[gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Anthony E. Caudel]

I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
it.  I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
compromises (admittedly some minor).  I realize I should see some speed
increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling.

So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall?

Tony

-- 
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
   -- Benjamin Franklin

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Feb 6, 2008 1:28 AM, Anthony E. Caudel <tony.caudel@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[...]
> So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall?

I've been using amd64 two years now, and the only 32 bit applications
that *I* use are firefox-bin and mplayer-bin. With swfdec[1] getting
better and better, the former will be unnecessary soon (I hope); and I
haven't used the later in a *long* time (almost *all* videos are even
handled by Totem/GStreamer now, if you unmask and install all the
gst-plugins).

I don't know about the speed difference, but it's really not too much
pain to use amd64.

[1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/

By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube
now works with swfdec.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Juul Spies]

Anthony E. Caudel schreef:
> I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
> it.  I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
> it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
> compromises (admittedly some minor).  I realize I should see some speed
> increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling.
>
> So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall?
>   
I've used both and don't notice any difference for the stuff I'm using 
my computer for.

Only 32bit application I'm using is firefox.

I'm not sure if compiling is faster because I let emerge run in the 
background while watching a movie.

Overall it works fine for me but I don't see much difference comparing 
my install to a 32bit install.

-- 
Juul Spies
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Anthony E. Caudel wrote:
> I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
> it.  I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
> it's worth the trouble with multilib

which trouble?

> , chroot'ing, 

never needed.

> firefox-bin and other  

not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just fine.

> compromises (admittedly some minor).  I realize I should see some speed
> increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling.
>
> So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall?
>

I have never used x86 on my amd64 systems - and I never had the need to 
chroot. Or do other silly stuff. Things just work.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/
>
> By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube
> now works with swfdec.

emm, 'normal' flash does work too. For a loooong time.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Feb 6, 2008 3:03 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/
> >
> > By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube
> > now works with swfdec.
>
> emm, 'normal' flash does work too. For a loooong time.

You mean with nspluginwrapper? That didn't work for me (it stopped
displaying flash without any reason). If you don't mean
nspluginwrapper, I don't know what do you mean with 'normal'.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Jan Seeger]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with 
<snip>
> not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just fine.
Come again? I would be very glad to finally ditch the binary firefox, but using nspluginwrapper
didn't work. You can use netscape-flash with a 64-bit-compiled firefox? Please tell me how.
> > compromises (admittedly some minor).  I realize I should see some speed
> > increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling.
Probably negeclable...

> > So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall?
> >
Yeah, actually running 64 bits is pretty easy, you only need to be willing to unmask some packages
sometimes and/or scrounge around bugzilla for working ebuilds (yes, ghdl, I'm looking at you!)

- -- 
thenybble.de/blog/ -- four bits at a time
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHqX/PMmLQdC6jvocRAlmiAJ0RmKtN9o85/6KKAXGYdwru+LTbkQCeJ5YD
qsrYtyHvJjZpCnv1knaXy78=
=RvsZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 3:03 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>
> <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > > On Feb 6, 2008 2:22 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > [1] http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/
> > >
> > > By the way, *right now* I'm using Firefox in 64 bits, because YouTube
> > > now works with swfdec.
> >
> > emm, 'normal' flash does work too. For a loooong time.
>
> You mean with nspluginwrapper? That didn't work for me (it stopped
> displaying flash without any reason). If you don't mean
> nspluginwrapper, I don't know what do you mean with 'normal'.


well, nspluginwrapper is installed. I don't care for the details ;)

Flash works for me with 'real flash' is all I need to know.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote:
> On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with
> <snip>
>
> > not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just
> > fine.
>
> Come again? I would be very glad to finally ditch the binary firefox, but
> using nspluginwrapper didn't work. You can use netscape-flash with a
> 64-bit-compiled firefox? Please tell me how.

emerge firefox:

*  www-client/mozilla-firefox
      Latest version available: 2.0.0.11
      Latest version installed: 2.0.0.11


emerge nspluginwrapper:
*  net-www/nspluginwrapper
      Latest version available: 0.9.91.5-r1
      Latest version installed: 0.9.91.5-r1

emerge flash:
*  net-www/netscape-flash
      Latest version available: 9.0.115.0
      Latest version installed: 9.0.115.0

and it Just Works(tm) for me.

>
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Jan Seeger]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with 
> On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote:
> > On Wed, 06. Feb, Volker Armin Hemmann spammed my inbox with
> > <snip>
> >
> > > not needed anymore either. flash does work in the 'normal' firefox just
> > > fine.
> >
Yeah, it seems nspluginwrapper works better now. The time I tried it, it just crashed with a
segfault and did nothing. But installing it again, it seems to work. Thanks for your suggestion^^
- -- 
thenybble.de/blog/ -- four bits at a time
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHqZQzMmLQdC6jvocRAircAJ0SziRLv0eyZdeXE+/NU+LQXwSd1ACgnSV5
YFJ1NcKJtXZrDYAJITxDkC8=
=Qqit
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2008, Jan Seeger wrote:

> Yeah, it seems nspluginwrapper works better now. The time I tried it, it
> just crashed with a segfault and did nothing. But installing it again, it
> seems to work. Thanks for your suggestion^^ --
> thenybble.de/blog/ -- four bits at a time


I only found out by accident. I always used firefox-bin. But someday something 
installed the 'real' firefox - and flash still worked.

*shrug*
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Juul Spies]

Jan Seeger schreef:
> Yeah, it seems nspluginwrapper works better now. The time I tried it, it just crashed with a
> segfault and did nothing. But installing it again, it seems to work. Thanks for your suggestion^^
>   
I have used it before but because of some strange crashes. After that 
I've never used it again.

I'll give it try, if it's stable now there's no need to use firefox-bin 
anymore for me :)

-- 
Juul Spies

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Steve Buzonas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]

> I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
> it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
> compromises (admittedly some minor).  I realize I should see some speed
> increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling.
>

I just switched back to the amd64 profile and it has changed significantly
since my last attempt.  I only needed to use the multilib profile when I
used the hardened profile.  Hardened is still a little bit of a pain, but
the standard profile and the desktop and server subprofiles work great.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 794 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Alex Schuster]

Anthony E. Caudel wrote:

> I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
> it.  I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
> it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
> compromises (admittedly some minor).  I realize I should see some speed
> increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling.
>
> So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall?

Here are my experiences with amd64, I just helped a friend installing it. 
After reading here we thought it might not be worth the potential trouble, 
but this many registers not being used just feels a little bad. And she 
does mpeg encodings frequently, which is one thing that should work faster.

First peoblem was the minimal Gentoo boot CD. It hang, I think when mounting 
the root FS from the squashfs image on CD. I thought I had a faulty CD-RW 
medium, but a second ttempt with a new CD-ROM gave the same result. But 
there was a kubunto install CD with 64 bit support.

We had trouble with grub. Tab completion did not work, in and outside the 
chroot. I did not dare to install, because there were other disks I did not 
want to endanger. I found and emerged grub-static then, which automatically 
installed into /boot, but something went wrong and grub only showed a GRUB 
message. I installed gurb manually (root (hd0,0), setup (hd0)), and all was 
fine then.
BTW, the manual says that grub-static is only needed when you are on the 
multilib profile. I think I am (/etc/make.profile is 
$PORTDIR/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2007.0(desktop), but emerge --info 
does not show the multilib use flag, which I have defined in make.conf. 
Huh? But it seems that if I were not on multilib, grub would have been 
masked and refused to build.

Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too 
small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on 
LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink that to 
somewhere else. But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB? I would expect 
this to be around 30 MB, which is double the size of these directories on 
my other system, but even ten times more than that? Is something wrong 
here? The installation handbook does not mention this, and also suggest a 
small root partition. The examplee shows 132 MB used there, this looks okay 
to me.

Flash does not work (yet). I emerged netscape-flash and and nspluginwrapper, 
but firefox and konqueror do not have flash working. Did not investigate 
this further yet.

OpenGL works with software rendering only. The card is a Radeon X1550 / 
RV505 and should be supported by the ati-drivers. Module fglrx loads, but 
when starting X, I get this error:

(EE) AIGLX error: dlsym for __driCreateNewScreen_20050727 failed 
(/usr/lib64/dri/fglrx_dri.so: undefined symbol: 
__driCreateNewScreen_20050727)
(EE) AIGLX: reverting to software rendering

I did not find much helpfun information on this yet. One hint is to disable 
Option AIGLX in ServerFlags section of xorg.conf. This gets rid of the 
mesage, and I have "dirent rendering enabled" in the X log file, but 
glrxinfo shows this:
  libGL error: failed to open DRM: Operation not permitted
  libGL error: reverting to (slow) indirect rendering
  display: :0.0  screen: 0
  OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org
  OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect
  OpenGL version string: 1.4 (1.5 Mesa 6.5.2)

Any ideas on that? We do not want the radeon driver because things like 
multiple displays and tv-out are not working well, I read. I tried anyway, 
I could modprobe radeon, but cannnot start X because a missing device 
section for the 2nd BusID. Maybe I should specify this in xorg.conf (I 
tried a little but to no avail), or get a fresh config instead of one from 
another boot CD. But X -configure does not work. 

X Window System Version 1.3.0
Release Date: 19 April 2007
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 1.3
Build Operating System: UNKNOWN
Current Operating System: Linux tanja 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 #9 SMP PREEMPT Mon 
Mar 17 15:14:45 CET 2008 x86_64
Build Date: 16 March 2008
        Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org
        to make sure that you have the latest version.
Module Loader present
Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting,
        (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational,
        (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown.
(==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.0.log", Time: Tue Mar 18 22:02:27 2008
List of video drivers:
        radeonhd
        ati
        r128
        atimisc
        fglrx
        radeon
        vesa

Backtrace:
0: X(xf86SigHandler+0x6d) [0x47cd4d]
1: /lib/libc.so.6 [0x2b7db9a29430]
2: /lib/libc.so.6(memcpy+0x46) [0x2b7db9a6e916]
3: /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so(atiddxProbeMain+0xf1) 
[0x2b7dba934731]
4: X(DoConfigure+0x1f5) [0x47a955]
5: X(InitOutput+0x6a5) [0x468025]
6: X(main+0x275) [0x439d85]
7: /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf4) [0x2b7db9a16b74]
8: X(FontFileCompleteXLFD+0x229) [0x439259]

Fatal server error:
Caught signal 11.  Server aborting

Aborted


That's it so far. Now compiling {k,open}office. Oh, the /var partition got 
full _again_. Does the install guide mention how HUGE things get on amd64?
	
	Wonko
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Benjamen R. Meyer]

Alex Schuster wrote:
> Anthony E. Caudel wrote:
> 
>> I have an AMD 64x2 that I have been using only in x86 mode since I got
>> it.  I have been thinking of going to x86_64 mode but I'm wondering if
>> it's worth the trouble with multilib, chroot'ing, firefox-bin and other
>> compromises (admittedly some minor).  I realize I should see some speed
>> increase but probably only in certain areas such as compiling.
>> So, for those users who have used both, is it worth it overall?
> Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too 
> small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on 
> LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink that to 
> somewhere else. But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB? I would expect 
> this to be around 30 MB, which is double the size of these directories on 
> my other system, but even ten times more than that? Is something wrong 
> here? The installation handbook does not mention this, and also suggest a 
> small root partition. The examplee shows 132 MB used there, this looks okay 
> to me.

Here's my FS setup from df:

Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hdb1             9.4G  7.2G  1.8G  81% /
/dev/hdb2             471M   27M  420M   7% /boot
/dev/hda2              31G  3.7G   25G  13% /usr/portage
/dev/mapper/vg_tmp    4.0G  154M  3.6G   5% /tmp
/dev/mapper/vg_var     11G  518M  9.8G   5% /var
/dev/mapper/vg_usr    9.9G  151M  9.2G   2% /usr/local
/dev/mapper/vg_opt    9.9G  505M  8.9G   6% /opt
/dev/mapper/vg_home    30G   26G  2.1G  93% /home


I have a few other partitions for things too, but the above covers the 
normal and essential. Additionally I have a couple gigs of swap space. YMMV

I also checked my lib size - which is about 53MB for /lib64, and 4.3MB 
for /lib32. /usr (including sub-mounts, e.g. local and portage) comes 
out to  11GB. /opt is 335 MB, and /var is 309 MB.

So I don't know what went wrong for you.

 > Flash does not work (yet). I emerged netscape-flash and and
 > nspluginwrapper, but firefox and konqueror do not have flash working.
 > Did not investigate this further yet.

I've only really been able to get Flash working with the 32-bit Firefox 
binary. It will randomly work in the 64-bit Firefox build for some 
reason, but nothing consistent - and when it does, only one web page can 
use it at a time - not multi-tabs each with their own flash. Perhaps 
that's just a result of the nswrapper-plugin to make the 32-bit and 
64-bit work together...not sure.

Any how...overall, it runs really well. I can't offer any advice on the 
video issues.

Ben

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 937 bytes --]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:

> Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too 
> small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on 
> LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink
> that to somewhere else.

You could set $CCACHE_DIR, which seems less kludgy to me.


> But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB?

Because you have built your kernel with CONFIG_KITCHENSINK=m?

% du -h /lib/modules/$(uname -r)
9.9M    /lib/modules/2.6.24-tuxonice-r3

Hmmm, it's 22MB on my desktop, time to start pruning .config.

% df -h /
Filesystem    Type    Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda5 reiserfs    385M  189M  196M  50% /

That includes /boot with two kernels.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it
is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Hal Martin]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
>
>   
>> Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too 
>> small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on 
>> LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink
>> that to somewhere else.
>>     
>
> You could set $CCACHE_DIR, which seems less kludgy to me.
>
>
>   
>> But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB?
>>     
>
> Because you have built your kernel with CONFIG_KITCHENSINK=m?
>
> % du -h /lib/modules/$(uname -r)
> 9.9M    /lib/modules/2.6.24-tuxonice-r3
>   
$ du -h /lib/modules/$(uname -r)
19M    /lib/modules/2.6.23-gentoo-r6
> Hmmm, it's 22MB on my desktop, time to start pruning .config.
>
> % df -h /
> Filesystem    Type    Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda5 reiserfs    385M  189M  196M  50% /
>   
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1             9.9G  8.1G  1.3G  87% /

That includes everything except /home.
> That includes /boot with two kernels.
>
>
>   
I haven't run into any significant problems with x86_64. To use flash
and shockwave I just use wine and the windows version of Firefox, it
works perfectly for me. Everything else I've tried either works, or has
a suitable alternative that I don't mind using, but this rarely happens.

-Hal
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Alex Schuster]

Neil Bothwick writes:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:39 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Next thing I would never have thought of: the root file system was too
> > small. I made it 500 MB bis, as /usr, /var, /opt, /tmp and /home are on
> > LVM. A little small because of /root/.ccache, but I usually symlink
> > that to somewhere else.
>
> You could set $CCACHE_DIR, which seems less kludgy to me.

Right.

> > But why is /lib/modules larger than 300 MB?
>
> Because you have built your kernel with CONFIG_KITCHENSINK=m?
>
> % du -h /lib/modules/$(uname -r)
> 9.9M    /lib/modules/2.6.24-tuxonice-r3
>
> Hmmm, it's 22MB on my desktop, time to start pruning .config.

Well, I think I did that. I copied the kubuntu config, but went through most 
options with menuconfig and deactivated a lot. I kept bluetooth, USB and 
DVB stuff, and some more, though, because I do not know yet which devices 
might be needed later.

So, the original kubuntu .config has even much more stuff in it. Squashfs 
compression must be very good, or the whole CD would be filled with modules 
only.

> % df -h /
> Filesystem    Type    Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda5 reiserfs    385M  189M  196M  50% /
>
> That includes /boot with two kernels.

Looks like what I had expected.

But that's okay, I created another, bigger root partition. I just think that 
the documentation could mention this. "Remember, if you are going to get 
your .config fram a CD like knoppix, your /lib directory will neeed at 
about 500 M, so be sure aour root partition is big enough" or something 
like that would have helped.


Flash would be nice now. For some people it does work fine, but for others 
this still is not the case it seems. Using firefox-bin or wine might be 
workarounds, but I would not like that much - I like to use konqueror.

The video driver problem seems to be sort of solved. Looks like a permission 
problem, the X user has direct rendering. I guess  a Section "DRI" with 
Mode 0666 will solve that.

Still, I wonder how to get a new xorg.conf. X -configure also fails on other 
machines with a similar error.

Yet another probem we just saw is display of videos. Xine works fine, but 
with mplayer or vlc it seems like the frames are not all in correct order, 
the output skips back a little about once a second.

	Wonko
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 595 bytes --]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:16 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:

> Flash would be nice now. For some people it does work fine, but for
> others this still is not the case it seems. Using firefox-bin or wine
> might be workarounds, but I would not like that much - I like to use
> konqueror.

Most flash works with Konqueror here, using nspluginwraper, even YouTube
works fine nowadays. Occasionally one of my CPUs goes to 100% and top
shows nspluginwrapper doing this, killing the process fixes it.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Memory Map - A sheet of paper showing location of computer store.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] To x86_64 or not to x86_64

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Wednesday 19 March 2008, 16:54, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:16 +0100, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Flash would be nice now. For some people it does work fine, but for
> > others this still is not the case it seems. Using firefox-bin or
> > wine might be workarounds, but I would not like that much - I like
> > to use konqueror.
>
> Most flash works with Konqueror here, using nspluginwraper, even
> YouTube works fine nowadays. Occasionally one of my CPUs goes to 100%
> and top shows nspluginwrapper doing this, killing the process fixes
> it.

To add to the discussion, on amd64 I use swfdec-mozilla without major 
problems.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list