Flash in the pan

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post jmif8v$eoq$ on 4/16/12 5:59 PM:

Why does Adobe Flash 64-bit on Firefox on Linux (Gentoo) play an MP4
video just fine, while Adobe Flash 32-bit on Firefox on Windows XP
keeps requesting the plugin to be installed (already installed!).

Lying Larry kept telling us that Windows just works, and 64-bit Linux
was garbage.

Just askin'.

Cite? Support? Evidence?

Chris Ahlstrom writes:

Why does Adobe Flash 64-bit on Firefox on Linux (Gentoo) play an MP4
video just fine, while Adobe Flash 32-bit on Firefox on Windows XP
keeps requesting the plugin to be installed (already installed!).

Lying Larry kept telling us that Windows just works, and 64-bit Linux
was garbage.

You're telling lies again.

I explained how a lot of things in 64 bit Linux didnt "just work" : and
this is well documented AND you acknowledged it and the work around
needed where flahs was concered. I also pointed out the extra memory
requirements at the time which you and Peter scoffed at as you're too
clueless its not funny.

Just askin'.

No, you're just showing off.

Hadron wrote:

Chris Ahlstrom writes:

Why does Adobe Flash 64-bit on Firefox on Linux (Gentoo) play an MP4
video just fine, while Adobe Flash 32-bit on Firefox on Windows XP
keeps requesting the plugin to be installed (already installed!).

Lying Larry kept telling us that Windows just works, and 64-bit Linux
was garbage.

You're telling lies again.

It was exactly that. You keep telling us that windows just works with nary a
problem
And you told us again and again how badly 64bit linux works, despite the
fact that it works since more than 10 years, handling both 64bit and 32bit
programs
You are angry that windows support for 64 bits came more than 3 years after
linux supported it fully, and then it was a buggy, badly designed support
from windows. It took MS another 2 years with that POS Vista to provide
halfway decent working 64bit support

I explained how a lot of things in 64 bit Linux didnt "just work" :

Bullshit

and this is well documented

Pray tell, *where* is it?

AND you acknowledged it

Outright lie

and the work around
needed where flahs was concered.

What "Work arounds"?

I also pointed out the extra memory requirements

Which are quite negligible. 64bit programs need around 5% to 10% more memory
than the exact same (from same source) 32bit program.
And there are cases where they need slightly less because 64bit programs
have more opcodes and more registers (8 general registers and 8 SSE-
registers more than in 32 bits), making access to memory less often needed
(and thereby saving on addresses, which take space)

at the time which you and Peter scoffed at as you're too
clueless its not funny.

The only clueless one would be you, hadron Snit Larry

Just askin'.

No, you're just showing off.

And you try again the old technique of "telling lies often enough" and they
might be believed.
You gain nothing with that

Here is a facsimile from Peter Köhlmann who, on 17/4/2012 08:57, wrote:

Hadron wrote:

Chris Ahlstrom writes:

Why does Adobe Flash 64-bit on Firefox on Linux (Gentoo) play an MP4
video just fine, while Adobe Flash 32-bit on Firefox on Windows XP
keeps requesting the plugin to be installed (already installed!).

Lying Larry kept telling us that Windows just works, and 64-bit Linux
was garbage.

"I have done some more reading and agree that 64 bit is perhaps good
enough now."
Hadron - alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Sat, 23 Oct 2010
Message-ID: <i9ugd4$m1b$

"What specifically was wrong with XP? I use it for development for years
and never experienced the BSODs the liars in this group claim. Was it
perfect? No. Did it work well? Yes, most certainly."
- Hadron Quark -
Message-ID:

"NT was fine and had HUGE uptake, It got better.
But the competition was poor."
Hadron - aolu - Sat, 20 Nov 2010
Message-ID <ic99o0$g6b$

You're telling lies again.

It was exactly that. You keep telling us that windows just works with nary a
problem
And you told us again and again how badly 64bit linux works, despite the
fact that it works since more than 10 years, handling both 64bit and 32bit
programs
You are angry that windows support for 64 bits came more than 3 years after
linux supported it fully, and then it was a buggy, badly designed support
from windows. It took MS another 2 years with that POS Vista to provide
halfway decent working 64bit support

I explained how a lot of things in 64 bit Linux didnt "just work" :

Bullshit

and this is well documented

Pray tell, *where* is it?

AND you acknowledged it

Outright lie

and the work around
needed where flahs was concered.

What "Work arounds"?

I also pointed out the extra memory requirements

Which are quite negligible. 64bit programs need around 5% to 10% more memory
than the exact same (from same source) 32bit program.
And there are cases where they need slightly less because 64bit programs
have more opcodes and more registers (8 general registers and 8 SSE-
registers more than in 32 bits), making access to memory less often needed
(and thereby saving on addresses, which take space)

at the time which you and Peter scoffed at as you're too
clueless its not funny.

The only clueless one would be you, hadron Snit Larry

"He (Hadron) he's not the expert he claims to be."
TomB - comp.os.linux.advocacy

"Yet another example of how Hadron works his magic of unsubstantiated
character assasination and ad hominem attacks when presented with the
facts.
For somebody who does not even use Ubuntu and has on /numerous/
occasions (even in postings to this newsgroup) tried to discredit it,
proves that your postings in this newsgroup are only for the purpose
of trolling as you have nothing better to do to occupy your time.
J G Miller ~ alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID: <i9et35$g38$

"Too bad you can't manage the "monumental" task of installing Linux --
then you wouldn't have to worry about viruses either."
- RonB in reply to Hadron Quack -
Message-ID: <glbfqa$kbe$

Just askin'.

No, you're just showing off.

And you try again the old technique of "telling lies often enough" and they
might be believed.
You gain nothing with that

Except to be laughed at. ;-)

As they say at Microsoft - 'What do you want to reinstall today ?'.

Most people are sheep.  
Microsoft is very effective
at fleecing the flockers.

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Hadron wrote:

<whining/lying snipped throughout this post>

It was exactly that. You keep telling us that windows just works with nary a
problem
And you told us again and again how badly 64bit linux works, despite the
fact that it works since more than 10 years, handling both 64bit and 32bit
programs
You are angry that windows support for 64 bits came more than 3 years after
linux supported it fully, and then it was a buggy, badly designed support
from windows. It took MS another 2 years with that POS Vista to provide
halfway decent working 64bit support

Vista a POS? You're being unkind to POSs.

I also pointed out the extra memory requirements

Which are quite negligible. 64bit programs need around 5% to 10% more memory
than the exact same (from same source) 32bit program.
And there are cases where they need slightly less because 64bit programs
have more opcodes and more registers (8 general registers and 8 SSE-
registers more than in 32 bits), making access to memory less often needed
(and thereby saving on addresses, which take space)

The only clueless one would be you, hadron Snit Larry

And you try again the old technique of "telling lies often enough" and they
might be believed.
You gain nothing with that

Let's get this straight. I've been using 64-bit Linux for years now.

Why? It supports large amounts of RAM, and it has always performed well
on my systems. It can crunch through data (e.g. in mastering a data CD)
like gangbusters.

It can run three or four virtual machines simultaneously on a 64-bit
Linux system with 8 Gb of RAM:

- Two instances of Windows 2003 Server with "clustering"
- An instance of a client machine running XP
- An instance of FreeNAS to simulate a SAN

Great stuff for testing one's bug fixes. Couldn't do this work on any
32-bit system.

Art is anything you can get away with.