Re: VA Research and linux.com
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Steve Lamb wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 19 May 1999 00:27:16 -0500, David Welton wrote: > > >Wow... Debian gets *lots* of publicity on linux.com. Very cool! > > Not that it does any good. "Wow, this site runs on Debian." *click* > "Cool, a Linux computer." *click* "Whoa, I can only get Red Hat. Huh?" you know, that puts me to thinking. I just saw Linux.com this morning at work. (This is my HOME address. I don't freaking read it at work. Deal. ;) If VAR's willing to toss a drive or even a system my way, or even a couple, at absolutely *no* charge, I will build them debian images they can use as masters for building Debian machines. Hell, I'll pay shipping back to them. It'd be my third time doing it (I've built a batch of 30 debian machines, highly specialized, and a master image for 40 non-specialized workstations.) and it really isn't that hard to duplicate drives. Lemme know. -prj
RE: evan leibovitch and the LPI certification tests
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > > RedCrap already has everyone where they want them; in their back > > > pocket, filling their wallet more and more everyday. Alongside VA > > > Research. > I find it offensive that you attack VA research, > who provides many of the resources we enjoy > as Debian developers. That's MY opinion. Not necessarily yours. I can't get a system without RedHat preinstalled from VA Research last I checked, they never returned my calls, so as far as I'm concerned, they're about as good a company as Compaq or Microsoft. They're more concerned about PR via donations, and making money, than they are about customer service. -prj
Re: evan leibovitch and the LPI certification tests
On Tue, 18 May 1999, David Welton wrote: > So, if this really bothers you, do something about it. Make a company > and start marketing the hell out of Debian. That's most of what > Redhat is - marketing. That's not a bad thing, necessarily - > marketing is what it takes to get your name out in the world. It > might be nice if it weren't so important, but it is. Deal with it. Now, see, I really would if I could. But I've got a full time job at a startup. That translates to 70 hour weeks sometimes. More often than not. On top of that, I'm already busy advancing Linux on the RS/6000, catching miscellaneous bugs here and there in arch/ppc, and pulling my hair out fixing design flaws in things. > As far as Big Companies go, redhat isn't so bad. Be very thankful > they didn't go the caldera route, where it seems as if they really > don't want to GPL anything they don't have to. Instead, they spend a > lot of money funding guys like Alan Cox. And making money for > themselves - but that's not a bad thing - that's the goal of most > companies. But how do you know they won't go the Caldera route down the line? The fact that they're only in it for the money doesn't really bug me. The fact that they would release such buggy and insecure distributions, however, does. Till they get a real grip on quality control, you won't catch me installing it. And what about their 'partners'? I have yet to see one of their contracts. And I'm just getting this eerie feeling that, well, it's an exclusive contract. If you offer RedHat, you only offer RedHat as far as Linux go, at least on preinstalled systems. VA Research no longer offers SuSE, or Windows either, on any of their systems. Only RedHat 5.2. That bugs me. > So, if you truly believe in some sort of ideology where making money > is bad, that's one thing - don't single out redhat for criticism. If > you are bitter about their success, do something about it instead of > just whining. Making money isn't bad. It's how you make it that makes it bad. > Sorry for the long post, and I don't really mean to pick on Phillip, > but these rantings are getting kind of lame. They sound, in some > sense, a bit juvenile, and not worthy of our time. True, but some of them have brought up some pretty valid points. Especially yours. If we don't market Debian, to be blunt, we're going to get fucked. This LPI moron obviously has some serious press contacts. He's got personal reasons. The more damage he can do to Debian, the less credible we seem, and the more power Caldera and RedHat have. And he didn't even mention Slackware, which IMNSHO, is probably the *BEST* distribution if you're going to tinker like hell with it. Bottom line is, unless we can make marketshare magically appear, those people hiding over in debian-pr and all of us here had better get off our asses (those of us who can, that is;) and *SELL SELL SELL!* (Sorry, had to say it.;) > Personally, I'm happy to know that I'm involved in making a kick ass > OS, and as long as no one messes with my ability to do that, I'm fine. Heh. I won't be happy till Linux is running on every architecture there is. I don't give a damn how obscure, old, or obsolete it is. I want to see Linux on it. Hr.. z80 port, anyone? :) -prj
Re: evan leibovitch and the LPI certification tests
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > I think prj has one such cd from Caldera and I can confirm that I've seen > one too. The person who had it wouldn't give it up unfortunately. > They're saving it for the same reasons I want it--to show people just > what kind of company Caldera really is. I do have one such CD. That's what cost Caldera every shred of my respect. I will GLEEFULLY burn fucking copy after copy for people who want it to see it. It's ANCIENT, but it's basically the same thing they're sending out day after day now as demo CDs. It's legal. 30 day preview license, redistributable. May Caldera rot in hell beside RedCrap and VA Research, who won't give me a system *WITHOUT* RedCrap. -prj
Re: evan leibovitch and the LPI certification tests
On Tue, 18 May 1999, tony mancill wrote: > sorry feel compelled to dive into the fray, but... I gotta do it. If anyone's a geek in suit's clothing, I garauntee you it's me. And I find this funny, in a sick and twisted way. > > On Tue, 18 May 1999, Mark Mealman wrote: > > > > Well damn, I work for one of the US's largest insurance brokerage firms > > and we use Debian. > > > > Guess I should run out and pick up Red Hat, before the LPI police come > > knocking. > > I'm guilty too! I guess I should just hand over my production frame-relay > routers all over the US and in Sweden, Germany, Malaysia, and Brazil too. > Let me just fill out a purchase order for 40 copies of RH at $50 apiece... GodDAMN! And I just spent $8,000 on a single machine, running Debian, that's going to be handling all our mail, dns, website, NIS, SMB, and more! And my workstation! And the 20 TFTP servers! And the 45 rackmount hardware monitoring machines! Better start getting PO's for RedCrap at $80 apiece. (Not $50. $80 now.) > > Sure would hate to give up Debian's top-notch security, stability, and > > ease of maintenance though. Then again, we're commercial and not > > educational so we really don't need those qualities in a Linux > > distribution. > > Commercial people never need to worry about things like true "hassle-free" > licensing, or being able to build a custom sendmail package in 10 minutes > by grabbing the source package and adding their own configuration files > (btw, thanks to Richard Nelson for a rock-stable package). And who wants > to be able to upgrade with a single command line or without reboots? Oh, yeah. I just love it. I want to run all our unix machines (some 75 currently, and we're not even started) like we do the necessary NT machines. Move the mouse, reboot. Upgrade some dinky thing, reboot. Reinstall mouse drivers, reboot. Write to disk, reboot, and restore from backups. Yep. I LOVE that. > Oh yea, and who wants to use free software when you follow a single vendor > down the yellow brick road until they have you right where they want > you?!? > RedCrap already has everyone where they want them; in their back pocket, filling their wallet more and more everyday. Alongside VA Research. -prj
Re: email for bruce
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bruce Perens wrote: > My DSL provider has gone out of business, apparently, leaving me with no > connection. Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you need to reach me. Hrm. Wow. *shudder* I'm very glad I opposed using LEC CoLos at work now. $100k/mo for a single rack. Add in DSL equipment.. *faint* Getcher dialup here! ;P -prj
Re: evan leibovitch and the LPI certification tests
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:16:38PM -0700, Craig Brozefsky wrote: > > Might I suggest that someone involved with Debian PR contact > > Mr. Leibovitch and attempt to open a dialog with him in order to > > better educate him on why Debian has made various decisions, and why > > Debian is not anti-commercial by any means. If noone is available to > > do this, then I could attempt it (I imagine Adam DiCarlo just gasped > > in disbelief). > > Might I add that whoever opens said dialog should take some blunt > foam-padded object and fwop Mr. Leibovitch senseless as part of the > educational session? => I hereby officially propose that the education of Mister Leibovitch begins with a sound *THWAPPING* upside the head using a hard-copy of both the GNU Manifesto and the GNU GPL, and done in tandem by two very large and well muscled men and/or women? That's much more appropriate. :) -prj
Re: Performa 63xx Port
On Tue, 18 May 1999, M. Robert Tomasch wrote: > I was wondering if anyone would be interested in working on a port to > some of the eprforma series because I was donated this performa 6300 and > every Mac/PPC distribution I've found has said specificly that they > don't support it. any grabs? me, being the suicidal maniac that I am, am curious. what's the specs, how much is shipping likely to be? -prj
Re: VX Chipsets and 2.2.5
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Michael Beattie wrote: > Ahhh... The reason he said this was that OS/2 wouldnt boot... but that was > the latest version... beta even. Uhm. FYI, Warp5 *DOES* boot on VXpro, thank you muchly. I used my screwed up VXpro for a Warp5 machine for a few days. (Then I realized it was just too slow and unreliable.) > US$? Double it for me. And I am a student... :( no money. Ouch. :( > I get the occasional IDE reset at the moment but only when my 32x > CDROM drive decides it doesnt want to spin up that dodgey written CD. > Anyway, It's VERY hard to find PI motherboards now, (In my city anyway) so > I might just see how long an uptime I get with my potato box running > 2.0.36 *shrug* I'd reboot it bi-weekly. Those things *will* kill themselves if you have something >60 days of uptime. (That's how I killed two of them, a TXpro, and several other boards.) Just won't boot again. Don't ask me why. ;P -prj
Re: jdk not working in potato, working jdk removed from incoming, license problem
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote: > What is wrong with distributing an installation package like is > done with netscape and realaudio? Hrm. You know, that didn't occur to me. As long as it contains NOTHING of JDK, that's good. :) > For the record, kaffe is *NOT* as good as the blackdown JDK. I > have used both, and, as it is, kaffe crashes before my research system > loads, yet the blackdown jdk works flawlessly. Well, I can't say I've used Kaffe, so whatever works for you(tm). It's GPL'd, which is better than JDK currently. ;P -prj
Re: jdk not working in potato, working jdk removed from incoming, license problem
On Mon, 17 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi > I am given to understand that someone has found a problem in the license of > jdk, to the point that same person finds that debian cannot distribute > the jdk at all. I was told that the problem found in the license has > existed for a long time. This is true. I did confirm this on IRC today. The JDK specifically states that you may not redistribute it in part, or in it's entirety, outside a single organization, with or without any other software, flat out NO, Period. > If this is the case, > WHY is a jdk that doesn't even work in potato? By precisely the same token, > why is there a jdk in ANY debian dist?? Is there a difference in the > license between versions? Has anyone talked to Sun? I don't know whether or not there is; if somebody could confirm/deny this, it would be appreciated. > If this is NOT the case, > Can this be resolved quickly please? I would imagine that it is the > intent of Sun that Java in its pure form would make it big. I have a > few java projects that I'm taking off the back burner presently, and > now this. > Inquiring, jdk-using minds want to know. Well. Unfortunately, after checking things over with our lawyer at work (he went over the license briefly) this is the only viable solution: 1) change the license. 2) *IMMEDIATELY* remove *ALL* jdk packages from *ALL* maintained Debian distributions. Basically, we're in BLATANT violation of the license currently. It states quite clearly that redistribution is prohibited. So, plain and simple, we're shit out of luck. As someone else pointed out, Kaffe is just as good, with better response. But either way, we have to lose jdk or convince Sun to grant us special permission to redistribute. -Phillip R. Jaenke, Head Unix Guru, Unicent Telecom 216-344-2603 / ~9a->~5p Eastern -> Pester Me! --- I WILL NOT BE IN MY OFFICE ON MEMORIAL DAY. :P ---
Re: VX Chipsets and 2.2.5
On Sun, 16 May 1999, Robert Woodcock wrote: > Michael Beattie wrote: > >I have been told by an aquaintance that linux 2.1.x or greater kernels are > >unlikely to boot on a Motherboard that uses a VX Chipset. I have a > >VXPro... > Well at least your friends know where to get good crack. Aye. > 2.2.5 runs fine on VX boards, and oh, BTW, the VXPro is absolutely not a VX. > It's a clone with a similar feature set. Former VXpro owner here. It's a similar feature set, yes. But not implemented anything like VX. Be prepared for a nightmare of IDE resets (which are a *REAL* bad thing) and kernel Oopses every few days. I'd suggest replacing the board. Super7's are really cheap now; FIC VA-503+ is down to about $60. -prj
Re: Release Plans (1999-05-10)
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Hartmut Koptein wrote: > The OF of my LongTrail works perfectly but i don't know how to set it up for > autobooting. Booting from floppy is not (yet) possible (for initrd) because > the kernel cannot read the floppy. So net or cd booting are the only choices. assuming it's similar to openboot, set boot-device disk setenv autoboot true are you getting any specific errors reading from floppy? > Currently i wait for manoj's update for his kernel-package with my > changes. After that, compiling will be easier. But then i need > kernel-diffs for apus, pmac, prep and also mbx for the 2.2.x tree. > Which class is rs/6000, chrp or prep? no offense intended, but you'd probably be best holding off till i get my images/source done for the rs/6000 against 2.2.6 or 2.2.8. 2.2.8 after looking at the code, will *not* boot on any rs64 (i had 2.2.6 booting on single rs64 in 32bit mode). the problem is in cort's code; it's simply not rs64 ready. and barely 604e rs/6k ready. i will HOPEFULLY have this done by the end of tomorrow. i broke gcc early last week, and finally got it fixed today, so soon. very soon. as to chrp/prep, most are neither. s70's are chrp, but s70 advanced servers don't appear to be. h70's are chrp as well. f50's i still haven't figured out. *some* f40's are chrp. (only single cpu f40's from what i can tell so far.) what i really need is *physical* access to rs/6000's to tell. gotta get into the openfirmware via aix to figure out what platform it is. and then from there, it's generally very easy. btw, i am working on smp support.. i have dual on f40 non-chrp, but single on everything else still. give me a few months on that. ;) -Phillip R. Jaenke, Head Unix Guru, Unicent Telecom 216-344-2603 / 9a->~5p Eastern - PESTER ME!
Re: Release Plans (1999-05-10)
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Matt Porter wrote: > The non-mac CHRP boards (LongTrails etc.) also use OF I believe. Are > their OF's so broken that they don't work properly as well? Perhaps APUS > and PReP (and I'm talking PPCBUG firmware not OF systems) are the only > ones we need to worry about. Interestingly enough, Motorola dropped OF > because it was so damn buggy. that reminds me, now that i have my home email working again. (yeah, i'm baack. head for the hills while you can.;) does anybody actually have a list of non-MCG/non-IBM/non-Apple PowerPC CHRP/PReP boards? I'm trying to hunt those little buggers down. Me, being the crazy little bastard I am, plan to get those suckers booting somehow. (Don't ask how; I really dunno yet. Probably hack up lilo or something.:) Also, for those of you who aren't subscribed to debian-powerpc, and have RS/6000's - I am working on bootable kernel images, both UP and SMP, for every RS/6000 that I currently have *REASONABLY* stable. The problem is that I *have* to use 2.2.x kernels, due to the fact that, well, 2.0.x kernels are just quite unsuitable for use on RS/6000's. Too many various issues that I've run into. I'm having some.. ISSUES *grumble*.. with kpkg still, but I'll be sure and let everyone know when they're done. I bugged up gcc again, so it'll be a few days probably. -Phillip R. Jaenke, Head Unix Guru, Unicent Telecom 216-344-2603 / 9a->~5p Eastern - Pester me!
Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution
acceptance of Linux. Debian for Business. The only difference is in the packages, and install methods. I am totally opposed to the route that RedHat has followed, charging ~$40USD for their distribution. I do not propose that we do that. Not in a million years. What I am proposing is that we create an offshoot of Debian, that is designed specifically for businesses, both large and small. With all the packages of the current Debian, perhaps additional packages that are business focused, and an install system that the traditional 'harried IS guy' won't have anything complain about. This is a dream I've had for a while myself, that would fit in perfectly here. Some businesses are expressing the desire to move to Linux on the desktop. And move all their servers to Linux. Sometimes, there's more than just a few desktops. And sitting through an install of every single one is just not something you want to do. You want to have all your specific packages pre-selected, so that you just pop in the bootdisk, hit enter, and walk away as it installs over the network. Now, I know that I'm already going to get the 'we already have something like that' messages. And here's where I'm going to explain where that argument is wrong. We have 'generalized' installation profiles. What I propose is something totally different. What I am proposing is a bootdisk, that contains a list of packages to be installed, that is created by the 'harried IS manager' using either dselect, or another tool we could always come up with. I do not propose the abandoning of 'generalized' installation profiles for Debian for Business either; simply the changing of the generalized installation profiles to more business oriented ones, such as 'Webserver,' 'Samba Server,' 'Database Server,' 'Application Server,' etcetera. Granted, someone who knows Linux, should be able to do this on their own, but not all companies switching to Linux really know that much about it. Nor do they have time to fiddle with getting it installed. Doing this could give Debian a serious edge over RedHat in the business market. (Which I personally do not like. ~$40USD for 'free' software? No thanks, RedHat. I'll stick to something that really is free.) As always, feedback, input, etcetera are always welcome. The whole purpose of mailing lists and such is so everyone can bounce ideas off of everyone else, afterall. ;) - -Phillip R. Jaenke ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | InterNIC: PRJ5) "Look. It works this way." "Why?" "Because the designer said so." "Why?" "Because the designer is a moron. Let's fix it." --anon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNrZM1jtUbefKjv6dAQEXvwQAldE5nKB031La7D0q+/fjeptEK9n5ufWc yO1LjW66wTVz+NsxZnCcN+a8DVUFt6KcM/+FvnsS5Psw9JXB8eQx4+j2eMqhDw0z UUnZK++5ejadbI5IjQ4orcsnuwD1YeyfXH+gzKrubsOyoPLkIU5ez00kw7Njtv0q cY4B7Iea6b8= =NbAK -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Edward John M. Brocklesby wrote: > Ok, so it has more features - why should it need a seperate distribution? If > you can add the i386 kernel code into the PowerPC, and only compile it in when > compiling a kernel for an RS/6000, that could go into the PPC kernel, get a > set of RS/6000 install disks, and there you go .. > > For example, the Amiga has different hardware from a 68k or PPC Mac - it as a > Zorro bus, different IDE controller, different FD drivers, etc. etc. Kernel and hardware incompatibilities can lead to binary incompatibilities. Plus, IIRC, the current PowerPC distributions are all compiled for UP. As I said, most RS/6000's are SMP. And a multi-threaded application will still work on a UP system, of course. Another reason is due to the almost totally commercial use of the RS/6000. Unlike your standard Linux distribution, to actually make headway in the RS/6000 arena, it would require a focus more on applications that are used in the server market; ie, Apache, SSL webservers, NFS, Samba, and commercial applications such as Oracle, etc, providing an 'official' distribution for the RS/6000 convinces them to port to said distribution. - -Phillip R. Jaenke ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | InterNIC: PRJ5) "Look. It works this way." "Why?" "Because the designer said so." "Why?" "Because the designer is a moron. Let's fix it." --anon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNrYrkDtUbefKjv6dAQFB4gQAoFCxgbsS9glkymlKdx7t5wO6rhlTOrMc elC1laFZ05uxrdetHUUw9GlnjyQfeVohfDYNE2Wtu80MRDQoM4Bf4iSO9JHpk5yP m4dtOxFFgqKpi+Jc1LqXB81mZz7iZVwlAHeeykn4s5MRAeOYCg/yw2A4FYMYNm/G owD+AODDA/8= =WkvB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 1 Feb 1999, Jim Pick wrote: > Wouldn't that make more sense as a subarchitecture of the PowerPC > port. I gather that the userspace component would be the same. You'd > just need work on the kernel and installation process. Or are the > instruction sets somehow incompatible? My apologies for replying out of order and a bit slowly; I'm still sorting out several small bugs (just took my x86 box to slink, and managed to break much in the process! *GRIN*;) and things like that. Perhaps it would, but there are some serious differences that can be named offhand. Here's a quick reference table. Pardon my lack of ASCII skills. ;) Feature | Apple & Clones PPC | RS/6000 PPC - +-+ ISA bus | No | Yes PCI 2.1 bus | Very Few| Yes PCI 2.0 bus | Very Few| Yes MCA 80/160 bus | No | Yes Onboard SCSI| Pre-G3 Only (Apple) | Yes (IBM) Onboard Sound | Yes (Apple) | Yes (IBM) Tablet Port | No | Yes (IBM) Parallel Port | Most| Yes Standard Serial Port| No | Yes SMP Hardware| *VERY* few | Most Maximum SMP CPUs| 2 | 12 (S70 AS) Works with PC PCI | No | Yes Works with PC ISA | No | Yes As you can see, there's a lot of things that IBM has, that Apple doesn't. Or does differently. There are many things that a PC (PC being defined as an x86/IA-32 system) can use, such as pciutils, that an RS/6000 will likely also be able to use, that an Apple or clone will not be able to use. You wonder why MacOS doesn't run on RS/6000's? That's why. ;) I honestly can't make any accurate guesses at just how much x86 kernel code, which is the current *core* problem next to hardware, will easily transfer to an RS/6000. My bet is that the majority of PCI 2.(0,1) code, ISA, and serial will work. However, we are still limited to 8 processors, due to kernel limitations, we also do not have support for the onboard SCSI or the tablet port. (Which I have not been able to find much information on, incidentally. Possibly an obsolete feature that is too difficult to remove?) So, yes, the instruction sets are for the most part, entirely compatible. However, the second tier hardware that is driven by that instruction set, is not entirely compatible. It does work in some systems, but not entirely reliably, or effectively. *grin* I'm seriously considering throwing up a little webpage with an itemized list, by priority, of the work that would need to be done. :) - -Phillip R. Jaenke ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | InterNIC: PRJ5) "Look. It works this way." "Why?" "Because the designer said so." "Why?" "Because the designer is a moron. Let's fix it." --anon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNrYhkztUbefKjv6dAQFKggQAkCt/1mRDMOaC6clIaRb60tuh5d8Q1UG7 UCP6OQOZ2mW4OpEG8yMDP+2C8WV5uIl5WVCM+Ne/0aOubX/MyFpmjteYH2+GDZqX oWxgnZKBT/2IS7xlxV2KoRWUF7HIZ8PdagKZ4qkYGwS2YFf1ahuEskFkXkTZHtXX XrPQH6XXTJM= =8KGo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Unless I'm severely mistaken, the userland for all lines of Power* CPUs > should be identical, minus a few hardware-related programs. The major > portion of the work is kernel; if you can get them to boot, we'll > gladly support the installation process. Unfortunately, this does not hold true for all userland programs. ie; mpg123. Allow me to show you a little snippet from it's source tree. - -rw--- 1 5285 5030 4717 Nov 8 1997 decode.c - -rw--- 1 5285 5030 5070 Nov 8 1997 decode_2to1.c - -rw-r--r-- 1 5285 5010 6528 Dec 2 11:54 decode_3dnow.s - -rw--- 1 5285 5030 5445 Nov 8 1997 decode_4to1.c - -rw--- 1 5285 5010 5778 Dec 2 11:54 decode_i386.c - -rw-r--r-- 1 5285 5010 6984 Nov 19 05:42 decode_i486.c - -rw--- 1 5285 5030 5150 Aug 23 1997 decode_i586.s - -rw--- 1 5285 5030 6120 Nov 2 17:42 decode_ntom.c Each one of those files is almost entirely ASM, in reality. The generic 'decode.c' would work, but under some testing I was able to do before I lost access, it was nearly unusable. But, that's one program. You are correct that the vast majority of userland things will work cleanly. However, that brings me back to the current serious problems that are keeping me from going further; lack of access to hardware, lack of information, and lack of help. No matter if they port cleanly; without a way to test it, we're up against a brick wall. There's nothing that can really be done till we can obtain hardware and information. As I stated in my original email, the information should not be too difficult, seeing as how IBM has now joined Linux International. I don't believe they'll be too argumentative or difficult with giving us the information required for the PowerPC RS64 II and the Power2 processor. So, that really only leaves the hardware issue, which is why I have turned to everyone here. I'm familiar with it, enough so as to get others with access started on the work. And would be more than happy to do so. It is my hope that by working with the Debian developers, we will be able to not only obtain the necessary information and equipment to go further, but we will be able to take Linux into a currently unexplored market. Personally, I don't have the resources to do this alone. Nor the time to port that which needs to be, and so on. As a team, I know that it can be done, and done well. Once again, thoughts, input, output, feedback, etc are always welcome. Also, please note the new PGP key, and the Reply-To header. I have procmail working, as a stopgap till I can (hopefully) find a new job, and switch back to dedicated access. ;P - -Phillip R. Jaenke ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | InterNIC: PRJ5) "Look. It works this way." "Why?" "Because the designer said so." "Why?" "Because the designer is a moron. Let's fix it." --anon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNrYesjtUbefKjv6dAQFdXQQAicsSymTKA9LAMmY3DlPA+4E+136THNgZ aO/O7x+GOYWzeBNi8r5UZQoVHEbczzC2QcEjLr/Geq9dqFkR7MBy0kPxJrXSlGUc eQxdEdHaCQlWKXcHtIsiLJTL8Q+LhspZGVtPNzlErMd9GLlxCjSF3FSVj6SgW0Bm nRUpEnNJsPw= =5WXM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Call for mascot! :-) -- flying pigs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 1 Feb 1999, Rob Browning wrote: > > Why a dolphin? Well, they're intelligent. Definitely > > intelligent. They're pretty cute. :) And they're definitely > > flexible. (I'd like to see *you* burst out of the water, do a > > backflip or two midair, and make a perfect reentry.;) > > Right, and they cooperate reasonably well too. Though our more > consertive contingent might not like the fact that they also tend to > be somewhat promiscuous. And who says Linux isn't promiscuous?! Can interconnect and/or interface with every single OS that I can think of, one way or another. *grins, and runs away before being pelted with tomatoes and other assorted fruits!* - -Phillip R. Jaenke ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | InterNIC: PRJ5) "Look. It works this way." "Why?" "Because the designer said so." "Why?" "Because the designer is a moron. Let's fix it." --anon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNrYP+jtUbefKjv6dAQGLcQP/VR4SjOS20W3jMBv7515fjS/iN1IAIiSe GNavvF3G3jIwYAuXg3N+7P8muwsnmR1b/XOI2walDpNk9ItqDZuZ/zT9K005hXvc rj3KJ7D1gGdtw4o/S9IuI31nOadr9BopW1UnCcQTUcBzIeuF4xZ30HFFKi1n6gF7 GnsmEBjZVQk= =YWJS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Proposal for new architecture support/distribution
aster 16ASP (Jumpered) Diamond FireGL 1000 Pro PCI Video card 512MB ECC memory [2] RS/6000 Model 150 Workgroup Server configuration: Single PowerPC 604e @ 375MHz Mylex BT-958 PCI SCSI-UW controller (onboard SCSI not used) Dual Intel EtherExpress/Pro+ 10/100 PCI Ethernet Diamond FireGL 1000 Pro PCI Video card 512MB ECC memory - -Phillip R. Jaenke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "something is not right, but i don't think it's wrong." --anon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNrS+w8ES8LwwGtVlAQECAgP/bRVHTxm6wj//OjJ3s14LPpDyUynO7Ige GIYtbLAAEA4X8ELhayRLgUJm8xJAFZPfkH4YvIXWgte6ukGkDlAp5FMjaAkZ0QiY O+QI+Ee5cwEJAwZaWwPnhGaqIIGqkGaOtY2k5k+rBOqjAFpqDXl/jbk5Eq1ZV0F9 R6tjuWTSAHs= =iAon -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Call for mascot! :-) -- flying pigs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 30 Jan 1999, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Kevin Dalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Anderson MacKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Avery Pennarun wrote: >> > Octopi and ants may also be good, if they have wings. >> >> Octopi with wings? Now -that- is a confusing bunch of appendages, if you >> ask me. =) >Squid is a better choice than octopus. Some of them actually do fly >for short distances. Perhaps glide is more accurate. > > How about a balrog? They have *lots* of eyes; we wouldn't be limited > to 8. Why not Yog Sothoth? *grin* Seriously, IMO, I don't see any reason not to stick with the Penguin. But if ya gotta have a new mascot, IMHO, I think a Dolphin would be nice. And I'm gonna justify it just to drive you all nuts. ;) Why a dolphin? Well, they're intelligent. Definitely intelligent. They're pretty cute. :) And they're definitely flexible. (I'd like to see *you* burst out of the water, do a backflip or two midair, and make a perfect reentry.;) Anyways, back to getting procmail working. Just my $0.02USD. ;) - -Phillip R. Jaenke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "something is not right, but i don't think it's wrong." --anon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNrPRBsES8LwwGtVlAQFcVQP/Y4GJnDOjmF+uHOesiBRwuGmn+QerKZGU 0RqbHimqBMBvYn1uHcPZDb0CY0Mgxpvv/4zHeclMNEQxJfhIp39HcbYZvzuMmi0m tNY7J1rJyZtHXmrJ+AouVt1SZ+GY7WHdkE3xiCWYxMUd4nH7UGPdjTJIrVQnr9DD 05QPoL8x8Qg= =ds8J -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian-PPC on RS/6000
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Andreas Plesner Jacobsen wrote: > Anybody been running debian-ppc on an RS/6000 yet? > One of my friends and I are playing around with it, but as of yet I > have been unable to find any pointers on how to install it on > anything but Macintoshes. Take it from someone who's been there, done that. With RS/6000's, you are *always* better off building everything yourself, and cross-compiling from a PC. And now, for everyone's convience, a quick list of RS/6000's that I *know* will run Linux. I don't garauntee support on the SCSI or sound, but I know that they'll boot Linux. And since they've got PCI, just throw in PCI2.1 compliant hardware. It'll work. :) - --RS/6000's That Will Run Linux 2.2.x or >2.1.101-- R50 Rackmount Server H50 PowerPC Server F50 PowerPC Server F40 PowerPC Server (2 Processor configuration is what I tested on.) E30 Workgroup Server 43P Power240 Workgroup Server 43P Model 150 Workgroup Server 43P Model 140 Workgroup Server F3L Telecommunications Server (Most hardware features unsupported) F40 3D Workstation IBM Intellistation (x86! Bah!) Currently, if an RS/6000 model contains the following hardware or features, assume the entire system unsupported: PowerPC with X5 Cache PowerPC RS64 II MCA 80M or 160M (MicroChannel Architecture) I have tested and worked on an RS/6000 F40 PowerPC Server with 256M, dual processors, dual 6.4G SCSI-UW disks, a Tekram DC390F PCI SCSI controller, a SoundBlaster 16ASP (Jumpered), and a Diamond FireGL 1000 Pro. What'd I get working on it? XFree86 (with a LOT of work), kernel 2.2.0-pre9, a Ricoh MP6200S SCSI CD-RW, mpg123, and some basic services. So it's doable. But all the distributions have a *LONG* way to go. IMHO, the world would be a lot better off with Linux-ApplePPC, and Linux-RS/6000. Two seperate trees. Macs are very different from RS/6000's. Something that works on a Mac, will not necessarily work on an RS/6000. Just my $.02USD. - -Phillip R. Jaenke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "something is not right, but i don't think it's wrong." --anon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNrNJQsES8LwwGtVlAQF2fAQAow+oOupRFy6keaOdEUHIo9+Pe9aRuhRh 55gaMJzpyIGG8chiL+kH4u1EA/luEF2m7yXDuWSnK+XiVtnsnjIzAlEgO6UHN65t 6q8r1nwlvO4aCnH6UfDy2yEMMZXGMnD12H3soGEn3kkzs/SkPKfQBx0UPZ7R9t3b 6//k58ZKWIY= =L9tV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
