Linux on 500 mhz DEC Alpha (user friendly install?)

I've have some old 500 mhz Alpha systems (about 6 years old) that were
originally setup to run NT 4. I'd like to try installing Linux on
them. I realize there are several distibs that have Alpha ports.

My Linux experience so far has been with REDHAT/Fedora, Slackware,
Debian and Yellow Dog (on x86 or PPC) and that has all been over the
past year. I've had some difficulty setting up Debian systems from
scratch (unless I've used Knoppix for the base install). I'm still
very much of a newb when it comes to Unix-like operating systems.

I'm specifically interested in knowing which alpha port distributions
would be best suited for a novice like me. I have no problem compiling
applications from source, however when it comes to fine tuning a
system for a particular device or driver I'm sometimes at a loss. The
more plug & play the better (which is the reason I've resorted to
knoppix or morphix for my Debian installs).

> I've have some old 500 mhz Alpha systems (about 6 years old) that were[color=blue]
> originally setup to run NT 4. I'd like to try installing Linux on
> them. I realize there are several distibs that have Alpha ports.
>
> My Linux experience so far has been with REDHAT/Fedora, Slackware,
> Debian and Yellow Dog (on x86 or PPC) and that has all been over the
> past year. I've had some difficulty setting up Debian systems from
> scratch (unless I've used Knoppix for the base install). I'm still
> very much of a newb when it comes to Unix-like operating systems.
>
> I'm specifically interested in knowing which alpha port distributions
> would be best suited for a novice like me. I have no problem compiling
> applications from source, however when it comes to fine tuning a
> system for a particular device or driver I'm sometimes at a loss. The
> more plug & play the better (which is the reason I've resorted to
> knoppix or morphix for my Debian installs).[/color]

Mandrake is the most user friendly distro, and they certainly mention alpha
on their site. Lycoris is the other main user-friendly distro.

Quoth [email]turd.niblets@caffeine.mor.test-labs.net[/email] (Phurd Triblet):[color=blue]
> I've have some old 500 mhz Alpha systems (about 6 years old) that were
> originally setup to run NT 4. I'd like to try installing Linux on
> them. I realize there are several distibs that have Alpha ports.
>
> My Linux experience so far has been with REDHAT/Fedora, Slackware,
> Debian and Yellow Dog (on x86 or PPC) and that has all been over the
> past year. I've had some difficulty setting up Debian systems from
> scratch (unless I've used Knoppix for the base install). I'm still
> very much of a newb when it comes to Unix-like operating systems.
>
> I'm specifically interested in knowing which alpha port
> distributions would be best suited for a novice like me. I have no
> problem compiling applications from source, however when it comes to
> fine tuning a system for a particular device or driver I'm sometimes
> at a loss. The more plug & play the better (which is the reason I've
> resorted to knoppix or morphix for my Debian installs).[/color]

In this case, you are better off exploring what distributions are
still being actively maintained, as that will demonstrate the
existence of a development community that might be able to be of
assistance.

"Help" appears more likely to be of value than "novice-oriented boot
disks," particularly when you probably won't find much of the latter.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
[url]http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/unix.html[/url]
"If you were to implement this in ML, most of you would say : SCREAM,
run from the room in terror, but we could set it as a tickable problem
whatever, and give it to part 1A [first year students]... and that
idea seems rather pleasing doesn't it?" -- Arthur Norman

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:35:53 -0800, Phurd Triblet wrote:
[color=blue]
> I've have some old 500 mhz Alpha systems (about 6 years old) that were
> originally setup to run NT 4. I'd like to try installing Linux on
> them. I realize there are several distibs that have Alpha ports.
>
> My Linux experience so far has been with REDHAT/Fedora, Slackware,
> Debian and Yellow Dog (on x86 or PPC) and that has all been over the
> past year. I've had some difficulty setting up Debian systems from
> scratch (unless I've used Knoppix for the base install). I'm still
> very much of a newb when it comes to Unix-like operating systems.
>
> I'm specifically interested in knowing which alpha port distributions
> would be best suited for a novice like me. I have no problem compiling
> applications from source, however when it comes to fine tuning a
> system for a particular device or driver I'm sometimes at a loss. The
> more plug & play the better (which is the reason I've resorted to
> knoppix or morphix for my Debian installs).[/color]

I would go with Debian. All the others are great distro's but Debian is
still being maintained. If those Alpha's were setup to run NT then you
might need to flash the firmware from the current 'AlphaBios' to the 'SRM'
console. If you post what the exact models are I can help find the SRM
firmware and get you rolling. Also you might want to check the
comp.os.linux.alpha group for more focused help.

Jayson G.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:52:52 +0000, Christopher Browne wrote:

[color=blue]
>
> In this case, you are better off exploring what distributions are
> still being actively maintained, as that will demonstrate the
> existence of a development community that might be able to be of
> assistance.
>
> "Help" appears more likely to be of value than "novice-oriented boot
> disks," particularly when you probably won't find much of the latter.[/color]

Are there distributions out there that are keeping their ALPHA ports
current?

The lastest RH with support for alpha was 7.2 I believe though I didn't
come across this little post which indicates that some people are trying
to work up a Fedora Alpha port.

"me@127.0.0.1" <me@127.0.0.1> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:52:52 +0000, Christopher Browne wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> In this case, you are better off exploring what distributions are
>> still being actively maintained, as that will demonstrate the
>> existence of a development community that might be able to be of
>> assistance.
>>
>> "Help" appears more likely to be of value than "novice-oriented boot
>> disks," particularly when you probably won't find much of the latter.[/color]
>
> Are there distributions out there that are keeping their ALPHA ports
> current?[/color]

I believe gentoo is still active for Alpha. Debian might also be up
to date.

--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:55:54 +0100, Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Are there distributions out there that are keeping their ALPHA ports
>> current?[/color]
>I believe gentoo is still active for Alpha.[/color]

Yes.
[color=blue]
>Debian might also be up to date.[/color]

FSVO "up to date"...the Debian install CD uses a 2.2.20 kernel, which is way
old by now. I dunno about the system itself.

[email]jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx[/email] (Jay Maynard) writes:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Debian might also be up to date.[/color]
>
> FSVO "up to date"...the Debian install CD uses a 2.2.20 kernel, which is way
> old by now. I dunno about the system itself.[/color]

I naturally meant "as up to date as Debian is for other systems". I
don't use Debian anyway, since I prefer something that includes
software based on usefulness instead of based on silly political
reasons. If a program is useful and allows distribution, include it.
So what if it isn't compatible with the GPL or whatever.

--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]

[email]mru@kth.se[/email] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[color=blue]
> [email]jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx[/email] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Debian might also be up to date.[/color]
> >
> > FSVO "up to date"...the Debian install CD uses a 2.2.20 kernel,
> > which is way old by now. I dunno about the system itself.[/color]
>
> I naturally meant "as up to date as Debian is for other systems". I
> don't use Debian anyway, since I prefer something that includes
> software based on usefulness instead of based on silly political
> reasons. If a program is useful and allows distribution, include it.
> So what if it isn't compatible with the GPL or whatever.[/color]

You're confused. Incompatibility with GPL is certainly not a reason
for a package to not be distributed in Debian; there are hundreds of
such packages.

--
Falk

Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
[color=blue]
> [email]mru@kth.se[/email] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
>[color=green]
>> [email]jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx[/email] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >>Debian might also be up to date.
>> >
>> > FSVO "up to date"...the Debian install CD uses a 2.2.20 kernel,
>> > which is way old by now. I dunno about the system itself.[/color]
>>
>> I naturally meant "as up to date as Debian is for other systems". I
>> don't use Debian anyway, since I prefer something that includes
>> software based on usefulness instead of based on silly political
>> reasons. If a program is useful and allows distribution, include it.
>> So what if it isn't compatible with the GPL or whatever.[/color]
>
> You're confused. Incompatibility with GPL is certainly not a reason
> for a package to not be distributed in Debian; there are hundreds of
> such packages.[/color]

OK, they include GPL incompatible packages. What they refuse are
things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals for many GNU
programs.

--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:44:59 +0100, Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:[color=blue]
>I don't use Debian anyway, since I prefer something that includes
>software based on usefulness instead of based on silly political
>reasons. If a program is useful and allows distribution, include it.
>So what if it isn't compatible with the GPL or whatever.[/color]

<aol>

Debian ran me off for good when they took their silly position regarding KDE
programs.

[email]jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx[/email] (Jay Maynard) writes:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:44:59 +0100, Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:[color=green]
> >I don't use Debian anyway, since I prefer something that includes
> >software based on usefulness instead of based on silly political
> >reasons. If a program is useful and allows distribution, include it.
> >So what if it isn't compatible with the GPL or whatever.[/color]
>
> Debian ran me off for good when they took their silly position
> regarding KDE programs.[/color]

Which silly position? I don't see any special position about KDE
programs in Debian.

--
Falk

[email]jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx[/email] (Jay Maynard) writes:
[color=blue]
> Personally, no matter what their protestations, I believe[/color]

It's nice of you to point out that you're immune to clues, this saves
me some time for writing a reply.

--
Falk

Jay Maynard wrote:[color=blue]
>
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:55:54 +0100, Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Are there distributions out there that are keeping their ALPHA ports
> >> current?[/color]
> >I believe gentoo is still active for Alpha.[/color]
>
> Yes.
>[color=green]
> >Debian might also be up to date.[/color]
>
> FSVO "up to date"...the Debian install CD uses a 2.2.20 kernel, which is way
> old by now. I dunno about the system itself.[/color]

Use Debian/unstable or Debian/testing and you'll get much newer packages
for everything. Of course you have to install Debian/stable first then
upgrade, but there should be 2.4.x kernel available on the installation
media. (At least there is for the x86 installation.)

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 14:22:43 GMT, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>Debian might also be up to date.[/color]
>
> FSVO "up to date"...the Debian install CD uses a 2.2.20 kernel, which is way
> old by now. I dunno about the system itself.[/color]

Maybe so... but the x86 install CD comes with 2.2.20 and 2.4.18, and
there's nothing to stop you installing 2.4.24 or 2.6.2 when you have the
system up and running.

And you're thinking of debian stable... you can also run testing or
unstable, which are a lot more up to date.

chris

In the last exciting episode, [email]jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx[/email] (Jay Maynard) wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:55:54 +0100, Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Are there distributions out there that are keeping their ALPHA ports
>>> current?[/color]
>>I believe gentoo is still active for Alpha.[/color]
>
> Yes.
>[color=green]
>>Debian might also be up to date.[/color]
>
> FSVO "up to date"...the Debian install CD uses a 2.2.20 kernel, which is way
> old by now. I dunno about the system itself.[/color]

Who cares what's on the install disk? That's used to _install_ the
system, and can readily be replaced with packages containing newer
kernels, if you so desire.

The reason to upgrade the install system to use newer kernels would be
if there were new devices, needed at install time, that were not
supported by an older kernel.

In the situation of Alpha hardware, that's not the case, as there
isn't much in the way of "newly crafted" hardware coming out.
--
output = ("aa454" "@" "freenet.carleton.ca")
[url]http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/unix.html[/url]
"Computers let you make more mistakes faster than any other invention
in human history, with the possible exception of handguns and
tequila." -- Mitch Radcliffe

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
[color=blue]
> In the last exciting episode, [email]jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx[/email] (Jay Maynard) wrote:[color=green]
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:55:54 +0100, Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>> Are there distributions out there that are keeping their ALPHA ports
>>>> current?
>>>I believe gentoo is still active for Alpha.[/color]
>>
>> Yes.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Debian might also be up to date.[/color]
>>
>> FSVO "up to date"...the Debian install CD uses a 2.2.20 kernel, which is way
>> old by now. I dunno about the system itself.[/color]
>
> Who cares what's on the install disk? That's used to _install_ the
> system, and can readily be replaced with packages containing newer
> kernels, if you so desire.
>
> The reason to upgrade the install system to use newer kernels would be
> if there were new devices, needed at install time, that were not
> supported by an older kernel.[/color]

There's lots of such hardware around. In fact, most new systems
require a 2.4 kernel or later to run.
[color=blue]
> In the situation of Alpha hardware, that's not the case, as there
> isn't much in the way of "newly crafted" hardware coming out.[/color]

AFAIK, the ev7 based systems are not supported by 2.2 kernels.

--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]

>>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> writes:

<big snip>

Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
Måns> for many GNU programs.

yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use the
debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do they
include the GNU programs or even call their system GNU/Linux.

Anyway strange but at least the manuals are still at the GNU site.

Later,

Alan

Spamme Now <spamme@edge.net> writes:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> writes:[/color][/color]
> Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
> Måns> for many GNU programs.
>
> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use the
> debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do they
> include the GNU programs[/color]

Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue next
time before you open your mouth.

--
Falk

Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
[color=blue]
> Spamme Now <spamme@edge.net> writes:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >>>>> "Måns" == Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se> writes:[/color]
>> Måns> are things that are not DFSG free. This includes the manuals
>> Måns> for many GNU programs.
>>
>> yes this does not make any sense at all about the manuals. Their
>> reason for not including some GNU manuals has no logic. If you use the
>> debian reason for not including the GNU manuals then why do they
>> include the GNU programs[/color]
>
> Because they have a different license. Duh. Try getting a clue next
> time before you open your mouth.[/color]

But why is the GFDL so terrible that it can't be included in Debian?
There are no legal obstacles for inclusion, only political and
philosophical.

--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@kth.se[/email]