SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure [LWN.net]

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 24, 2010 0:59 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure by drag
Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

I run 64 bit only systems everywhere (although ubuntu uses ndis wrappers to run 32 bit flash for firefox) and don't run into problems.

I will admit I don't run binary-only software (i.e. commercial games) on most of my systems, but that's more due to the lack of commercial games available for linux than anything else.

(Log in to post comments)

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 24, 2010 1:11 UTC (Thu) by RCL (guest, #63264) [Link]

Just by the way... Given the above discussion, what would you recommend for a developer that wants to ship a binary-only Linux game (or game-like application) and to target as wide userbase as possible?

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 24, 2010 19:59 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

I'd guess 32 bit (for oldish machines and netbooks). But some serious gamers I know spend more on their grapics card than I do on a complete machine, for for high-end 64 bit 2 (or even 4) cores is probably the way to go.

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 24, 2010 21:41 UTC (Thu) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]

I may be somewhat naive here, but what about 32 and 64 bit versions of .deb and .rpm packages?

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 25, 2010 13:50 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

On current Fedora, you can install 32 and 64 bit versions happyly (most of the time), the installed packages do share non-architectured stuff (like manpages and whatnot). Yes, it does require some delicate juggling when building the packages to make sure said manpages and such are exactly equal and some other considerations.