Review: Yellow Dog Linux 2.2

fabiolrs writes: "imaclinux.net is running a review on Yellow Dog Linux 2.2. They could manage to run it on the iBook. YDG 2.2 is a great distro with KDE 2.2.2, Gnome 1.4, kernel 2.4.18 and Xfree86 4.2.0." Nice to see PPC systems (meaning "Apple," mostly) getting so much attention in the Linux world lately -- Mandrake's 8.2 PPC is also getting close to a release.

Comments

i was wrong

[fabiolrs]

sorry people! my fault! yellow dog linux 2.2 actually RUNS on an ibook!

Re:i was wrong

[sllort]

No, you were just unintentionally right. "They could manage to run it on the iBook" means that they were able to run it on an iBook. Maybe you meant to say that they couldn't run it, but you made a Freudian penis. I mean slip.

Past YDL releases were good too

[NewbieSpaz]

I managed to get YDL 2.0 running on my old Apple clone - A Power Computing Power Tower 220e. I have a G3 upgrade card in it, and it works well. I can't wait to try 2.2, hopefully it will be even better at supporting the weird clone hardware. I should download it soon...
YDL's RPMs make it easy for anyone who's familiar with Redhat or Mandrake to get YDL running on a PPC. Woohoo!

I've never used PPC

[B3ryllium]

I've never had a chance to use PPC, is it more interesting than x86? ;-)

Re:I've never used PPC

[fabiolrs]

well...

almost 10 years ago i was able to conect a new printer on the network and print from any client without installing anything! :))

Re:I've never used PPC

[Strog]

I'd have to agree with this. I have YDL 2.1 on a 8600 and it is identical to most other linux installs on x86. Just have it in a little bit cooler case.

Re:I've never used PPC

[mekkab]

oh, it's definitely sexier. Maybe not exactly interesting, but sexy.

Re:I've never used PPC

[Enahs]

True, but as far as I'm concerned, it's not that big of a deal. I work in a print-oriented shop, and as far as I can tell, the only hardare we're missing out on is the cheap crap--and not much of that.

Oh, wait, I forgot. We're still in the post-dotbomb days of "CHOICE IS BAD" and it's time to hail MS for helping keep the geriatric x86 line around.

Re:I've never used PPC

[leinhos]

Here's one interesting point. Most PPC machines have a bunch more interrrupts than the legacy x86 machines. When are PC makers going to give us more than 15 usable interrupts?

cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0 CPU1
9: 24405 0 OpenPIC Edge Built-in Sound out
10: 0 0 OpenPIC Edge Built-in Sound in
19: 2776759 0 OpenPIC Level ide0
20: 9516 0 OpenPIC Level ide1
24: 1 0 OpenPIC Level Built-in Sound misc
25: 0 0 OpenPIC Level VIA-PMU
27: 3704799 0 OpenPIC Level usb-ohci
28: 0 0 OpenPIC Level usb-ohci
41: 123719306 0 OpenPIC Level eth0
47: 0 0 OpenPIC Level GPIO1/ADB
55: 0 0 OpenPIC Edge NMI - XMON
72: 11137 13059 OpenPIC Edge IPI0 (call function)
73: 172139016 235590613 OpenPIC Edge IPI1 (reschedule)
74: 0 0 OpenPIC Edge IPI2 (invalidate tlb)
75: 0 0 OpenPIC Edge IPI3 (xmon break)
IPI (recv/sent): 407753825/407753914
BAD: 4

i wouldn't call it great..

[Anonymous Coward]

bug ridden (take a look at their yup, update program for example, core software for the distro and it doesn't work right), difficult to install and very poor support is more like it. take a look at the ydl mailing list for lots of complaints. in addition the company has a pretty lousy policy of releasing iso images months after it's available in stores (to get people to buy it). i miss linuxppc, that was a good distro. fortunately debian, suse and mandrake are available.

posted anonymously so i don't get my butt sued .

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[SerpentMage]

Sorry I cannot agree with that. I like YDL because they are the only ones trying to keep up with the latest and greatest. Look at Suse and Mandrake and there is no effort whatsoever.

I use YDL 2.1 with Natilaus installed and have say it is totally cool. Have not looked back.

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[ChadN]

Debian, Debian, Debian (unstable). As bleeding edge as you want to be (and will still be up-to-date 5 months from now). So, YDL is not the *ONLY* one.

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[Laplace]

SuSE doesn't release any ISOs any more. Why is it fortunate that they have a distro if what you want' doesn't meet your criteria.

p.s. I've used the PPC beta from Mandrake, and it looks to be pretty good. My preference is to run SuSE 7.3, though

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[Brother Grifter]

First off, if more people purchased YDL in stores, they'd have more resources to allow for better support. With mandrake, its also necessary for you purchase it to get support as well. Same with RedHat.

Second, LinuxPPC was also the most broken distro ever. Their installer used rpm -i --force to install all the packages. Ximian had the an incredibly hard time trying to support the LinuxPPC distro with their RedCarpet service.

YDL has a very active community on irc (#ppclinux on openprojects.net), where support is top notch, and help with any issued is can be resolved if you ask in the channel.

Debian is a great distribution, but it doesn't have the wizards and configuration utilities that come tailored for ppc machines. YDL does, and YDL 2.2 has a slew of these wizards to help any new user setup any modern (and older) apple machines.

Finally, I'd like to say that the community that uses YellowDogLinux all try very hard to contribute to this distribution, and to help its users with any problems as best as it can. In the true spirit of linux, you can't ask for much more.

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[SerpentMage]

Fair enough... Sorry for forgetting about Debian

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[jchristopher]

Does Debian work on the iBook2 without screwing around? By "work" I mean working sound, airport, modem, and ethernet without having to download and/or compile a kernel or look up how-to's and type command line mumbo-jumbo. 3 ISOs is a big download if I'm just setting myself up for a disappointment. Mandrake 8.2 is almost there but some stuff still doesn't work.

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[Analog Penguin]

"Does Debian work on the iBook2 without screwing around?"

No. If you have an iBook2 and you don't like "screwing around", stay away from Debian like Bill Gates upon encountering a penguin in a dark alley. I've been at it for over three weeks (admittedly not full time every day, but for a good solid week at least) and have only managed to get rudimentary sound support a few days ago. If you want internal modem support and you have an iBook 600, forget it. Period. There are some beta drivers for x86, but who can say when we'll get some. (That's another reason it's taken me so long.)

(Before that gets modded down as flamebait, let me point something out. I'm having a hell of a great time doing this. Tinkering with this system and trying to get it running smoothly, and perhaps ultimately displacing the Mac OS entirely, is some of the most fun I've ever had. Alright, back to the real post...)

On the other hand, getting sound, ethernet, and airport working is a snap. Just download the source for BenH's kernel from ppckernel.org, find the iBook .config file on ibooklinux.net, type make oldconfig, and you're set. Finding and following a standard kernel compiling tutorial is no problem...I had no clue about any of this stuff, but I managed to stumble my way through, and feel fairly comfortable with it now. Most of the work is already done by other people; you just need to find their stories online. BenH's kernel has airport, ethernet, sound, etc, though some (VERY) minor digging will be necessary to get it working.

One last side note. Don't download all 3 ISOs. You only need the first one and the last two are full of packages that are out of date already. Just install a minimum system off the first ISO and use dselect to download the latest unstable stuff. Just make sure to print out every scrap of online documentation you can find BEFORE you try to install, and be ready for plenty of reformats.

This page should help a lot...though his "Sound" section is quite outdated now, everything else is very helpful:
http://www.xiph.org/~jack/ibook/

Although now that I look back at your original post, I see that you don't want to have to bother with command line mumbo-jumbo and kernel compiling. Personally, that kind of stuff is a blast for me, but if it's not for you, trust me, Debian is not the way to go. On the other hand, if any other enterprising iBook user happens to be reading this, hopefully it'll help their day out a bit :)

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[ChadN]

I simply did a net install onto my iBook2 using Brandon Robinson's (and others) web instructions. I then upgraded to Debian's "unstable/development" branch, which installs linux 2.4.18, and is mostly all synced up with the powerpc linux developers. Everything works (except, I'm told, the modem, which I don't use)

However, if it your first Debian experience, it won't be as smooth as a Mandrake install, especially if you don't have a decent network connection (ie. can afford to download a few hundred megs). A recent burn of the unstable branch on CD would be best.

Frankly, while I use Debian, I installed Mandrake on my girlfriend's PC, and think it is fine for people not as concerned with daily updates and developments. But once you get used to Debian's method of keeping up to date, even Mandrake seems a little limiting (Debian has over 9000 software packages ready for download)

Also, the Debian net install allows you to easily get going with a small install (less than one CD worth), and gradually install things as you need them. MUCH better than downloading and burning install CDs, if it is an option.

Re:i wouldn't call it great..

[leinhos]

Well, evey distro has it's quirks. The 'bone' I'd like to pick with YellowDog (sorry) is that it *requires* MacOS to install on older ('Old World') machines like my Wallstreet Powerbook. A Linux distro that depends on another OS to boot? My LinuxPPC 2KQ4 CD had *no* problems booting or installing without MacOS installed (it used miboot for oldworld machines). The funny thing is that BootX (the MacOS bootloader) comes with miboot included, so why didn't the install cd default to that, and then give the user the choice of boot methods after the install was complete?

cha-ching ($0.02)

KDE 2.2.2?

[e1en0r]

But everyone knows KDE 3 is the best. I saw it on the poll. It must be true.

YDL has issues

[h4l0]

the last time i used YDL (which was about a year and a half ago) it was utter crap. from the sound of this review it looks like it has improved some but not a whol lot. i realise they dont have alot of people working on it, but still you should make sure the basic functionality is there before you realease it.

Re:YDL has issues

[Strog]

YDL is a little behind Redhat releases so it isn't up to latest and greatest by any means. YDL 2.1 was based on Redhat 7.0 base which had its fair share of teething. YDL 2.2 is based on Redhat 7.2 which is a fairly solid release. Redhat 7.3 is basically here now so YDL 2.2 isn't so shiny and new. This could be a good thing if consider that Redhat 7.2 is fairly well tested at this point so you should be fairly aware of what you are getting into.

Mandrake is getting 8.2 ppc ready to roll out a little after the x86 8.2 release so that will be a little more cutting edge if you are looking for that. Mandrake is focusing their resources on New World machines so Old World support might not all you hope for.

13 posts, site down

[westyx]

'nuff said

Anyone know of a good faq

[BiggestPOS]

That has to do with dual-booting Yellow Dog Linux and OS X? just asking.

Re:Anyone know of a good faq

[woggo]

check out this on OpenFirmware and this on partitioning your Mac.

Re:Anyone know of a good faq

[cnmill]

Actually they have a pretty good video (.ram) that answered all of my questions on it. Don't have hte HW to try YDL on though.

Debian & iBook

[Leone]

I have used Mandrake on x86 for several years, but two weeks ago I bought myself an iBook (my old Toshiba fell on the floor, RIP) and decided to go with Debian Woody PPC.

To my great surprise it went mostly smooth. I downloaded a minimal CD image and got up and running from there. apt-get install really is as cool as they say ;)

My biggest problem was that by default I had kernel 2.2 something and PMU (APM for Mac) crashed and burned. 2.4 fixed that though.

I really can't say that PPC is so mega-cool, but walking around with an Apple laptop (very rare) with Linux installed (almost as rare) is very geeky ;)

Re:Debian & iBook

[NorseGod]

Excuse me but... did you buy an iBook with OS X and replaced it with an old linux distro?

Man that sounds weird to me :]

Re:Debian & iBook

[connorbd]

Yeah. Why exactly would you do that when you've already got OS X? I mean, I'm a Linux fan myself, but unless you're making a political statement (and one can argue that if you are, an iBook is not the platform to be making it on) OS X is as good a system for most purposes (if not better because you don't have to go through the trouble of downloading OpenOffice).

/Brian

Re:Debian & iBook

[jchristopher]

Well, OS X is quite slow on the iBook while Linux is not. So that might explain part of the reason someone might want to switch.

Re:Debian & iBook

[Leone]

As someone already replied - Linux is a lot faster (I use Gnome and Nautilus, imagine that ;). And I have also got so used to Linux I couldn't work in OS X comfortably.

L.

at least now we know you are truly bonkers

[llamalicious]

If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane

Link to YDL

[george399]

Why is there no link to YDL itself , but instead there is actually a link to Mandrake in the main story?

Re:Link to YDL

[Strog]

You can only buy YDL 2.2 at the store or download the source rpms right now. The release for download is next week.

The Mandrake release is still beta but you can dl it. Maybe that's why.

Also..

[transient]

meaning "Apple," mostly

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

Re:Also..

[White Roses]

Frankly, I'm surprised that more hardware vendors who want to combat the Wintel cartel aren't using PPC chips. Sure, they're slower on the clock, but they are extremely powerful chips, and inexpensive when compared to Intel chips. I read over here hthat the latest, greatest G4 1 GHz chips are $295 for 10,000, whereas Intel's P4 2.4 GHz chips are $%620 for the same count. I suppose it might be a factor of 10 typo, but Motorola's chips are clearly less expensive to use that Intel's.

Why aren't more vendors who want to distribute Linux machines using PPC? Motherboard costs?

Of course this then begs the question of why Apple hardware is more expensive, but I'm typing this on my new iMac, so clearly I don't care.

Supported hardware still needs a little work...

[MarcoJROM]

Too bad anyone with $2000 (back in 1997) worth of powerbook 1400 rubble liing around are STILL screwed. Check out the hw-support

Oh well...there's always other options:
Apokalypse linux
MachTen

No ISO? No go.

[greygent]

I'd try Yellow Dog on my TiBook, but they appear to be one of those companies who don't release ISO's to their distribution until they're virtually obsolete.

It's their right, but not a very good practice to try and win over new customers who don't want to spend $$$ to test out a new distribution.

Thankfully, I was able to get Debian installed. Now only if I could figure out how to boot it properly from OpenFirmware. The steps in the recent O'reilly article didn't work for me.

Re:No ISO? No go.

[Jupiter9]

Don't you people read?
The Yellowdog Linux website says the iso will be distributed on the 8th of April. That's four days from now.

Re:No ISO? No go.

[_typo]

Thankfully, I was able to get Debian installed. Now only if I could figure out how to boot it properly from OpenFirmware. The steps in the recent O'reilly article didn't work for me.

Branden Robinson (the debian XFree maintainer) has a page about that kind of stuff.

Re:No ISO? No go.

[greygent]

Yes, I read, that statement wasn't there as of a couple days ago.

Re:No ISO? No go.

[ichimunki]

Sheesh, if $30 will break your bank you have bigger fish to fry I think. If you're really interested in trying out YDL but are just too cheap to take a $30 chance on a set of CDs, then just use ISOs for 2.0 or 2.1! It's GNU/Linux. It looks just like every other GNU/Linux out there. If you don't like their package choices, or they aren't current enough for your bleeding-edge needs, then compile from source. Personally, I'd prefer paying $30 to Yellow Dog for a distro that works than dinking around all day and night trying to get Debian working. My time is worth more than that to me.

Re:No ISO? No go.

[ChadN]

I got my iBook (my first Mac ever, bought two weeks ago) up and running Debian (and dual booting OS X) using the various instructions on the web (links posted elsewhere in this thread). It was relatively straightforward; what problems specifically do you have, maybe we can help.

PS. Loving my iBook, BTW. It is small, fast, and QUIET! Also, it doesn't burn a hole in my lap.

Re:No ISO? No go.

[Coldfusion97]

The ISOs are hardly obsolete when they release them. Usually Terra Soft (the vendor that produces Yellow Dog) releases the ISOs a few weeks after the CDs start shipping.

They usually give themselves a few weeks to sell some CDs so they have SOME capital to continue development. I can hardly fault them for that, and to tell you the truth, I really don't mind because I'm already using the latest versions of a lot of the software that's included with Yellow Dog.

So you have to wait a couple of weeks to `yup update`* your distro, big deal.

* yup, or Yellow Dog Update, is a cross-platform CLI package management tool that Terra Soft maintains (similar to Debian's apt-get, but trimmed down).

Re:No ISO? No go.

[Tony.Tang]

Don't you people read?

Ha!

Obviously, you didn't notice that you were reading slashdot! You know this because if you scroll to the top, you'll see on the top left of your screen, a picture that says "Slashdot".

Re:No ISO? No go.

[laserjet]

Don't you people read?

No.

Thanks for asking. :)

Re:I don't get it

[2nd Post!]

Not to be mean, but how about Macs without OS X support?

To be fair, it seems weird for the developers to be playing with *modern* Macs, instead of 6 year old Macs, but hey, the new iBook is cool.

Re:I don't get it

[Strog]

Me on my pre-G3 machine. It runs much quicker than OS X on my iMac but nvidia issues make OS X look better on this G4 Quicksilver

Why?

[Moridineas]

I really don't get the appeal of Linux on Mac (or PPC more generally). Sure, I can understand running linux on older macs, but for any OSX capable computer, what's the point? I can't think of anything you can do in linux but can't do in OSX, and MANY things you cannot.

Re:Why?

[ichimunki]

How about view the source code for the operating system? Can you do that with OS X?

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

Yes. Yes you can. It's called Darwin. Thanks for trolling!

Besides, source code for source code's sake isn't a good reason in my book. It may be in yours, de gustibus non est disputandem though. I prefer functionality and form over politics and open-source advocacy.

Re:Why?

[ocelotbob]

Because some people want to have choice in how they use their computer. Now, Aqua may have it's fans, but I'm not one of them; I like the more simplistic, straightforward looks of WindowMaker, I feel that the Aqua interface is bloated and ugly. Choice is a good thing - it causes better products all around, this is just another option for the user.

Re:Why?

[greygent]

> I can't think of anything you can do in linux but can't do in OSX

1.) Linux-specific development research
2.) Wireless security & research software

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

So why not go X86 then? The hardware's cheaper, and by not using the OS for which the mac hardware is intended, you're losing out. Apple's argument has always been that by paying the premium for apple computers, you're paying for the package...by getting rid of the OSX, you're castrating the package.

Note: I'm not denying your argument...choice is a good thing...but why mac hardware over pc hardware, given price/performance differences is my question.

Re:Why?

[larane]

Linux actually works pretty well on new world Macs. I use it on an iBook2 500 mhz. Everything works for me (I don't use exotic hardware), and for anything not supported I simply boot up Mac-on-Linux. Want to look at something in Quicktime, for instance? Mac on Linux will do that just fine, with sound and all. I originally bought the iBook to use with OSX but I simply can't use it: it's too slow and I miss Linux apps (which with some work you can get to run on OSX--Fink works nicely, but it doesn't do KDE). Linux is so fast on that iBook--it really shows the promise of the technology. OSX is like computing through molasses--and don't even try to use Classic mode for anything complicated. Yes I can do X forwarding on OSX but it works SO much better under Linux. For browsers Mozilla is nice and Opera actually has a Linux PPC version as well. And btw I use a much customized and updated Yellow Dog 2.0 on this machine and can't complain too much--most everything worked out of the box. YDL does need to do MUCH better testing, but overall it's not a bad distro for the iBook2. And of course there's just the cool factor of the iBook running Linux (I use Liquid KDE, it looks beautiful on the bright monitor), if nothing else...

Re:Why?

[linuxjack55]

Why is this inane question posed every time an article about Linux on the PPC is posted?

Likely answers to the original question are:

1. Macintosh users are getting just as tired of Apple's corporate crap as Intel users are of Microsoft's. Despite Apple's warm and fuzzy PR persona, the only difference between it and Microsoft is annual revenue. Steve Jobs would trade places with Bill Gates in a heartbeat.

2. Large and important chunks of OS X are, and forever will be, proprietary, which means that end-users are, and forever will be, dependent on Apple for key OS functionality (or the lack thereof).

3. OS X is still a dog, albeit with fewer fleas.

4. More than one of something is a good thing.

5. Freedom from choice isn't really freedom.

6. Assuming that there are indeed things that OS X can do that Linux can't, those things aren't of sufficent value to end-users to justify the incremental cost and loss of control.

7. On a personal note, I got tired of waiting a decade for a new OS from Apple, only to be milked for two hundred bones for a retread that wasn't, and still isn't, ready for prime-time.

Re:Why?

[ocelotbob]

I'm fairly hardware platform agnostic; I'm not choosy, I'll take the hardware that gives the best bang for the buck. I also have occasional runs of brilliant luck in finding near-new products at incredible bargains. As a result, I have come across non-X86 hardware that is a good enough deal that I can't pass it up. However, I am very choosy about my software - I want it to work the way I want it to, which is why I use Linux, I have choice. OSX just doesn't give me the freedom, even though the hardware is pretty decent.

Re:Why?

[Laplace]

Because I don't like to spend my income on new computer equipment (I'd rather devote disposable income to photography and music). Because my 333 G3 beats the hell out of my 333 P2. Because I like the hardware. Because OS X is a dog on my machine.

Re:Why?

[IamTheRealMike]

I can't think of anything you can do in linux but can't do in OSX, and MANY things you cannot.

Use Linux?

Look, you may think OS X is the perfect OS and given a free copy the whole world would instantly convert, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to break it to you - that wouldn't happen. There'd be people who would tell you to get lost

I'd do it for personal beliefs (more below). Others don't like Aqua, don't like the Apple way. Whatever.

I, personally, believe the OS should be open. The OS together with the hardware are absolutely key to computing. Everything else revolves around them, which is why I believe they should be open. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no zealot, I don't give a monkeys ass about the applications on top. That can be as closed or as open as you like, suits me fine either way. I don't mind paying for software. But if one organisation controls the OS then you're heading for trouble, I mean look at Microsoft. I don't believe Apple would be any different in their shoes. And worse, Apple control the hardware too!

Once again, don't get me wrong. Apple produce lovely hardware, and lovely software. I'm willing to pay for those things, but only if I know they are open. Macs aren't standard hardware, though they are getting that way, they basically are made up of components that are standardised throughout the world. And OS X is like the Mac itself, sorta open.

But for me, sorta open isn't good enough. I think the OS should be like the web - governed but not chained to a neutral independant standards organisation like the W3C. Nothing like that exists .... yet

Re:Why?

[Lussarn]

Do you think Linux users would jump ship over to OS X if it where available for x86. I don't think so. We know our great and stable systems. OS X might be shiny but it isn't anyway near proven.

There are alot of us who would never code for a properiaty windowing system if it wasn't necesarry. Why should we run X on darwin when we already got Linux?

Re:Why?

[ichimunki]

No. You can't. Darwin is not the whole operating system. I also suspect that you don't get the source to any of the compatibility layers that help non-OS-X applications run. It's not a troll any more than your original post was. If you don't value software freedom then fine. But DUH, some of us do.

So here's something else you can't do with OS X that you can with YDL: copy it to your friends' computers legally.

As to your "why not x86 then?" post below: DUH again! It's a little thing called dual-booting. Yes, I'd like to have an all free software system, but why not *also* have the best proprietary OS available too?

And for many YDL users, I suspect YDL came *after* the purchase of the PPC hardware. It sure did in my case. In fact, OS X isn't going to run on my old mac, but with YDL I get to do all the fun stuff like code in Perl or Ruby and run the web browsers that give me control rather than the web designer, I get the email client I like, I get GnuPG, I get emacs, the list goes on and on. The only time I boot to Mac OS is to print or get pix off my digital camera.

Re:Why?

[connorbd]

Actually, it's much the same proposition as SPARC linux. SPARC was a popular early platform for Linux but it's faded into obscurity; hell, if I was going to buy myself a used SPARCstation I'd probably put NetBSD on it, not Linux.

Solaris is a very powerful, very stable system. People buy SPARC hardware to run Solaris, whether it's a cheapskate Blade box or a high-end enterprise server; while SPARC Linux is nice to have around for hack value, the vast majority of real-world Linux use is on Intel/AMD.

And now I completely undermine my own point.

I grant you that the proposition is a little different with an iBook; they're very elegant little computers with lots of nice features (the newer ones, that is). PowerPC Linux does have much more of a real-world presence than SPARC does right now, so there is a better case for it. Granted I can't afford IBM's obscene prices for a PowerPC box, but old Macs are easy enough to come by, and one never knows when the opportunity to hack a TiVo might pop up. That's why there seems to be a fair amount of pent-up demand for ATX PowerPC motherboards.

But the fact is that Linux on an iBook is a bit pointless, at least from a Mac fan's point of view. Look at it this way: you've just bought a laptop that is configured to run one of the most bulletproof operating systems in the industry, one with over thirty years of history behind it branching in from at least three different directions. MacOS X is every bit as good a system as Linux or Windows NT 5+ (2000 and XP), has more software support than the former, and doesn't abuse its users like the latter.

Granted, it does come down to a matter of taste. But if you've gone through the trouble of buying a Mac as your #1 system and don't have any particularly strong reason for not running a Mac OS (bandwidth-intensive processing using the gigabit ethernet in a G4 box comes to mind), you will at the very least get an awful lot of strange looks from a Mac crowd that is just getting used to the advantages of Unix and Open Source (especially on a portable, where the OS invariably is designed to fit the hardware like a glove no matter the platform).

/Brian

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

I clearly said any OSX capable computer...thanks for reading my post.

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

My point is, when buying a mac, Apple's argument has always been that you're buy a package...software and hardware and design all molded together in one package...thus the higher price. If you take away the OS, you're taking away a HUGE part of that...so if you want to run linux, why not spend 1/2 as much and get a much faster x86 machine?

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

I don't believe it's an inane question, because I STILL don't understand the answer.

>1. Macintosh users are getting just as tired of >Apple's corporate crap as Intel users are of >Microsoft's. Despite Apple's warm and fuzzy PR >persona, the only difference between it and >Microsoft is annual revenue. Steve Jobs would >trade places with Bill Gates in a heartbeat.

Translation: Politics affect ease of use. Ok...

>2. Large and important chunks of OS X are, and >forever will be, proprietary, which means that >end-users are, and forever will be, dependent on >Apple for key OS functionality (or the lack >thereof).

A partially valid criticism..on the other hand, Linux hardware support isn't nearly as good as windows (in terms of the x86 platform), so why not go to windows if what you want is the ultimate in compatibility?

>3. OS X is still a dog, albeit with fewer fleas.
>
>4. More than one of something is a good thing.
>
>5. Freedom from choice isn't really freedom.

I'm somehow translating seemingly noble philosophical ideals into computer software.

>6. Assuming that there are indeed things that OS >X can do that Linux can't, those things aren't >of sufficent value to end-users to justify the >incremental cost and loss of control.

Such as QuarkXPress, Itunes, Photoshop, Digital camera integration, best user interface, CONSISTENT user interface, higher game availability, etc.

>7. On a personal note, I got tired of waiting a >decade for a new OS from Apple, only to be >milked for two hundred bones for a retread that >wasn't, and still isn't, ready for prime-time.

That seems somewhat churlish of you...I don't really see how it's not ready for primetime either.

Re:Why?

[Laplace]

Ha!

Syntax vs. semantics again. You, my friend, are an ass.

Re:Why?

[Moridineas]

What's the point...I don't understand. You clearly attacked my argument in a way that avoided my point, and in fact agreed with me (I made a PARTICULAR exception for people like you...running linux on old and slow macs). So instead you call me an ass. Thanks for the intelligent conversation.

Re:Why?

[laserjet]

You have a good point, and I happen to agree with you. There will always be some people who go against the grain (twice in this instance... one for buying an apple, another for running linux on it).

Being both an AMD box and an Apple laptop owner, I like both. I use my AMD athlon as my home computer, and my apple as my laptop. on my home station, I use mandrake, on my laptop, strictly OS X.

OS X is not perfect, but I like it a lot. THe thing I really love is that I can run an X client on it so I can run X apps remotely on my laptop at work. The rest of the crap I do is through a terminal, so OS X is just fine, thank you.

OS X has many advantages: power management, better graphics, the modem works, more software, better hardware support.... everything just works.

and, you are right in that it is a package you are buying. some people just like to change things to their liking for philisophical or other reasons.... I personally am not up to that much work. I love linux on x86 hardware, but when I buy a Mac, I buy if for the lovely hardware and the good software and multimedia capabilites. Some people just love to tweak! good for them, i say, because if you have a choice in which OS you cna run on any given hardware, that is good for everyone.

Re:Why?

[laserjet]

The guy that replied to you is an idiot and did not read your post.

you basically said that you understood running linux if OS X was a dog on whatever hardware one had... he is just illiterate.

Re:Why?

[laserjet]

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but can you give a specific example of where OS X does not work the way you want it to? Just curious...

Re:Why?

[ocelotbob]

Perhaps one of the biggest dislikes I have with OSX is how it hanldles windows; on my box, I use WindowMaker, it's small, fast, and doesn't use a lot of memory. I like simplicity in my window manager - just give me a close button and a minimize button, and throw all the rest of the items in a context menu. I also like the way it handles task switching. You don't have to worry about a dock being hidden behind an application window, you just have to find a small amount of open desktop space, and right click to pull up the task list. Additionally, the dock is there if I want to use it, I'm just not forced into the matter. I enjoy the customizability of Linux - if I want a feature, it's probably there, if I don't, I can turn it off just as easily, I don't need Gates or Jobs telling me how I should work.

Re:Why?

[linuxjack55]

"Translation: Politics affect ease of use. Ok..."

Please read your own post. Ease of use wasn't even mentioned in it. The question you asked was why people would run Linux on PPC. One's perception of how a company relates to its customers is certainly a valid (and perhaps the most important) criterion for determining whether one is going to purchase - and how one is going to use - a company's products.

"A partially valid criticism..on the other hand, Linux hardware support isn't nearly as good as windows (in terms of the x86 platform), so why not go to windows if what you want is the ultimate in compatibility?"

Huh?

How does a concern over the proprietary aspects of key Mac OS X components translate into a desire for hardware compatibility and a need to use Microsoft products?

"I'm somehow translating seemingly noble philosophical ideals into computer software."

Check your translator. It seems to be generating a series of erroneous responses.

If you find that the "seemingly noble" idea of having a choice to be unsettling, threatening, or confusing, I really don't know how to respond. The subtext of your response seems to be that what's best for you is what's best for everyone.

"Such as QuarkXPress, Itunes, Photoshop, Digital camera integration, best user interface, CONSISTENT user interface, higher game availability, etc."

QuarkXPress - don't use it, don't need it.
Itunes - cdparanoia and XMMS
Photoshop - ImageMagick
Digital camera - don't use it, don't need it
best user interface - it's the one I'm using right now, and, hey, if I don't like it, I can build and install another one.
CONSISTENT user interface - oh, you mean the UI that remains the same, even when you don't want it to.
higher game availability - since 90% of PC games will never reach the OS X desktop, that's an odd thing to say.

"That seems somewhat churlish of you...I don't really see how it's not ready for primetime either."

Churlish, indeed. Dealing with Apple for eighteen years would try the patience of Job.

Re:Why?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Linux feels a lot faster than X on my 600mHz G3 iBook. That's why. Aqua crawls.

What's the point of Linux on an iMac?

[Anonymous Coward]

imaclinux.net is running a review on Yellow Dog Linux 2.2. They could manage to run it on the iBook.

umm... considering the limited hardwares that they need to support, shouldn't it be not too hard to be able to on all the new hardwares?

YDG 2.2 is a great distro with KDE 2.2.2, Gnome 1.4, kernel 2.4.18 and Xfree86 4.2.0.

Shouldn't Gnome, KDE, and other softwares for Linux run fine on OSX? In other words, wouldn't putting effort into Linux application compatibility on OSX be more worthwile?

BTW, I'm also curious as to how Linux apps run on OSX since I'm considering a new computer purchase. Anyone know? Apple's phone number only directs me to tech support for people who already own a mac, which are not for those who are just curious.

Re:What's the point of Linux on an iMac?

[Uncle Gropey]

You are buy curious hahaha.

Re:What's the point of Linux on an iMac?

[Xenex]

Take a look at the Fink project.

They're going a great job of porting a whole bunch of apps across to OS X, and they use apt too!

O'Reilly article

[wiredog]

On Debian & iBook

Linux on Powerbook 1400

[beerits]

Have you checked here? They seem to have at least some success getting the 1400 to work.

Re:Linux on Powerbook 1400

[MarcoJROM]

Yeah...I actually did look into that along with mk/linux. And it *would* run linux, but the only things the kernel could access would be anything on the ide bus(hard drive/floppy/cd) and the scsi port on the back. So this is good and bad. Its good if I wanted a standalone linux box without sound or network and could only transport files through cd or floppy. But if I wanted a REAL programming environment or even a router,firewall, or server, I would need to have network capabilities via a PCMCIA NIC card or the appletalk port. Sound would be nice too for programming in the middle of nowhere.

Re:Yellow Dog 2.2??

[Strog]

Then maybe you would like Mandrake 8.2 or better yet Windows 2000. Somebody should invent Linux Infinity. Of course the sequel would be Linux Infinity+1.0.

I use a PowerPC

[SerpentMage]

I use my Powerbook and have to say that yes it is nice, but no it is not nice.

It is nice in the sense that the notebook works well. But it is a major headache to get software to work.

While some folks may say, it is LINUX and therefore it will work, that is a figment of the imagination.

Firstly when using closed software people only say Linux. When I mention PowerPC they say no problem if it is Linux it works. But then I mention it is not Intel and they say "oh, sorry, but it works on Intel".

Secondly when using open source many people do not setup the ./configure and autoconf properly to take into account a PowerPc platform. Many times I get platform not support or it simply does not compile. Case in point, Anjuta, or PNET. Sure it could be fixed with a bunch of tweaks, but it gets my goat that I need to tweak at all!!!

The only software that has worked without problem whatsoever are the bigger projects (Apache, Perl, etc) and Java. I am amazed at how well Java moves from Windows, Linux Intel and Linux PowerPC.

My conclusion is that even Open Source and closed source are as arrogant about non-intel platforms.

Re:I use a PowerPC

[David Roundy]

You should try debian. Debian works very hard to make sure their packages work on all their platforms (which, of course, includes powerpc). This involves seeking out and fixing the endianness/signed char issues that keep packages from being portable. Eventually those patches (in theory, at least) make their way upstream.

That being said, even on debian, other architectures are in a sense second class, since most of the developers use the i386 platform. This means that packages get autobuilt more slowly on powerpc, for example, but on the whole, it's a great powerpc distro.

Re:I use a PowerPC

[ambrosius27]

I'm sure that the Anjuta folks would be quite happy to accept your "tweaks" to have Anjuta run on PPC architecture. They want Anjuta to be used as widely as possible: it's a matter of where the patches come from, not of platform arrogance.

Re:I use a PowerPC

[bcrowell]

I think you're a little off-base calling these developers "arrogant." If they don't have a PPC machine to test on, then there will be problems. No big surprise.

I split my time between MacOS X and intel Linux, and after trying several PPC Linux distros, I've never had any luck getting one to install. It's great that there's PPC Linux, and apparently it works for some people, but personally,

• If I want to run open-source software and not have any hassles, I run it on Intel Linux.
• If I want to run open-source software and am willing to put up with some hassles, I can usually get it from Fink and run it in X Windows under MacOS X.

For me, PPC Linux doesn't really offer any advantages (even assuming I could get it to install!).

Debian "Sid" on an ibook...

[Scott Ransom]

I haven't tried the new Yellow Dog, but a couple weeks ago I installed Debian unstable (closely following Branden Robinson's instructions) along with Benjamin Herrenschmidts 2.4.18 kernel on my new ibook (600MHz, 384MB, CD-RW/DVD-ROM, Airport wireless) and am extremely impressed about how everything works (all except the modem - which I never use anyways). DVDs (with xine), CD burning, wireless, sound, hardware accelerated 3D, built in ethernet, power management -- all for ~$2000 US. And Linux seems way more snappy than OSX. This is my first Mac, but if they work this well with Linux in the future, it may not be my last...

Re:Debian "Sid" on an ibook...

[owenc]

I'm baffled as to why anyone would pay money for YDL when they can get Debian for free. Does YDL have better hardware support?

Mac Linux distros suck

[moankey]

One of the touted benefits of Linux is that it runs nicely on an old machine so that the machine doesnt need to see a landfill.
Well in the Mac side of things Linux only seems to run on the latest and greatest. I have several PPC 601, 603e machines that Linux just will not run on, or at least a decent disto. MkLinux doesnt count. With YellowDog and LinuxPPC I just dont see the point if one needs a G3 or better.
If I had a Ibook, G4 Powerbook, etc... I think OS X would be a lot better than these RedHat ported to PPC *nixes.

YDL--not for everybody

[catdevnull]

I've been using YDL on a G3 (Beige) for some 2 years. It's great as a server, but not-so-swell as a desktop solution. Outside of powe routages that exceed the UPS battery, it almost NEVER goes down. Runs as a webserver, mail server, AFP/AppleShare server, SAMBA, et. al. Over 100 users. init level 3 text log in is all I need. However, the desktop environment isn't nearly as robust and flexible as the Intel distros. In short: Use the right tool for the right job. If you want to use linux as a desktop solution, use Intel hardware--it's alot cheaper and supported globally. If you're looking for a rock-solid server that takes advantage of the PPC, YDL is the most stable linux server I've every seen. ...just my 2 cents... catdevnull > stdout

Question time

[ACK!!]

Are there any good linux distros that work on older PPC hardware?

There were a couple of posts complaining that PPC distros only run on the latest and greatest stuff.

Are there any PPC Linux distros that break this mould.

Inquiring minds and all that stuff...

I got a friend with an old mac that thinks its time to try linux.

________________________________________________ __

Re:Question time

[Laplace]

Methinks that you might be confused. Are you sure you're not talking about OS X?

SuSE 7.3 PPC runs like a banshee on my Blue and White G3

Re:Question time

[VistaBoy]

Well, LinuxPPC 2000 supports everything from the NuBus PowerMacs (like the 6100s) to the iMacs and everything inbetween. However, you MUST have at least a gig of hard drive space or you won't be able to install anything decent. There's also the matter of MkLinux, which I've never used but heard it's good for Nubus ones. If you're using a 68k, I would suggest Debian.

Re:I don't get it

[IamTheRealMike]

How about .... people who don't like OS X but have a Mac? They do exist you know

PowerBook 1400?

[himself]

Does anyone know of a Linux or *BSD distribution that'll run on my PowerBook 1400?
I have heard that MkLinux will do so (relying on the serial port for networking, or something), but I'd really prefer something that lets me use external SCSI devices, as I only have the floppy drive Expansion Bay unit.

Re:PowerBook 1400?

[ilbrec]

You can use LinuxPPC for NuBus. I believe the current version will let you use SCSI devices on PowerBook. I had it running on a PowerBook 5300 for a while (installed from a SCSI CD-ROM drive). I also had it running on several PowerMac 6100s and PowerMac 7100 until a year ago. You do need to do a bit more work to get it run, than installing on a PCI Macs, though.

Older Macs.

[saintlupus]

A lot of people on here seem to think that Linux for the Mac is only for older machines. Not true.

I've got YDL 2.1 running on a 7200/120 at home - the first PPC mac with PCI slots. Not a new beast by any means. Hell, the BSDs don't even support PPC machines this old.

And I'm looking at installing it on a 6500 as well, which isn't exactly showroom-fresh.

Hopefully this will stem some of the "just run OS X" tide...

--saint

linux on a non PPC mac?

[dcgaber]

I have a Quadra 660 AV sitting in the closet collecting dust. I was wondering if anyone knew of a linux distro for an 040 mac and could point me in the right direction. I would like to try it on this box if that is possible, or is this just a really stupid idea. I seem to recall that this machine has a 500 meg HD (somewhere round that, and believe me, I thought that was huge after upgrading from a 40 meg HD on my LC) and no cd rom, but i think it has ethernet built in to dl anything.

Re:linux on a non PPC mac?

[lamont116]

I have a Quadra 660 AV sitting in the closet collecting dust. I was wondering if anyone knew of a linux distro for an 040 mac and could point me in the right direction.

http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/

Re:linux on a non PPC mac?

[saintlupus]

I have a Quadra 660 AV sitting in the closet collecting dust. I was wondering if anyone knew of a linux distro for an 040 mac and could point me in the right direction.

Debian would be a good choice. I ran it briefly on a Quadra, and the performance was pretty good for a machine of that era.

So far as I know, they're the only native-English distro for m68k.

(You might want to read this page as well -- it's a little summary I wrote for installing another OS on a Mac with limited disk space.)

--saint

Re:linux on a non PPC mac?

[ChristTrekker]

Sure, it's possible on machines even older than the '040.

you don't need G3 hardware

[Bobartig]

Every PPC model from 4400-9600 is officially supported. I'm running YDL on a 6500/250. Installation was a breeze, even with using my TV as a monitor in video safe mode. It was certainly no harder than RH. Now that its installed and *RUNNING* I get to figure out how to use the damned thing, but getting it up was cake, even for a linux newbie like me

Re:fr to fp?

[MisterBlister]

Welcome the to new world of trolling, where trolls not only try to get a response, but hope to get one which is likely to be moderated down!!

KISS MY ADIDAS!!! Sho' Nuff!

My experience: great support

[Klox]

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!

Old MacDonald had a chip.

[Ukab the Great]

Of course PowerPC is more interesting CPU than x86! Does x86 have anything like the assembly instruction "eieio"?

Re:Old MacDonald had a chip.

[B3ryllium]

Probably not, but there's always:
B_IS_COMPUTER_ON();
B_IS_COMPUTER_ON_FIRE();

Ahhh, ain't BeOS grand? :)

It's finite resources, not arrogance

[AHumbleOpinion]

My conclusion is that even Open Source and closed source are as arrogant about non-intel platforms

It's finite resources, not arrogance. A Linux developer can reach 99.x% of end users by just targeting x86. They can either spend time targeting the Linux niche platforms or spend time improving the x86 platform. Add to this the spirit of open source and it is not unreasonable to expect the the PPC Linux community to fix things themselves rather than "dictate" where a developer should spend time.

I'll add that simply getting something to a point where it compiles does not mean you truly support a platform. Performance tuning should also take place and it is very easy to write c/c++ code that is tuned for one architecture or class or architectures to the detriment of others, ex. tuned for CISC at the expense of RISC.

Re:It's finite resources, not arrogance

[SerpentMage]

It is a bit of arrogance. And if you mention that a Linux developer can reach 99.x% of the developers by targeting x86 then you are using the same argument as Microsoft. And if I look at the stats then 99.x% of the desktops use Windows hence it would not make sense for me to target Linux? Therefore using that logic LINUX is dead in the water! We might as well all jump to Microsoft!

I am not trying to be sarcastic or pedandic. I am just using the argument that you gave me.

I am always willing to build the apps myself. But the problem is that most of the folks simply choose to ignore me. Ok I will admit that there was a really helpful person on the Anjuta mailing list. But that was clearly the exception. What I would like is that people just think a bit more than simply x86.

Re:It's finite resources, not arrogance

[SerpentMage]

You are right. And hence since most of my buddies do not have Linux machines they should simply ignore Linux, Yes?

There is not having the PPC machine and not being PPC friendly. My point is that many apps are simply not PPC friendly. People assume that it is an Intel world only!

Look harder

[westyx]

http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/mac68k/

Re:Look harder

[saintlupus]

Er, as you would probably have noticed if you'd read the page you'd linked to, that is a port for computers using the 68000 series of processors from Motorola. My post was concerning PPC machines, a different processor family entirely.

The early macs are supported by the mac68k ports of Net and OpenBSD. The later ones (post-601) are supported by the PPC builds. But the 6100, 7100, 8100, and 7200 are all orphaned, so far as BSD is concerned.

Perhaps you ought to've looked harder.

--saint

my YDL (2.1) experiences

[ChristTrekker]

I've only recently installed YDL on my old-ish Mac and haven't had time to even really configure or use it much yet. So I'll probably give 2.2 a miss, but maybe I'll be ready by 2.3. I'm happy just having Linux available for my hardware, so I'll probably pay for my next copy.

Re:my YDL (2.1) experiences

[Anonymous Coward]

ChristTrekker writes:

So I'll probably give 2.2 a miss, but maybe I'll be ready by 2.3. I'm happy just having Linux available for my hardware, so I'll probably pay for my next copy.

I don't know what your financial situation is, but if you have a good job, it wouldn't hurt to support TerraSoft by buying a copy of YDL. TerraSoft is a very small company, and your purchase carries a lot of weight. Small companies really need the support of their fans. It can be a make or break situation. If you don't support them now, who knows if they'll be there for you at some future date? $30 is not much money; you probably earn that much before you finish your morning cup of coffee.

Re:Also.. I'm about to get my hands on some

[slithytove]

I should have 70 BriQs today or tommorow sans drivebay housing. I'm pretty dissapointed with the per-node pricing of Black Lab Linux (by the same folks).
I'm thinking at the moment that I'll netboot Debian and install my own clustering libraries and tools, since as far as I can tell, everything included in Black Lab is available elsewhere except their graphical cluster management tools.
Too bad they didn't see fit to GPL them and just make money on their rather expensive BriQ's (We paid $1500/per for G4s) before Black Lab was released.
Does anyone have any experience with these? Any tips?

Best server distro for PPC?

[glwtta]

I am getting a blue G3 to play with, it will probably never see X and will mostly do some number crunching and web serving - what's the best distro to go with? As I understand it, the major ones for PPC right now are YDL and Mandrake (and I believe RedHat is coming out with something) - anyone have any comparative experiences on the non-desktop side of things?

Looks like it

[westyx]

duh!

iBooks Rare

[hotsauce]

I really can't say that PPC is so mega-cool, but walking around with an Apple laptop (very rare)

You must not go to the same coffee shops I do. At the ones I hang out, you'd think the 90% marketshare belonged to Apple. I guess wintel users don't find their 1 hour battery life too useful.

And that is one of the (many) mega-cool PPC things--massive battery life. Don't know what kind of power management the Linux distros have, though.

Re:iBooks Rare

[tuffy]

And that is one of the (many) mega-cool PPC things--massive battery life. Don't know what kind of power management the Linux distros have, though.

About 3.5 hours is typical for me on an old IBM ThinkPad (300 Mhz PII) running Red Hat and a minimal workload. Lots of CPU cycles will drive that down (and drive the heat up) accordingly. Still, the 3-button trackpoint is nice for X11...

Everything sucks, unix just sucks less

[Arker]

With all due respect to the Mutt project.

"Linux apps" on OS X

[hotsauce]

I'm also curious as to how Linux apps run on OSX since I'm considering a new computer purchase.

Standard Linux binaries will not run on OS X, because Linux binaries assume x86, X and some WM. However, OS X really is a Unix, so installing X, hacking and a compile should work. /. types are already doing this and OS X binaries are starting to appear.

However, you may find you don't want to run standard Linux apps after your OS X purchase. Very nice commercial apps already exist for OS X, and the shareware community is mature and strong. And some of the best Unix apps have already been ported to use Apple APIs.

I read the article.

[RestiffBard]

I don't own a mac of any kind though an ibook is on the list of things to get so linux ppc distros are of some interest. I've heard of YDL for some time now and I have to say I'm rather disappointed. There aren't that many macs they need to test on. unlike the pc world the hardware for a mac is mostly unchanging from one machine to the next. why can't they get something as simple as the proper sound output driver correct?

no offense, I'm not distro maintainer but that just seems like an easy one.

Re:I don't get it

[kaimiike1970]

They certainly do exist. The speed difference between OS9.2.1 and OSX is astonishing. The thing is, most of the people that I know that have Macs and don't like OSX are graphic designers that must use Photoshop (which until recently was not OSX compatible) and Quark (which for some reason was just updated but is not OSX compatible). I don't think these people (graphic designers!+*nix =ouch!) are candidates for a *nix distro of any kind though.

Re:oh no

[gowmc]

Main thing about YDL is the ability to run on pre G3 systems, whereas Mac OS X needs a hack to do so.

MacOSX vs. YDL

[tqbf]

YDL is interesting because, if your day-to-day operating system is Linux, you cannot do better than a TiBook running Yellow Dog. There simply is no hardware in the X86 world that is comparable (wide screen display, slim, lightweight, with adequate processing power).

I used YDL when I first got my TiBook. I had to, because I needed 802.11 support and Apple didn't support Orinoco. I switched because I needed Firewire more than I needed Orinoco. My experiences:

YDL: Works as well as any mainstream Linux distribution. Yup works, by some definition of "works". Better still, Ximian's stuff builds from SRPMS, and Ximian now explicitly supports them with binaries. Not hard to get current, buildable kernel source, and FreeSWAN works nicely for IPsec. The (major) negative is that Firewire support blows, and it is pointless to buy hard drives that don't come in Firewire enclosures. When I left YDL, SBP2 drivers didn't work at all. The (minor) negative is that companies don't distribute closed-source binaries for YDL, and they do for X86 Linux.

OSX 10.1: A dream; xterms, xemacs, and Adobe Illustrator on the same screen. Rootless XFree86, transparent anything, beautiful user interface, antialiasing. It's faster than Linux for applications and slower for tools. The one (big) negative is that there is no credible IPsec or VPN support. A minor negative is that you can't keep current with BOTH the dev kernel AND Apple's updates.

I'm on OSX 10.1.3 now and I'm not looking back. However, I can understand why people want PPC Linux, if they already simply use Linux for everything and want good portable environments. It's good to hear that YDL continues to move forward.

Re:Get it!

[connorbd]

Troll.

Oh, and when you find a better jukebox program than iTunes let me know, 'kay?

/Brian

Does Airport work

[jchristopher]

I have just one question for anyone who has tried YDL 2.2 - does your Airport card work by default?

By "work", I mean by default - not after dicking around, upgrading kernels, and searching google to find the right command line stuff to get it going.

Does the installer set it up for you? If not, my question is why not? Why is this so hard - there is only one Apple Airport card, and every Mac that has one uses the same driver, so what's the problem?

why is this okay?

[jchristopher]

The article basically says that YDL 2.2 is "okay", with quite a few quirks, their configuration tools crash, etc. Why is this considered "acceptable"? Is it wrong to expect more out of what is supposedly a "maintenance release" - shouldn't they have some stuff ironed out by now?

I have $100 just waiting to be donated to the first PPC Linux team that produces something that works properly on my iBook. Seriously. No one seems to want it.

In Yellow Dog 2.1, I followed their Airport setup instructions to the letter, but it does not work. Their "YUP" update tool does not work. Sound did not work. From the way the article reads, it sounds like 2.2 is more of the same, so why bother?

I'm also following the Mandrake 8.2 PPC beta process with much interest. As far as I can tell, there is ONE GUY - Stewart - working on it. He's doing some great things, but frankly, it's clear that he's overwhelmed. For example, my iBook2 cannot get IPs via DHCP over either the built in ethernet or the wireless inteface. Nobody knows why. Modem works, but only after you tweak the timout values in the dialer to be certain values. How would anyone know that? It should be done by the installer if the installation platform is the iBook!

I wish that these folks would work on getting the CORE stuff working, and working well, before they start including 2000 packages on the CDs. I can download Apache, MySQL, and 18 text editors later - right now, I need a working network connection!

The "gold standard", as far as I'm concerned, is RedHat 7.2 on a Dell Inspiron. Everything worked, and I mean EVERYTHING. No tweaking, no kernel upgrade, no command line garbage. Ethernet, video, mouse, keyboard, everything. So that's what I expect, but no PPC vendor has delivered it yet.

Given the very limited hardware a PPC vendor must support, I just expect it to work. It doesn't.

Open Source != You Must Target My Platform

[AHumbleOpinion]

And if you mention that a Linux developer can reach 99.x% of the developers by targeting x86 then you are using the same argument as Microsoft

Irrelevant, the truth is the truth, and a truth isn't invalidated merely because Microsoft can take advantage of it.

I am always willing to build the apps myself. But the problem is that most of the folks simply choose to ignore me

I'll restate my argument again. Developers have limitted resources and given the very nature and spirit of Open Source you should not expect that you can "dicate" how they spend their time and money. They gave you the source, you, or more accurately the PPC Linux community, have the ability to do the work yourself.

Open Source is not about everyone catering to your needs, it is about you being able to look out for yourself, about you doing the work yourself or hiring someone to do it four you.

Re:Open Source != You Must Target My Platform

[SerpentMage]

First I stated I am willing to build the apps myself. But if I am ignored how can I help myself? Using the argument "you have the source" simply does not work in these times. People DO NOT WANT to tweak where they do not want to. And I cannot give something to my client that needs tweaking.

You see I am on the PowerPC platform not because I am glutton for punishment, but because I want to really see which packages are professional and which are "Open Spirit" packages.

My issue is how come a LINUX Intel application will compile, but LINUX PowerPC will not? Seriously think that one over? There are virtually no differences between the platforms.

Doing Open Source does not mean being immature. Professionalism is always useful regardless of the nature of the excercise. For example when you play tennis with someone, do you try to play the game or just shoot the ball whereever? You play the ball so that you can get excitement. Hence Open Source needs to understand this as well.

There are many packages that work without problems. For example Apache, Java, Perl, Python, Ximain, KDE work like a charm and I never need to tweak much, if anything.

Re:Get it!

[jchristopher]

iTunes takes 30-40% of the CPU on my 500mhz macintosh. A common MP3 player on Windows (WinAmp) takes around 4% of a PIII 500.

Something is wrong with that picture. Obviously ripping and encoding is going to be CPU intensive - playback should not be. One of the first things I erased from my iBook was iTunes, for exactly this reason.

iTunes is not exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Fine Woman in YDL Commercial

[beppu]

In reality, women this fine don't use Linux....
Theoretically, it's possible, but the chances are so slim. It's such a dishonest commercial, and you can tell by her voice that she knows its dishonest. To use sexuality to sell Linux... What a twisted world this is. Linux is about freedom, but I guarantee you that she does not feel completely free. (Sadly, she might not even know what it is... not many people do.)

She doesn't belong there.... Her beauty is being wasted. I hope she finds something where when she speaks, she sounds resolute. It will be good for her soul, because her inner beauty will shine in combination with her outer beauty, and she will be 1000x more beautiful when that happens.

Check it:
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/realworld/v ideo/

Re:Get it!

[connorbd]

Okay, so I don't pay that much attention to processor load. I'm mostly just looking at the features, ease of use, etc. and the fact that it's free. I think, however, that CPU load isn't that much of an issue on the desktop unless you're doing something else processor-intensive.

/Brian

Re:I don't get it

[BlowCat]

Your comment shows that your are not a developer. It's much easier to develop on a 500 MHz machine than on a 100 MHz machine. Less time to compile. Usually less time to reboot if the system crashes. Less time between the idea and the implementation. And you don't necessarily have to support all new hardware - you don't need the new soundcard to compile stuff.

Re:I don't get it

[2nd Post!]

What, you mean develop on the fastest Mac, test on the slowest Mac?

This is Linux here! You can code on a fast *or* slow Mac, thanks to NFS, X, and vi or emacs, and compile on the fastest platform available.

Essentially the point being you can own 'the fastest' Mac to do your compiling and such, but you don't actually 'need' to test it on the highest end hardware because you really want to target the lowest end hardware, meaning you should be running, writing code, and using lowest 'mean' available hardware, even if you use the highest end for compilation purposes.

Re:Get it!

[jchristopher]

I think, however, that CPU load isn't that much of an issue on the desktop unless you're doing something else processor-intensive.

Like, say, running OS X? Believe me, when OS X is taking half your CPU and iTunes gobbles up another 25%, you notice.

5 Hours, Twice The Speed

[hotsauce]

Interesting. OS X minimal workload at 600 MHz I get around 5 hours. Using it hard (constant mp3 decoding, drive and cd usage) I get around 3.5 hrs (fav coffee shop just got Airport so will report back on that).

I have 5 mouse buttons on my iBook. They are even named. Mouse button, Control, Option, Command, and Shift.