On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:16:11 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ [H]omer ] on Saturday 08 July 2006 18:22 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | You might wonder why I bring this up obviously. Well, yes I know |
>>> this will initiate a flame war, but there will be definitely no 64 |
>>> bit version of the Linux plugin initially, at least not for the |
>>> beta. Neither have we planned to have a Linux PowerPC or even ARM |
>>> version for the upcoming beta. There is no Windows 64 bit version |
>>> either right now...
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.kaourantin.net/2006/07/random-bits-on-current-status.html
>>>
>>> I guess that 64-bit architectures take no priority when pushed away by
>>> a particular company for over almost a decade. Another example of
>>> innovation being hindered by monoculture...
>>
>> Bah ... how bloody incompetent.
>>
>> Even swfdec builds to 64bit targets, but apparently that is beyond the
>> scope of the inventors.
>
> Investors, not inventors. Adobe(/Macromedia) is a commercial company. As
> usual, they will carry on with their arguments that pertain to how the
> market share is not high enough to justify the investment. While Windows
> holds back innovation, third-party vendors will follow suit. It's sad
> but true. I don't know of anyone who runs 64-bit Windows XP. With the
> poor compatibility all around, it's no surprise either. But people keep
> buying 64-bit AMD's....
If you think closed-source is in trouble now, just wait until someone
puts 4-8 computers on a single MB or in a single box, runs it as a Linux
cluster, and sells it in the stores as a high-powered
gaming/small-business computer.
|
|