefox and the 32-bit version of flash (which is what you would do in a 64-bit windows if you want flash).

In fact, after the latest updates and for some reason I dont know, flash (under 64-bit firefox) isnt as much as a cpu hog as it usually is, so I'm quite happy with it.

Personally, using 64-bit ubuntu is *almost* like using the 32 bit one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would easily put 64 bit linux over 64 bit windows xp. I've had 64 bit linux installed on one of my machines for over a year now without any issues (and flash installed just fine for me *shrug*). Windows xp on the other hand has just been giving me problem after problem. They're all small problems but it's quite annoying. I might switchj this machine either to linux and use cedega to play games, or just go for 32 bit windows xp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most good software works fine on 64 bit GNU/Linux. Flash is not good software. I think Wine might be a bit crap on 64 bit but everything else is fine. However, you won't get much of a performance boost from using a 64 bit OS.

A note, though, Ubuntu, amongst others, is not a pure 64 bit distro. It includes the 32 bit libraries so that you can run 32 bit apps on it with no problems (ie. Flash). Some distros are pure 64 bit (like Arch Linux) and using 32 bit libraries is unsupported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use x64 Linux (Ubuntu to be exact), everything seems to work with me, except for Flash, I just can't get a x64 version for it, tried a few other things, like installing a x86 Firefox and trying that, but I couldn't get it to run. If you're fine without that, then x64 is perfect. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most good software works fine on 64 bit GNU/Linux. Flash is not good software. I think Wine might be a bit crap on 64 bit but everything else is fine. However, you won't get much of a performance boost from using a 64 bit OS.

A note, though, Ubuntu, amongst others, is not a pure 64 bit distro. It includes the 32 bit libraries so that you can run 32 bit apps on it with no problems (ie. Flash). Some distros are pure 64 bit (like Arch Linux) and using 32 bit libraries is unsupported.

Then I would say that those are the ones that are not fully 64-bit, lol. That's like saying that windows xp (or even vista?) are not purely 32 bit because they let you run 16-bit dos stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am typing this on 64bit Ubuntu and flash is working fine for me, I just installed the restricted extras in Ubuntu and it installed flash for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't have any problems with flash (most specifically, with the 32-bit-plugin-wrapper to be used inside a 64-bit browser). You can always install the 32-bit version of firefox and the 32-bit version of flash (which is what you would do in a 64-bit windows if you want flash).
A note, though, Ubuntu, amongst others, is not a pure 64 bit distro. It includes the 32 bit libraries so that you can run 32 bit apps on it with no problems (ie. Flash). Some distros are pure 64 bit (like Arch Linux) and using 32 bit libraries is unsupported.

Those two replies answer my question about backward compatibility, but the general tone of the answers is that 64-bits editions are not for the casual users... Problems are expected.. But shouldn't installing 32-bit packages of problematic software be an effective solution?! [Like how using 32-bit browsers is recommended for most users]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can install the 32 bit Firefox on 64 bit Linux which would allow you to install flash in it. I am not sure about Suse but you can in Ubuntu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 64-bit version of Firefox and Opera with Flash working via nspluginwrapper in Ubuntu. It is unstable however as the pluginwrapper would crash quite often. If you can live without stable Flash plugin support, then 64-bit is ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.