Ubuntu still shows 1.2

[Dirk Hohndel]

"Robert C. Helling" <helling at atdotde.de> writes:

> On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:35 AM, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>
>> Please tell me you are joking. AMD64 is the name of the architecture that Intel calls x86-64, but since AMD came first to market with it that's the name that stuck.
>> But most any Intel chip (with the exception of some Atoms) sold in the past five years does happily run AMD64 binaries.
>
> OK, whatever. Sorry it was in the middle of the night (it was just my
> daughter that thought it would be a great idea to be awake at 4:30am).

Trust me. I know how that feels. My twins didn't start sleeping through
the night until they were almost FOUR. So I have years of waking up many
times every single night. Which does not improve mental acuity...


> You are of course right, it's not an AMD/Intel thing but 32/64 bit. In
> any case, my Linux tmp 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.32-1 i686
> GNU/Linux said:
>
> sudo dpkg -i subsurface_3.0.1-1_amd64.deb 
> dpkg: error processing subsurface_3.0.1-1_amd64.deb (--install):
>  package architecture (amd64) does not match system (i386)
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>  subsurface_3.0.1-1_amd64.deb

Yes - while 32bit binaries run on 64bit systems (case in point, both the
Windows and Mac binaries are actually 32bit binaries that happily run on
the respective 64bit systems as well), the same isn't true the other way
around. 

/D