On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM, alex stone<compose59@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM, alex stone<compose59@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Mark Knecht<markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Atte Andre>>>> Jensen<atte.jensen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:>>>>> Mark Knecht wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems that this thread's energy got shorted out somewhere.>>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad. Fun read.>>>>>>>>>> Something good came out of it, however; I'm now running arch (instead of>>>>> ubuntu) and loving it.>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>> Atte>>>>>>>>>> http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk http://virb.com/atte>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that arch, as in Arch Linux, and not arch as in ~arch on Gentoo? I>>>> read your web page and feel disappointed that the Gentoo install still>>>> either frustrates or scares off so many people, but it sounds like you>>>> made a good decision. I hear good things about Arch.>>>>>>>> WRT to the original audio distribution proposal I want to throw out an>>>> idea that Linus and some of the other high-end kernel developers have>>>> been discussing on the LKML, and it rings true as possibly important>>>> for folks like us doing audio work. The comment was that distribution>>>> packagers haven't accepted the idea of providing a 64-bit kernel with>>>> a 32-bit tool set. The idea, as I understand it, is that with a 64-bit>>>> kernel you get the potential advantages of using all the features of>>>> your newer 64-bit processor - newer hardware flags, more memory. On>>>> the other hand 32-bit apps might work better in virtualized>>>> environments and, in my experience, would provide more backward>>>> compatibility with older audio and Windows stuff. Linus and others>>>> seem to think it's a a good thing to do, but no one is doing it yet.>>>> I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad about it.>>>>>>>> Just an idea about how this could lead somewhere different, if enough>>>> people thought it important enough to actually undertake.>>>>>>>> Cheers,>>>> Mark>>>> _______________________________________________>>>> Linux-audio-user mailing list>>>> Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user>>>>>>>>>> Mark, even better would be native 64bit across the board.>>>>>> Alex.>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'native' 64-bit?>>>> I run 64-bit Gentoo with all apps built as 64-bit. Have for 4-5 years now.>>>> - Mark>>>> |As do i Mark. i meant i don't understand why we should pursue 32bit> as a continued option if, where possible, apps can be written for> 64bit by default.>> Just my view.> Alex. And every view is important. In my experience doing audio there are a lot of little gotchas thatpop up trying to interface to the real world where everyone is usingPro Tools, media formats are Windows proprietary and generally 32-bit.Wine, VSTs, M$ data audio/video formats. There's just lots of littleproblems which I've found on my 64-bit machine which, when tested on a32-bit Gentoo machine often aren't problems at all. With that in mind I suggest I'd be more compatible running 32-bitapps. They are easier to virtualize, should I want to use Windowsunder vmware for instance (even though I do that now under 64-bit) andprobably they use less memory. There's any number of reasons. Howeverusing a 64-bit kernel would ensure the kernel has access to everythingin the machine. But again, I'm just parroting without truly understanding what I sawLinus and a few others talking about. I got interested in the subjectand decided to post it hear as I don't think I've seen anyone elseinterested in the subject yet. There are other issues, like dual toolchains if you need to build your own kernel as well as apps, etc., butnone of that is insurmountable I think. Here's the comment that for got me interested a week or so ago: <QUOTE>On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:>> A major problem is that distros don't seem to be willing to push 64-bit> kernels for 32-bit distros. There are a number of good (and> not-so-good) reasons why users may want to run a 32-bit userspace, but> not running a 64-bit kernel on capable hardware is just problematic. Yeah, that's just stupid. A 64-bit kernel should work well with 32-bittools, and while we've occasionally had compat issues (the intel gfxpeople used to claim that they needed to work with a 32-bit kernel becausethey cared about 32-bit tools), they aren't unfixable or even all _that_common. And they'd be even less common if the whole "64-bit kernel even if you doa 32-bit distro" was more common. The nice thing about a 64-bit kernel is that you should be able to buildone even if you don't in general have all the 64-bit libraries. So youdon't need a full 64-bit development environment, you just need a compilerthat can generate code for both (and that should be the default on x86these days). Linus</QUOTE> Again, this is for the sake of conversation only, but when it's Linusand Peter it seems like maybe I should pay attention, you know what Imean? ;-) Cheers,Mark_______________________________________________Linux-audio-user mailing listLinux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
