Yellow Dog Linux 2.0 review

lotion writes "MaximumLinux.org has posted it's take of Yellow Dog Linux 2.0 on a PowerBook G4: "My distribution of choice was Yellow Dog Linux from Terra Soft Solutions. Adam and I had the opportunity to speak a bit with the co-founder and CEO Kai Staats of Terra Soft Solutions at the MacWorld Expo in NYC last month and I must say I was impressed. Not only was I impressed with there 2.0 release but there new hardware that they had rolled out that day as well.""

Comments

OS X isn't unreliable...

[__aaaaxm1522]

First off, let me state that I'm not a Mac Junkie. I own a Powerbook G4 simply because I liked the hardware, and because I could run Linux on it (the big screen was what drew me in).

That being said, I run YellowDog Linux 2.0 on my Ti and it kicks serious ass. It is an excellent Linux distribution, and for all intents and purposes, I've pretty much replaced my Linux desktop with the G4.

I've also played with OS X on the Ti quite a bit. While Aqua (the GUI) *is* slow, OS X itself has been nothing but rock-solid. I take exception to the author's comment " (it) flat out kills OS X in speed and reliability..." - OS X has been nothing but reliable. But yes, KDE on the G4 certainly runs faster than Aqua under OS X - no wonder, since Aqua's rendering system is PDF based...

All in all though, YDL 2.0 is a great PPC-based Linux distro.

Re:OS X isn't unreliable...

[jeffy124]

If you think OS-X is good now, wait until OS-X.1 is released next month. I've seen beta versions of it because my company is an Apple "Premier Developer." They've made a TON of gui fixes that result in faster reaction to user interactions. They've also improved on the so-called "bouncemark" measurement used to time how long a program takes to boot up. Overall, everything runs faster in the beta version. Plus they've added a few additional items, like DVD suppoer. Can't wait to play Crouching Tiger on my 21" wide-screen cinema monitor :)

Re:OS X isn't unreliable...

[Rura Penthe]

Agreed, OS X has very few stability problems in most situations (and the ones it had problems in have mostly been ironed out as of 10.0.4). The GUI itself is slow (but useable for most people) and even that is being addressed with the 10.1 update due out in September. So any complaint on those fronts is specious.

If you just want X11 you can even run XFree side by side Aqua and switch between the two on the fly or rootless X and stay entirely within Aqua. Or dualboot Darwin and the linux kernel and have everything you could ever want all on one machine. :)

Re:OS X isn't unreliable...

[owenc]

While OS X is as stable as any other *nixy system, if aqua poops out on you it is essentially a crash, as there are no virtual consoles or key combinations that get you out of it. If you go to this page the flash content will freeze the desktop (using internet explorer). In linux, you can simply go to a different virtual console and kill stuff, but in OS X you have to SSH in from another box or reboot.
I'm not advocating virtual consoles, but it would be nice to have a key combination that killed the loginwindow process.

Re:OS X isn't unreliable...

[melatonin]

But yes, KDE on the G4 certainly runs faster than Aqua under OS X - no wonder, since Aqua's rendering system is PDF based...

LOL! PDF-based rendering doesn't mean it creates a PDF and processes it to draw something, it means it uses the same imaging model as PDF.

Actually, it's almost identical to Postscript, but with Quartz they lose the programmability of PS and the licensing fees (fortunately). They gain "PostScript-like drawing features such as resolution independence, transformable coordinates (for rotation, scales, and skews), Bézier paths, and clipping operations." This gives them a unified model for printing and drawing. And it makes it easy to generate a PDF file, or to render a PDF file (printer spool files are PDF files). But how do you explain this to Joe user? Saying it uses the PDF model for rendering and describing image environments turns to "it uses PDF to draw."

For example, if they said it was OpenGL based, the reaility might be that it uses the same multi-stage rendering pipeline as OpenGL, in that you have data to draw represented by vertices, they get transformed by the model-view matrix, and then transformed by the camera, then clipped to the viewable area, then perspective is applied (3D to 2D), then drawn. But that doesn't mean that it is creating a new OpenGL context and running OpenGL commands every time it draws something.

There's also a misconception that Adobe worked on Quartz. They had nothing to do with it.

So why is it slow? Because OS X 10.0 is just ass-slow. At *everything*. I've got one of them high-end G4s. When I was at the expo and they were showing how fast 10.1 is, I heard some people in the audience say "yeah, but how fast is the machine that it's running on?" Pfft! It looked twice as fast as my machine, and before the expo they didn't come any faster :)

Re:OS X isn't unreliable...

[benedict]

Hmm. I run 10.0.4 and IE 5.1 and I was unable to freeze my desktop using that page.

Note that command-option-esc will bring up a "Force Quit" window that lets you kill any Aqua program, including Finder (it restarts itself afterwards). I don't know if this would work in your situation, but it might.

Finally, I urge you to submit a bug report.

Re:OS X isn't unreliable...

[be-fan]

Actually, I think people get the impression that the PDF rendering is slow because IIRC, Display Postscript renderers would generate a ps file then send it to a ps rasterizer. The resulting system was less than speedy. I don't know if Apple does it the same way, but I'd rather think that the GUI is slow because of a slow model rather than just plain crappy programming. As for OS-X, its slow largely because of Mach. The dated version of FreeBSD (3.2) doesn't help things, but the Mach 3.0 kernel is an absolute dog. Every so often a disscussion pops up on the HURD list about porting it to something better, but apparently they're quite stuck with it.

Config

[be-fan]

I love the part where he kicks himself for taking 3 hours to figure out how to configure his TrackPad. The funny part is, that it would take ANYONE 3 hours to figure it out. That's because all normal OSs put all that configuration stuff in one place (be it a GUI panal or a tree of config files). Of course, all Linux distros have to be "special" so they all have different ways of configuring things. Still wondering why Linux hasn't taken over the world yet?

Re:Config

[be-fan]

You mean like /etc?
>>>>>>>
Yes, UNIX is a normal OS. /etc is a fine config structure. However, if you'd care to show me a *complete* list of config files in /etc that will let me configure *any* Linux distro, I'd be damn surprised. In theory /etc is great. In practice, it works out less well in non-propriatory *NIXs, simply by virtue of the fact that Open system types are loathe to enforce standards.

My Computer-> Manage->{pick one}, Network->properties->Local Area Network->properties->TCP/IP->properties, Taskbar->properties, etc, etc. Like a normal OS.
>>>>>>>>>>
Huh? The only stuff that's not configured via Control Panel (in Win2K at least) are object-specific things like the Taskbar properties. And for the sake of usability, object-specific config SHOULD be object-specific. The Windows convention is that things that you can't directly see on the screen are configured via the control panel, while everything else is configured by right-clicking on it an hitting properties. Might not be the most efficient thing concievable, but it works quite well in practice. Certainly a hell of a lot better than the mish-mash Linux has in place. For example, say I want to turn off anti-aliasing in Windows. I can just go to Control Panel -> Display -> Effects. In Linux I have to break out the Xterm, go hunt for a HOWTO on the net, then edit a xftconfig, a config file whose structure is different from every other config file on the system.

PS> And don't point me to some nifty KDE utility that does that for me. The user has to FIND these things, remember?

Re:Who cares?

[waltmarkers]

Hmm, let's see what we have here. It seem to me like someone wants to start up the 'ole OS wars again. Let's just point out a few of the merits of YDL 2.0:

Fact: Not everyone likes BSD, some people just prefer Linux.

Fact: Another OS for the PowerPC Arcitecture is a great thing to se released and updated, if x86 has no compitition what makes it improve?

Fact: OS 10 and 10.1 have hefty sytem requirements that some computers just don't meet, I can still use YDL on my old 603e chip which is somewhat old school.

So, basically, this keeps everyone on their toes, the Linux people now havew to give the mac a serious look before dismissing it simply because it's am mac. The mac people have the option of using Linux in adition to every other OS on the mac. And Apple has to keep OS X development going strong becuase they don't have an OS monopoly on their systems. And all those people with macs can upgrade to the latest version of YDL, we just can't use off the shelf linux you know, silly single architechure kernal.

Wonderful Distro

[gamgee5273]

I've used MkLinux, LinuxPPC and YDL on my Power Mac 6500, and YDL has given me the easiest install (even though the disc isn't bootable for Old World machines) and it flies - no problems with X, no problems updating, no problems switching back and forth fron KDE to Gnome and back. Terra Soft is proving itself to be a major thinker in the Linux world, and hopefully that will follow with some more revenue for not only YDL, but also Black Lab Linux (embedded systems) and their briQ hardware. This is a killer distro.

Roadmap for world domination...

[Hercynium]

OK, I like linux. It's not the best choice for everything, but I see this article as further proof that Linux has become an even more viable OS option for users. The way I see it, any successful piece of software needs four things: Desired functionality, Availability/Accessibility, Platform acceptance & availability, and last but not least, Usability.

Can you guess which one Linux is still lacking in???

We're almost there. Linux can do anything Windows can do (and mostly better). You can now buy Linux off any computer store shelf, at bookstores, online, or even download it for free. Now, as the article shows, Linux runs smoothly on dozens of different hardware platforms, and GNU software runs on dozens of OS's, including Apple's. Now, if only it were easier to configure a damn mouse!!!!

<RANT>I propose a petition to the IETF that the surrounding tags become official identification for /. readers!</RANT>

Upgrading Is, Quite Literally, Impossible

[waldoj]

A warning to all considering purchasing Yellow Dog 2.0 that already run an earlier version: it's impossible to upgrade.

I bought v2.0 as soon as it came out a few months ago (the same as I did with v1.0), wanting to support Terra Soft by giving them some money. Not having read all of the technical notes before purchasing it, I didn't found out until I got it in the mail that there was no upgrade path from v1.2. I complained on the mailing list, which started a big battle, but solved nothing. I sent another post about a week ago, asking if I could upgrade yet. No replies.

Poking around on their site, I can only find a single reference to the fact that upgrading is impossible. Is that in the installation guide? Nope. The engineer's notes? No sir. Perhaps just a note in their on-line store? Unh-uh. Surely the installation FAQ? No siree Bob. No, you'd have to go to the bottom of the support page and follow the Can I upgrade my previous install of YDL to 2.0? link, which says:

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.

This would indicate to me that upgrading is possible, just not via YUP, their fantastic apt-get type updating system. That, unfortunately, is not the case. Maybe there are other notices on their site, but I'm yet to locate them.

I was told, at the time that I initially complained, that I just didn't properly appreciate how difficult that it was to get v2.0 out, and that it's really difficult to create a distribution that can be upgraded, and why should I worry about such details anyhow? Didn't I have proper tape backup and off-site storage procedures for my home iMac? Didn't I know that I was a fool to ever upgrade a machine? All of these things are true, but they don't excuse creating a release that without notifying purchasers beforehand cannot be upgraded.

I like Yellow Dog Linux. I use it every day. I like Terra Soft, and I've enjoyed every enounter that I've had with their staff. I think that they've created a fine distribution. It irks me that it can't be upgraded, but that's their perogative and my incentive to run Mac OS X. But their lack of notification that this problem exists makes me nuts. This review, like all others, really makes me want to run v2.0. I sure hope that I can someday, because it looks like a gem of an update.

-Waldo

Big OS X reason

[Lally Singh]

I'm a big linux fan & all, but honestly, OS X's only drawback right now is speed, and that's getting fixed up in next month's release. Run all the X apps you want (thanks to the darwin ports collection!), and all the mac apps you want, side by side. I mean, assuming 10.1 does a decent job at speed (let's say easily usable but not 1:1 with LinuxPPC), what reasons would one have to stick with linuxppc? (not trolling, honestly curious).

Re:Big OS X reason

[Laplace]

I've used Mac OS 9, Max OS X, Yellog Dog 1.2, and SuSE 7.x on my Blue and White G3. Right now OS X and OS 9 share a disc, while SuSE sits on another one. My OS of choice is SuSE. I play around with OS X from time to time, and use OS 9 for watching DVDs. Using Windowmaker I can set up a very OS X like desktop that runs faster. I have many more apps available right out of the box under Linux than I do OS X, and they don't crash at odd times. I have upgraded my OS X to the most recent version. I think that OS X is beautiful, and nice to work in. For me it is just a toy, though, and I do all of my important work on the Linux side.

Ok, that's all I'm going to say. My hangover makes it hurt to write.

Re:Big OS X reason

[be-fan]

It's interesting how much baggage OS-X carries with it. HFS+ is a lot worse than many people thought it was. Instead of having inodes, HFS+ uses a catalog file and an extent overflow file. The end result is that the fs is EXTREMELY single threaded, as every write access to either file has to lock it. As a result, the dual G4-800s seem a lot slower than they should be, especially if you're running disk-limited programs, which is true for the vast majority of home users.

Re:Installed it yesterday

[uchian]

How far KDE has come. KDE is really impressive nowadays (2.1). I'm amazed that the linux companies hasn't dared to say yet that Linux is ready for the desktop.

I'm almost inclined to agree. KDE itself is an absolutely great desktop. For me, the only thing that I think Linux needs is a consistent way to install programs. RPM's are great, Debian files are great, but there are still quite a few unpackaged programs that are distributed as tar.gz's. When we have a packaging system which can install any of them, and remember them in the same way so that they can be easily uninstalled, and which can figure out dependicies between the different systems, I will consider Linux ready for the desktop period.

I should like to say I am actually grateful that companies haven't said that Linux is ready for the desktop yet - by premature announcement of the fact, they leave Linux wide open to criticism for claims that it cannot (quite yet) forfill. I'd rather that things are got just right, and then big announcements made.

Just my $0.02

Re:There/Their

[veddermatic]

No, because to do so is a copyright infringement w/o noting the correction was made, and what exactly was corrected.

I don't think it's worth the hassle of having stories look like this: "I think [their]* doing a good job"

* the homonym "there" was replaced with the grammically correct "their"

Their, there ... you knew what he meant, right? Being dyslexic, I do that sort of thing all the time.. and the way I figure, if I got my point accross, I used the right words. =)

OK, mod this down Off-Topic now....

Re:Debian for PPC?

[Jeffrey Baker]

I use Debian PPC on the TiBook, as do many people on the debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org mailing list. I installed 2.2r2 and upgraded using apt to the latest unstable release. I then replaced the kernel with Ben H's 2.4.8-benh kernel, which includes support for sleeping and some other useful bits. I don't have any problems at all, other than Linux using the battery a bit faster than MacOS 9 does.

Re:yeah, but what about the BriQs?

[DavidRavenMoon]

The briQs are too expensive! Their 500 MHz G4 machine is almost $2,000!

For $1,690 you can get a 733 MHz G4 with 4 PCI slots (the briQ has one slot that doesn't even come as PCI) and three RAM slots. The BriQ has 2. Plus the 4X AGP slot with a nVidia card. And the CD-RW drive, keyboard, mouse, etc.

Other then the color, cosling more and having less features, the briQ and the G4 has more or less the same spcs.

Re:Nifty

[benedict]

I like to use OS X for my workstation because I like OmniWeb, there's good multimedia support (Flash, QT, etc.), and it runs the openssh client.

Also ... it's fun to try out different ways of administering a system, but when one gets bored of that or simply isn't in the mood for it, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between using a workstation based on FreeBSD or Slackware or Debian or even Solaris. Mac OS X is a little different from all the other desktop unixes, and I find its interface a little more friendly and interesting.

My intention here isn't to put anything else down, but rather just to answer your question as informatively as I can.

Re:yeah, but what about the BriQs?

[znu]

The G4 takes up around 30 times as much space and probably uses 8-10 times the power. The briQ is about the size of an internal 5.25" drive....

Re:Yellowdog and Debian

[CoughDropAddict]

I certainly think that Debian is a fine distro; I just don't like Debian elitists always claiming that Debian is the be-all and end-all of Linux.

It's pretty hard not to pipe in when people who have never heard of Debian are still futzing around with rpmfind or building common software from source. It's like, "don't you realize there's a better way?"

Are you all nuts? Run OS X or run Intel.

[whjwhj]

OK so you take a terrific machine (Ti PB) and a terrific operating system (OS X) and you toss out the OS and put Linux on it? Why??? OS X is a posix system that runs much of the same software as Linux does, plus it has a GUI that, unlike Gnome and KDE, is extremely well designed and doesn't look like Windows. I can think of no decent reason to replace something as incredible as OS X with something as rum-dum as Linux on a machine like this. Doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Not in the least bit practical. One common argument for Linux on Wintel hardware is that Wintel hardware is cheaper. Thus I can see the modivation. But to replace OS X with Linux on expensive Apple hardware defies logic completely. Linux has it's place. But not on a Ti PB. Sorry.

Re:Are you all nuts? Run OS X or run Intel.

[whjwhj]

Not sure how that got modded up to my viewing level, as it's trolling.

I assure you, I don't troll. Honest opinions only. I submit that it got modded up because there's plenty of folks who can see through the B.S., that's all. Good to know they're lurking. They should post more though.

I just wiped osx off my G4 tower and replaced it with Debian

Power Mac G4's start at $1699.00 For that sum of money you could've bought a LOT of Wintel hardware to run your Debian system on!! See my point? Of you think OS X sucks (even though your reasoning may or may not be flawed) then, by god, don't run out and buy Apple hardware!! Get more bang for your buck and buy Wintel!

I spent my last few months with OSX using Fink and installing Xwindows to use on top of osx

Sounds like a phenomenal waste of time to me. Wow. Do you work for a living? I wish I had time like that to tinker. But I have real programming projects to attend to. Even Slashdot is a luxury. My suspicion is that the folks who do this kind of nonsense (installing Linux on Ti PB's, for example) are not doing it for practical real world benefit. They do it only because it is possible. And, perhaps it is fun and entertaining. Practical? Of course not. Cost effective? No.

Why OS-X is overrated

[be-fan]

1) Mach 3.0
2) Mach 3.0
3) Mach 3.0
4) HFS+: read my other post on why this minor update to the 20 year old HFS isn't very good at all.
5) Aqua: Sure its pretty. Sure its powerful. But it makes X seem snappy!
6) FreeBSD 3.2: Its a nice system, but all of the cool stuff is being done in the 4.0/5.0 branch. VM, SMP, security, etc.
7) Environment: OS-X is a mish-mash of OS9 programs running in a (large) compatibility layer, poor Wintel ports (IE 5), and a dearth of Carbonized apps. Meanwhile, Linux seems positively unified: running a KDE program in GNOME doesn't incur nearly as much of a system drain as running an OS9 program in OS-X. Plus, Linux is pure preemptive 32-bit apps all the way through, while many important OS-X apps still run in the cooperative kinda 32bit OS9 environment.

PS> If I seem down on Mach 3.0 that's because that kernel single handedly have microkernels a bad name...

Re:10.1 -- Don't hold your breath!

[be-fan]

I just hope that acceleration arrives in a usable form. Most graphics cards have tons of 2D acceleration, but they are so tied to the GDI that other environments have a hard time making full use of them. In other words, instead of seeing "Aqua accelerators," I'd rather see "DPDF accelerators," or better yet, even more general "vector graphics accelerators."

Filesystems?

[hey!]

HFS gives me the heebie jeebies. It has it's roots in the days of 20MB hard disks and floppies; back in my Mac days it was a constant source of revenue for me and headaches for my customers. It's comparable, I guess, to FAT in reliability -- which is to say it works fine unless anything unexpected happens to your system ever. It's nothing like ext2, which, while not bulletproof, tends to be OK even when it needs to be fsck'd, and of course it's light years behind the journalled fs that are becoming available on linux.

For this reason, I would not use OS X to host any kind of server, unless I could get my data onto a better filesystem. Has anybody heard anything about using other filesystems with OS X? There must be kernel support for something better. Would this somehow screw up the higher levels of OS X that sit on top of darwin?

Re:Filesystems?

[be-fan]

If its got a Mach kernel, the standard BSD filesystems should be available. Maybe FFS with softupdates?