Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Adobe Flash Player 10 Release Candidate

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    677

    Default

    According to Ubuntu's popcon (which is disabled by default, needs to be activated to report anon. data) under 15% of the installations are 64bit.

    I didn't check debians, but I don't expect it to be much higher either.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    92

    Default

    http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html (also opt in to send data)
    20.7% if you add ppc64 its 21%

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    403

    Default

    That's the chicken and the egg speaking, to mix a metaphor. So few people install 64-bit versions because it's such a flipping pain to get them to work with all the 32-bit only software.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Adobe is too poor to spend dollars for a 64-bit port. They barely get enough money together for their daily bread, how to you expect them to raise the funds for a 64-bit version of Flash? Geez, you people should be thankful for the awesome piece of software called Adobe Flash(TM) rather than ranting about 64-bit support.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadi View Post
    According to Ubuntu's popcon (which is disabled by default, needs to be activated to report anon. data) under 15% of the installations are 64bit.

    I didn't check debians, but I don't expect it to be much higher either.

    That doesn't suprise me as debian was very late to the 64-bit game (4 years behind other distro's). However if you take a look at the the more mature 64-bit distro's such as openSUSE 1 in 3 systems is 64-bit on the latest release and with every release grows faster and faster (5% for the last release).

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Adobe is too poor to spend dollars for a 64-bit port. They barely get enough money together for their daily bread, how to you expect them to raise the funds for a 64-bit version of Flash? Geez, you people should be thankful for the awesome piece of software called Adobe Flash(TM) rather than ranting about 64-bit support.
    Heh... Write it 64-bit clean in the first place and you'll take care of both, actually. FYI- I wouldn't trust any code that wasn't 64-bit clean because there's a lot of intrinsically BAD coding practices that fall under the "unclean" category (Cardinal rule #1 of coding: an "int" is NOT the same as a "void *" in C/C++ terms... I'm pretty sure Flash's code breaks that rule... Anything that doesn't marshal that void pointer to something proper with a way other than typecasting is going to be iffy code to begin with.) and it might be a source of nasty transients.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    Well you know what is different, why don't you help em then

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Svartalf, did you ever port a JIT/dynamic recompiler? If no, please shut up.
    I hope the Flash guy will make a version available that has at least libcurl statically linked in. It's also possible to make libnss optional, so that without it you simply won't be able to use SSL.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Well you know what is different, why don't you help em then
    I offered back when I was one of the early adopters for x86-64 (I happen to still have the Solo2 motherboard AMD gave me...)...they didn't seem too interested back then, Kano. Not my problem, really, I'm trying to get other fights fought nowadays...
    Last edited by Svartalf; 08-14-2008 at 03:59 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greg View Post
    Svartalf, did you ever port a JIT/dynamic recompiler? If no, please shut up.
    Have you? If so, please enlighten us as to why it would be radically different than what I commented on? If not, please spare everyone the commentary on the subject.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •