Re: firefox i386 RPM should be included on x86_64 iso

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 19:52 -0500, Philippe Rigault wrote:
> Due to the lack of a 64-bit flash plugin, the only way to browse 
> flash-enabled sites currently is through the 32-bit version of firefox (unless 
> there is a way to use the 32-bit plugin with firefox.x86_64, which I think is 
> not possible).
> 
> Therefore, I consider the 32-bit version firefox a must have on the x86_64 iso 
> files (there is no firefox  i386.rpm in the DVD of FC5test3).
> 
> I am even recommending the 32-bit version to be the default on x86_64 until a 
> proper alternative (free flash plugin or 64-bit version distributed by 
> Macromedia) exists.
> 
> Regards.
> 

I'd suggest you search the archive; there were numerous discussions
about this subject.
In general:
A. Pushing the i386 will reduce any incentive Macromedia might have to
actually get off their back side and port their flash player to 64bit.
B. Not all people want/use flash. (I for one)
C. Having the i386 firefox requires a long line of i386 dependences that
people will rather no install. (AKA i386-free installation.)
D. Nothing stops anyone from replacing the x86_64 rpms with i386 ones.
E. There's a lot of working being done to improve the free flash
plug-in. Hopefully it'll improve in the coming months.

Gilboa


-- 
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: 
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]