Slashdot Mirror
Mandrake 9.0 for AMD 64-bit Technology
Wister285 writes "Mandrake Linux has released a version of their operating system that is compatible with AMD's 64-bit x86 architecture. This version is based upon Mandrake 9.0. In addition to this, Mandrake announced Corporate Server 2.1 for AMD64 to be released in April 2003 and MandrakeClustering for Opteron in June 2003. Although they say that you can download the operating system now, I cannot find any FTP servers. The press release is located on Mandrake's website."
Why would you say that it's avaliable for download ... and then not actually have it anywhere? Am I missing something?
__________________________________
"How am I supposed to remember you, when you won't let me forget?" --Bare Naked Ladies
Will it be enough to keep them afloat?
Is anyone really running Mandrake on a business server? I thought their target market was educational users and the desktop...
- Despite popular opinion, I am not perfect.
Enterprise server is proprietary. You have to pay for it. Enterprise server isnt like Red Hat's standard linux distibution which is free.
Choose wisely you must...
You can download ES from RedHat's site after you've paid it. You can get the same RedHat minus the Orcale and clustering from any of RedHat's mirrors, just without support, and only a year of updates
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Jeopardy style:
...or would that be DrakHammer.... or HammerDrak?
AMD & Linux-Mandrake
What is: "How do you make a flaming Hammer"?
Even casual involvement excludes total freedom by it's inherent nature. John Valby
I'd love to get my hands on some blade servers running Mandrake on AMD64-x86. Testing a web or app server config on this hardware+OS might make them the new winners of the most server bang-for-the-buck contest.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
I did find what looks like the x86 64 bit version, but it's dated 2/12/2003, so I'm not sure if this it it.9 .0/x8 6_64/
ftp://ftp.rutgers.edu/pub/mandrake/Mandrake/
the mandrake control center was very handy for my laptop running 802.11b PCMCIA, and the install was very smooth on my ThinkPad. However, in the end, I still ended up switching over to a different distro simply because I wasn't happy with the package management. The defaults were giving me no end of trouble for my perl modules, and overall I felt i could get better performance out of a more customizable (from the outset, such as Core Linux or Gentoo) distro. So while I think they are fine for a great many users, Mandrake turned out not to be my thing in the end. Also, I recommend against Apt4RPM on mandrake...bad experience on my wifes desktop box with that.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Small correction, the Linux kernel hackers announced their intention to support Hammer before MS did. MS followed suit in this case.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
My bad, go dev kernel hackers!
Choose wisely you must...
Most Linux distros announced their 64-bit OS last fall when the Hammer was scheduled for Q2. Last Fall at Comdex Epic was running the 64-bit version of Unreal Tournament 2003 on the AMD Hammers while running a 64-bit version of SuSE. Maybe Microsoft was the first to announce it, but Linux was the first to do it.
And yes, Intel plans to ride out the Itanium...they see no value in a 64-bit x86 processor
Lets be honest, it doesn't really matter who announced their support for Hammer first. It was inevitable that that major OSes that run on consumer hardware would support the latest processor series from the world's second largest CPU manufacturer (who are in a great position to topple Intel from the #1 spot).
Pro-MS, Pro-Linux, it doesn't matter - putting a slant of this kind on this is pretty silly. Somebody has to announce support first.
With so much and so many on board with the x86-64 platform, it's fascinating that the industry leader [Intel] has all but written it all of as so much hype. Intel's line has never been that the Itanium is in the same league, which they consider to be nothing more than an extension of the 32 bit market. Intel's position on that is clear. Faster P4/Xeon, more cache, that's all anyone needs. (please resist the urge to throw in the old 640k quote) Itaniums are for bigger servers.
The irony is that IBM once, rather cavalierly, dismissed the PC, they learned the hard way, Intel seems bent on making a similar choice.
Do you need a 64 bit AMD? Well, hell yes, if your budget can afford it. Even /. drools a trough over the latest hi-tech toys and you know once the 64 bit systems hit shelves in the <$2000 range the floodgates will be open. Intel's best bet was/(may still be) Yamhill, but their pride would take a bruising following their little brother.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
everyone knows linux is a slut that supports any architecture as long as there's one person willing to port it.
whoer.
Liberty.
MS was integral in designing hammer with AMD. They didn't have to 'announce' anything, it was a given.
You think AMD is betting the future of its company on linux?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Microsoft announces development of AMD's x86-64 Hammer solutions. Mainstream Linux distro's follow suit. Software companies are looking at Microsoft and saying, "We're going to follow Microsoft, they have the money."
PowerPC
Which explains perfectly why Linux runs on the following architectures yet Windows does not, and I can say with a large degree of certainty, never will:
Alpha
ARM
IA64
M68K
MIPS
MIPS-64
PA-RISC
IBM S/390
SH (a.k.a Hitachi H8)
SPARC
SPARC64
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
How exactly is a company that has been bleeding cash for the past 2 years and struggling with a declining market share (that just recently leveled off at 19%) in a "great position" to topple a company with 10x the revenue and 10x the cash on hand?
You AMD fanboys are too busy cleaning up your own drool to take a look at the big picture.
But Windows is a desktop OS, so there's no real reason to port it to any of those platforms. It surely could be done, but why?
Do I want the 6 foot high HP 3000 in the server room sitting on my desk? Nah, let it sit back there running MPE, or HP-UX.
Windows CE runs on some of those architectures as well.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Alpha
IA64
Um, at least until recently MS supported Windows on Alpha, but since Alpha looks like a dying processor (market-wise), it doesn't make sense for Windows to continue to support it. And Windows will run on IA64 (Itanium, right?). Guaranteed. I think it already DOES run on that. Also, Windows used to run on PPC so it could conceivably do so again, if the processor market changed somewhat (doubtful).
"MS was integral in designing hammer with AMD."
Bullshit. Cite one, single news item or press release that states this please.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Now finally I'll be able to mmap 5GB file into
memory on my default distro...
Is whether the Fritz chip will be on AMD motherboards? If so, Mandrake may be in a corner.
http://www.notcpa.org/members.html?PHPSESSID=8641e 28acdce91511fd69a42ffdb05a7
http://antitcpa.alsherok.net/phpnuke/html/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=AMD+%22Fritz+chip%22&btnG=Google+Sear ch
That means AMD users will be in a corner as well.
The OS is ready for download? What good does that do anyone when we won't see the processor until at least SEPTEMBER?!
Which explains perfectly why Linux runs on the following architectures yet Windows does not, and I can say with a large degree of certainty, never will:
Well duh. Who would take the time to write the 5cr1p7-k1dd33 assembly priviledge escalation code for Windows on each of those processors?
Trolling is a art,
If you dont think AMD consulted MSFT with every step of the design process, you're nuts.
If MSFT wasnt going to support Hammer, they wouldnt have developed it.
The company names their flagship CPU line "Athlon XP" and you dont think they have very close ties inside Microsoft?
heres a link for you anyways From april of 2002. I'll even read the opening line for you.
"AMD confirmed Wednesday that it will collaborate with Microsoft to tune Windows to run on its upcoming family of Hammer chips. "
A google of "microsoft" and "hammer" should get more hits.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
notcpa
Fritz Google search
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I have been a long time Mandrake user (for the last 3+ years, I think) but wanted to try the new RedHat 8. So (as I have /home as a separate partition) I wiped the root and reinstalled. I had a comple of immediate gripes with RH8. First of all, both my partitions have always been resier since 2.4.1. The fact that I couldn't (even under the "expert" mode) install a fresh copy to an already-formatted reiser partition I thought was silly. But I was willing to bend a bit and made the root /ext3.
But I came to find later that the ntfs.o module was no where to be found and I couldn't write (ro) my win2k partiiton. Which was a must. I tried compiling the included source but someone got all these errors just for the ntfs module. Very odd - I've been compiling my own kernels since 1.2.13 and never found these errors before (don't remember what they said now).
Finally, though my harddisk had DMA successfully enabled, I just couldn't convince RH8 to use DMA on my DVD drive - the absence of which made everything choppy. hdparm just told me that was not possible.
So I'm back with Mandrake 9.0. Which I'm generally happy with SAVE FOR ONE BIG HEADACHE. I installed the "dev workstation" setup. But I still find I must keep installing -devel.rpm's left and right. O.k., this isn't a real problem, but I've found that these -devel.rpm's and their dependencies are quite equally distributed across ALL 3 DARN CDs!! I normally have to put in 2 of the CDs if not 3 to install any one devel package. This is infuriating!! Why?
Windows NT 3/4 ran on MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC. They were all eventually dropped as they never caught on.
Motherboards, Blades and even a peek at Win64 at CeBit
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
He's not trolling, and your link doesn't prove the point. He stated that Microsoft had nothing to do with the design of the Opteron. What your link states is that AMD helped Microsoft design Windows so that it would run well on the Opteron. Two very different things.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
All you did is prove that you have no reading comprehension skills.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Ahem. Of the 12 CPU architectures you listed, the NT OS (3.51 and 4.0) has already been ported, boxed, shrinkwrapped and shipped to three of them (Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC), and if you think MS isn't going to ever ship an IA64 version of windows at some point, I have some prime real estate that I'd like to sell to you.
Granted that the MIPS and PPC versions of NT were effectively footnotes, but there they were.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Windows on SPARC was done but never saw the light of day.
My bad, sorry :)
Once beaten, twice shy. :D
The location is http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/ftp.php3#iso I'm pretty sure that is the 9.0 i586 release. Try research in the future.
Who'd want to make out with a girl that could compile her own kernel?
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
opteron == April
AMD64 == June
According to , there are almost 100,000 web servers running Mandrake (look for Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer).
;-)
I thought their target market was educational users and the desktop...
Think again
You Can't Touch This.
im sorry. i had to.
[Sorry, I hit Submit instead of Preview]
;-)
According to Netcraft, there are almost 100,000 web servers running Mandrake (look for Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer).
I thought their target market was educational users and the desktop...
Think again
I saw the Mandrake logo and was hoping that 9.1 was released... *sigh* just a bit longer.
Those r all ia32 and the old releases for IA64, Sparc, UltraSparc and Alpha.
:)
Try research in the future.
Try reading the hole page
The whole idea behind x86-64 is that it is compatible with the x86 instruction set -- 32-bit processors. I'll assume they just mean that it was compiled/coded specifically FOR a 64-bit platform, since that would be the LOGICAL conclusion. (Since this is /. though, I figured I'd post this anyway.)
[insert witty comment here]
How is this insightful, isn Windows 2000 advanced Server also a desktop OS?
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
" But Windows is a desktop OS, so there's no real reason to port it to any of those platforms. It surely could be done, but why?"
(Best Bones impression): Dear God, man!
1) Windows is not just a desktop OS. Go drink some coffee. Windows 2000 Server ring a bell? =) IIS ring a bell? Whether it's a good server is another thread. Anyway, there are surely people who would like to put Windows up as a server on an old UNIX server running some archaic architecture. And using some old, beefy-in-their-day servers as desktops isn't all that bad of an idea.
2) Windows, as a desktop, would be useful o n architechtures such as PowerPC, Alpha, Sparc, etc. There are, amazingly, desktops out there that don't use x86! *shock*
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
close to 2 years ago, when AMD made the plans for the x86-64 available, they also released a development kit for linux so people could make sure their code runs before it's even avaiable.
I actually just got back from a presentation by AMD here at UIUC (and I won a free t-shirt, too). They oulined the whole hammer architecture and how it's going to be a good thing. By putting the north bridge/memory controller on the CPU die, they're able to cut the DRAM latency by 20% over Athlon! Anyone who's designed computer architectures knows that 20% is HUGE! It only takes 54 clock cycles to complete an instruction cycle, including memory access; if there's a cache hit it was around 30. Actually, the memory read process is started in parallel with the cache hit/miss test and then canceled if there's a hit. Memory bandwidth is also going to get pretty ahead of Intel. AMD is really going to step ahead of Intel with the new hammer architecture. In the future...multiple cores on a single die. That means a single chip, multi-processor system. That'll be huge for the server market! Tech talks are fun!
What does it mean for Madrake to announce "their" OS is compatible with a processor already known to be compatible with the current crop of 32-bit operating systems from x86? Did they just recompile the apps in their distro using a version of GCC capable of compiling code for the new AMD processor? Or did they just install their OS on a system with new the processor and decide to tell the world the good news? This doesn't sound terribly exciting.
A specific reference to the actual system used to manage the install, removal, and maintenance of packages (urpmi), or a vague discription of a black monitor icon you can click that will give you the option to add different programs? /. is supposed to be a tech savvy forum so people just say "urpmi." That has nothing to do with Linux or how user friendly urpmi is. If you tried Mandrake you would be able to install all the packages you ever wanted "WITHOUT" having to know how to even spell "urpmi." It is all part of a central "control panel," that a noob, like yourself, should be able to figure out. However, don't expect slashdotters to describe this system in your native "noob" speak (just click there and select . . .).
Again, all Linux users are not like that, just geeky slashdot linux users. Plenty of "non-techy" places to learn about Mandrake . . . why don't you check some of them out?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Suse has led the ball to x86-64.
It is nice to see that MDK is ready though.
At linuxworld, RH said it would be Q3 till they had one ready.
You can get the same RedHat minus the Orcale and clustering from any of RedHat's mirrors, just without support, and only a year of updates
Admittedly, I bought RH way back in the day, but I've downloaded it now, and I just download updates whenever I want.
And I use yum instead of the icky up2date or the better but still not ideal apt-get.
May we never see th
recently? NT 4.0 was the last windows release that supported it.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Yeah... I suppose I keep forgetting just how old NT4 is. But the point still remains that it wouldn't be so hard for MS to support as many processors as they wanted to.
This humble opinion comes from somebody who's sick and tired of having a sluggish Mandrake distro on his AMD Atlon. And don't tell me about Gentoo : I don't have a fast network connnection anyway, which pretty much rules it out.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
Informative? What your link is saying is that AMD helped MS making the hammer version of Windows. In your earlier post you claimed that MS helped AMD making the Hammer CPU! Not the same thing at all...
Ancient and obsolete versions don't help your argument. Yes, the release for other arches IN THE PAST. No they will not release them EVER AGAIN. Yes, they will release for IA64, sorry I left that in by mistake. Otherwise, MS is a one architecture outfit. You will never see anything they release run on any of the architectures I listed (except IA64 OBVIOUSLY and whatever CE runs on, which is largely irrelevant).
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999