what is wrong in that answer?
the question was
"Are they essential, ie would the system run without them?"
no, they are not ESSENTIAL
yes, the system would run without them
Am 03.06.2012 15:13, schrieb John Mellor:
> Reindl, you might want to rethink that wrong answer, seeing as you don't
> know
On 03.06.2012, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> A very elementary question, I assume:
> Why are 32-bit applications (as well as 64-bit)
> downloaded on a 64-bit system?
In a 64-bit only system, they are not needed. However..
> Are they essential, ie would the system run without them?
..it can happen th
Reindl Harald wrote:
>> A very elementary question, I assume:
>> Why are 32-bit applications (as well as 64-bit)
>> downloaded on a 64-bit system?
>> Are they essential, ie would the system run without them?
>
> you do not need any i686 crap on your system
>
> yun can even specify "exclude=*.i68
Reindl, you might want to rethink that wrong answer, seeing as you don't
know what he does with the system.
Tim, if you run 32-bit dynamically linked applications, you're going to
need the 32-bit libraries, configs, etc. That 32-bit application list
includes some games, some browser plugins, a gr
Am 03.06.2012 13:57, schrieb Timothy Murphy:
> A very elementary question, I assume:
> Why are 32-bit applications (as well as 64-bit)
> downloaded on a 64-bit system?
> Are they essential, ie would the system run without them?
you do not need any i686 crap on your system
yun can even specify "
A very elementary question, I assume:
Why are 32-bit applications (as well as 64-bit)
downloaded on a 64-bit system?
Are they essential, ie would the system run without them?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, T
