Slashdot Mirror

I received my YDL 2.2 CDs the same day this was last referenced on Slashdot and posted a rant about the problems I had installing it on a brand new Power Mac G4. The next day, one of their support guys e-mailed me. After a couple of e-mails, I was up and running.

I was really impressed with Terra Soft's support for scanning Slashdot for comments by little whiners like myself and actually giving me a hand. I had mad no effort to understand the problem when I posted my rant but yet this guy went out of his way to help me. I'm certainly not that forgiving to my customers, even though they've paid for my help.

After resolving my install problem, I've been very happy with the distro. I'm planning on using this for the basis for future development at my company.

Kudos to Terra Soft!

meaning "Apple," mostly

Terrasoft makes some nice PPC hardware in addition to their distro.

Oh, and hopefully some rackmountable Apple gear so I can run a server with a little style. I've been hearing rumors from inside the Compound itself...

Like these?

They look cool, a dual G4 rack! :)

Check out the briQ by Terra Soft Solutions (makers of Yellow Dog Linux).. Full specs are here. Pricey, but very cute. YDL sells a few other LinuxPPC hardware solutions.

Check out the briQ by Terra Soft Solutions (makers of Yellow Dog Linux).. Full specs are here. Pricey, but very cute. YDL sells a few other LinuxPPC hardware solutions.

You really need to check out the Enterprise Objects Framework layer of WebObjects. You can use this in a web app or in a Cocoa app. It's an object persistence framework that talks to a variety of databases -- support for Oracle, MS SQL Server 7, and and MySQL is built in, FrontBase and OpenBase are excellent Mac OS X native relational databases, and it basically should work with any database that has as JDBC 2 type 4 driver available. EOF has been around since the NeXT days and is a rock-solid, mature database access technology. ADO by comparison is a complete wannabe.

Also, check out the recently released dual 1 GHZ G4 2U rackmount server from yellow dog linux's developer, Terra Soft Solutions.


--Paul

Quote:
Apple has an easy to use data access framework a la ADO.net (with Postgres support): Rack mounted OS X application & database servers

Not exactly what you were thinking of, but you can buy a briQ from Terrasoft. Teeny little PPC computer that can fit in a drive bay (!). The 500Mhz G4 is $1985, the 500Mhz G3 is $1485.

This was news to me.

Why do you dream about such silly things ? If you were to pay for all that stuff you would be gratefull that Oracle is making Linux their main platform. You still can't beat the price of that OS!

I like OS X alot as my primary Desktop platform, but give me my Linux on the server side for maximum performance,cheap intell hardware and thus the lowest Cost of Owndership for all my server needs.
Apple shouldn't take on Linux for the UNIX server market, Linux already won that in my opinion. Just you watch and see !

And for rack mounted Apple hardware (if you still insist ) look here : Dual 1Ghz Rackmounted, running YellowDog Linux offcourse ;-)

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Doesn't have the firewire though...

Once you have released the computer from its fruity prison, you can then give it a proper rectangular computer case with the iRack
1U rack mount box. Sadly, it only handles rev A through D, so you will get topped out at 333MHz, still for many network applications thats way too much CPU anyway.

I'm still hoping Apple will make G3/G4 computers in a form factor similar to briq. Something I can cram in 3 or 4 to the U. As long as I'm dreaming, no video hardware, just Quartz over ethernet and a discovery protocol that lets me connect by MAC address from my management station.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Um, but this board costs close to $4000. It would be cheaper to buy a full fledged mac and strip out all the componants. Terrasoft also sells PPC computers, but not stand-alone mother boards. They will build you a cusomized board though.

Um, but this board costs close to $4000. It would be cheaper to buy a full fledged mac and strip out all the componants. Terrasoft also sells PPC computers, but not stand-alone mother boards. They will build you a cusomized board though.

You alreayd could get PowerPcs without dealing with apple. Terra soft [terrasoft.com] makes the iBriq. Adimitidly, its not designed for desktop use, as its about the size of a cdrom drive, and needs an adaptor to use a pci slot, but if you really don't want to deal wwith apple....

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

I saw a quick demo of a multi-noded briQ (by Terrasoft Solutions) at SC2001 a few months ago and was very impressed. The ability to leverage the power of the PPC in vast numbers (and in a very small form factor) was incredible. I wonder how these would do in a head to head competition?

They offer a 4-8 node tower running 500 MHz G3 or G4 CPUs and drawing "roughly 240 watts per 8 nodes (less than a dual-processor Pentium-based system)." Quite impressive.

So... how many processors can you fit into a standard 44U enclosure now? If they've got an integral Ethernet switch do you get a gigabit uplink out? This would actually be really cool for Universities/Government Agencies to build insanely great clusters with small floor space. Still if you want insanely great maybe you should cluster a few briQ's together.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Here or here

why the fuvk is anybody using transmeta chips when they is ded? they should switch to PPC and be like terrasoft... cuz that is sweet!

From what I can tell, they sell their own Linux distribution as a sideline of their real business, which is clusterable servers running YDL. While a 500MHz G4 isn't the absolute newest, it's not bad.

On a different platform, but still completely valid is the BriQ. PPC (low heat, low power consumption) in the space of a 5 1/4" drive bay.

I think he may be talking about the BriQ, a G4 based board running YDL. Apologies if you're not. class_A posting as AC 'cos I left my password at home... duh!! Well it is 2:45AM in the UK and I'm at work :-(

What about the Briq?

Not that I could afford one.

I think the ``Yellow Dog G4'' being referred to is the briQ, a ``small footprint, single board, PowerPC Linux network appliance computer'' in a CD-ROM-drive-size package.

The briQ doesn't come with any video subsystem, though. This might make it difficult to run Mac OS X even if it were otherwise supported unless you added the PCI expansion bridge and a third-party video card.

b riQ/</A>

This is really cool, 8 node cluster size of a regular Tower. Each node is the size of a CD-rom drive. And I believe that they will soon be putting out Black Lab linux which looks to be a Cluster software package. If these wern't so expensive, I would get one now.

http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/briQ/po wer.shtml

Don't know that it's a beowulf cluster though.

Total Impact is the OEM, BTW.

Terra Soft Partners page

While technically feasible, we have not yet posted instructions on using 'yup!' to update a YDL 1.2 system to YDL 2.0. Please stay tuned as we work out these details.

If you want small and low power, the G3 and G4 offerings from Apple are cheaper and get you more (more peripheral ports, CD-or-something-drive, and a built in monitor!).

iBook (500MHz) $1299-1799
PB G4 (400MHz-500Mhz) $2599-3499

the iBook wins in all ways, the TiBook nearly so. See Apple Store, and TerraSoft Store

Did anyone else notice this? The site says that it does not ship with a video card, but has a pci slot, so you may use your own video card in it. Nice, but the problem is, if you look at the picture of it with the cover off (found on this page), the pci slot is on the bottom of the mb. There's no way you could get a card in there and get the cover on! :) NZ

Looks like there are at least a couple of fans in the uncovered box here

There are some nice G3 and G4 clusters out there, they are just not very cost-effective. Here's a howto on building a G4 cluster from a national lab, and there are some prebuilt systems like those running Black Lab Linux they were showing at MacWorld New York last summer.

the miicro.com site is, apparently, being slashdotted. Here is the press release at Terrasoft.com

haha...gummysevers, running linux...
hehe...hrmmm...8 $1,500 gummyservers running linux
hrmm...uhhh..8 $1,500 gummyservers running a free OS
uhhh...ummm...$12,000 worth of gummiservers
ummm...$18,000 - $12,000 != 0

Build a parallel cluster at home. Get it to work. Now think about supporting it for a range of uses and users. Now add up the cost again.
- Derwen

haha...gummysevers, running linux...
hehe...hrmmm...8 $1,500 gummyservers running linux
hrmm...uhhh..8 $1,500 gummyservers running a free OS
uhhh...ummm...$12,000 worth of gummiservers
ummm...$18,000 - $12,000 != 0

Build a parallel cluster at home. Get it to work. Now think about supporting it for a range of uses and users. Now add up the cost again.
- Derwen

As you might know the big IBM RS6000 servers run on a PowerPC chipset, and YellowDog is the only distribution that I could successfully install on our F50. There are still some problems like Linux only using 512 Megs of RAM instead of the 2 GIGs and one CPU being used instead of the 4 CPUs that we have, but otherwise it's ok. I still need to try the brand new patch that is said to solve parts of those problems, though. If this turns to be ok, then the only minor issue would be the driver for the video card, that currenlty only offers 800x600x256, but it is not so important.

I can tell you that running Linux on those huge beast is definitely c00l ! And you should just see those amazed faces when you restart the RS6000 and your colleagues come by to curiously watch how an AIX 4.x server boots and the first thing they see is a cute penguin in the top left part of the screen. And then comes the really sweet stuff: having to choose to login under KDE or Gnome! Ah! No more CDE! What a pleasure! And how great it is to use a couple of CPU cycles of the beast just to [g]rip some CDs or run a Napster clone. YellowDog was also very attentive to small details and while the LCD screen doesn't show anything after AIX has finished booting, under YellowDogLinux you can read this little tag:

Linux PowerPC 2.2.12

Ain't that cool? Well, I can tell you that in a rack of undescriptive boxes, that small inscription does not pass unnoticed.

That being said, did anyone succeed in installing YellowDog on the new IBM babe, the F80? We might get one soon here and I was wondering if I could run YDL Champion Server 1.2 on it. Any success stories?