[11:55] <nikolam> when will mozilla officially support 64-bit x86 build of it's main applications?
[13:42] <bhearsum> nikolam: it is, actually
[13:42] <bhearsum> we just don't publicize it =(
[13:42] <bhearsum> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/8.0.1/linux-x86_64/
[13:44] <chrisccoulson> and we've supported it since forever :-)
[13:51] <nikolam> And why not publicize it?
[13:52] <bhearsum> nikolam: it's complicated....
[13:52] <bhearsum> i guess i should clarify: it is supported in _most_ senses
[13:53] <bhearsum> but if we had linux 64-bit specific problems, we wouldn't prioritize them highly
[13:53] <nikolam> beacuse...
[13:53] <bhearsum> i don't have the answer to that question
[13:53] <nikolam> All new desktops are 64 bit and there will be less need to support at time goes on that way :)
[13:54] <nikolam> as
[13:54] <bhearsum> yeah
[13:54] <bhearsum> people have said that it's not worth supporting 64-bit directly
[13:54] <bhearsum> because you get increased memory usage over the 32-bit version, f.e.
[13:54] <nikolam> so what.
[13:55] <bhearsum> anyways
[13:55] <bhearsum> it's a question of priorities, and there are many competing things
[13:55] <bhearsum> you can get a better answer on the mozilla.dev.builds newsgroup
[13:55] <chrisccoulson> we also recommend the 32-bit version of ubuntu on our download page: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/ubuntu/download
[13:56] <nikolam> It is just stupid to recommend 32bit. I use 64 bit since, say 2007
[13:56] <nikolam> Next Ubuntu LTS will be 64bit predominant
[13:56] <chrisccoulson> why? for most people, there is no noticeable difference between 32-bit and 64-bit, other than the fact that everything on 64-bit uses more memory....
[13:57] <chrisccoulson> and with pae, you can address more than 4gb with 32-bit
[13:57] <nikolam> Well Distributions (linux) package 64bit binaries. Good enough reason. Why I should use some tweaks to run legacy/32bit when I do not need to?
[13:58] <chrisccoulson> i don't really understand the question there
[13:58] <nikolam> Its not like SunOS where IS the point of having 32 bit, because kernel can run 32 and 64bit at the same time.
[13:59] <nikolam> Anyway, since I am running 64bit, since forever it is very awkward to recommend anything 32bit after 5 years or so...
[14:01] <chrisccoulson> so have i, but it hasn't been completely pain free. like, (until recently) the lack of a 64-bit flash plugin, for example....
[14:01] <chrisccoulson> ...and, no - nspluginwrapper doesn't count, because it's awful
[14:04] <nikolam> I am using 64bit flash plugin also since 2008 I think, if not before..
[14:05] <nikolam> so whats the point. "Most people are statistically on 32bit" yeah ok, but that woulde be less and less important over time.
[14:05] <chrisccoulson> sorry, that doesn't count either. the version of flash you were using was abandoned by adobe for a long time, and didn't receive any security updates whatsoever
[14:06] <nikolam> like i care for flash
[14:06] <chrisccoulson> well, that's up to you. however, most people do, unfortunately
[14:07] <nikolam> I use flash and it works fine on 64bit. I am on ubuntu 64bit since forever.
[14:07] <nikolam> How come it works so fine for me
[14:07] <chrisccoulson> *sigh*
[14:07] <chrisccoulson> you aren't listening are you?
[14:08] <chrisccoulson> flash released a prerelease 64-bit flash plugin ages ago, and then abandoned it until very recently, leaving it to rot in the meantime (ie, no security fixes to fix critical issues fixed in the 32-bit version)
[14:09] <chrisccoulson> it seems that you were (foolishly) using that, but there is no way we would have ever recommended people use that
[14:09] <chrisccoulson> which left the alternative - 32-bit flash + nspluginwrapper
[14:10] <chrisccoulson> and nspluginwrapper is probably the most crashy piece of software in the archive (so bad in fact, that we block it in apport), and breaks with every flash update
[14:10] <nikolam> so what it have to do with mozilla products,  should Mozilla let Adobe's closed product stop entire industry from progress, selecting what platform adobe supports or not.
[14:10] <chrisccoulson> in addition to having endless problems with event handling etc. the flash experience for 64-bit users has been terrible for years (until recently)
[14:11] <nikolam> And flash works fine with me on Ubuntu 64 bit and I also used 32bit before that and it also workes fine. And I do get flash updates in ubuntu, so...
[14:11] <chrisccoulson> it only "worked" for you because you used an outdated prerelease 64-bit flashplugin with unpatched critical security issues
[14:11] <nikolam> Well, if it is flash problem, it is a flash problem. It is not mozilla problem, isn't it?
[14:11] <nikolam> flash could die in time, anyway, html5 is here.
[14:12] <nikolam> no reason for any app to die with him
[14:12] <chrisccoulson> huh, i don't get the last sentence?
[14:13] <nikolam> No reason for any project/application for sharing death sentence of some closed company wanting/not wanting to develop its closed products.
[14:15] <nikolam> If flash is about, I have 11.1 r102 installed here on my desktop. It is outdated?
[14:20] <nikolam> And as I see now, Adobe clearly has available and supported 64-bit flash plugin.
[14:20] <nikolam> Only platform that does not care for 64 browser and clearly want it on 32bit is SunOS, not Linux or others.
[14:21] <chrisccoulson> sigh again
[14:21] <chrisccoulson> adobe support 64-bit flash now, but that's only been for the last couple of months or so.....
[14:22] <nikolam> so what. It is their policy, people not wanting to depend on their policies, should avoid flash and thats it.
[14:22] <nikolam> I use Noscript+flashblock anyway and activate flash only when needed
[14:22] <nikolam> So it is important to have usability, I understand
[14:23] <nikolam> But let not stop progress because of some company policies.
[14:23] <nikolam> I also understand that if flash is outdated, it undermines distribution and other efforts.
[14:24] <nikolam> But isn't using flash enough undermining efforts in the first place? And it is on user to choose what to use.
[14:24] <chrisccoulson> ok, so lets break the world now by switching firefox to gtk3, which will break flash for *everybody*, if that will make you happy
[14:24] <nikolam> Alo I don't think Flash is distributed with Linux distributions, for most part.
[14:24] <chrisccoulson> lets ignore the fact that it would piss off the other 99.99999% of our users
[14:24] <chrisccoulson> anyway, i've got work to do. so, goodbye :)
[14:25] <nikolam> Wll, if Adobe do not want to get along with the programme..
[14:25] <nikolam> ok, cu
[14:25] <nikolam> apparently they want now.
[14:28] <nikolam> since 99.99% of users would piss on adobe if they do not.
[15:56] <chrisccoulson> hah - https://twitter.com/#!/nitot/status/139709707031019520 :)
[16:00] <bhearsum> ouch
[16:00] <bhearsum> that's going to turn some people off
[16:01] <chrisccoulson> hopefully!
[16:01] <chrisccoulson> :)
[16:05] <bhearsum> :)
[16:05] <chrisccoulson> perhaps i can convince some of my colleagues to stop using it :)
[16:05] <mdeslaur> hah, nice!
[16:16] <chrisccoulson> damn, i didn't scare didrocks enough yet with the "google knows everything you type in to the addressbar" trick ;)
[16:30] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: tell him google tells him mom
[16:30] <chrisccoulson> lol
[19:45] <chrisccoulson> "Another random person you've never heard of added you on Google+"
[19:45] <chrisccoulson> yippee!
[19:50] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: I suspect people are creating circles called "Ignore" or "Don't know them" and adding all the suggestions to them or something :)
[20:51] <micahg> chrisccoulson: I seem to have a 2MB install size increase from 8.0 to 9.0b2, is this normal?
[21:12] <micahg> awesome, thunderbird 8 should build on powerpc w/in 3 hrs...