Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-02 Thread Oscar Levi
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 07:54:41PM -0500, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote: > I honestly cannot say I have seen a Linux system acting as a fileserver, > or a workgroup server of any sort, in the sense of handling user logins > and home directories, as well as applications. I have. The trouble is that Samb

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-02 Thread Phillip R. Jaenke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > But assembler for one powerpc should work on another. If it doesn't, > then it should be fixed. We have a working mpg123. Indeed, but it won't work on an RS64 II, or a Power2. > Processor is not the issue. Tha

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-02 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:37:50PM -0500, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote: > -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. T

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-01 Thread Jim Pick
"Phillip R. Jaenke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. You'd have a separate RS/6000 kernel which would be comp

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-01 Thread Phillip R. Jaenke
-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 g

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-01 Thread Phillip R. Jaenke
-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 so

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-01 Thread Phillip R. Jaenke
-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 >

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-01 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 11:04:38AM -0800, Jim Pick wrote: > > "Phillip R. Jaenke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > A bit of history first, as it is somewhat important. For those of you who > > don't know; Linux runs on PowerPC's. Yes. It does. Now, what big names do > > we know that have PowerPC

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-02-01 Thread Jim Pick
"Phillip R. Jaenke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A bit of history first, as it is somewhat important. For those of you who > don't know; Linux runs on PowerPC's. Yes. It does. Now, what big names do > we know that have PowerPC based systems? Let's see. Apple. Amiga. UMax. > IBM RS/6000 (RISC Sys

Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

1999-01-31 Thread Phillip R. Jaenke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi there. Most of you probably don't know me. Don't worry about that; we can save introductions for a more appropriate place (read; off the list, private email.) Anyways, here I am, and I've got a proposal/idea that I'd like to run by all you happy overtaxed deve