On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 18:00 +0000, carmen wrote: > On Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:41:52PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 17:36 +0000, carmen wrote: > > > woops, actualy meant Chuck, PD, and SCLang. > > > > Shouldn't this be trivial to fix if the code is sanely written? > > probably. each of the above are real-time 'virtual machines', which might make it more complex, as the change affects everything in the system? even Macromedia has said the 64bit version of Flash 8.5 will arrive at some unspecified later date than the 32bit version, for example...with excuses related to 32bit assumptions in the JIT Flash-compiling virtual-machine. > Screw 64 bit flash, I'd be happy with a 32 bit version that can play Youtube and Google video with the audio and video in sync. I feel like I'm missing out on half the internet - f**king Flash has become the de facto standard for web video and it does not work at all on Linux. Lee > not that it held back JAVA in any way..all the major JDKs were available for amd64 long before i switched to it.. >
