I'm pretty sure there are Debian ports for ARM including RasberryPi. Here's an interesting project out of the UK http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~sjc/raspberrypi/ where the guy built a 64 node cluster using Lego for the supports. I'm also sure it was a lot of work like others have mentioned. Perhaps when the upstream providers get the kernel and the drivers going in the Fedora and RedHat branches we'll see SL7 or 8 available for ARM also. Joe On 12/07/2012 11:27 AM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: > Please do not confuse 3 separate issues: > > 1) Linux userland: this is pretty much universal and will > run on any CPU as long as you have a cross-compiler > and as long as the "autoconf" tools do not try too hard > to prevent you from cross-compiling the stuff. > > 2) Linux kernel: is also pretty much universal and assumes > very little about the CPU. There *is* some assembly code > that needs to be ported when you move between CPUs (say > from hypothetical SuperARM to hypothetical HyperARM). I believe > current versions of Linux kernel have this support for > all existing ARM CPU variations. > > 3) Linux device drivers: in the PC world devices are standardized > around the PCI bus architecture (from the CPU, PCIe looks like PCI, > on purpose) and most devices drivers are universal, so if you > have a PCI/PCIe based ARM machine with PC-type peripherals ("South Bridge", > ethernet, video, etc), you are good to go. If you have an ARM machine > with strange devices (i.e. the RaspberryPI), you have to wait > for the manufacturer to release the specs, then you can write > the drivers, then you can run Linux. Rinse, repeat for the next > revision of the CPU ASIC (because they moved the registers around > or used a slightly different ethernet block). It helps if you have > some standardized interfaces, for example on the RaspberryPI you have > standard USB, so you can use "all supported" USB-Wifi adapters right away. > > 4) boot loader: is different for each type of machine, each type > of boot device media. period. (Even on PCs there is no longer any > standard standard - some use old-school BIOS booting, others use EFI boot, > some need BIOS/ACPI help, some do not). > > This makes it 4 issues, if you count the first (linux userland) non-issue. > > > K.O. > > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:01:36PM -0600, SLtryer wrote: >> On 10/23/2012 12:37 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: >>> An "ARM platform" does not exist. >>> >>> Unlike the "PC platform" where "PC hardware" is highly standardized >>> and almost any OS can run on almost any vendor hardware, >>> the "ARM platform" is more like the early Linux days where instead >>> of 3 video card makers there were 23 of them, all incompatible, >>> all without Linux drivers. If you had the "wrong" video card, >>> too bad, no soup for you. >>> >>> In the ARM world, there is a zoo of different ARM processors, >>> all incompatible with each other (think as if each Android device >>> had a random CPU - a 16-bit i8086, or a 32-bit i386, or a 64-bit i7 - >>> the variation in capabilities is that high). >>> >>> Then each device contains random i/o chips connected in it's own >>> special way - there is no PCI/PCIe bus where everything is standardized. >>> There are several WiFi chips, several Bluetooth, USB, etc chips. Some >>> have Linux drivers, some do not. >>> >>> As result, there is no generic Linux that will run on every ARM machine. >> Not to be argumentative, but I always believed that the advantage of >> *nix* was that it could be ported to numerous platforms, regardless >> of hardware. You even mention the "early Linux days," when there >> was little or no standardization of PC hardware. Yet, the platform >> didn't disappear from use simply because there might have been >> porting issues, most of which were caused more by proprietary >> secrets and hardware defects than the ever-present fact of diversity >> of hardware. >> >> But one could make the same argument even today: That there are >> many different CPU platforms, e.g., and that they are not >> standardized. One example I am thinking of is the Intel v. Amdahl >> CPU compatibility issue. Even though most of the Linux system will >> run on either without modification, there are still some unique >> issues to each of them; from having worked and studied VirtualBox, >> there are differences in how each manufacturer chose to implement >> the ring structure that permits virtualization to work as nicely as >> it does on these platforms. For the most part, they are compatible, >> but the kernel developers have to be aware of certain implemention >> issues, including a bug in the Intel CPU platform that requires a >> VirtualBox workaround (for optimizing the code or something; I >> forget). >> >> And this is in addition to Linux supporting umpteen different >> processing platforms besides the x86 types. New hardware appears >> constantly, and some Linux user somewhere wants to use it on their >> system. I feel that variety of hardware and variation in hardware >> implementation is a fact, and a main reason why Linux and Unix are >> so powerful and ubiquitous. >> >> Now I just hope no one will hold me to this and insist that I >> actually port Linux to all these different hardware configuration! >> I'm not signing up; I'm just pointing out what I think is reality.