Subject: Re: Dual 500 G4
From: Brandyn Webb (brandyn@sifter.org)
Date: Fri Feb 16 2001 - 15:19:37 MST
At 9:33 AM -0700 2/16/01, Jackson Damien wrote:
>At 5:26 PM -0800 2/15/01, Brandyn Webb wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am thinking of getting a dual 500 G4 to run linux/mol,
>>and I'm wondering if anyone has had success with that combination,
>>and which linux distro is best for that hardware (and mol).
>>Obviously, I'd want it to utilize both processors (linux; it's
>>fine if mol just uses one, just as long as it doesn't prevent
>>linux from using the other). Anyone?
>
>So what kind of responses did you get on this one? I've been looking at the dual 450's myself and have been anxious to answer that very question.
>
>Thanks.
No response at all!
I combed through older archives and see that the topic
has come up before. There seemed to be interest, but it was never
clear what was in the way. The last official word seems to be
that mol simply does not work on multi-cpu machines at all; I was
hoping this had been overcome...
I could have the time starting in a few weeks to lend a
hand, with the help of anyone in the know (so I don't have to
tackle the problem from ground zero).
By then, though, OS-X will be out. Is there any
consistent sentiment for how Linux/mol will fare after that?
My personal attraction to OS-X is simply a preference for
microkernel vs. monolithic, plus industrial-strength support
for hardware (DVD-R, etc..). Here's a question: How hard
would it be to make Darwin run Linux (ppc) binaries, or to
run mol? I just wonder if a Mach kernel with gnu trappings
wouldn't be a more responsive, more reliable, compatible
linux-equivalent (something like Hurd is trying to be)... plus
mol for us mac heads, plus the option (since it's on the
Darwin core), for those who want to pay, of running Aqua
for commercial apps. (I guess a lot depends on the fine print
of the Darwin license, and the true relative merits of the
two kernels. Do any of you kernel hackers on this list have
thoughts about this?)
Please reply off-list if this is getting too off-topic
for mol-general.
-Brandyn
--------- brandyn@sifter.org ------- http://www.sifter.org/~brandyn ---------
Things done at the last possible minute are thus done with the
greatest possible information. Procrastination is, therefore, the
most efficient means of doing things.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Fri Feb 16 2001 - 15:20:49 MST