[SLUG] Re: Unpatched FF

[Al Girling]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:59:29AM GMT, Stephen O'Neill wrote:
> Al Girling wrote:
> >I see what you're saying, but I think you're missing the details of the
> >stable/testing/unstable model used by Debian and others. 
> 
> I was :D

No problem. ;)

> Another reason I banged on a bit was that c. 1.0.4 there was advice that 
> noone should even use FF until it was patched.

Quite right too!  

> >I'm
> >currently trying to figure out who the other Linux x86_64 user is who's
> >been looking at the Burythorpe site.  There's obviously mine, Paul
> >Teasdale has had a look too, but there is a third.  Who is this mystery
> >person?
> 
> Golly gosh. So are you and Paul 64 bit users? How are things in 64 bit 
> land? - it seems weird that it's a fairly hot topic as M$ released 64 
> bit this year, but Linux had been doing it for God knows how long before 
> that.

That's right.  We both built machines at similar times, I must add that
I'm very grateful to Paul for all his help.  As to how it performs, well
I'm very happy!  But then my previous machine was my beloved P166 so the
move to a 64 bit system is quite a dramatic change.  The most difficult
thing was creating and setting up the chroot needed to run 32 bit
software not yet ported to 64 bit.  I'm quite interested to know how
Microsoft deals with this.  I know they have their Windows in Windows
thing for this, but as Windows is pure GUI now that sounds very resource
hungry to me.  Still, just make 64 bit Windows work requires 1 Gb of RAM
so what it takes to do useful things is anybodies guess. ;)

Toodle pip,

Al

-- 
Al Girling

Home page:                  <http://al.sdf-eu.org>
Linux User: #290080         <http://counter.li.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/scarborough/attachments/20051207/7d6908cc/attachment.bin