11:38 a.m.
Fedora 23 for aarch64 released
==============================
It's (approximately) Halloween, so you know what that means — new
Fedora! The Fedora 23 release is here, and it's better than ever
before. We're pleased to bring you the latest incarnation of Fedora
Server for aarch64 built with love by the Fedora community to
custom-fit your needs in different areas.
If that's all you need to hear, download from
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/23/Server/aarc...
or if you already use Fedora, follow the simple upgrade steps at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading.
Otherwise, read on for details.
Fedora Server
------------
Fedora Server makes service management simple with RoleKit, a
programmatic interface for quick deployment, and Cockpit, a remote web
GUI. Now in Fedora Server 23, you can manage Kubernetes clusters from
the Cockpit Admin Console, or launch a FreeIPA domain controller from a
kickstart file. Get Fedora Server this morning and have an identity
management solution in place by lunchtime.
Updated Components
------------------
As with every Fedora release, almost every component has a new version,
with improvements across the board.
Fedora 23 also has important under-the-hood security improvements, with
increased hardening for all compiled software and with insecure SSL3
and RC4 protocols disabled. We've also updated all of the software
installed by default in Fedora Cloud Base Image and Fedora Workstation
to use Python version 3.
Perhaps most importantly, Unicode 8.0 support now enables the crucial
U1F32D character.
Downloads, upgrades, documentation, and common bugs
---------------------------------------------------
You can start by downloading Fedora 23 for aarch64:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/23/Server/aarc...
If you are upgrading from a previous release of Fedora, refer to:
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading
Read the full release notes for Fedora 23:
* https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/23/html/Release_Notes/
Fedora 23 common bugs are documented at:
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F23_bugs
This page includes information on several known bugs in Fedora 23.
Please be sure to read it before installing!
Contributing
------------
We hope you're as excited as we are about Fedora 23 and look forward to
exploring it yourself. Don't forget — Fedora never stands still as
we're always working towards a new and better release by sharing our
work with the world. Want to be part of the fun? It's easy to get
involved. There are many ways to contribute to Fedora, even if it's
just bug reporting. You can also help translate software and content,
test and give feedback on software updates, write and edit
documentation, design and do artwork, help with all sorts of
promotional activities, and package free software for use by millions
of Fedora users worldwide.
To get started, visit http://whatcanidoforfedora.org/ today!
11:13 p.m.
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 17:38 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
Fedora 23 for aarch64 released
At the risk of incurring your wrath......
If I understand this correctly, the two "supported" platforms are....
a) AMD Seattle 1100
b) Applied Micro X-Gene
Now, please correct me if I am wrong, (it's been a while since I
looked), but ISTR that the AMD dev kit costs $3000 and the X-Gene, a
mere, $2500.
I understand why RedHat might want to target those "business" class
solutions, but surely the 64 bit hardware that Fedora, (Fedora distro,
not RedHat disto), needs to be targeting with "official" out-of-the-box
support are the 96Boards, ie. HiKey and Dragonboard.... Hardware that
is actually accessible to "ordinary" people to tinker with, at $100 a
pop!
Every single person I have spoken to in the last few months, and by
that I mean ordinary users on ordinary salaries, (not people getting
given expensive hardware for free, or earning high-end salaries that
can afford to buy $2500 boards), who are starting to look at 64 bit ARM
hardware are buying one of the two 96Boards solutions, not the $$$$$$$
"business class" development kits.
I am just stating this as an observation. I have no axe to grind or
financial interest in any of the above.
Regards
Clive
--
Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com>
3:44 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 17:38 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Fedora 23 for aarch64 released
At the risk of incurring your wrath......
If I understand this correctly, the two "supported" platforms are....
a) AMD Seattle 1100
b) Applied Micro X-Gene
c) 96boards Enterprise edition. I don't have one but
it's been tested
and they'll allegedly be available soon (they might even be, I've not
looked) and will with OOTB with Fedora 23 when available. Link below
says around $300
d) virt emulation. I know it's not a "board" useful for a lot of
situations but a lot of people find it useful
Now, please correct me if I am wrong, (it's been a while since I
looked), but ISTR that the AMD dev kit costs $3000 and the X-Gene, a
mere, $2500.
I understand why RedHat might want to target those "business" class
solutions, but surely the 64 bit hardware that Fedora, (Fedora distro,
not RedHat disto), needs to be targeting with "official" out-of-the-box
support are the 96Boards, ie. HiKey and Dragonboard.... Hardware that
is actually accessible to "ordinary" people to tinker with, at $100 a
pop!
We have a remix available for the Dragonboard, I'm not sure of the
exact details but I believe there's issues with redistribution of some
firmware that stops us supporting it officially.
There's support coming for other low end boards like the Hikey in the
F-23 cycle. This is a mostly community lead effort, yes part of my
$dayjob is to do the release engineering component of it (composing
installers, signing packages, getting releases to mirrors etc) but
actual device bringup/support, kernel stuff etc is all on my own time,
of which I've had very little spare of late. I'm not going to
apologize for that, others interested are able to contribute.
I'm personally looking to get some of the rockchips 64 bit stuff to
hack on and support, I believe when they're available in the $100
range [3] and the upstream kernel support looks to have landed in 4.3
[2].
I am just stating this as an observation. I have no axe to grind or
financial interest in any of the above.
Yet you com in very confrontational about it, it's an open source
project where most people are personal contributors and not employed
by Red Hat, you and anyone else is free to provide patches,
documentation, testing etc as they or their sponsors (generally
companies) wish them to do so. The "enterprise" team at Red Hat
obviously care about their product set, I'm not going to apologize for
that, I have little to do with them as it's not my remit, there are
other companies working to contribute stuff, I'll leave them to
comment as they wish (but I somehow doubt they would wish to).
Peter
[1]
http://www.cnx-software.com/2015/06/28/amd-announces-96boards-enterprise-...
[2]
http://www.cnx-software.com/2015/11/04/linux-4-3-release-main-changes-arm...
[3] http://www.amazon.com/dp/B015SNXJH4
8:11 a.m.
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 09:44 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yet you com in very confrontational about it,
I am sorry if you see it that way. Blunt and to the point, yes, but I
wasn't trying to be confrontational, just trying to make a point, that
I do not understand the concept of a community based distribution being
released, only officially supporting big $$$$$, business class,
enterprise solutions, rather than the consumer level boards which are
already available.
I deleted more than half that first email before I sent it and rather
than replying to your individual points, I'll just say, I take what you
say on-board regardless of whether I agree with it or not, to try and
avoid any further confrontation. ;)
Thank you for your time.
Regards
Clive
--
Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com>
8:32 a.m.
On 11/04/2015 02:11 PM, Clive Messer wrote:
I do not understand the concept of a community based distribution
being
released, only officially supporting big $$$$$, business class,
enterprise solutions, rather than the consumer level boards which are
already available.
There's quite a substantial effort involved. These dev boards can be
rather difficult to support, with weird boot ROMs and need kernel
patches which are difficult to impossible to upstream. We try to use
clean kernel sources and standard installers whenever we can.
Andrew.
8:49 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:11:03PM +0000, Clive Messer wrote:
... just trying to make a point, that I do not understand the
concept
of a community based distribution being released, only officially
supporting big $$$$$, business class, enterprise solutions, rather
than the consumer level boards which are already available.
Fedora is also available on ppc64 and s390x, and those platforms do not
have inexpensive hardware, but I'm glad Fedora is available on those
platforms for people who do have the hardware.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures
The Tyan OpenPOWER GN70-BP010 system is USD $2850, and I think that is
the most affordable system for Power8.
http://www.tyan.com/campaign/openpower/index.html
http://www.tyan.com/solutions/tyan_openpower_system.html
Jeff
12:28 p.m.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 08:49:50 -0600
Jeffrey Bastian <jbastian(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:11:03PM +0000, Clive Messer wrote:
> ... just trying to make a point, that I do not understand the
> concept of a community based distribution being released, only
> officially supporting big $$$$$, business class, enterprise
> solutions, rather than the consumer level boards which are already
> available.
Fedora is also available on ppc64 and s390x, and those platforms do
not have inexpensive hardware, but I'm glad Fedora is available on
those platforms for people who do have the hardware.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures
The Tyan OpenPOWER GN70-BP010 system is USD $2850, and I think that is
the most affordable system for Power8.
http://www.tyan.com/campaign/openpower/index.html
http://www.tyan.com/solutions/tyan_openpower_system.html
I got information that the Palmetto P8 systems are not available any
more. Which gets the price to $10k for a system ... OpenPOWER
workstation, where are you? ;-)
Dan
9:13 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 09:44 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Yet you com in very confrontational about it,
I am sorry if you see it that way. Blunt and to the point, yes, but I
wasn't trying to be confrontational, just trying to make a point, that
I do not understand the concept of a community based distribution being
released, only officially supporting big $$$$$, business class,
enterprise solutions, rather than the consumer level boards which are
already available.
Your email seem to imply that the community somehow excludes
enterprise level contributors. That's not the case at all. The
community around ARM is just as diverse as it is around x86, where you
have contributors from all different areas. You might not have
intended it to imply that, but it's the message those enterprise
contributors see. It's really hard to encourage more of them to
participate when people constantly question their validity in our
community.
Your message would have been better served by simply asking if there
are plans around supporting the 96Board stuff.
josh
9:51 a.m.
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 10:13 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Your email seem to imply that the community somehow excludes
enterprise level contributors.
Eh, I never said that, nor did I mean to imply it!
You might not have
intended it to imply that, but it's the message those enterprise
contributors see. It's really hard to encourage more of them to
participate when people constantly question their validity in our
community.
For clarity, I am not trying to discourage enterprise contributions
from Fedora or question their validity!
I have tried to be very careful about the point I was trying to make.
I will refrain from commenting any further, so there is no chance of
anything being implied or my comments being taken out of context.
Sorry for the noise.
Regards
Clive
--
Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com>
9:31 a.m.
* Clive Messer [04/11/2015 14:11] :
I do not understand the concept of a community based distribution being
released, only officially supporting big $$$$$, business class,
enterprise solutions, rather than the consumer level boards which are
already available.
This is a false dilemma. If you want the entry-level boards to be supported,
the fact that the higher-end boards are supported is irrelevant.
Emmanuel
8:04 a.m.
On Wednesday, November 04, 2015 05:13:58 AM Clive Messer wrote:
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 17:38 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Fedora 23 for aarch64 released
At the risk of incurring your wrath......
If I understand this correctly, the two "supported" platforms are....
a) AMD Seattle 1100
b) Applied Micro X-Gene
Now, please correct me if I am wrong, (it's been a while since I
looked), but ISTR that the AMD dev kit costs $3000 and the X-Gene, a
mere, $2500.
I understand why RedHat might want to target those "business" class
solutions, but surely the 64 bit hardware that Fedora, (Fedora distro,
not RedHat disto), needs to be targeting with "official" out-of-the-box
support are the 96Boards, ie. HiKey and Dragonboard.... Hardware that
is actually accessible to "ordinary" people to tinker with, at $100 a
pop!
We want to support the hikey etc boards, support for them is still not yet
upstream. then there is the issues that without nand, spi, etc flash for
uefi/u-boot you get in a place where to support it you need to go a custom
route because the standard tools will not work.
Every single person I have spoken to in the last few months, and by
that I mean ordinary users on ordinary salaries, (not people getting
given expensive hardware for free, or earning high-end salaries that
can afford to buy $2500 boards), who are starting to look at 64 bit ARM
hardware are buying one of the two 96Boards solutions, not the $$$$$$$
"business class" development kits.
I am just stating this as an observation. I have no axe to grind or
financial interest in any of the above.
biggest issue with 96boards is the lack of upstream and standards support,
which is ironic when they aim to be a standard. for Fedora to support systems
they need to get support for their hardware upstream.
Dennis
8:47 a.m.
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 08:04 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
for Fedora to support
systems
they need to get support for their hardware upstream.
Maybe it is time, at least for ARM platform, to look at "softening" the
"has to be upstream first" policy. This is hurting Fedora to the point
of making it irrelevant on ARM. You either are supporting the popular
consumer hardware that people are actually buying and using, (like Pi
and Odroid on 32 bit, or the 2x consumer 96boards on 64 bit), or the
ARM version of your OS is irrelevant to the majority of actual people
who would otherwise be trying/using it.
And no, I'm not deliberately trying to be confrontational! Just
observing and stating an opinion.
Regards
Clive
--
Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com>
8:51 a.m.
On 11/04/2015 02:47 PM, Clive Messer wrote:
Maybe it is time, at least for ARM platform, to look at
"softening" the
"has to be upstream first" policy. This is hurting Fedora to the point
of making it irrelevant on ARM. You either are supporting the popular
consumer hardware that people are actually buying and using, (like Pi
and Odroid on 32 bit, or the 2x consumer 96boards on 64 bit), or the
ARM version of your OS is irrelevant to the majority of actual people
who would otherwise be trying/using it.
Well, you could make exactly the same observation to the upstream
kernel and installer developers. It helps no-one to maintain a fork
with a bunch of platform-specific kludges.
Andrew.
8:52 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 08:04 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> for Fedora to support
> systems
> they need to get support for their hardware upstream.
Maybe it is time, at least for ARM platform, to look at "softening" the
"has to be upstream first" policy. This is hurting Fedora to the point
of making it irrelevant on ARM. You either are supporting the popular
consumer hardware that people are actually buying and using, (like Pi
and Odroid on 32 bit, or the 2x consumer 96boards on 64 bit), or the
ARM version of your OS is irrelevant to the majority of actual people
who would otherwise be trying/using it.
We pull in small patch sets when relevant and useful. The problem with
that is it makes it very hard to support with the amount of people.
Sure it would be nice to support everything but it's not always
possible.
On the odriod side of things there's no reason why we don't support,
in fact I've had some feedback that some of the odroid stuff works
fine. Is it perfect, no, but when people report problems we work to
fix them.
5:20 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 08:04 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> for Fedora to support systems
> they need to get support for their hardware upstream.
Maybe it is time, at least for ARM platform, to look at "softening" the
"has to be upstream first" policy. This is hurting Fedora to the point
of making it irrelevant on ARM. You either are supporting the popular
consumer hardware that people are actually buying and using, (like Pi
and Odroid on 32 bit, or the 2x consumer 96boards on 64 bit), or the
ARM version of your OS is irrelevant to the majority of actual people
who would otherwise be trying/using it.
I would like to point out that with F23, Fedora now supports *alot* of
armv7 boards very well. And it it now fairly simple to install them.
How is this relevant?
F21 armv7 supported far fewer armv7 machines, and it was a bit painful to
install. But within two releases, the support has grown quite a bit.
How did this support magically get better and work on more machines?
Most of it was the armv7 stuff getting into the kernel more, as well as the
uboot listening to our Fedora developers.
Both getting the arm stuff into the kernel, and the uboot, took a lot of
time and constant pressure from developers.
So ... your point is?
aarch64 support in Fedora 23 right now is where armv7 was a year or two ago.
Let's be patient, ask where help is needed, and help where help is needed.
10:23 p.m.
On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:20 -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
So ... your point is?
My point? That Fedora is bootable out-of-the-box on the hardware that
ordinary (non-commercial) users are actually buying and using.....
PS. Fedora might support a lot more ARM boards via the 32 bit distro
with F23, than it did with the F21 release, but it still doesn't
support the most readily available and used board, with the most units
sold and the biggest community.
Regards
Clive
--
Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com>
2:35 a.m.
W dniu 10.11.2015 o 05:23, Clive Messer pisze:
On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:20 -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
> So ... your point is?
My point? That Fedora is bootable out-of-the-box on the hardware that
ordinary (non-commercial) users are actually buying and using.....
PS. Fedora might support a lot more ARM boards via the 32 bit distro
with F23, than it did with the F21 release, but it still doesn't
support the most readily available and used board, with the most units
sold and the biggest community.
You mean community which does not care about having own board supported
in any main distribution (Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu)? If they would care
then their board would be supported in mainline kernel long time ago.
Debian and Fedora got rid of any non-mainline kernels several releases
ago because it generated lot of work for maintainers and kept vendors
from caring about mainline support for their boards.
On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc odroid ones were not good
too). On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones.
2:45 a.m.
On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
"On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc odroid ones were not
good
too)." On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones.
.
I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b?
Mine has been put aside [ 6+ months] since no end of trying Fedora on it
has produced a working XFCE desktop. It seems I need to obtain a
different board if I am to see it work?
Just curious,
Bob
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box10 FEDORA-23/64bit LINUX XFCE POP3
3:09 a.m.
On 11/10/15 03:59, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
W dniu 10.11.2015 o 09:45, Bob Goodwin pisze:
> On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> "On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards
> I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b?
No support in mainline kernel?
.
Ok, that I understand, so the RPI is a poor choice for me. I did not
select it, it was a gift ...
I guess I need to choose another that is compatible.
Thank you,
Bob
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box10 FEDORA-23/64bit LINUX XFCE POP3
3:17 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Bob Goodwin <bobgoodwin(a)wildblue.net> wrote:
On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>
> "On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc odroid ones were not good
> too)." On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones.
.
I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b? Mine
has been put aside [ 6+ months] since no end of trying Fedora on it has
produced a working XFCE desktop. It seems I need to obtain a different board
if I am to see it work?
Just curious,
Basically there is no upstream mainline Linus kernel support for the
RPi2 (and the original version isn't much better), I tried pulling in
patches to get it working but stopped when the diff got to nearly 100K
lines of patch which is an order of magnitude more than all of the
rest of the kernel patches in the kernel. Basically it's hard to
maintain, it's something that I'll revisit when 4.4 rc1 is out to see
if it's improved but it's not looking good.
Basically the Raspberry Pi organisation has no urge to be a good
citizen in the open source community.
Peter
3:31 a.m.
On 11/10/15 04:17, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Bob
Goodwin<bobgoodwin(a)wildblue.net> wrote:
> >On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> >>
>> >>"On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc odroid ones were not
good
>> >>too)." On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones.
> >
> >.
> >
> >I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b? Mine
> >has been put aside [ 6+ months] since no end of trying Fedora on it has
> >produced a working XFCE desktop. It seems I need to obtain a different board
> >if I am to see it work?
> >
> >Just curious,
Basically there is no upstream mainline Linus kernel support for the
RPi2 (and the original version isn't much better), I tried pulling in
patches to get it working but stopped when the diff got to nearly 100K
lines of patch which is an order of magnitude more than all of the
rest of the kernel patches in the kernel. Basically it's hard to
maintain, it's something that I'll revisit when 4.4 rc1 is out to see
if it's improved but it's not looking good.
Basically the Raspberry Pi organisation has no urge to be a good
citizen in the open source community.
Peter
.
This is good information that I have not had before and always wondered
why ...
I spent a lot of time trying to make it work, it sort of does, just
nothing I could do would produce a working keyboard and mouse with the
XFCE desktop or via SSH.
Things like gedit and xfce settings would display nicely via ssh. I just
wanted the desktop display to work first ...
I would appreciate a suggestion as to the best board to try next.
Bob
--
Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box10 FEDORA-23/64bit LINUX XFCE POP3
3:43 a.m.
>>> >>"On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc
odroid ones were not good
>>> >>too)." On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones.
>>
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>> >I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b?
>> > Mine
>> >has been put aside [ 6+ months] since no end of trying Fedora on it has
>> >produced a working XFCE desktop. It seems I need to obtain a different
>> > board
>> >if I am to see it work?
>> >
>> >Just curious,
>
> Basically there is no upstream mainline Linus kernel support for the
> RPi2 (and the original version isn't much better), I tried pulling in
> patches to get it working but stopped when the diff got to nearly 100K
> lines of patch which is an order of magnitude more than all of the
> rest of the kernel patches in the kernel. Basically it's hard to
> maintain, it's something that I'll revisit when 4.4 rc1 is out to see
> if it's improved but it's not looking good.
>
> Basically the Raspberry Pi organisation has no urge to be a good
> citizen in the open source community.
>
> Peter
>
.
This is good information that I have not had before and always wondered why
...
I spent a lot of time trying to make it work, it sort of does, just nothing
I could do would produce a working keyboard and mouse with the XFCE desktop
or via SSH.
Things like gedit and xfce settings would display nicely via ssh. I just
wanted the desktop display to work first ...
I would appreciate a suggestion as to the best board to try next.
It depends on your usecase.
Peter
8:57 a.m.
On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 09:17 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
Basically the Raspberry Pi organisation has no urge to be a good
citizen in the open source community
Peter,
I choked on my coffee when I read that this morning. I've spent the last 4 hours
biting my tongue. Sorry, I can't let that go.
I cannot believe you said that! At least put some context into that sentence. They have
"donated" considerable $$$$'s to various open source projects!
I see people joining Linaro, being welcomed with open arms (pun???) when they slap some
money down on the table, gaining open source "street cred" by doing so, but not
being particularly open source friendly. It's a stepping stone to appearing to be open
source friendly.....
Fedora "officially" supporting, (out-of-the-box), SoC vendors who far from being
open source friendly, contribute very little to the open source community and are guilty
of GPL violations......
The fact is, that the Pi Foundation is a good citizen in the open source community. That
they don't have an "upstream kernel first" policy, doesn't make them a
bad citizen in the open source community. That is so unfair!
What's next? Are ARM Holdings PLC (or anyone who has purchased IP from them) to be
avoided at all costs because they refuse to open source a MALI driver? LOL.
Regards
Clive
--
Clive Messer <clive.m.messer(a)gmail.com>
11:49 a.m.
W dniu 10.11.2015 o 15:57, Clive Messer pisze:
On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 09:17 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Basically the Raspberry Pi organisation has no urge to be a good
> citizen in the open source community
I cannot believe you said that! At least put some context into that
sentence. They have "donated" considerable $$$$'s to various open
source projects!
And? How many of those changes were accepted and how many rejected as
being ugly hacks?
I see people joining Linaro, being welcomed with open arms (pun???)
when they slap some money down on the table, gaining open source
"street cred" by doing so, but not being particularly open source
friendly. It's a stepping stone to appearing to be open source
friendly.....
Linaro has other way of working than Fedora (or Debian) has.
Fedora "officially" supporting, (out-of-the-box), SoC
vendors who far
from being open source friendly, contribute very little to the open
source community and are guilty of GPL violations......
Fedora supports those SoC vendors which are present in mainline kernel.
Good, bad ones does not matter as long as it boots because we do not
judge them. We take what is present.
BCM2836 is not present in mainline kernel == not present in
distributions. Never mind that it is present in thousands of boards.
On the other hand CPU present in ten boards (but present in mainline
kernel) can get Fedora booting out of box without adding extra work for us.
The fact is, that the Pi Foundation is a good citizen in the open
source community. That they don't have an "upstream kernel first"
policy, doesn't make them a bad citizen in the open source community.
That is so unfair!
What's next? Are ARM Holdings PLC (or anyone who has purchased IP
from them) to be avoided at all costs because they refuse to open
source a MALI driver? LOL.
I can boot most of boards with MALI using only FOSS software and have
them working with graphics. R/Pi does not even boot without closed
blobs. You call it FOSS friendly?
3:13 p.m.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:13:58 +0000, you wrote:
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 17:38 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Fedora 23 for aarch64 released
At the risk of incurring your wrath......
You should be complaining to ARM and their partners.
If I understand this correctly, the two "supported"
platforms are....
a) AMD Seattle 1100
b) Applied Micro X-Gene
Now, please correct me if I am wrong, (it's been a while since I
looked), but ISTR that the AMD dev kit costs $3000 and the X-Gene, a
mere, $2500.
I understand why RedHat might want to target those "business" class
solutions, but surely the 64 bit hardware that Fedora, (Fedora distro,
not RedHat disto), needs to be targeting with "official" out-of-the-box
support are the 96Boards, ie. HiKey and Dragonboard.... Hardware that
is actually accessible to "ordinary" people to tinker with, at $100 a
pop!
The problem is ARM and partners aren't delivering what was expected
(promised?).
I recall a presentation from a Red Hat employee where ARM had agreed
that aarch64 needed a standard boot process so this craziness of
needing custom boot software for every board could be a thing of the
past. Hasn't happened, hence the problems supporting the hardware
that is available.
There were also supposed to be standard sized motherboards with
regular memory slots, etc. available by now, and they have failed. We
are now in to November and nothing has been announced, leaving me to
conclude that nothing will ship this year.
3:58 p.m.
On 11/04/2015 01:13 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
The problem is ARM and partners aren't delivering what was
expected
(promised?).
I recall a presentation from a Red Hat employee where ARM had agreed
that aarch64 needed a standard boot process so this craziness of
needing custom boot software for every board could be a thing of the
past. Hasn't happened, hence the problems supporting the hardware
that is available.
There were also supposed to be standard sized motherboards with
regular memory slots, etc. available by now, and they have failed. We
are now in to November and nothing has been announced, leaving me to
conclude that nothing will ship this year.
AArch64 semiconductors who conform to the SBSA and SBBR specifications
and get their kernel patches upstream tend to work with Fedora. Today
that means many Applied Micro X-Gene and AMD Seattle parts work
correctly with Fedora. Semiconductors who haven't put their code
upstream or haven't conformed to the hardware and boot specifications
are going to require remixes at best. Other semis are in process of
upstreaming, we may see Cavium support get in place in time for F24
for instance.
--
Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc.
2:52 a.m.
New subject: virt-builder Fedora/aarch64 image (was: Re: Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!)
Although this is *not* the official cloud image, I have built an
aarch64 image for virt-builder. To get it do:
$ virt-builder --arch aarch64 fedora-23
- - -
One day this request will be implemented:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5805
and virt-builder will be able to use the official Fedora cloud images.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
3083
days inactive
3094
days old
27 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Andrew Haley -
Bob Goodwin -
Brendan Conoboy -
Clive Messer -
Dan Horák -
Dennis Gilmore -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Gerald Henriksen -
Jeffrey Bastian -
Josh Boyer -
Marcin Juszkiewicz -
Peter Robinson -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Troy Dawson