Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
64 bit?64 bit?Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:21 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467)In reply to: 64 bit? by felixfix Parent article: The second OpenOffice.org 2.0 beta
I don't see any 64-bit downloads. It's hilarious, and Sun should be ashamed, that the only application in the Linux universe that won't port to AMD64 is one that relies so heavily on Java. Write once, run anywhere? Perhaps not.
(Log in to post comments)
SomeJava; much is in C++. Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:29 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] It's true that a few components are written in Java. But practically all of OOo is currently written in C++. Indeed, until very recently, many Linux distributions were shipping OOo without using Java at all. You lose Wizards, the built-in database (though you can still access databases), and some other things, and I believe the intent is to go further with more Java use. But that's not the current situation. Nor does it make sense to go differently; most users don't care what the implementation language is, as long as it works well and does what they need.Yes, it's a little ironic. But I stand by my earlier statement -- if you're using a 64-bit system, it's not because your office suite is too slow. A 32-bit office suite is just fine on a 64-bit system; it does the job quite adequately. I think it's more important to worry about the needs that really matter first. And if someone loathes this so much that they're willing to fix it now, great... go to it!
SomeJava; much is in C++. Posted Aug 30, 2005 19:13 UTC (Tue) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]
SomeJava; much is in C++. Posted Aug 31, 2005 9:19 UTC (Wed) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] Certainly on Linux/Sparc64 and Solaris/Sparc64, most userland applications are 32-bit; thus, on Sun's own 64 bit architecture, 32-bit is fine. This also applies to IRIX/MIPS, Linux/MIPS and Linux/PPC64, regardless of kernel wordsize.
64 bit? Posted Aug 30, 2005 20:54 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > It's hilarious, and Sun should be ashamed [...]
You think? ;-)
A more cynical mind may even conclude that Sun are holding back open sourcing of Java on purpose, in order to cripple other FOSS distros, which then have to put huge (and unnecessary) efforts into making GCJ a solution for this problem (because they can't legally distribute Sun's JDK).
Then again, it may be for the best - once GCJ becomes as functional as "real" Java, we won't need it from Sun any more. Ah, that'll be the day... GCJ hackers, keep up the good work!
|
|
||||||||||||