ATi & Intel graphics

[Jim]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Steve Franks <stevefranks at ieee.org> wrote:
> I suppose it's naive to think that some tool like portupgrade could be
> bent to build all the depends with -m32 as well?  I guess you'd wind
> up with a bunch of things you didn't want as 32-bit (i.e. XOrg?) being
> re-installed as 32bit, right?  I don't suppose there's any
> infrastructure for simultaneously installing two versions of a port
> (one of the reasons BSD doesn't crash as much as win32, no doubt, and
> that we don't usually have .dll/.so hell)...still I might settle for a
> 32-bit X if I could have 64-bit disk & network still...
>
> Steve
>

Jail. I suspect I could build the base system plus X and copy
everything over to a jailed dir. Once there, I could set -m32 in the
CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS of the system make.conf. Build WINE in the jail,
add a /usr/local... bin32, lib32 and libexec32 to the main (non-jail)
part of the OS, and copy everything there. Then update the path and
libpath for my system... OK, not simple, but it'll be an interesting
experiment.

*Jeremy Clarkson* What could /possibly/ go wrong?

Not really had the issues you mentioned in Windows in the last few
years, but I still prefer FreeBSD - the KDE and Gnome user interfaces
(desktop management) are just much more efficient for getting work
done (for me anyway) than that of Windows, and I can have a lot more
control over my system.

-Jim Stapleton