Re: Alpha PC164
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 09:45:38AM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > any other operating system on it, save Windows NT for a brief spell
> > (that is definately nothing to be excited about). apt-get is unique to
> > Debian and the Debian-derived distributions.
>
> Again no. Though I really like apt-get, you can use it on RPM based
> distros as well, e.g. Conectivia IMHO includes it, and both PLD and
> RedHat can be used with apt-get, though they both offer other tools
> (poldek and yum) as well.
Yes, I'm aware that apt-rpm exists, but usually when one speaks of
apt-get, one is implicitly referring to the Debian packaging system and
the dpkg components as well. The major RPM players (RH, SuSE) do not,
AFAIK, ship any version of apt-get with their systems.
> > In general, the differences between Debian and other distros will also
> > apply in the general case -- that is, Debian vs. RedHat on the PC will
> > have similar differences as you see here.
>
> "PC" have no distinct models (as Jensen, LX, Rawhide,XP1000) which is
> the classifying factor in the alpha world; there you rather look at
> components (which chipset, ...). Of course, since alphas can be
> expanded, similar issues araise there as well.
Not really. Once the machine is booted, it's all pretty much the same.
I have one Alpha, two PowerPC machines, an Athlon64, and a Pentium M
laptop. Once installed and booted, there's no perceptible difference.
I have KDE on all of the above; it runs fine. I use JFS or Reiser all
over. No problems there either. They all support PCI (save the laptops
of course), so I can mix and match expansion cards. And this is really
the whole point of a portable system anyway.
So I believe that my point holds. If you go out on the 'net and find
information comparing RedHat to Debian when run on a PC, that's also
going to apply to RedHat and Debian when run on an Alpha so long as both
of them can boot on it. For instance, rpm vs. dpkg comparisons would
remain completely valid both places. The original poster is talking
about a PCI machine as well, I believe, so the hardware support is going
to be pretty much the same as a PC too.
> > Debian seems to be the operating system that supports the widest range
> > of Alpha hardware, since it can boot from both MILO and aboot. This is
> > something that, AFAIK, the neither the BSDs nor Gentoo have mastered.
> > RedHat long ago dropped Alpha support. I don't know if Slackware really
>
> But Compaq still maintains a branch which was made from RedHat; given
Are you sure about that? They actually maintain it? Last time I was
playing around on the old DEC FTP site, little had been touched since
1999 or so.
> that there was recently some effort by RedHat employees to get Fedora
> running on alpha, I would not call it "dead". It just has an uncertain
> future. So for playing, I would not rule it out.
No, it is dead now. They discontinued Alpha support some *years* back.
They have not released a RedHat product for Alpha in quite some time.
Yes, there have been noises about reviving it at some point, but the
fact remains that there has not been a RedHat release for Alpha in ages.
> > supports Alpha; I'd be inclined to think that Debian's support is better
> > there as well.
>
> I thought the Slackware port was stopped? But I may be wrong here.
Quite possibly. I don't know for sure, which is why I worded my answer
the way I did on that point.
-- John
Reply to: