Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #212720 > unrolled thread

is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system??

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-13 02:20 +0200
    Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-08-13 03:20 +0200
      Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? riveravaldez <riveravaldezmail@gmail.com> - 2019-08-13 05:00 +0200
        Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-13 11:10 +0200
        Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-08-13 13:50 +0200
          Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-08-13 15:30 +0200
            Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-08-14 09:30 +0200
              Metasyntactic variables (was Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on  64-bit amd system??) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-08-14 15:00 +0200
          Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-08-14 07:50 +0200
            Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-14 17:40 +0200
      Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system?? Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-13 15:30 +0200

#212720 — is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system??

i want to run adobe pdf reader on jessie for amd64
the last adobe reader 4 unix is for 32bit, i'm afraid it can't run on 64bit system

i've tried free pdf reader, they all look amateur, compared with adobe's 
 
btw which option should i add to mplayer command line
so that it play only audio part (not video part)  of a file?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#212721

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> i want to run adobe pdf reader on jessie for amd64
> the last adobe reader 4 unix is for 32bit, i'm afraid it can't run on 64bit system

You want to research multiarch -- multiple architectures.  But your CPU
MUST support 32-bit emulation.  AMD does. I used it years ago with
Fedora 12 and it ran both 64-bit and 32-bit apps transparently.

Here's a Debian wiki to get you started:

  https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO

> i've tried free pdf reader, they all look amateur, compared with adobe's 

Take a look at qpdfview.  I used it on both Wheezy and Stretch. It's in
the Debian repos.
 
> btw which option should i add to mplayer command line
> so that it play only audio part (not video part)  of a file?

Can't help.  Don't use mplayer.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212722

>> btw which option should i add to mplayer command line
>> so that it play only audio part (not video part)  of a file?

$ mplayer -novideo file

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212731

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

 
Thank riveravaldez ! it works !

     On Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 10:56:50 AM GMT+8, riveravaldez <riveravaldezmail@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 >> btw which option should i add to mplayer command line
>> so that it play only audio part (not video part)  of a file?

$ mplayer -novideo file

  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212738

On Monday, August 12, 2019 10:56:22 PM riveravaldez wrote:
> >> btw which option should i add to mplayer command line
> >> so that it play only audio part (not video part)  of a file?
> 
> $ mplayer -novideo file

I'm in a strange mood today (I end up here often) -- I like to see things like 
that written as:

mplayer -novideo <file>

or 

mplayer -novideo <filename>

It makes it more clear what is "fixed text" and what is a variable / parameter.

(Of course, it doesn't work for code that requires < and > in the syntax ;-(

(BTW, while I'm being cantankerous (that's the word I should have used 
earlier, I don't like the "foo" ..., approach, my mind just doesn't seem wired 
that way.

cheers to all!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212743

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 07:47:52AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm in a strange mood today (I end up here often) -- I like to see things like 
> that written as:
> 
> mplayer -novideo <file>
> 
> or 
> 
> mplayer -novideo <filename>
> 
> It makes it more clear what is "fixed text" and what is a variable / parameter.

Clear to YOU.

But then you get the occasional fool who puts the literal < and > signs
in their command.

Basically, there isn't any good way to write example commands in
standard ASCII text without confusing *someone*.  The OP was happy
with the answer that was given, so it worked.  Arguing that a different
markup syntax might have worked better is just wasting time.

> (Of course, it doesn't work for code that requires < and > in the syntax ;-(

One of my pet peeves is the recent trend (last few years) of people
putting `backticks` around their example shell commands in IRC.  Some
of the common markup systems use backticks to mean "display this with
a fixed-width terminal-style font".  Unfortunately, IRC is *not* one
of those systems, and in technical channels that deal with Unix shell
commands, where backticks can be part of the actual shell command syntax
(albeit deprecated), it can be extremely confusing whether the user
intended the backticks to be literal, or part of their markup.

I've actually seen users put commands with `...` around them in their
bash scripts, then ask why it's not working.  More than once.

(And then there's mysql.  Oh my god, don't get me started on mysql.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212780

On 2019-08-13, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 07:47:52AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm in a strange mood today (I end up here often) -- I like to see things like 
>> that written as:
>> 
>> mplayer -novideo <file>
>> 
>> or 
>> 
>> mplayer -novideo <filename>
>> 
>> It makes it more clear what is "fixed text" and what is a variable / parameter.
>
> Clear to YOU.
>
> But then you get the occasional fool who puts the literal < and > signs
> in their command.
>

I thought this was what metasyntactic variables were for, the occasional
foo for the occasional fool, but maybe not, and anyway, the fool is
often quite cleverly foolish, working around the best of intentions
easily.

-- 
“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” 
― Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212788 — Metasyntactic variables (was Re: is it possible run 32-bit app on 64-bit amd system??)

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:19:40AM -0000, Curt wrote:
> I thought this was what metasyntactic variables were for, the occasional
> foo for the occasional fool, but maybe not, and anyway, the fool is
> often quite cleverly foolish, working around the best of intentions
> easily.

The most authoritative source for the origins of "foo", "bar" and "foobar"
is <http://catb.org/jargon/html/F/foo.html>.

  When ‘foo’ is used in connection with ‘bar’ it has generally
  traced to the WWII-era Army slang acronym FUBAR (‘Fucked Up Beyond All
  Repair’ or ‘Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition’), later modified to
  foobar. Early versions of the Jargon File interpreted this change as a
  post-war bowdlerization, but it it now seems more likely that FUBAR was
  itself a derivative of ‘foo’ perhaps influenced by German furchtbar
  (terrible) — ‘foobar’ may actually have been the original form.

Much interesting material follows that.  Really surprising in many cases.

It appears that ESR may have missed one of the jokes. "Many smoke but foo
men chew" isn't nonsense -- it's a pun on Fu Manchu, and chewing tobacco.
I think I've actually seen it written as "Many smoke but few man chew"
which makes the punnish origin clearer.  ESR's version may have been
derived from mine ("few man" -> "foo men"), but I don't have a citation
available for mine; I'm just going from old, foggy memories.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212773

On 13.08.19 07:47, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 12, 2019 10:56:22 PM riveravaldez wrote:
> > >> btw which option should i add to mplayer command line
> > >> so that it play only audio part (not video part)  of a file?
> > 
> > $ mplayer -novideo file
> 
> I'm in a strange mood today (I end up here often) -- I like to see things like 
> that written as:
> 
> mplayer -novideo <file>
> 
> or 
> 
> mplayer -novideo <filename>
> 
> It makes it more clear what is "fixed text" and what is a variable / parameter.

Yes, to those of us who have done a bit of reading, especially from the
days when clarity of written expression was more highly valued. (Or at
least given greater formality.)

But not everyone has been exposed to the above long and widely established
substitute for italics or similar to denote non-literal text, so your
"teaching moment" is an act of generosity.

Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212794

On Wed 14 Aug 2019 at 15:44:19 (+1000), Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 13.08.19 07:47, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 12, 2019 10:56:22 PM riveravaldez wrote:
> > > >> btw which option should i add to mplayer command line
> > > >> so that it play only audio part (not video part)  of a file?
> > > 
> > > $ mplayer -novideo file
> > 
> > I'm in a strange mood today (I end up here often) -- I like to see things like 
> > that written as:
> > 
> > mplayer -novideo <file>
> > 
> > or 
> > 
> > mplayer -novideo <filename>
> > 
> > It makes it more clear what is "fixed text" and what is a variable / parameter.
> 
> Yes, to those of us who have done a bit of reading, especially from the
> days when clarity of written expression was more highly valued. (Or at
> least given greater formality.)
> 
> But not everyone has been exposed to the above long and widely established
> substitute for italics or similar to denote non-literal text, so your
> "teaching moment" is an act of generosity.

I don't know what riveravaldez has been exposed to, but their answer
was most helpful, and was expressed in the style used in mplayer's
man page. If it's felt that this style is unclear, patches can always
be offered.

BTW Should you add an extraneous "file", the only effect (in the
absence of such a file) is three extra lines of output:

   Playing file.
   File not found: 'file'
   Failed to open file.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212742

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

 Thank Patrick Bartek!
i change mind, i'll install on i386 system, thanks anyway!
btw i'll try qpdfview.
     On Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 9:11:10 AM GMT+8, Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:13:33 +0000 (UTC)
Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> i want to run adobe pdf reader on jessie for amd64
> the last adobe reader 4 unix is for 32bit, i'm afraid it can't run on 64bit system

You want to research multiarch -- multiple architectures.  But your CPU
MUST support 32-bit emulation.  AMD does. I used it years ago with
Fedora 12 and it ran both 64-bit and 32-bit apps transparently.

Here's a Debian wiki to get you started:

  https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO

> i've tried free pdf reader, they all look amateur, compared with adobe's 

Take a look at qpdfview.  I used it on both Wheezy and Stretch. It's in
the Debian repos.
 
> btw which option should i add to mplayer command line
> so that it play only audio part (not video part)  of a file?

Can't help.  Don't use mplayer.

B

  

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web