Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:35:31 -0700 From: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> To: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: i386 or AMD64? Message-ID: <1096479331.21908.4.camel@server.mcneil.com> In-Reply-To: <200409290943.i8T9hFUV011906@lurza.secnetix.de>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 02:43, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> wrote: > > My main system is an amd64 running -current. Everything works great: > > gnome, kde, ogg encode/decode, etc. Linux32 compatibility is working as > > well. I can even run java apps with Linux32. The only thing lacking > > for me is native java so I can have java support in the browser and get > > eclipse going. > > Can't you just use the Linux binary of the browser and then > use the Linux java support? That's what I do on i386, so I > can use all the Linux plugins etc. (I don't have an amd64 > machine, so I can't say for sure, but it _should_ work > there as well.) Yes, I could do that. If the linux pluginwrapper worked for amd64 that would be another option. My desire is to run everything native, though. To that end I would like to get a native java VM. > (Personally I'm using Opera for which a FreeBSD/i386 binary > exists, but the Linux binary has been proven to be more > stable in my environment anyway.) > > Best regards > Oliver [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBWvJjyQsGN30uGE4RAqsPAKCkMQER7j8kfZDJIodRsswywZ/H/ACgyzmV OCzybT6sv3KYSCIp6ZsIp5M= =i9+j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1096479331.21908.4.camel>