Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:33:58 -0400 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> To: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Martin Turgeon <turgeon.martin@gmail.com>, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: i386 with PAE or AMD64 on PowerEdge with 4G RAM Message-ID: <18039.5734.791879.856475@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20070618221022.GA17952@eos.sc1.parodius.com> References: <4676BAF0.4030703@gmail.com> <20070618180813.GA13003@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <322073cc0706181415o17ecd532i971d8bdf5ea1dafd@mail.gmail.com> <20070618221022.GA17952@eos.sc1.parodius.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <20070618221022.GA17952@eos.sc1.parodius.com>, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> typed: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:15:30PM -0400, Martin Turgeon wrote: > > My setup is fairly standard (as I described), should I expect problem with > > 64 bit version of these programs? > Like I said, I don't run 64-bit OSes because I prefer compatibility. So you have no first-hand experience with support for 64-bit OSes. > Believe me, the instant you run into some quirky problem with either the > kernel or any of its subsystems, or a third-party program (from ports or > otherwise), the first thing you'll be told is "it works for me on i386, > have you tried i386?" > I'm sorry if this sounds condescending or combative, but it's what I > continually see on other lists. I don't mean to sound condescending either, but I continually see "it works for me on <change random config thing>" on other lists as well. Linux vs. FreeBSD, 64 vs. 32 bits, LOCALBASE being something other than /usr/local, etc. People trying to help try what you say doesn't work. If it works for them, they'll latch on to whatever is the most obvious thing that's different between your two systems as the most likely cause. Sometimes they may be right, but not always. I've found support for 64 bit FreeBSD and the applications in the ports tree to be nearly indistinguishable from 32 bit FreeBSD. The developers are either responsive, and things will get fixed (or are already fixed, and you need to update your sources), or they aren't responsive, and you'll be stuck trying to fix it yourself. If the developer is responsive and you are reasonably capable and willing to do some work yourself, whether or not the developer has a 64 bit box simply isn't an issue. If the developer isn't responsive, whether you're running on 32 or 64 bit hardware isn't an issue either. For applications, there have been 64 bit Unix boxes around for a long time. Especially servers. Anything that's in serious use almost certainly had all the 32 vs. 64 bit issues shaken out long ago. Yeah, some things are probably so 32-bit dependent they'll never be fixed (the X server code in tightvnc comes to mind), but there are usually alternative solutions available. Some things are proprietary, and aren't available (like Windows codecs). The only way to figure out where your applications fit on the list is to try them and see. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18039.5734.791879.856475>