hi,
is fedora prepared for intel-based macs ?
<snip> A message from the Apple Developer Connection:
It's time to ship your Universal Binary. The Intel-based Macs are here. (http://developer.apple.com/click/dtrc5.html)
Get your Intel-based Mac. ADC Premier and Select Members can purchase an Intel-based Mac at a significant discount utilizing their ADC Hardware Purchase Program membership benefit. Not a Premier or Select Member yet? Upgrade your membership today to take advantage of this benefit and get your hands on a new Mac. </snip>
On 1/11/06, Alan Cox alan@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 01:57:50PM +0100, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
is fedora prepared for intel-based macs ?
It will depend what Apple have done to make it not a PC. Other than that its just another PC laptop
Well they've mentioned you'll be able to run that other OS on it so I would imagine it would work just fine. I would think the only issue will be with specific hardware like sound and graphics and the like as the Yonah hardware is still relatively new.
Pete
Peter Robinson wrote:
On 1/11/06, Alan Cox alan@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 01:57:50PM +0100, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
is fedora prepared for intel-based macs ?
It will depend what Apple have done to make it not a PC. Other than that its just another PC laptop
Well they've mentioned you'll be able to run that other OS on it so I would imagine it would work just fine. I would think the only issue will be with specific hardware like sound and graphics and the like as the Yonah hardware is still relatively new.
Pete
I just saw a post saying they don't use bios, so might not be so easy.
On 1/12/06, Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com wrote:
I just saw a post saying they don't use bios, so might not be so easy.
All systems must do a - POST(bios) Loader OpSys
etc etc routine. Is Apple claiming to be different?
Oh wait... -- WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 12:44 -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
All systems must do a - POST(bios) Loader OpSys
etc etc routine. Is Apple claiming to be different?
Oh wait...
They use EFI. Think ia64.
On 1/12/06, Jesse Keating jkeating@j2solutions.net wrote:
etc etc routine. Is Apple claiming to be different?
Oh wait...
They use EFI. Think ia64.
Then that means no MBR or "normal" partitioning then... -- WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 13:37 -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
Then that means no MBR or "normal" partitioning then...
It means gpt disk labeling, just like we do on ia64. In fact, you need gpt disk labeling to be able to support partitions/filesystems above 2TB. The world is moving on, we just have to catch up. elilo boots efi and gpt, but I'd much rather see grub2 support for it.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:46:48PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
It means gpt disk labeling, just like we do on ia64. In fact, you need gpt disk labeling to be able to support partitions/filesystems above 2TB. The world is moving on, we just have to catch up. elilo boots efi and gpt, but I'd much rather see grub2 support for it.
From freshmeat.net:
GNU GRUB 1.92 (Development) by Yoshinori K. Okuji - Mon, Dec 26th 2005 07:05 PDT
About: GNU GRUB is a Multiboot loader. It was derived from GRUB. It is an attempt to produce a bootloader for IBM PC-compatible machines that has both the capability to be friendly to beginning or otherwise non-technically interested users and the flexibility to help experts in diverse environments. It is compatible with FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux. It supports Windows 9x/NT/2000/XP and OS/2 via chain-loaders. It has a menu interface and a command-line interface.
Changes: This release adds support for the GPT and Linux/ADFS partition table formats, a new command "play" to play an audio file on a PC, support for BASH-like scripting, and support for Apple HFS+ filesystems.
Bill Rugolsky Jr. (brugolsky@telemetry-investments.com) said:
Changes: This release adds support for the GPT and Linux/ADFS partition table formats, a new command "play" to play an audio file on a PC, support for BASH-like scripting, and support for Apple HFS+ filesystems.
Supporting GPT is easy, as adding support for another partition type is relatively simple. Supporting EFI is somewhat more complicated, as you're changing the entire BIOS interface.
Bill
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:38:15PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Supporting GPT is easy, as adding support for another partition type is relatively simple. Supporting EFI is somewhat more complicated, as you're changing the entire BIOS interface.
Yeah, as I told the EFI folks at OLS three(?) years ago, it seems like an awful lot of work to replace one poorly designed interface with another, when better alternatives already existed. The amusing thing about Intel is how reliably they've reproduced nearly every bad design idea, misfeature, and strategic flop IBM in the preceding decades. Perhaps they should institute Friday "folklore" sessions, where "old-timers" from within/without Intel describe their colossal mistakes.
Anyhoo, history has taught us that in the end, the kernel has to (re-)configure everything, because the mobo/BIOS vendors can only be counted on to get it wrong. Installing Red Hat Linux on 440GX immediately jumps to mind ...
-Bill
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 04:12:41PM -0500, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
everything, because the mobo/BIOS vendors can only be counted on to get it wrong. Installing Red Hat Linux on 440GX immediately jumps to mind ...
For many 440GX boxes that ultimately (after some years of head scratching on both sides) turned out to be our fault 8)
Alan
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 14:38 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Bill Rugolsky Jr. (brugolsky@telemetry-investments.com) said:
Changes: This release adds support for the GPT and Linux/ADFS partition table formats, a new command "play" to play an audio file on a PC, support for BASH-like scripting, and support for Apple HFS+ filesystems.
Supporting GPT is easy, as adding support for another partition type is relatively simple. Supporting EFI is somewhat more complicated, as you're changing the entire BIOS interface.
I was told that EFI has BIOS emulation support. If this is the case, then wouldn't that be sufficient for Grub2 to use until the full EFI port was complete and usable?
On Saturday 14 January 2006 00:27, Peter Gordon wrote:
I was told that EFI has BIOS emulation support. If this is the case, then wouldn't that be sufficient for Grub2 to use until the full EFI port was complete and usable?
EFI _can_ have bios emulation support - but from everything I've read so far Apple decided to go without that.
Peter.
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 01:40 -0500, Peter Arremann wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2006 00:27, Peter Gordon wrote:
I was told that EFI has BIOS emulation support. If this is the case, then wouldn't that be sufficient for Grub2 to use until the full EFI port was complete and usable?
EFI _can_ have bios emulation support - but from everything I've read so far Apple decided to go without that.
Ah. Thank you for clearing that up for me. =)
Peter Gordon wrote:
I was told that EFI has BIOS emulation support.
I think EFI *can* have legacy BIOS support ...
Should be somewhere in the depths of http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/main_specification.htm
"JK" == Jesse Keating jkeating@j2solutions.net writes:
JK> It means gpt disk labeling, just like we do on ia64. In fact, you JK> need gpt disk labeling to be able to support JK> partitions/filesystems above 2TB.
Yes, I use GPT on some of my plain Opteron machines:
s parted /dev/sda print
Disk geometry for /dev/sda: 0.000-4959103.500 megabytes Disk label type: gpt Minor Start End Filesystem Name Flags 1 0.017 4959103.483 lvm
but the boot disk still has a plain DOS partition table. It was something of a pain to figure out how to do this properly as most of the utilities don't support GPT well.
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
s parted /dev/sda print
Disk geometry for /dev/sda: 0.000-4959103.500 megabytes Disk label type: gpt Minor Start End Filesystem Name Flags 1 0.017 4959103.483 lvm
but the boot disk still has a plain DOS partition table. It was something of a pain to figure out how to do this properly as most of the utilities don't support GPT well.
irc i saw something at intel ...
google: intel efi tools http://developer.intel.com/technology/efi/diskutil_overview.htm http://developer.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm
and at m$ google: efi gpt xp http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us...
Required Partitions on GPT Disks
EFI System Partition
Microsoft Reserved Partition
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 14:00 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
but the boot disk still has a plain DOS partition table. It was something of a pain to figure out how to do this properly as most of the utilities don't support GPT well.
Yep. I had to rewrite parts of anaconda so that it would allow my gpt disk partitions. I never quite had it clean enough to submit to RH at the time, but now that I'm here.... all I need is a nice 4TB box to play with and I'll have anaconda all fixed up....
(well not really, but you get the idea)
On 1/11/06, Alan Cox alan@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 01:57:50PM +0100, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
is fedora prepared for intel-based macs ?
It will depend what Apple have done to make it not a PC. Other than that its just another PC laptop
Yep. and ...
Besides, there is a TON of PowerPC iMacs and iBooks, etc, still floating around.
-- WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
Jeremy Katz wrote:
They're using GPT and EFI, so there's going to be some (non-trivial) work required for them to work.
GPT, EFI ?
thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
is fedora prepared for intel-based macs ?
it depends on how cooperative apple is in assisting developers to support their proprietary asics.
given apple's past history on this exact topic, my prediction is : don't hold your breath.
-Dan
Peter Jones wrote:
No. Off the top of my head:
- our x86 kernels don't have CONFIG_EFI
- installer doesn't do GPT partitioning on x86
- we don't have a bootloader for them
:-(
new macs intel http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/ intel core duo http://www.apple.com/imac/ intel core duo
On 1/13/06, shrek-m@gmx.de shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
http://www.apple.com/imac/ intel core duo
The centrino chip? (... equipped with a 2-GHz Pentium M 760 chip) -- WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
Chasecreek Systemhouse (chasecreek.systemhouse@gmail.com) said:
http://www.apple.com/imac/ intel core duo
The centrino chip? (... equipped with a 2-GHz Pentium M 760 chip)
Sure - it's got a better power profile than basing off of P4.
Bill
On 1/13/06, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
Chasecreek Systemhouse (chasecreek.systemhouse@gmail.com) said:
http://www.apple.com/imac/ intel core duo
The centrino chip? (... equipped with a 2-GHz Pentium M 760 chip)
Sure - it's got a better power profile than basing off of P4.
Bill
Of course I'm wondering why waste $3k for (apple name) to put Linux on it,
why not get an Asus or "Other" brand with the core duo processor. Or just get a X2 laptop :)
On Saturday 14 January 2006 05:50, Justin Conover wrote:
Of course I'm wondering why waste $3k for (apple name) to put Linux on it,
why not get an Asus or "Other" brand with the core duo processor. Or just get a X2 laptop :)
Perhaps because it has a potential to triple-boot the three major desktop operating system available today? That's something that has not been done before. I am sure there are people who would find this a good enough reason to spend $3k on it.
On 1/13/06, Ladislav Bodnar distro.watch@msa.hinet.net wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2006 05:50, Justin Conover wrote:
Of course I'm wondering why waste $3k for (apple name) to put Linux on it,
why not get an Asus or "Other" brand with the core duo processor. Or just get a X2 laptop :)
Perhaps because it has a potential to triple-boot the three major desktop operating system available today? That's something that has not been done before. I am sure there are people who would find this a good enough reason to spend $3k on it.
I can do that on my current laptop. Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD, am I missing something :)
j/k went way off topic :)
On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 09:00 +0800, Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2006 05:50, Justin Conover wrote:
Of course I'm wondering why waste $3k for (apple name) to put Linux on it,
why not get an Asus or "Other" brand with the core duo processor. Or just get a X2 laptop :)
Perhaps because it has a potential to triple-boot the three major desktop operating system available today? That's something that has not been done before.
Except on a PowerMac 6100.
On 13.01.2006 15:00, Peter Jones wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 13:57 +0100, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
is fedora prepared for intel-based macs ?
No. Off the top of my head:
- our x86 kernels don't have CONFIG_EFI
- installer doesn't do GPT partitioning on x86
- we don't have a bootloader for them
i do not know if "boot camp" is helpful, here it is. http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/pdf/Boot_Camp_Beta_Setup_Guide.pdf
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/71716
Apple hilft Windows XP auf die (Mac-)Sprünge
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 11:13 +0200, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
i do not know if "boot camp" is helpful, here it is. http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/pdf/Boot_Camp_Beta_Setup_Guide.pdf
This is helpful, and it means we only need to get gpt partition tables allowed on 32bit, and used by default if this arch is detected. The allowed part is easy, I've done it before for >2TB block devices. If I recall, it is very few lines of change. However detecting this platform and using it by default will take some more work. Of course, I don't have this hardware to test with, so I can't verify how easy or hard this will really be (;
Hmm. Seems to me that Redhat should spring for a few of these Intel Macs for Redhat developers. This is going to be a significant platform, methinks.
Miles
On 4/8/06, Miles Lane miles.lane@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. Seems to me that Redhat should spring for a few of these Intel Macs for Redhat developers. This is going to be a significant platform, methinks.
I think you should spring for one of these Intel Macs for me.
-jef
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
Hmm. Seems to me that Redhat should spring for a few of these Intel Macs for Redhat developers. This is going to be a significant platform, methinks.
davidz picked one up last week. I eyeballed it at FUDCon. He got it kinda sorta working.
It needs some work in various components - He was using the Ubuntu kernel as the Fedora one currently has some missing bits (and things like imacfb really need some work before we can be as insane as ubuntu enabling this). - Text mode only for now; Xorg failed to start up for reasons I forget. (May need some X changes) - Fun things like the built-in camera will take some time for someone to reverse engineer (though it should be no harder than the one that was in the old Sony picturebooks). - possibly some other things that DavidZ will remember better than I do.
It'll get there. FC6 is way off yet, so there's plenty of time for this work to happen. Retrofitting it to FC5 afterwards *may* happen depending on how much stuff needs changing.
Dave
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 08:45 -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
Hmm. Seems to me that Redhat should spring for a few of these Intel Macs for Redhat developers. This is going to be a significant platform, methinks.
We are doing precisely that. Some things do take time.
On Sat, 2006-08-04 at 14:45 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 08:45 -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
Hmm. Seems to me that Redhat should spring for a few of these Intel Macs for Redhat developers. This is going to be a significant platform, methinks.
We are doing precisely that. Some things do take time.
We have a couple at work, and have installed XP on one as well as a demo virtualization application called "Parallel" or something like that, that allows XP to run in a Window.
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 11:19 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 11:13 +0200, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
i do not know if "boot camp" is helpful, here it is. http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ http://images.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/pdf/Boot_Camp_Beta_Setup_Guide.pdf
This is helpful, and it means we only need to get gpt partition tables allowed on 32bit, and used by default if this arch is detected. The allowed part is easy, I've done it before for >2TB block devices. If I recall, it is very few lines of change. However detecting this platform and using it by default will take some more work.
Actually, it's probably pretty trivial to detect that we're on one of these machines.
-
Alan Cox -
Andy Burns -
Bill Nottingham -
Bill Rugolsky Jr. -
Chasecreek Systemhouse -
Dan Hollis -
Dave Jones -
Guy Fraser -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jef Spaleta -
Jeremy Katz -
Jesse Keating -
Jesse Keating -
Justin Conover -
Ladislav Bodnar -
Miles Lane -
Neal Becker -
Peter Arremann -
Peter Gordon -
Peter Jones -
Peter Robinson -
shrek-m＠gmx.de