On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Sam,
Most people responding are probably running the 32bit (i386) version of CentOS. If you are running the x86_64 arch and also running the Mozilla.org firefox then you are PROBABLY doing so via the 32bit compatibility libs.
I have the same stability problems with Seamonkey on both my 32-bit workstation at work and my 64-bit desktop at home. In fact, they have grown worse since SM 1.10 a couple of months ago (they're up to 1.12 and it's more unstable than ever, with the same problems and worse).
It has been my experience that this is far less stable (32bit compatibility libs on x86_64) for many things, not just firefox.
Actually, I have almost no stability problems other than SM on my 64-bit machine at home. However, I should add the caveat that I don't use every single newfangled, shiny app that comes out just because it's there. I have a strong preference for proven, stable apps, so that could be a part of it. I also tend to prefer 64-bit apps where possible/available because they tend to run better than their 32-bit counterparts (on a 64-bit OS). My personal, big exception: OOo, because I like the newer version (2.4.1) a lot better than the distro version (2.3.0), which is just ok.
I have never personally recommended running the x86_64 arch on a desktop workstation ... and in fact, I have several 64bit capable machines that I personally use as workstations where I install the 32bit (i386 version) of CentOS.
I'd say it's a matter of personal taste and experience - if your experience with 64-bits on your desktop is not as good as your experiences with 32, chances are you'll feel that way. If you run gobs of 32-bit apps that are not available in 64-bit versions and they tend to be a bit flaky on the 64-bit platform, that's also a good reason to stick to 32.
I know everyone THINKS that they want/need the x86_64 arch ... however, the rest of the world outside the base OS are really not quite ready for that.
I personally only use x86_64 on servers where I can remove all the i[3,4,5,6]86 RPMS and go "x86_64 only" ... where it works great.
This is, of course, one man's opinion :D
YMMV.
Also, there are newer versions of Adobe Reader (AdobeReader_enu-8.1.2_SU1) and Adobe Flash (flash-plugin-10.0.12.36-release) that are a bit more stable than the earlier ones. Specifically, the SU1 version of Adobe Reader is better than the standard 8.1.2 version.
This certainly seems to be true for the 32-bit versions, at least of AR (I don't think I have the 10.x version of flash yet...). On my home desktop, I run AR 7.9 because the 8.x versions don't print landscape PDFs properly at all, and they also have fewer options for printing, like scaling that works. This could be a 64-bit issue, but I run the 32-bit plugins with nspluginwrapper, and although MOST plugins run just fine that way, nppdf and flash do not. Sometimes I think Adobe just doesn't like 64-bits yet.
And...
That's just _my_ $0.02 ($4 in today's money...).
mhr