Mandrake To Support AMD's Hammer

ruiner writes "Mandrake has announced their intention to support AMD's Hammer with a 64 bit version optimized for the new CPU. Redhat is also rumored to be following Suse's lead. 'This new generation of AMD Athlon and AMD Opteron processors is extremely exciting. A version of Mandrake Linux dedicated to these powerful 64-bit processors can certainly accelerate MandrakeSoft's growing adoption in the Linux corporate market' said Jacques Le Marois, CEO of MandrakeSoft."

why is this such a big deal?

[wowbagger]

I'm not knocking Hammer, but why does everyone act like the Itanium and Hammer versions of Linux are the first 64 bit versions? I was running 64 bit Linux several years ago on my Multia!

Once you have GCC that will compile for the target arch, and you have the needed changes to Linux to support that arch, why is it more than bunch of builds to get a 64 bit version? Many (perhaps even most) apps are now 64 bit clean (unlike certain other criminal OS's).

Why does everyone ignore the MIPS and Alpha versions?

(and OT: When will a MIPS version of Linux with full support for the extra hardware in an Indy come out?)

Great! But.....WAIT!

[artsygeek]

Mandrake needs to make the 64-bit version a more server-friendly design....and make it less desktop-ish....for now.... I mean, Mandrake's great in that I can get any member of my family to install linux or config their system or whatever with it, but it needs to "cut the fat" that comes with it being an all-inclusive desktop OS.....of course that's just my opinion...I could be wrong...

Why are we still compiling for the 386?

[frooyo]

Talk about how people say MIPS and Alpha is dead (just a little trolling) - who honestly uses or knows of someone using a 386 anymore.

Why don't all distro companiesstart atleast compiling for 486 and also have at the least a distro that is compiled entirely for, say 586 (like Mandrake).

I don't understand why companies like RedHat (who make a great solid modern distro) don't make available for the more modern processors a distro optimized for it.

Why sacrafice new technology (speed) for the old and thus making the new run at the speeds of the old?

clarification (from a debian guy)

[Xtifr]

They're not crowing about the fact that they can compile for these systems, they're crowing about the fact that they are going to compile for these systems, and support them. Since compiling code into working binaries and supporting those binaries is what Mandrake does, I think they're justified in crowing about this. As a big AMD fan, I applaud Mandrake for this, even though I use and support Debian myself.

Slackware and Redhat and SuSE may or may not support this platform directly, I don't know. It's certainly not guaranteed. There are plenty of platforms they don't support, even though they could. It's probably going to depend on whether they think they can make enough money off of it.

And yes, Debian will almost certainly support the Hammer as soon as we get our hands on some. But then we're insane, and support everything we can. Who else still supports m68k and ARM? Who else is _adding_ support for HPPA and Super8? We do it because it's fun, not because we're trying to make money.

(As for the thing about security advisories, that's a bit off-topic, but I will say that Debian's security list is intended for Debian's users, so that they know when officially supported packages are available, and it's not our fault that bugtraq decided to subscribe to our list. Complain to bugtraq if it bothers you that much.)

Nope, Not Gonna Happen.

[mchappee]

>'A version of Mandrake Linux dedicated to these powerful
>64-bit processors can certainly accelerate MandrakeSoft's
>growing adoption in the Linux corporate market' said
>Jacques Le Marois, CEO of MandrakeSoft.

*swat* Bad CEO! Bad, bad! AMD is not doing very well in the corporate market. PHBs just don't like it. Sure, the grunts that take care of the machines like it, but they (we) just don't have the pull when it comes to writing a check. Imagine this conversation:

Me:"Hey boss, if we went with Corp_PC-A instead of Corp_PC-B, we would save about $200 per computer!"
Boss:"Really? What's the difference between the two?"
Me:"Corp_PC-B uses an AMD processor instead of an Intel."
Boss:"Whoa, now. The processor is pretty important, right? I don't think that we want to skimp there. We better 'go long' on the processor and trim the fat on memory and disk space. Oh, and stick a Trident video card in there for good measure! Silly hacker, what do you know about corporate responsibility. Go fix me turkey pot pie!"

OK, a little creative leeway. The point is that Intel has the aura of a rock-solid performer, while AMD has a hacker/gamer hippie case-modder feel.

Besides, AMD lost it's underdog luster to me when they struck a deal with Microsoft to testify [siliconvalley.com] on their behalf for an endorsement. [infoworld.com]

Matthew
In or near St. Louis? Hire me [mattshouse.com]

Re:why is this such a big deal?

[Rob Kaper]

I'm not knocking Hammer, but why does everyone act like the Itanium and Hammer versions of Linux are the first 64 bit versions?

Noone does. Everybody acts like the Itanium and Hammer will be the first 64 bit versions that will get substantial market share in both server and desktop environments. Like it or not, x86 is pretty big and important, so x86-64 and i64 will be pretty big and important.