On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:07:23AM +0200, drago01 wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > [...] >> > So moving on from that.... why don't you feel comfortable pointing to >> > the ARM port? >> >> The question wasn't really directed at me but adding my 2 cents ... >> basically on x86(_64) hardware I can point people at fedora and most >> of the time it will work. >> As for ARM if you get a random arm hardware chances are that it is >> simply not supported or needs some manual hacks to get used. >> >> That's not really a fedora specific problem but it makes ARM more of a >> "gimmick" to me ... until hardware vendors catch up. > > As you say, mostly this is the nature of the platform. > > 32 bit ARM hardware is not self-describing, and not at all uniform > (unlike PCs). There is no BIOS. There's no standard text display or > serial port. Yeah I know but it still makes it inferior to x86_64 ... debian seems to be in a better shape simply because it supported ARM for a long time (i.e there builds for a larger set of boards). I have never bough an ARM board (just got them through various ways) the two that I still have do not work on fedora. One can be made to work with some effort while the I don't know what the state of the other one is. > This ought to improve greatly with 64 bit ARM, where Red Hat are > pushing for everything to support UEFI booting and ACPI for hardware > description. A single upstream open source kernel should [eventually] > be able to boot on every aarch64 machine, even ones that have not been > seen before. Yeah looking forward to that. The current system does not scale for a general purpose distribution. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
