Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TerraSoft Releases YellowDog Linux 3.0

Posted by timothy on from the go-fetch-boy dept.

chriseh writes "For those of us who prefer Linux to the candydrop OS, good news! YellowDog Linux 3.0 has been released. For those who don't want to wait, you can get an enhanced membership at YDL.net and download ISOs directly. As per other releases, ISOs will be available to everyone/mirrors two weeks after the CDs have been on sale.Finally, I can run Linux on my 12" Powerbook." extrarice amplifies: "New features include: Redesigned installer, a unified KDE 3.1/GNOME 2.2 desktop (both WMs share the same icons and menus), Kernel 2.4.20, and the usual package refinements/updates. More release info can be found here. Note: ISOs are not available yet, and CDs are scheduled to ship in mid-April. I have been running YDL 2.x for about a year now, and it's a fast, stable distro."

18 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Candydrop OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought Slashdot LOVED OS X?

    1. Re:Candydrop OS? by kwerle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No way. /. Frickin' hates Unix Based OSes that run X11.

      Especially when they're based on an open system based on BSD, that ship with gcc, perl, python, Java, and apache

  2. Why would I want this? by sockit2me9000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe I'm missing something, but why would I want to install YDL. I can do everything I want in OS X now in a much friendlier operating system. Plus, now that I have an Apple X11 program I see fewer and fewer reasons. Moreover, when you buy an Apple you are paying a premium for the OS, why buy an apple when you could just buy a cheap box and install an x86 linux distro. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Why would I want this? by ChristTrekker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, you are. (No offense.) There are many of us who have older PPC boxes around, that are just dying to have a lean, stable OS installed so they can be put back to use. Besides, YDL is a PPC hardware distro, not an Apple hardware distro. There are a variety of reasons why PPC hardware is preferable in general to x86 hardware. YDL fills an important niche.

      --

      Constitutionally Correct

    2. Re:Why would I want this? by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I run linux on one of my Macs, but I do it for testing and building when I'm writing code for a customer with PowerPC processors in their embedded devices. Apple is the cheapest source for portable PowerPC machines, so I bought one, and I run linux on it.

      OSX wouldn't run so well on my 333 Mhz lombard anyway, and linux is way better than OS 9.

      Oh, BTW, I run Debian. I don't see any reason for these specialized PPC only Distros, and I don't know why they make news. Why would I want a distribution for one architecture that's different from the distro on all the other architectures I run? Also, why would I want to wait the rediculous periods between yellow dog releases when I can just use debian unstable and have the latest and greatest daily?

    3. Re:Why would I want this? by whjwhj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I totally agree with your assessment. There are those with old hardware or special requirements that might have to run Linux on a Mac. But from a usability standpoint it's a no-brainer: OS X is an absolutely terrific desktop enviornment for unix. Running Linux "just because" on a mac is ridiculous. But there's plenty of Linux zealots who are going to run Linux on new mac hardware simply because they can and they think it's cool or whatever. I can't defend their lack of common sense and good taste.

      I, personally, have better things to do than dink around with package installation, X configuration, and hardware compatibility issues. I'd rather be running iTunes, developing PHP apps, and popping in the occasional DVD movie than pitter around with Linux nonsense.

      I *like* Linux. Don't get me wrong. That's what my Dell Inspiron Pentium III 500 is for. But on a Mac? No way.

    4. Re:Why would I want this? by Buskaatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, BTW, I run Debian. I don't see any reason for these specialized PPC only Distros, and I don't know why they make news. Why would I want a distribution for one architecture that's different from the distro on all the other architectures I run? Also, why would I want to wait the rediculous periods between yellow dog releases when I can just use debian unstable and have the latest and greatest daily?

      Some people will "settle" for mostly latest but ultimately greatest, so that they get the stability they require and the beauty of an up to date system. Also, many computer users (most likely less experienced than you are) are looking for a simple installation that doesn't require an intimate knowledge of the hardware.

      With YDL you get the simple installation of a RH-like distro and the power of apt-get to install and upgrade.

      And last, thanks to an active user community, updates to YDL are coming faster and faster. This community is increasing in size and aggression as we speak. Go to irc.freenode.net and join #yellowdog to see what I'm talking about.

  3. It's now official by arvindn · · Score: 5, Funny
    Number of Linux Distributions Surpasses Number of Users

    Somewhere in California - At 8:30 PDT with the release of Snoopy Linux 2.1, Goober Linux 1.0, and Yellow Dog Linux 3.0, the number of Linux distributions finally surpassed the number of actual Linux users.

    "We've been expecting it for some time," Merrill Lynch technology analyst Tom Shayes said, "but this is a little sooner than most expected. We've seen explosive growth in the number of Linux distributions, in fact my nephew just put out LittleLinux Chart Tommy Linux 1.1 last week."

    Long time Linux guru Bob Tallman said, "This is great for the open source movement. I have 7 different versions installed on my computer at home. Some guys I know have over 30."

    Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer said, "Microsoft will have to play catch up with the number of versions that Linux has, but we think we can do it. With the break up of Microsoft imminent that will instantly double the number of Windows versions available."

    Microsoft also announced the release of Pocket PC for Workgroups, Windows GT special edition and Windows 2000 - the Director's Cut with special code added by Bill Gates himself that wasn't in the original release.

  4. Re:Running Mac apps by extrarice · · Score: 4, Informative

    [quote:]
    Is there an equivalent of Wine for running Mac OS X applications on Linux/PowerPC?
    [/quote]
    Yes, it's called "Mac On Linux", available here.
    Basically, it boots the MacOS on top of Linux, as opposed to emulation.

    --
    "Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
  5. As I've asked before. by OS24Ever · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why ruin a perfectly good system with Mac OS X and install Linux over it?

    Sure I can see running this on an old PowerMac that Mac OS X doesn't support. But wasting your time/effort to wipe out a prefectly good *nix based system that you can actually buy software off a shelf in a store for (besides the 50 distros)

    Just seems like a waste of time.

    Now, the little BriQ device they have, sure, YDL would be cool on them. But to wipe out a new system with Mac OS X 10.2.x on it seems wrong.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:As I've asked before. by chriseh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why ruin a perfectly good system with Mac OS X and install Linux over it?

      Well, to each his own I guess. My experience with MacOS X hasn't been that good. We have over 15 Macs in our office (all G4s or iMac G4s) - most of them running MacOS X but mine only run YDL. For the most part, I get much better performance/response than my colleagues, even after Apple has added yet another beta browser to MacOS X. The anti-aliasing of everything in MacOS X also gives me a headache on CRT monitors after about an hour.

      Also, call me old fashioned, but I still believe in free (as in "Freedom"), and MacOS X ain't. I use YDL, because they are a small company that *only* does PPC, so I know that their attention will be on *my* hardware and not some entirely different architecture.

      While I'm starting to dislike MacOS X less, I still can't work with it anywhere near as quickly as Linux. And, with YDL on my Powerbook, I can setup a micro version of my servers and develop on a closed system while on the train, etc. with the exact same paths/etc. as my servers (IBM Xseries running RedHat, YellowDog briQs and G4s running YDL). Running the same OS on all my hardware makes it really easy to move the code around different architectures. It also means that I'm not forced to use a specific architecture, and can get the hardware that best suits the needs.

      So, while YDL might not be for you, but if you own/like Apple hardware, having a distro that keeps your hardware relavant for longer is a good thing for you - whether you use it or not.

    2. Re:As I've asked before. by daeley · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Then I found that there was no colour in the shell, no vim, no bash, no multiple desktops."

      Yeah, that's really too bad.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  6. Redundant by Tehrasha · · Score: 3, Informative

    As YDL is based on RH, the uproar shouldnt be any more extreme than usual.

  7. Re:Bravo by tuffy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pure plagiarism. If one's going to steal old articles, the least one can do is reference the original.

    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  8. Re:I'm confused... by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps I don't understand but the whole reason I purchased an iMac was to have the great OS and the suite of apps that came with it. The hardware is good but nothing that amazing and could be purchased on the pc side for a lot less money if all you are going to do is turn around and install a linux distro. Am I missing why this is a "Good Thing"?

    Can you say "powerbook"? I don't think you can buy one without an OS on it for cheaper than you get an apple branded one...
    You may think that there are equivalent ibm clone laptops, but alot of people like the design and performance of the powerbook and can't get what they want elsewhere...

    --
    Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
  9. Silence, infedel! by RatBastard · · Score: 5, Funny

    The streets shall run with the blood of the nonbeleivers! You shall put Linux on your Mac! You shall put Linux on your XBox! You shall put Linux on your Mr. Coffee! To not use Linux is to be in league with The Devil!

    Hell, I don't know. Linux (well, Unix in general) makes my head hurt.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  10. Re:Unified desktop by friedmud · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, everyone needs to figure out that the "uproar" was NOT about having a unified look.

    MOST of the developers were mad because they changed KDE _fundamentally_ - they made incompatibilities in the libraries. This had/has the effect of some programs not even being able to be compiled on red-hat - and most developers I know that use red-hat have recompiled their kde and kde_libs so they work "correctly".

    The rest of the gripes weren't really grounded - most of the kde developers I know didn't care about how they made it look.

    Derek

  11. Re:Running Mac apps by Buskaatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there an equivalent of Wine for running Mac OS X applications on Linux/PowerPC? How many of the libraries in Mac OS X have equivalents in Linux (how close is GNUstep to Apple's stuff, etc)?

    GNUstep works okay with Apple stuff although there are some compile issues because of Aqua. Linux Journal has a neat article about this. You can view the TOC here