LinuxPPC unleashes LinuxPPC 1999 Q3

haaz writes "LinuxPPC Inc. took the wraps off their newest release, LinuxPPC 1999 Q3, today. It's got RAGE 128 video card drivers, and a whole gaggle of fixes for iMacs and Blue G3s, plus new glibc, GNOME and gcc packages. Bochs is thrown in for good measure, along with an updated graphical installer. "

Comments

PMU Sleep

[kfort]

I use paul's rsync and the snooze util from ftp://devel.linuxppc.org/pub/users/paulus/

You can check your order online

[haaz]

You can check on your order online right now.

https://order.linuxppc.com/status/

Put in your email address, and the system will send you an email with the status of your order.

Best,

Meaning of Q3?

[devinoni]

Q3 as in 3rd quarter? or Q3 as in Quake 3.

I think it's the second one.

What ever happened to version numbers?

[Rombuu]

This year based numbering scheme is dumb... Wasn't it Microsoft's idea in the first place? They have some good ideas sometimes, especially in the area of marketing, but this one is for the birds. Why emulate it? The only other industry that uses year based systems is the auto industry which is hardly a model for dynamic, forward thinking companies in most cases.

Re:What ever happened to version numbers?

[dlc]

Actually, the year-based numbering scheme makes a certain amount of sense, for several reasons. With this scheme, there is absolutely no doubt about hoe old a product is, and it is easy to identify features and additions. Which is easier, really-- Linux 2.1.134pl6 or Linux95? :) Seriously, though--in many ways it helps to more accurately identify product versions that other systems.

On the other hand, I supported Windows 95 and Office 97 for a long time, and it gets very frustrating when the average user says: "I have Windows 97 on their machine. How do I print a label?". "Do you mean Windows 98, or Office 97?" Of course they have no idea. Maybe the only good way is to giove every product a completely different name, with no numbers attached at all. "I'm using Super Death Office From Hell for Windows In The Red Box. How do I print a label?"

darren

Rage 128

[SheldonYoung]

Does this mean there is a Rage 128 driver available for us i386 users too? It bites not having an XFree86-supported video card.

Re:Rage 128

[Fizgig]

Ha! You'll be getting much more than that eventually!
Read here for good news and here for bad news (well, at least for you).

is Debian/PPC worth it?

[mcc]

i have a linuxppc4 install on my computer that is somewhat messed up, mostly because i made the mistake of trying to download the whole damn thing over a modem instead of buying the CD. I need to reinstall it, and I'm considering grabbing a copy of the linuxppc 5 CD. However i was curious about maybe switching to debian instead.

i was wondering if anyone could tell me what the status of the port of the Debian distribution to the PPC platform is? is it usable yet? The page at
http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/
says almost nothing.. and the documentation listed there in the docu/ directory returns 404 not founds. there's some powerpc binaries at
ftp://ftp.us.debian.org//debian/dists/potato/mai n/binary-powerpc/
but i have no idea how to install them, and no clue where the documentation is.

Has anyone actually used this, or can anyone tell me how it's going? Are there installation instructions somewhere i missed? Is the Potato thing there really a full, complete distribution?

I've never used debian, and I'm not totally certain how the debian distribution would be different (especially since i never get to use RPM anyway, so the package manager doesn't matter much to me..) but i'm curious. Is it worth checking out, or should i just go with the Linuxppc 5/1999?

Re:is Debian/PPC worth it?

[sterwill]

Yes, the Debian PPC port works quite well (it's what I run on my G3 PowerBook). The installation documentation is, well... missing. I would strongly recommend that you install Debian on an Intel system before attempting a LinuxPPC install. I've done countless Debian Intel installs, so it's likely I've brushed over an important detail that didn't seem so important to me. Here's how I did it:

Partition your disks how you'd like, using something like MacOS's disk tool. You might have to boot from the CD to do this. You could use a pmac-enabled fdisk, but since you're not in Linux yet, you can't.

Download the Debian base stuff like normal. Get base_21.tgz (or whatever they call the one large archive) and put it somewhere the install program can find it (like an NFS share, CD-ROM, or even an HFS partition). Get the Debian boot images and the ramdisk image.

Grab the LinuxPPC install program. Expand it somewhere and run the BootX program, but don't
let it boot the kernel from the LinuxPPC setup. Choose the Debian kernel instead, with the proper ramdisk settings (the default should be good). To get BootX to find the Debian kernels might be kinda tricky... try by putting it in System Folder:Linux Kernels. A little goofing around got me booting the Debian kernels.

When you boot, it should start the dbootstrap program, and you'll have to find where you put that Debian base system. You should be able to mount an HFS partition (NOT HFS+, but regular HFS).

The rest of the installation should be normal. I might have forgotten a big impotant step here, as I'm recalling this from memory of an installation two weeks ago. I would recommend highly that you follow the unstable ("potato") branch of things. I can't imagine how unusable the stable ("slink") branch would be.

--

Does ANYONE like the graphical installer?

[isaac_akira]

I'm all for making interfaces more appealing, but in the case of the LinuxPPC graphical installer, I think they totally screwed up.

My biggest problem is that they present a sequential task as a non-sequential task (by allowing you to click on any step of the install process in any order you like). You cannot install linux into a partition you haven't created yet.

It's also confusing to start-up into x-windows with lot's of visual clutter (mouse eyes, task bar, logo windows) as opposed to going into a modal install program where you can do *one* thing: install the software.

Re:Does ANYONE like the graphical installer?

[tdsanchez]

When R5 first came out, I tried (and tried, and tried) to get the X installer to work to no avail... I think that the X installer is more a proof of concept & "gee whiz, we're creating an X installer" kind of thing than anything else. I think it stinks, too. Since then, I've always used the Red Hat installer, especially since, functionally, it is almost exactly the same as the Red Hat x86 installer, which I'm already familiar with.

-toby

Another tip...

[sterwill]

I forgot to add this in my previous post: I might have not actually booted the Debian kernels, but I definitely booted the Debian ramdisk images. I probably booted the Linux kernel that came with LinuxPPC.

Another important tip: www.linuxppc.org has _excellent_ installation documentation. Give it a good read even if doing a Debian install. It filled me in on lots of the little details I was completely ignorant to before I started.

Even though I'm a big Debian fan, I would recommend giving LinuxPPC an install if you're new to the PPC scene. The LinuxPPC guys have done an excellent job of getting together a great installation program and distribution in such (comparitively) little time (well, compared to Intel Linux). I also find the LinuxPPC lists to be full of really skilled and friendly people always adding cool new features to the Linux kernels and the programs they maintain. Don't forget to search the LinuxPPC mailing list archives, lots of questions you have can be answered there.

--

Some people like the installer

[jcarr]

Lots of the problems with the installer have been fixed and many people have testified to being able to actually install and get linux up and running for the first time. You probably used one of early versions.

The non-sequential nature of how the installer wasn't ever straightened out. But hey, guess what I did today :) New installer 2.6.5 should have this feature.
jcarr

no, you don't.

[mcc]

bootx is only one way to boot linuxppc. It is the one the linuxppc.com people push because it is the simplest if you already have a macos installation (which almost everyone with lppc does).

It is completely possible to not even have macos on the drive-- just boot into the Open Firmware prompt (cmd-ctrl-o-f i think) and type in a couple quick commands, and it will start up in linuxppc every time after that until you boot into macos (which will reset your OF stuff.. although you can set it back from there with this convenient program called Boot Variables.)

This is all very clearly documented in the linuxppc.org installation instructions, which i guess you've never had reason to read.