[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: QUIK on the 7200



Ethan Benson wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 08:07:31PM -0400, James Waterhouse wrote:
> > Hello,
> >       Is anyone currently running debian on a powermac 7200 without using
> > bootx? That is is there anyone running debian on a powermac 7200, using
> > the OF and QUIK to boot up? If so can you email me your kernel and
>
> yes a friend of mine is.  it seems that only kernel 2.2.14 will boot
> it however. anything later fails.  (YMMV blah blah blah)

Akhaa!  So this is why my 2.2.15 stock kernels work, and Dan's 2.2.17 package
doesn't.  It would seem we need to put up an older kernel for those of us with
oldworlds (along with a warning about security problems)...

> > modules and everything else I might need to get potato working on my
>
> don't have them sorry (not my machine)

I have packages tailored to my arch, but will try to build a working 2.2.15
with roughly the Debian .config in the next few days, and post on my website.

> > mac. I have just been downloading ppc kernels of the web hoping that I
> > will find one that works but I'm getting no where. Any help would be
> > greatly appreciated.
>
> frankly i would suggest selling the damn thing and getting a newworld
> box (a used imac or something)  nobody is testing kernels on 7200's
> and nobody other then Dan seems to give a damn whether quik works or
> not.  oldworld macs are a total nightmare for running GNU/Linux.

Uh, mine's been stable for quite some time.  Your attitude seems to have been
influenced by Apple's practice of planned obsolescence- no reason to support
perfectly good oldworlds when we can force the masses to buy new ones!  Might
as well scrap the whole m68k Debian distro, and its dirs in the kernel source,
right?

But seriously, old arches are supported better under Linux than others because
folk with old boxes make it so.  Anyone have some idea where an eager
oldworld-owning developer might look in the kernel source to write a patch?

Thanks,

-Adam P.




Reply to: