Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors

Posted by pudge on from the cute-and-fluffy dept.

Morganic writes "After checking periodically for the past couple days, I noticed that YDL 3.0 has hit the mirrors, a day early (in fact, the page above still says it's not available, but the mirrors at the bottom are carrying it). Anyone got a BitTorrent?"

14 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. ....7 Years of Bad Luck! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors" ....Just what Yellow Dog Linux needs, 7 years of bad luck for each mirror broken.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  2. Changes... by icemax · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yellow Dog Linux version 3.0 is Terra Soft's most recent release which offers a completely rebuilt Installer, 1300 packages on 6 CDs (3 Install, 3 Source), a unified KDE and GNOME desktop environment featuring shared menus, applications, and user interface. With enhanced support for the latest ATI and NVidia graphics cards (full 3D support for the ATI Radeon series), "video issues" are a thing of the past.

    Very nice!
    --


    __________
    Love conquers all... except CANCER
  3. Er. by rplacd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They probably haven't made the release public because they want the mirrors to catch up. Now that you've told the world about it, the mirror sites have to compete with users trying to download it.

  4. Yeah, it's out by yummyporkproducts · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I downloaded it last night, though I've run into problems installing it.... I manage to get 98% done and the installer crashes. Grrrr

    1. Re:Yeah, it's out by apemn88 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep...downloaded at 22k/s, burnt it, and it crashed just before finishing. Anyone got this to actually install? I'm running dual 1.42, Radeon 9000, gig of RAM....

    2. Re:Yeah, it's out by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Informative

      iso 3 is bad. Seems to be bad on all mirrors.

  5. Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors" ...a handful of people rejoice! :-)

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors by jeblucas · · Score: 3, Informative
      "Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors" ...a handful of people rejoice! :-)
      That's kind of unfair. YDL is just about the only hope for users of some older Macs to keep the machines interesting. My 225MHz PPC Performa 6500 is looking forward to it's life as a MAME box.
      --
      blarg.
  6. Re:Is Bit Torrent faster? by mhesseltine · · Score: 5, Informative

    I understand the concept of BitTorrent, but is it a faster download or is it just being nice to Terra Soft's poor little mirrors?
    It's a bit of both. Because you are sharing up/down bandwidth with other users, you may find that you can d/l from 5 people each @ 200Kbps, for a d/l of 1Mbps, which may be more than the one mirror can handle. Also, since the downloads come from peers, it does reduce the bandwidth necessary for the mirror to provide.

    For more info on BT, visit the official BitTorrent site.

    --
    Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
  7. There's nothing "OS X-only" about them by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple hasn't done anything to prevent any other OS from booting on the new machines; it simply isn't updating Mac OS 9 to support them any longer. Nothing sinister, nothing crippled, no "blocking".

    That said, Yellow Dog Linux supports machines as the team has the chance to add such support. It already supports, for instance, the 12" PowerBook and the Xserve family. They may be a little behind the latest product introductions, but support will always be added.

  8. Re:Why bother? by Eagle7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I cannot stand the UI in OS X (I am too attached to X Windows, with X style copy & paste, multiple desktops with edge flipping, and sloppy focus). And the OS X mouse driver sucks - the acceleration (AFAIK) is horrible and not adjustable, and none of the third party utilities for it have made it usable enough for me.

    That, and after 6 or 7 years, I just understand and am comfortable with Linux.

    Not that I don't think OS X is a good and/or capable OS, and that some of the iApps are really slick. But being comfortable with the UI is #1 with me, and I just can't get comfortable with OS X's UI. Really the only think I miss running Linux on my iBook (read: have to boot into OS X for) is playing DVDs on my TV. And Flash I guess. Other than that, it's perfect.

    --
    _sig_ is away
  9. Re:Why bother? by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Heh, ya couldn't see this one coming a mile away...

    Some Linux die-hards buy Apple laptops because they are the nicest laptops around. These people are just really into Linux, so they don't want OS X.

    Another major use is for older computers. Pretty much any OldWorld machine is going to be too slow to enjoy OS X. Throwing Linux on these machines can extend their usefulness. They can be used as fileservers, routers, mp3 players, etc. Some people also use them as their main desktop, although I personally think Mac OS is just fine for older computers.

    However, I think it is rather foolish to run Linux on newer Apple hardware. OS X is just too uber-cool. Besides, the only thing I've found that runs on Linux but not on OS X is MOL, but amazingly I've gotten by so far without it. ;) But to each his own, and if Linux users want to buy Apple hardware, I'm glad they are supporting my favorite computer company.

  10. Re:Newbie question. by ramdam · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mac OSX only runs on modern mac with lot of RAM (read 256+) and good video card.

    I have older PM 6500 and Imac Rev B that can't run Mac OS X (not supported, not enough RAM, not enough CPU power).

    I've installed YellowDogLinux 2.3 on both, it just works ;-)

    I don't feel the need to upgrade to 3.0 since they are used headless, as servers not as desktop.

  11. Re:All iMacs are supported by ramdam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're right Mac OS X's "officially" supported (I knew that, sorry for having generalized).

    However, the idea I tried to outline is still valid. On older macs , installing Linux may be a better investment than Mac OSX:

    (1) On such computers Mac OS X is slow, even after upgrading memory, there's still bottlenecks like bus speed, slow CPU, slow I/O, while linux can accomodate itself of such low-end config. Sure, as you say, KDE and Gnome should be avoided, but twm for example run correctly. On the other side, we cannot change the window manager of Mac OSX.

    (2) They have not very standard memory extensions and it's not that cheap to upgrade (when it's possible) them to a point that you can use Mac OS X without pain.

    Regarding Darwin, I don't know much but may be it's an alternative for server use. I haven't chosen it, because at that time I didn't trust him enough and used Mac OS X as a development platform only.

    By the way, my imac is "really" headless because the screen is dead (THT problem, I was told it often happened on this model). I had to borrow 6500's monitor to do the Linux installation. (Hopefully, The internal video connector in the iMac was the same - DB15)