On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:26:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Well, for one thing: PGI requires a hell of a lot more available RAM than > d-i. Using PGI as a default installer would practically rule out the > possibility of installing an m68k-based system. I don't know that that is true for PGI's textmode installation method. The requirements listed in the PGI manuals are largely speculative. I have done no rigorous analysis of PGI's memory consumption (I don't count a few "free -m"s as rigorous). > Not to mention the fact that PGI, being a 'smart' installer, requires more > maintenance than an installer such as d-i. With eleven architectures to > maintain, this is a pain (which is probably the reason why PGI does not > support all architectures). This observation is true, but Progeny attempted to write PGI in as flexible and modular a fashion as possible. The reason PGI doesn't support all architectures simply that no one has yet done the work. PGI started life on i386 since it is a lineal descendant of the Progeny Debian installer, which was an i386-only product. A client of Progeny's was interested in ia64 support in the Progeny Debian installer, so we designed PGI. Jimmy Kaplowitz, Chris Tillman, and Jan-Hendrik Palic are working with me on a PowerPC port, though we're all kind of stuck until GNU Parted gets a little more aggressive with Apple partition map support. -- G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpJNMaA5HnMF.pgp
Description: PGP signature