FC5 32 bit or 64 bit

Gene Heskett gene.heskett at verizon.net
Sun Apr 23 18:42:56 UTC 2006

On Sunday 23 April 2006 14:17, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo at gmail.com>
>| 1. The x86_64 drivers are still not as mature (debugged) as the ones
>| for the x86_32.  Testing volunteers wanted/needed.
>Really?  I've been running x86_64 on my desktop and notebook for
>almost two years.  Drivers seem to be fine now.
>I don't use ndiswrapper.  My guess is that it might actually work
>better in 64-bit mode because of stack size issues (the per-process
>kernel stack space is twice as big in x86_64 as on i386; some
>ndiswrapper drivers crash into Red Hat's choice of small stack size on
>There has been some recent success in creating a native Linux driver
>for Broadcom 802.11g controllers.
>  http://bcm43xx.berlios.de

This one is interesting as I'm currently running the windows drivers 
under ndiswrapper, and its working fine.  But I would like to be able 
to junk the ndiswrapper thing if I could.

>I've not tried it but it would be great to have more users using it
>and reporting back to the developers (and even contributing).  Much
>better for the Linux ecosystem than using ndiswrapper.

I agree, but here is my conundrum:  When I try to install the x86-64 
from the dvd on an HP lappy with an AMD64 Turion in it, the 
installation takes a dump right after formatting the partitions because 
it cannot find setup-2.5.49 on the dvd.  I tried twice, with two 
diferent dvd, on a +R and one a -R.  Now I just looked at the dvd, and 
I was able to unpack and view the contents of this file with mc with no 

So the $32k question is what happened?  Do I need to add more options to 
the boot line in order for it to work?  I'm currently booting the x86 
install using "irqpoll noapic nopapci pci=assign-busses lapic".

Or is there a way to convert an x86 install to an x86-64 install on the 
fly?  I'd hate to have to redo all the customization I've put into this 
at this late date when I have only about 4 days to do it in.
>| 2. For the home user there is not a "must have" application or
>| feature in x86-64 that makes it compelling to switch.
>But maybe soon: RAM may be creeping down in price.  My desktop now has
>3G because I saw a deal for 2G at Canadian$125 (after rebates, at
>Tiger direct).  If that kind of price becomes normal, the 4G boundary
>is going to pinch.
>I like diversity of platforms.  It keeps the code honest.  It is also
>makes things a little bit harder for the bad guys.
>| 3. If you want everything to be 64-bit it will be much later.
>| Because of patent issues for multimedia that may be never.
>FC5 x86_64 can run i386 userland code.  All that patented/closed
>source i386-only crap is in userland.  So you can run it on an x86_64
>installation.  Example: on x86_64, if you want to use flash (which
>comes as a i386-only browser plugin), you need to use an i386 browser.

Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

More information about the users mailing list