From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237B81381FA for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACB25E09D6; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.212]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC086E09BA for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 82ga1o0021c6gX85E2k943; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:44:09 +0000 Received: from ajax ([24.11.47.14]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 82k91o00R0JMh7c3j2k9K3; Fri, 30 May 2014 02:44:09 +0000 Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:44:05 -0400 From: Frank Peters To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] amd64 list, still useful? Was: btrfs Message-Id: <20140529224405.898d1137a9a404b36c679f9a@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20140527223938.GA3701@sgi.com> <53859043.2050303@thegeezer.net> <20140528223247.66fff7d5@marcec> <20140529195707.3fddb0a0@marcec> <20140529170526.2e35807f7959d11f45f2de1c@comcast.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1401417849; bh=p6WL9lJVXUjFEuw0cAFLtgsm+IWw2W7hWUbQ0quw4bo=; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=u+Qsx7N4cqL6+vLHvVLkR/v2i/9gOPQ3B+SOdpiACgtRcyFmPx0j1nTb7YEM/TxHQ B4T7yVNRCiCAPZStHo3QQ8k/YUQ6OZNAJOEV832kjpL92siXlxBh905EZbDiX2NX51 PEIXdHpxrIRppToLLt2Jjo5M9ivEIjtms2aHwSZkQRIJoq4gcxnx+SoOBhzCKnwkQk 9jhOYX/M+QPH0gXa9qPvPVDBvagVMaoJISvfk9+TAhvRCAttQxd3AabSoM/DTGcM+c ceSszzmpmHFc3iPYvznF15tO9/8msHKbbVwVTLzEt9Z7CD/qIBATm8V/AT9RQp7HgF 8IeM5LgG1sxvQ== X-Archives-Salt: 86d393d8-4c04-4246-ac85-13ddcbf12ee7 X-Archives-Hash: 0483947ed49796a6fc6b538d2d53760c On Fri, 30 May 2014 02:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > > FWIW, I'm no-multilib as well, but I guess for a different reason. > > I don't do proprietary and in general couldn't even if I wanted to, since > I cannot and will not agree to the EULAs, so non-free software that > hasn't been amd64 ported is of no concern to me, > It's not just proprietary software that lags behind. I continue to encounter FOSS packages from time to time that are still 32-bit only. One example, for audio enthusiasts, is the excellent AudioCutter: http://www.virtualworlds.de/AudioCutter/ (There are many other examples but at this moment I can't recall any specific names so you'll just have to trust me). However, when it comes to the PDF file format it is hard to beat the proprietary Foxit Reader. With FOSS only evince comes close but evince lacks a lot of capability and seems to be buggy in places. AMD64 should be the standard but many projects refuse to update since reliance on multi-lib is so much simpler. As a consequence we 64-bit purists are at a disadvantage. Frank Peters