RE: Eagle Linux (Was: Mac Quadra (fwd))
Hi,
>> The product announcement did sound rather like 'everything is supported', and
>> you shouldn't be surprised that people have certain expectations in that case.
>>
>If you had actually read the products description
>(http://www.eagle-cp.com/www/m68k.html) you would now that that is
>exactly what Eagle Linux claims. The Page is outdated and doesn't
>stand to the comming update, but thats the original page for our
>product. For those not understanding German I will translate some
>quotes:
I have read the above web page, I believe. I haven't checked for changes
though. But I was refering to the e-mail circulated to various m68k kernel
hackers, which I think was intended as press release or basis for ads.
>> The Linux-m68k community sure wanted something that lives up to the
>> promise of the port and works on all platforms, but is that really
>> what you can claim you have, with just one Atari as test platform
>> outside the Amigas.
>
>We don't clame to have the best[tm] solution for all Platforms. We
>don't even claim that our installation routines work on other
>platforms since at that time we could only test for Amiga. Now that we
That sounds more acceptable.
>have an Atari to develope on and some users owning macs, which can
>test for us, we can actually claim that it will run nicely on such
>platforms. With the comming update and the rewriting of the webpages
>that will be stated.
Reiterating my earlier request: please _don't_ state anywhere that 'Mac is
supported'. The Mac port is to be considered alpha, and we're happy if
something works fine. But more often than not, it doesn't work fine. Honestly,
I don't see that either Debian or the Mac port gains from new users lured to
believe 'Linux will run on my Mac' at this stage. The last thing I need is
Eagle users posting 'Linux won't install on my Quadra' everywhere. Happens
ever so often now, with people learning or Debian by word-of-mouth, and
I don't need more of that. Read the FAQ, read the newsgroup and Mac ML and
check if your Mac might be supported. Buy (or download) any distribution later.
Please don't come with the 'Mac is supported by Eagle, the kernel might be the
problem'. Users can't make the distinction, as a rule, and this false
advertising places undue burdens on the kernel developers.
>> (Part of) the Linux-m68k community has been working on such a
>> solution for a long time, spent quite a lot of effort on testing,
>> and wasn't amused when your company announced the ultimate
>> distribution for Linux-m68k (largely based on their porting
>> efforts). I'm even less amused now that I officially learn that your
>> company didn't bother to test on anything but Amiga before release.
>
>You mean the announcement Eagle itself made? Thats bogus, had typos
>and is not our fault. Eagle is only the Distributer and we can't
>controll what they do on their own. We didn't like what they did with
>that announce and we told them that.
Typos? Well, I've seen a lot blamed on typos, that figures. Eagle might only
be the distributor, but that's another distinction not easily apparent to
the user. For a potential customer, the claims Eagle made are what counts,
and that's what determines their expectations. Bad show, and I hope you
made sure that sort of thing doesn't happen again with your upgrade.
But that's your business, as far as it doesn't reflect badly on the m68k
community and raises utopic expectations. Thanks for your cooperation.
>> Your product doesn't state that it is in any way connected to
>> Debian, or based on Debian (it 'can use Debian packages', what are
>> we to make of that?). So I'm going by the book here when I say
>> 'Eagle isn't Debian'. More so, Debian has evolved further for some
>> months, after your CD was released.
>
>Its true that its not stated clearly on the web Page, but its stated
>in the handbook. Also the Debian-m68k distribution is left intact and
>complete on the CD.
Again, the web page is the only information potental customers have to judge
your product, and the way it was created. It might make sense to sell Eagle as
independent product from a marketing position (taking all credit for yourself)
but it sure doesn't reflect the real proportions of your contribution.
The Debian distribution is left intact on the CD? Which one? Packages from
the Debian FTP servers, or your build?
>> the Debian developers at that time. But I hadn't expected any
>> better, and it's probably better if users don't view your product as
>> Debian distribution (my private view, not speaking for Debian,
>> solely based on the fact that I can't easily check what's in your
>> distribution etc.).
>
>You can check easily, just ask. Mails to Eagle concerning Linux will
>be redirected to us.
Nah, it will be the other way round: Questions about Linux regarding Eagle
will be redirected to Eagle. I can speculate about Debian related problems,
because I have easy access to the packages and documentation (partly installed
on my computer at home). You don't seriously believe that I'd send e-mail
to Eagle about what exactly is on their CD, to be able to help Eagle users?
>> Debian installation here, not Eagle. Case in point: where you
>> suggested to dump the ramdisk to disk for the ClassicII user, I've
>> not claimed that's nonsense. It might work. But it shouldn't be
>> necessary.
>
>The dumping of the ramdisk to a disk is the easiest way to save 2 MB
>of ram that is desperatly needed on low-mem systems. With 5 MB thats a
>neccessary step to install Debian, unless they decreased ram
>consumptions in the last 2-3 month.
I'll have to repeat it, to get the point across: 5 MB is plenty of RAM, on a
Mac SE/30 at least. It will boot, bring up the dinstall screens, and survive
to the point where you are asked to initialize a swap partition. I've done
this, more than once, with more than one 2.0 kernel (most of which had Atari
support compiled in, none of which had module support. Real FAT kernels).
Might be more difficult with 2.1 kernels, but I've repeatedly booted 2.1
kernels (again, no modules, at least some with Atari support), didn't enable
swap, and mounted filesystems for playing with dd to test the SCSI driver.
All done with 5 MB RAM, stock Debian install ramdisk (1.8 MB uncompressed).
Period.
Got the point? Take my word for it: 5 MB is no reason to use the ramdisk-to-
disk trick, though that would work (it's just not very feasible for a Mac user
with no other Linux system). Been there, done that, going to design the t-shirt
now.
4 MB is insufficient with the ramdisk, indeed. But we were talking about 5 MB
systems.
>> And yes, 'Egal' was a pun intended, for the Germans in the developers team.
>
>Which doesn't help fixing bugs in Debian.
Which doesn't hurt fixing bugs in Debian, either.
>PS: What sort of feedback do you want from us? You don't want packages
>compiled by us and you don't seem to want bugreports concerning Debian.
I've never said I don't want bug reports. Helpful bug reports are welcome.
'Package x doesn't compile, log at 11' isn't a bug report, though. 'Package
x doesn't compile, need to include xy and apply the following diff' is a
very nice bug report. 'xy crashes with signal z, strace/gdb shows it's in
routine a' is another nice bug report. You managed to compile the packages
you want to report bugs about, so just post a diff with the bugfix.
There has been considerable controversy in the past about solutions you
proposed for suspected bugs, that's true. As far as I can recall, there have
been reasons for people to reject your opinion about these bugs.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: