Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: forthrightly@no-email.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 13:11:32 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <13879995-ef2d-4e00-a6bb-6742cdedf4ae@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: +WPaf99SihO7MMrlVUUdlg.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.forth:1781 On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley wrote: > Interesting. I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all > the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of > them. There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install > time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM. > > Andrew. Hi Andrew I agree with what you said. In fact I don't want any of the 32 bit libs on my systems and I've many friends who agree with that. I feel multilib Linux is just an upgrade mechanism from the days when apps wouldn't build in 64 bit mode. Now that's mostly over and if you're running newish hardware there isn't any reason (besides Acroread and Skype) to run 32 bit at all. It really keeps down the bloat. If you do custom installs like I do, not installing everything and the kitchen sink, it makes sense not to install the 32 bit libs on a 64 bit distro. I'm quite happy Pat decided to build Slackware as either pure 32 or pure 64 as it reduces complexity and saves quite a bit of room when you have a single lib distro. I suppose hapless Windows victims who are starting out with Linux and use package managed distros and don't compile their apps from source don't know the difference and don't care but for Linux people who've been using it for years as we have, we often like to control what goes on our systems and what doesn't. Cheers, Harry