Slashdot Mirror
Cheap PPC Linux Machines From IBM
ksheff writes "According to this story, IBM is planning on introducing low-end SMP servers and deskside machines based on the PPC970. The machines would be able to run Linux and AIX. A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
That cheap beowulf boxen are better in general. And if 1 component in Beowulf fales, it's a "Plug'N'Chug" for a new box.
1 Word. Cheap.
And since it's running linux (if it was Macos, it'd be from apple), why does hardware platfor matter? I thought the Linux branches to X hardware platforms were something Linux-kiddies always yelled?
Nice. But irrevalent.
Unless I'm missing something, this could definately serve as a linux workstation. The power of the new G5 with linux, what could be better?
Now if I only had a spare $3,500 to spend on it...
In linux libertas
- Identify a product which is not being provided, but which there is a demand for.
- Sell that product to consumers at a price which is reasonable, but higher than what it costs you to produce each unit.
- Profit!
Hmm, that sounds different from normal somehow. Maybe they're on to something here.A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
With those sorts of prices, they're going to get it, too! The cheapest Itanium 2 system money can buy (HP zx2000) costs $3500, more or less, and would run like a dog compared to e.g. a 4-way 1.6GHz PPC970 system.
Looks like Intel's competition is going to be coming more and more from IBM, not AMD...
I'd rather spend $3000 and get a dual 2Ghz PPC970 in two months rather than waiting for the IBM that probably won't even run Panther.
We just heard on Slashdot that the new 3 billion plant wasn't living up to expectations, so IBM has to capitalize on this oppurtunity.
This is also a good thing for the mac community because now the G5 will get a lot more "work" done on it, because IBM will have to compete with other 64-bit manufacturers on a broader stage than just the Mac arena.
Error 407 - No creative sig found
It'd be nice to have like a sub-$1200 chunk of hardware running on PPC970. It probably wouldn't even dent Apple's market share unless someone figures out how to run OS X on it.
PPC970 + remote VNC anyone?
You're gut feeling is probably wrong. They're unlikely to have the same architecture as the G5, just the same CPU...
Of course with Linux on Mac you could get it to run....
Quad proc OSX in MOL on IBM? Sounds tasty to me!
I wonder if this will push Apple to stick a couple more chips in the Power Macs? Maybe IBM's plan was to put together a cheap system to get Apple to buy more chips from them.
I wonder how difficult it would be to run OS X on a machine like that described in the article.
If a dual processor G5 is $3K and a 4-way IBM PPC970 workstation is $3500, it seems like a no-brainer over which one to pick.
-Alex
They could probably be made to run OSX without too much work. There are existing non Apple PPC boards which are reputed to run OSX either stand alone or through MacOnLinx.
The problem is licensing. The EULA for OSX stipulates that OSX may only be run on Apple hardware.
Now wash your hands.
It would be interesting to see how they compare with the PowerMac. With a 4 way system that costs only $500 more then apple's two ways this could provide some good competition for in the scientific/heavy compute PPC niche. Maybe this will show the way for 4 way xservs/highend workstations from apple.
Could IBM pose a challenge to Apple in the notebook market with PPC-driven machines? Since the new PPC chip runs cooler while drawing less power, it might fit the bill. Perhaps someone more familiar with PPC architecture could discuss the technical viability of such a beast.
As for economic/consumer viability, right now nearly all the software I use is source-available (currently through Gentoo, on my Compaq Intel notebook). Nevertheless, iin the future, if I need to use pre-compiled, 3rd party software like Mathematica, IDL, etc. PPC+Linux might prove to be too small a market even with IBM's backing -- vendor "lock-out."
Unless it's prices significantly lower than Apple's offerings, I wouldn't bet on it as a workstation. MacOSX already offers a great kernel with an even better GUI, and right now I wouldn't put money on Linux against that for a work desktop.
The server market, on the other hand will definitely get a great boost. Cheap PPC970 and 64-bit = heaven for databases, web, and app servers.
The memory bus speeds seemingly leave Intel in the dust. Pair those chips with a nice SATA RAID storage solution and a really fast PCI bus and those should be some seriously fast machines. Do they have linux working on the G5 yet?
I think it's clear from this just how much IBM fears SCO!
:-P
Belief is the currency of delusion.
... Wouldn't it be valid to say that G5's
(1) Before too long *will* be less than $3500, if they aren't already
(2) Will quite soon be able to run Linux [hop over to Debian, you'll see that Debian is quite into porting their systems]
(3) If they're able to run Linux, will also be able to run AIX?
I wonder if this is what IBM is thinking as well, in general. But I'd bet that these low-end servers either will be a lot like a Mac, or else they'll actually be more expensive than a Mac before three years runs out. Mac, though they don't sell like M$, still has a ton of sales every year.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
your dum.
For $3500, this system sounds like a really good deal. If I had the money I would absolutely buy this as my Linux only workstation, wouldn't that be cool! But I wonder if Linux is good enough to handle 4 processors? Won't much of this power be wasted? I am also interested more in the details around this processor? Will it use the same processors as the new Apple computers, or will they be better? Also will it use the new 1000 mHz bus? Thanks for helping me out.
Come on now, $3500 for a quad server isn't anything close to "cheap". Checking pricewatch, you can buy a quad Xeon board for under $500, and Xeons@2.4GHz for under $250. That leaves you with $2000 to spend on a power supply, hard disks, etc, for a machine that will kick the crap out of this great machine IBM will release sometime in the future. And when Opteron comes out IBM's machine will look like even more of a POS.
Je ne se qua?
If Intel and MS proceed to only allowing signed software this could provide a nice escape path for Linux users
I don't get it. Call me stupid but ppc Linux does not seem to be nearly up to the same grade as OS X. I'm not saying Linux isn't, just ppc Linux. OS X/Darwin is entirely optimized for ppc and is developed entirely towards that end. ppc Linux is a port from something else (albeit a good one). Is IBM looking at developing a market that doesn't exist yet? Why does this strike me as being another example of corporate indirection for lack of a better idea?
Don't they know that SCO 0\/\/n0R5 both Linux and AIX?
</HUMOR>
HUMOR tags added for the humor impaired, to comply with the ADA.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Everyone go to dealsea.com and check out the deal Dell is having right now, just under $400 for a P4 2.4GHz server. Remember, these are available TODAY, not sometime in the future maybe. You can buy four of these and build a Beowulf cluster for $1600 which will totally smoke this box from IBM. Then you can take another $400 and buy another Dell box to run Windows on, and you'll still have $1500 left over. Now, take the $1500 and go to Las Vegas. It shouldn't cost more than $300 for a plane ticket, southwest.com has good fares I hear. Get a penthouse in the MGM for another $300, a bottle of Cris for $200, and you STILL have $700 left over for HOOKERS!!
So the question is, which would you rather have? One stinking IBM quad server, or a faster Beowulf cluster of Dell boxes AND a Windows box for games or whatever AND a crazy night in Vegas with HOT BABES?? The choice is obvious.
Does anybody else think that "quad PPC" sounds like some kind of super-weapon?
So either you don't own an iBook, haven't used OS X and are just lying about blue beachballs, or you do own an iBook and see the beachball so little you don't even know what it looks like.
Which is it?
...is that you're comparing a build-it-yourself solution to an OEM solution. The OEM solution means you don't have to spend the time and effort to build the machine, that there is a (hopefully) semi-intelligent person on the other end of an 800 number to provide support, and that if the machine goes berserk, they will be there to fix it under warranty. Two very different situations, IMO.
...for a machine that will kick the crap out of this great machine IBM will release...
Based on everything I've read thus far, it seems to me the PPC970 cheaps are substantially more efficient than their P4 counterparts at the same clock speed. Because of that, I hardly doubt a quad Xeon 2.4 system would "kick the crap out" of a quad PPC970 2.0 system. It seems you're exaggerating a bit--or perhaps you have something to backup your claim?
And when Opteron comes out...
Opteron has been out for close to 3 months now. Machines are available from several vendors. Google is your friend.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
is anyone buying itanium chips? I think most of intel's fire in the server market comes from Xeon sales. The Opteron competes against the Xeon, not the itanium.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I hate having to rely on Ms machines because I am either getting patches or rebooting. I still have as many problems with the new versions, just different kinds. I wish everyone would switch to Linux machines running Samba!
Regards, Jake Johnson http://www.plutoid.com
As we all know, .... x 1
$3500! = 3500 x 3499 x 3498 x 3497
That's reeeally expensive!
What's really important is if we see IBM release a real compiler for the 970. gcc is a complete joke on PPC.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Is that how Sammy Davis Jr lost his eye?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Bah. Ya'll ruined my joke.
A 4U base system will be around $3500. That would then definitely be a two-processor machine. Given that Apple is selling dual 2GHz 970 machines for $3000, you're paying a rackmount-premium on that machine from IBM. And, when it comes out it will have to compete with the 970 based XServe which will eventually come from Apple. The bigger win will be the 4-cpu machines, by virtue of having no immediate competition for that higher end machine. (oh, aside from x86-64, SPARC, MIPS, etc. But we were talking PPC)
Of course if rackmounting is your thing, you already know what it's worth.
The other benefit is that it might be more Linux friendly than Apple hardware.
Start Running Better Polls
IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006
So that's like how many? 20 PPC servers in 2006?
(no no, seriously I do like the idea, it's just hard to tell if $3500 is going to get me more than a similarly equiped Intel/AMD system)
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
The DMCA actually prohibits that (common carrier clause).
YHBT
Someone will have to figure out how to get a Mac boot ROM onto a non-apple PPC box. This could be fairly tricky... however if you give a bunch of *nix geeks some cheep PPC 970's, someone WILL figure this out.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
First IBM doesn't bat an eyelash over SCO's threats, then SCO offers some kind of deal to Linux users so SCO won't sue them, and now IBM is steamrolling over them.
If a top tier manufacturer mentions that they are going to offer more cpus at the same price as the older systems, this should really get an IT manager excited. Up the megahertz and mention that it's a new design... and it should sell even more. Who really cares where the 4way numbers (SPECfp_rate2000,SPECint_rate2000) come in at... IT managers just need one database benchmark quoted, and they're ready to buy. IBM marketing finally woke up. Intel has been doing that for 4 years now...
Soong sez:Ummm....well then (from the article):Yah. RTFA.
IBM developed the chip, which means they developed a mobo along with it for testing. Apple had to make their own design, and they had to make it look good, and be quiet, home-friendly, and stylish. IBM gets to stamp out big ugly boxes, because really, unless you're talking about a secretary, no one in the office ever says "That is a nice lookin' rack!"
This leads me to believe the 2U model will be priced even lower. No mention is made, however, about clock speeds, although I'm, sure IBM will make nice fast ones avalible, a $3500 base configuration for the 4U probably means four-way 1GHz. Why would the fastest chips come in the base model?
All in all, however, these will be nice machines, and if you've ever wanted to escape the x86 world, PPC is a nice place to do it (speaking from experience). They are slightly ahead of Apple's current offerings, however IBM has the advantage there, the 970 being their own.
And if you want to run Mac OS X, you'll be disapointed.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
1. Are all the GCC optimizations that Apple made for the PPC970 being folded back into the mainline?
2. How does the PPC970 compare to the Opteron performance wise?
3. How long before someone comes out with an emulation ROM so that you can run OSX on these bad boys?
-r
Granted its version 4.2 but it can be done.
Link to the list of available platforms.
If these do well I see no reason for Wolfram to ignore it or treat it like a second class system. The fact that it exists shows there was enough demand already for it. Plus IBM will undoubtedly port a good chunk of their software titles to it.
I hope you die painfully and alone.
Once mortal enemies, IBM and Apple are strategic partners now. In the deepest sense of the phrase.
Isn't that weird for two companies who were mortal enemies less than 20 years ago?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
That's an excellent product idea. I know I'd buy
an IBM pda just for the cool black case with the
IBM letters on it. That would become a geek fetish
item overnight. Expecially if it rocked and was
actually useful.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Some of us out here prefer richer computing enviorenments than a stagnant one (which is what an all x86 world would be) You remind me of some moron game developers I met once at a conference who bashed everything from OS X and linux all the way to Solaris and AIX... Quote
IBM is making a push into the "low end" (cheap) world with this, and you can believe this if you want, but this is just the start. They want Linux on the corporate and enthusiast desk and they want it on PowerPC.
skipping ahead to modern times,
The US and Germany
The US and Japan
Sun and IBM
HP and MS
Apple and IBM
nothing new here...
Hmm.. I wonder if the new Amiga OS4 that is about to be released could eventually run on one of these? (os4 is suppose to eventually support the G5 and smp)
"U" is the size of the server, not the number of CPUs, genius.
Since you are obviously not in any position to buy, use, admin, or touch a "server", why are you commenting?
Of course, dual membership between the SJP and the GNAA is theoretically possible, but not recommended.
Hmmm... I'm a gay jew who likes big nigger cock. Which organization is best for me?
and since when did we start caring about the EULA?
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
IBM already shoulders the enormous design costs of POWER4 for their high-end pSeries unix boxes. The tweaks necessary to make the PPC 970 for Apple have already been done at Apple's behest. It costs IBM very little additional R&D money to make low-end servers based on a chip they already design and manufacture for other reasons.
This makes PPC the only competitor to x86 in the commodity server space, except Sun, but Sun's product lineup grows more stale and outclassed by the day. Using IBM's compiler the 2GHz PPC970 performs approximately equivalently to a 2.8GHz p4 using icc, which is far beyond the performance offered by the in-order execution (!!) 1.05 GHz UltraSparc iii.
Having an alternative to x86 in the server space is desirable, because PPC will always have better heat dissipation and power consumption at a given level of performance. These are important considerations especially in the blade server market. In addition these are 64-bit boxes which will allow going beyond the 4GB memory barrier without using the "segmented memory" hack of the 36-bit memory addressed Xeons.
In short, this could work.
The base configuration of a 4-way server is probably 1 CPU.
Hi, my name is Rob Malda, and I'd like to talk to you about my history with the SJP. I joined the organization in 1996, under the impression that I was in fact joining the Super Jesus Posse, a new and exciting group based in New York.
Though I had doubts about my acceptance with this group, they made me feel welcome, and so I stayed for about five years and felt like I had found my true calling. Then one day, while conversing with a fellow member, I came upon a startling fact; there were Jews in the club. JEWS! What's more, many of them were straight. This was obviously terribly shocking to me, and suddenly I felt alone in the world.
My dreams of massive torrid gay orgies with club leadership suddenly vanished, and I felt naked in a world of heterosexual zionists. Even that cute club treasurer with his sexy yarmulke seemed hostile and alien. The dream was over and it was time to move on.
For many months, I felt terribly alone in the world. Suicidal, even. Then, one day, while walking around the run down part of town, I found a pamphlet fluttering in the breeze against a lightpole. Picking it up, I read those inspirational, motivating, uplifting words on its cover:
Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?
It was like a massive black cock-shaped weight had been lifted from my back. I called their number, attended some introductory meetings, and shortly became a member. In the short time that I've been involved with GNAA, I've had massive free gay sex with my ebony bretheren, helped erect a nigger-only turkish bath, and learned to hate the Straight Jew opressors that had made my life miserable all those years. My life had been made whole.
So if you're feeling black and gay in a straight and jewish world, please, call the GNAA today, you'll be glad you did.
I am!
Four-way means 4 processors. That's 4 CPU's. :)
The GNAA. The SJP is for straight male Jews and lesbian Jews.
VisualAge C++ (xlc) for Linux
Imagine a beowulf clus.......
Ahh nevermind It just isn't fun anymore.
From the title of the story it seems like we can only run Linux on these chips?
What's wrong with putting a / between other OS's?
Besides, won't this thing be able to run NetBSD and OpenBSD as well (as Linux and AIX)?
According to sources, the Armonk, N.Y., company plans to take on Sun Microsystems Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. with Linux servers priced at the "enterprise entry level," which IBM defines as less than $25,000. Although the current share of Linux servers running on Power processors is marginal, IBM reportedly projects nearly a 20-fold increase--to almost half-a-million units--by 2006. For years now, the common American penis bird has been a staple of every American's daily diet. Whether it be penis bird sandwiches, fried penis bird, or perhaps penis bird under glass (for the rich), we all have penis bird at least once a day. Many Americans have no clue how the penis bird became so important in the pyramid of a balanced diet, so in this article I will attempt to explain its history and why it is so useful.
In the early 1870s, Francis Zefran became the first penis bird breeder in North America. He started his famous Penis Bird Ranch in Canton, OH. At the time, not much was known of the penis bird's nutritional value, but the Penis Bird Ranch changed all of that. Not only did Francis Zefran raise penis birds to sell their colorful plumes (a VERY lucrative business), he also set up the world's first research lab dedicated solely to the study of the penis bird.
The lab found many interesting things. First, it was discovered that thepenis bird was actually semi-sentient. Second, the scientists found that the meat of the penis bird was high in protein, vitamin A, vitamin B, and calcium, while low in fat, cholestorol, and sodium. Never before had such a nutritious meal been had without supplement or fortification. The scientists of the lab recommended immediately that the penis bird become a part of every American's daily diet.
When the news of the penis bird's usefulness reached president Rutherford B. Hayes, he was absolutely ecstatic. You see, President Hayes owed a number of favors to Francis Zefran because as I said earlier, the penis bird plume trade was an extremely lucrative business and Mr. Zefran was important in getting RBH elected through a number of monetary gifts. President Hayes immediately asked Congress to pass what we all know today as the Hayes/Zefran Penis Bird Consumption Act.
The act did a number of things to make the penis bird a daily meal, most important of which was the requirement that for every four people in a household, one penis bird must consumed every day. Another thing the act did was create an artificial monopoly for Francis Zefran's Penis Bird Industries. The act stated that the only supplier of penis bird meat in the US would be PBI. As one would imagine, this quickly made Francis Zefran into the richest man in the world. He was soon a multi-billionaire (quadrillionaire with today's inflation). Never before had a single man seen such wealth.
Many challenges were made to the Hayes/Zefran Penis Bird Consumption Act, and several even made it the Supreme Court. It was argued that the act was unconstitutional and went against liberty itself, but once the detractors tasted delicious penis bird meat for the first time, they immediately dropped their cases and followed the law to the letter. We all know today that penis bird is the most delicious meat man has ever known, but at that time, the only meats people ate were pork and beef.
In the early 1970s, though, challenges to the act began again. Many argued that the monopoly given to Penis Bird Industries by the act was in all ways unamerican. The Supreme Court finally agreed, and in 1974, Section II of the act was struck down. This in effect opened the market to competition for all.
Today, Penis Bird Industries is almost no more. Today we have the market leader Penis Bird Meat International facing against Penissoft, a recent startup. Where will the future lead the penis bird market? Only time will tell us, but one thing is certain: penis birds are here to stay!
-klerck (Reproduced by AC)
No shit. But when vendors call something a "4-way server", they mean that model can be configured to hold 4 CPUs. Most of the time it can also be configured to hold less. You will never get a 4-processor PowerPC 970 system for $3500, mark my words.
By the time it ships, it will run SCO!
but will they be big or little endian (PPC can in theory do both, all existing ones are big endian... boo hiss).
*laughs* I love all you people that haven't dealt with IBM before. Let me translate:
"A base configuration of the 4U is expected to cost less than $3,500, sources said."
That means the case, a power supply, and one CPU with maybe a 128MB stick of RAM. Each additional CPU module will add to the price. And did you want a hard drive in that?...
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
That would have to rate a -1, Disillusioning! :)
Why did I have feeling that there's gonna be a "PPC Jr powered by Linux/2"?
Maybe I was a bit harsh, but to me the idea of these machines are great. The fact that IBM is targeting Linux with an exceptionally powerful cpu, and are willing to support it in a way that embarasses quite a few major x86 hardware companies.
;)
Lets face it <flamesuit>Microsoft owns x86.</flamesuit> There simply is too little reason if not capability for major hardware companies (Dell, HP*, Gateway, etc.) to offer Linux to the willing masses as a primary OS or a secondary one due to MSs policies. Hell they killed BeOS that way!
With PowerPC there is "virgin" land for Linux to grow on as the PRIMARY OS. Microsoft (AFAIK) doesn't maintain the old PPC port of NT they had in the 90s and in this world THEY are the second class citizens. It's un uphill battle for them. For Linux/BSD it's pretty much a compile away from done. For a change there is a battle that will be in our favor and it won't require a pantload of fluid cash to do it either!
It's not like PowerPC isn't battle proven either. IBM has been using POWER and its variants for quite sometime now in servers and workstations running AIX. We have here a REAL architecture with 2 companies (IBM and Moto) producing REAL silicon which will be available to us to use. Motorola is trimming the dead flesh from its SPS unit and is POSSIBLY considering giving somewhat of an effort into making themselves known for phones AND cpus**. We could make this into something good and Big. We can show the WIntel juggernaut that we aren't going to stand for their locking down the only real choice for hobbyists with DRM and lame shit like that. This is as close to a fresh start as we can get. This is an oppurtunity to change the way things are going. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm starting to rant so I'll close up by saying simply that no matter what the situation is like right now it doesn't need to stay that way.
INSERT CLEVER QUOTE HERE.
PS. This rant/post isn't really directed at you, but at the brainless fucking x86 droids that thinks the sun rises and sets in their Dell PCs Intel socket.
PSS. Macs 0wn
*Yes I know HP will be offering Mandrake computers soon if they aren't already, but I really don't see them advertising in a way that could upset MS. HP has made its position known by killing off PA-RISC and Alpha (what a god damn shame this chip couldn't have been more than it was) in favor of a bastard child between them and Intel. As well as being significant players in the Pocket PC and MS Home Entertainment world
**Yes people have said this before and it nerver ever happened. They recently sold a plant in China that (at least to me) marks the end of their old bloated ways that are predominantly the reason they are nearly dead now. Now there are real rumblings in real channels that Moto wants back in the game, and if this PPC/Linux initiative pays off they will REALLY want back in. The 970 didn't just bring eyes back to Apple as a real performer in the computer world, but it brought eyes back to motorola since they are one of the bodies that started this all. Even if they don't become the AMD of PPC maybe they can at least be the Via/Cyrix.
In regards to #1
You are completely and tottaly fucking WRONG here. The only card(s) that could POSSIBLY need flashing is multimedia devices (video cards, high end sound cards, hardware video encoders, etc.) and that is due to the OS and NOT the cpu.
The PPC boxes that Terrasoft was offering a few months back with G4s in them used STOCK off the shelf AGP cards from NVIDIA and ATI.
or would you care if I started selling Linux and associated software under my own License that does not allow code sharing or even access to it?
I mean Licenses are horseshit words that mean nothing right? RIGHT?
A computer is a tool, not a home, it's not a fashion statement. OS X gets this right. Trivial time-wasters like themes--while they may keep you from getting bored--really don't have much practical value.
/. stuff, volunteering to run some free community network centers/labs
That's bull. Mac OS X only helps "just getting work done" if you're functionally computer illiterate.
I'm a creative pro (supposedly Mac's main market) and yet I do all my photo processing (which is extensive) in Linux.
Why? Becuse it's about 100x faster in Linux due to the degree that I have been able to optimize my workflow:
1) Focus-follows-mouse, always shunned by non-Unix systems and now even by Unix systems (OS X, GNOME) saves endless point-and-click strokes (find titlebar, click to focus) when you have dozens of image windows open. Each one of these is a savings of several seconds. If you're performing hundreds or thousands of manipulations on a single task in multiple windows, that adds up to hours saved, not just minutes, on focus policy alone.
2) Fast cut/paste. Here again, the reviled behavior of X (highlight with left button, move to another window that focuses automatically, middle click where you want it to paste) saves incredible amounts of time versus the OS X or Windows behaviors (highlight with left button, hit CTRL-C, click on titlebar of destination window, click where you want to place cursor for paste, hit CTRL-V). The combination of focus-follows-mouse and keystroke-free copy/paste here again saves hours, not just minutes, when performing reptitious tasks.
3) Floating windows are my call. Once again I can keep GIMP tool windows, layer/channel dialogs, a kcalc, my conferencing window and others on top at my discretion, rather than always having to hunt down and raise some windows (by clicking on a taskbar or a dock) that I know I will need over and over again or being stuck with others on top that I don't want there and that just take up screen real estate. And when I am done with them, I can release them from forceed raise behavior.
4) Ability to turn of automatic raise when windows receive a click (done by combining focus follows mouse + titlebar-raise-only). I can have one window partially obscuring another and be working (inputting) in the "lower" (partially obscured) window while referring to one or more upper windows that partially obscure it. No need to "raise this one, look, raise that one, work, raise this one, look some more, raise that one, work some more, oh hell, just make a hardcopy, hmm, where shall we set the hardcopy..."
6) Scriptability/rapid application development. Yes, the dreaded command line shell. Many of my most intense post-production tasks (i.e. laying out posters with their captions, borders, copyright notices, anti-aliasing, interpolating to proper sizes, etc.) are database driven and processed through command line tools like ImageMagick. This allows me to do things like "makeposter 20x16 img_2525.crw" and in a single pass have the image automatically fetched from archive, converted from Canon raw, edited, captioned, matted, etc. according to a list of edits and captions I've saved ahead of time for images in my database, then sent to post-production (i.e. output). Don't tell me that there is a "makeposter" command in Mac OS X that will automatically query my database of images and perform these tasks for me, or that Apple will be willing to write me one.
[Perhaps AppleScript is capable of this stuff, perhaps not... I don't know AppleScript. But I will happily refuse to buy arguements that as well as my system works for me, I should switch to Mac OS X simply because AppleScript just "gets it right" or is "just more elegant" as scripting languages go. You'll have to give me real benefits, not techno-spiritual ones.]
7) The X-factor. I take pictures and I write prose. Those are the things I do for a living. I have other things that I do as hobbies (i.e. the
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
These are coming to apple. It's not public yet, but IBM compiler folks at WWDC were askes routinely by myself and others if there is a chance we will see these on OS X. Everytime it was asked it was the same answer: Count on it.
and Apple with IBMs help are going to make DAMN SURE that it will require far too much work to even get it close to working in a suitable fashion.
Jobs/apple is not stupid they know there is a risk but the benefits (faster chip dev, cheaper, etc.) to it far outweigh any serioius risk. They will break MOL or apple will work to make sure that it (a) wont run without doing a REAL hardware check (b) make it fucking impossible for anyone who values time and quality usage to want to do it.
You haven't a clue... you can't build a 1 CPU based off of the next generation PowerPC 970 from IBM. Each chip has two CPUs.
With IBM's fabrication costs, I could see how they could see a 4way box for $3500. Probably 256-512MB ram and a 40-80GB drive along with a CD. Probably very similar to the Sun X1 when it was released.
OK! Just because the largest volume of machines shipped with AIX are pSeries running power4/+ doesn't mean it will run like shit. The 970 will crack any ops that were specialized in the first place into basic ones and run as is. AIX runs great on all Power/PPC IBM systems.
I dunno maybe he is just clueless, but I think we've been had.
Oh and the post about EULAs being worthless is just priceless! If he doesn't find them to be worth anything then let him open his CVS server up to us and snag all the game code he's got at work (hes a game dev remember)! I mean licensing is worthless!
If IBM ends up making a market for these chips with x86 users and then opens that market up to clone vendors, that would be a good thing. Since IBM is probably going to maintain control of the chips and since the use of those chips will probably require the use of IBM-authored software running on any system using these chips I am going to stay away. Have you ever used IBM Software? It is terrible. It is almost never intuitive and never adheres to usability standards that most other software vendors follow. And from the hardware side - do you remember when IBM had control of the computer industry? Entry level PCs were beyond the reach of everyday people and serious computing power was available to a smaller community than those who can fly into space today. IBM has survived in spite of itself all these years, not because of innovation or ingenuity. If this idea were brought forward by any other company (save RIAA, SCO, and DirecTV) I would be excited about this product.
1. Mail the FSF and tell them to do it. They usually won't take them for a bizarre number of reasons. You can get Apple's source for PPC-GCC in darwin.
2. Damn well. Google for some real specs on it. IMHO the only advantage that opteron has over PPC 970 is the larger cache. Though rumors abound from real sources that in the next rev of 970 cache will be doubled to 1 meg standard.
3. If they have any common sense they won't. OSX is designed for Apple hardware and would run like shit on these most likely. Not to mention the EULA forbids it. Although I find it interesting that Linux Zealots are always pissing and moaning over MS and others Licensing agreements but are ready to kill at the possible idea of someone not compling fully with the GPL. Kind of funny in a pathetic way.
why doesn't all corporations use it for their desktops?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Mac OS X doesn't work for you. I'm simply very tired of hearing that Linux/X don't work for me and I just haven't realized it yet.
... because I did not see him mentioning your name anywhere in his post. So why did you take it personally? To the vast majority of computer users out there Mac OSX is superior to Linux. It may change in the future. In the meantime you can use whatever you like.
I guess, in the future, if Linux does become a better option than Mac OSX you can say "I was right all along". But then again you weren't. It was better for you, but we were taking in general terms.
this can actualy be done with a 32 bit CPU, just more slowly.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I am a Linux user first and foremost... but the thing is, no matter HOW much time I put into customizing things, I can not make a Linux desktop as clean and easy to use as a Mac OS X desktop.
It's not just that having Only One Way To Do Things (tm) makes the easy desktop experience, but it's the fact that the One Way is thoroughly thought-out and streamlined. In Linux, we have tons of disparate pieces to put together in countless concatenations... but in the end, what we unavoidably get is an unstreamlined construct of disparate pieces.
I understand the appeal of customizing, and I do think Mac OS X could stand to allow a little more customizing without sacrificing the benefits of the OS. Linux will remain dominant on my PC desktop, and it will be dual-booted on my soon-to-be-purchased PowerBook, but the main reason I am getting the PowerBook is for Mac OS X and its ability to stay out of the way. The best OS is the one that interferes with my work the least. Mac OS X does that. Linux, when configured and tweaked to my liking and all that, does a good job by way of being stable and such, but some of those disparate pieces irritate. (Windows, of course, constantly interferes by being unstable and generally a source of irritation).
Ideally, I'd like to see Linux meet OS X halfway. Choice is good, but not when the choices are 15 different mediocre options. Can't we get 4 really good ones instead?
here
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
At least say "IMHO" and be polite. The way you put forward things makes you seem like an apple marketing droid or OSX designer.
OSX specialized things and freezes the desktop to what is considered "the best possible desktop". IMHO, there is no such thing as best possible desktop. I'd rather have the choice to run a minimalistic 50k window manager if I want.
Ahhh, nifty - I had been contemplating buying a G5 over an AMD-64 for a while now, because of the 'it's different' factor. It might also not require me to install a commercial heat extraction system in my apartment :o)
This however is better, as I can get the hardware without paying the OS X tax or the 'shiney things' tax. Not that IBM kit doesn't have a beauty of it's own, I love their pure black evilness way more than the Apple cheese grater effect.
After all, I have no need for OS X as I find Linux less irritating to use, more flexible and more powerful. I also don't need any OS X software, so that's fine.
The only problem I can see is that Linux games tend to have x86 binaries only (like UT2k3) which might push me into buying a SMP AMD-64 system instead. Although most Linux apps will work on PPC just fine, there might be the odd one that makes me less than keen.
Still, as far as servers and corporate workstations and desktops goes, it sounds like IBM might have a winner on their hands.
Beep beep.
Weapon of Mass Computation (WMC)
For the longest time I have been listing to the faint mumblings of the once so-called PowerPC Reference Platform.
/Dread
I for one, would be seriously interested in another platform besides Intel (wintel) where the hardware specs are as open as possible.
- Slower clocked RISC chips seem still to outperform the Intel line, although RISC perhaps is an outdated acronym.
- Couple this with a basically organically grown Intel MoBo based PC, with archaic Need To Have's like the floppy disk.
- Add to this a brilliant company (Apple) constantly being marginalized by having an 'incompatible' plaform.
(Apple does not want apple clones, but they sure would want to profit from the techno push the PC plaform gives to hardware)
It could end up in a faster evolving hardware platform, where software (think linux) and hardware (like Prep) evolve at the same speed (think Edsgar Dijkstra)
I, however, would not hold my breath.
Then you can run Linux userland, with all the million different ways and all. But - will I be able to use your Linux or fink desktop after your exersize of complete control? Sure I can change back the KDE theme, but what about gnome applications, xmms and so on? Since the article is about business workstations/servers rather than your hobby desktop, MacOSX on those 4-CPU machines would be a good idea indeed.
On the other hand, I have no idea what Apple is doing with Panther. Half of the windows are metal but the worst thing is that new Aqua looks kind of like metal. Perhaps a good theme manager is needed to stop this kind of abuse.
No, it sounds Awesome.
Wrong. I don't know where you got this myth but it is, indeed, a myth. That's your point 3 as well - completely misguided and misinformed.
Then the Beowulf comments, now those are really clueless. Obviously you don't understand what a Beowulf cluster is. It's a protocol for building a distributed supercomputer using multiple linux boxes. You could make a Beowulf cluster with these, if you wanted to, but talking about the performance of a PPC970 versus that of a Beowulf cluster in general is simply nonsense. You're just horribly confused, or trolling.
The power consumption statement definately makes me lean towards trolling. That's marvelously clueless, totally reversing the actual relationships. The PPC lines run very cool compared to Intel and AMDs offerings, but you claim the opposite.
So yes, you definately deserve the modslapping, and another one as well. If you don't know something that's no shame, but if you don't have a clue and start spouting off whatever comes into your head pretending to be an expert, that is shameful indeed.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
well, you better believe it, as the article actually say:
...
"The ULE models, which will run Linux and IBM's AIX OS, will ship in 2U two-way and 4U four-way configurations. A base configuration of the 4U is expected to cost less than $3,500, sources said."
And it is actually believable as it also points out:
"IBM will stress better performance than Xeon-based servers, 32- and 64-bit compatibility with no migration costs or penalties, and linear price scaling from two-way to four-way systems."
This is a key feature of power4's design: the ability to have low cost multi processor systems (apple ships 1-way 1.8Ghz at $2.4K and 2-way 970s at $3k -- same configuration)
>Of course, if they ever DID come out with a 4-way
>PPC system for $3500, you'd better believe it would increase
>the hell out of how many people run Linux on PPC.
>I'd sure as heck buy one!!
tell me about it
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
ah oh ignorant one OPenBoot or the forth firmware on PPCs can boot any OS you want including shudder winNT..
read up on the PCI spec sometime you might get an education..
The only other company besides IBM and Apple to fully support PCI spec is Sun..
Notice Intel and MS are not in that group
Don't Tread on OpenSource
IBM gets to stamp out big ugly boxes, because really, unless you're talking about a secretary, no one in the office ever says "That is a nice lookin' rack!"
My God man! You made me laugh so hard, I swear a little pee came out!
I doubt this is connected at all with Apple's 970 offerings. IBM is already moving their AIX heritage to allegedly scaleable Linux, which is cool in concept (if unproven), and they are replacing their own Power architecture with PPC 970 - this is simply IBM staying in the UNIX server market - within their own strategic initiatives. A move I welcome, as it gives me at least a hope of a second non-Itanium based UNIX vendor 5-10 years from now.
They can pry my MIPS based Irix boxes from my cold, dead fingers - but someday I'll feel differently (when those boxes are really old and no longer supported). When that time comes, I'd prefer not to run Itanium (I still don't trust Intel for serious server work) and I'd prefer not to run Solaris/UltraSPARC - I trust Sun even less than I trust Intel - at least since they got all corporate.
What I REALLY hope, is that HP decides to offer HP-UX on either Itanium or PPC in the future - giving customers like me a choice not to use Itanium... HP has dealt with IBM before - and it worked (LVM is feature starved, but rock solid).
The desktop discussion (Apple or Amiga clones) is really non-sequitor - though it could be an interesting side-benefit of the new servers...
The 64bit offerings from AMD look more compelling to me: they give you comparable performance, cost less, and are fully backwards compatible with existing x86 software. You can already buy high-end dual-processor systems, and the desktop versions are going to be out later this year. If you are going to run Linux, they seem like a better choice.
I do wish that non-x86 platforms, like PPC, would become more widely used so that the Penguin's eggs aren't all in one basket, but realistically, I don't see it happening. Linux runs quite well on PPC, but some things just don't work: some compilers and JITs don't have a PPC backend, the AltiVec macros screw up some compilation, etc. But it's nice that IBM is trying; maybe if the get really aggressive on the pricing, they will make some inroads. $3500 for a 4x machine might do it, although AMD will do 4x as well at a reasonable price.
You'll thank IBM for making these available in a couple of years.. once Sun, SGI and Apple are out of business and the only new reasonably priced PC you can buy runs Palladium and won't boot Linux or anything else. Think of the XBox as the first incarnation of that concept. Yes, Linux does run on the X with some tinkering, but the Palladium concept is there. Maybe by the time Palladium rolls out they'll have things sufficiently locked down.
Microsoft, Intel, AMD and other manufacturers have banded together to give Microsoft another opportunity to shove it's operating system down your throat. I applaud IBM for making other hardware available to the linux community. You should too.
No linux geeks respond.
osx is no longhorn. we all know that. I know your amped about getting the latest kde gnome desktop, and you think that you have really powerful image editing software.
but i'm sorry. Apples interface is amazing and very well thought out. apple's R&D department cannot be matched. i use KDE, with gentooooo currently, i'm sorry, but unless your on better drugs than me, if you find that interface anything but two steps back, some weird emulation of some weird OS that's between 2k and '98.
maybe that's why you think it's more efficiant...
maybe your just a 10 year old too.
learn how to mod.
But it doesn't actually say that the base configuration comes with 4 cpus at this price. It's very common for IBM and others to offer a lower price configuration with empty cpu sockets for later upgrades.
You might want to look into kegel exercises. They're not just for women.
The GCC community was contacted by an IBM
representative last Thursday with a plan
for adding automatic vectorisation to
the GCC "middle" end (i.e., the machine
independent optimization passes).
Toon Moene, current GNU Fortran maintainer.
much, much more than $3500
In addition to NetBSD and OpenBSD, even FreeBSD will soon be runnable on the PPC.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I think the most important thing this announcement portends is a shift away from the architecture consolidation we've seen for several years now.
We have lost or are losing several hardware platforms: HP PA RISC, Compaq Alpha, and a recent SGI presentation I attended hinted MIPS is on the way out in favor of Itanium.
IBM's commitment to a non-Intel architecture is will help prevent this slide into x86 uniformity.
Not only that, but different arch's are _interesting_ in and of themselves. Try picking up a used SparcStation or SGI machine and install Linux or Unix on it. It will make you appreciate that you have choices other than ia32/64.
I work for a company that has IBM doing the support for our Netfinity and eServer server systems in the field.
In short, their support is atrocious. Their techs are awful and their parts have some of the worst build quality I've ever seen. The techs are constantly calling US about hardware issues. They come and go like crazy because IBM hires and fires them without a second thought.
Maybe the PPC970 hardware situation would be different. Maybe it's a different division. But I dunno if I'd count on it.
FYI.
+++ATH0
why not? let's do the math:
you can get a 2-way system with great graphic cards and combo drives etc under $3k from apple...
the difference between 1-way 1.8ghz and 2-way 2ghz is $600 with the same configuration, again from apple. forget that it's a better processor (1.8-->2ghz), the difference should be say 300 (?) for the actuall second processor, and $300 for the dual mobo.
** REMEMBER the article: "IBM will stress better
performance than Xeon-based servers, 32- and
64-bit compatibility with no migration costs or
penalties, and linear price scaling from
two-way to four-way systems"
linear, that is the 4-way mobo will cost something like $300-$600 more and 2 more 970's something like $600 more. (maybe the motherboard cost more, and the processors less, maybe the opossite -- who cares?)
now take out the great graphic card, the design, the superdrive, use the 1.6ghz models etc. doesn't that sum up around $3,5k?
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
If you actually read the article, it says something like "a base 4U configuration is expected to cost less than $3500". That's not 4-way boys. That's probably just a very large single CPU box. Better would be a 4-way 1U box, but if it is to exist, I'm guessing it will be much much more expensive.
Ender-
Nothing to see here
Really, where is the market for these boxes? Linux on non-x86 is a fringe market...and I mean a fringe of a fringe. There isn't enough interest there to market to.
I applaud them for trying to create competition but I think outside of very high end and vertical installations, the Power architecture is going to be limited to Apple boxes when it comes to desktop users.
I am wondering if this posturing and the Apple deal will put any of the Opteron or other deals with AMD in jeopardy considering this server is squarely in the market / price range of the Opterons.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
> IBM gets to stamp out big ugly boxes
Actually, IBM usually makes remarkably nice looking boxes. As for desktops, the Aptivas looked pretty good. The two Netfinities I've seen are damn good looking, a whole not better looking than the Compaqs of the same time period. Likewise, the older AS/400s are damn nice looking too. They tend towards a solid black, but I like that.
Now, I admit that's all based off slightly older boxes, because those are what I have in the living room, but they are most definitely not 'big and ugly.'
The $3,500 USD is not the price of a 4-way capable, 4 rack unit system fully configured with 4 CPUs. From the article:
"A base configuration [emphasis added] of the 4U is expected to cost less than $3,500, sources said."
The $3,500 USD is likely the price of a 4-way capable, 4 rack unit system configured with only one CPU (a typical base configuration). Assuming about $1,000 to $1,500 USD for the server chassis, LVD SCSI boot disk, and memory, the PPC970 CPU is going to run for around $2,000-$2,500 USD per processor.
A fully configured 4-way PPC970 server will probably cost about $10,000 USD.
About a year or so ago I started watching the 64 bit race with AMd and Intel Racing to the finish line. Imagine my shock when apple releases the first deskop offering at a resonably fair price. I like apple I have an apple but I really wanted something nice to run Linux on something for me to goof on on while my wife uses the mac and then IBM releases this. Hello Intel AMD WTF? get you asses in gear and give some reasonable compition will ya?
Sun and Wintel both have an advantage with blades. They may not be as fast as IBM's offerings but they cost only %15 as much. 100k for an AIX RS/6k despite the advantages is unacceptable to all but a selected few who are now cutting costs.
However these machines are not workstations but blade servers. If you want a fast risc powerpc workstation I would suggest the new Apple G5's. They have more software, 6.4 ghz internal bandwith, serial ATA, PCI-X 800 mhz bus, and other goodies. Not to mention you can run MS-Office, games, and other apps.
Linux on anything non intel really just includes OSS software. Not really worth it if your willing to spend big bucks.
http://saveie6.com/
According to http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003- 07-17#198
:
"We have demonstrated yesterday that Panther can support n processors, and really large amount of RAM.
Several different sources have confirmed the circulating rumor that we already had received in the past
Apple and IBM could be associated to developp and manufacture computer with n processors, where n could go til 64 G5! The project is internally named "Dark Star".
Each processor will have 4 memory slots, for a maximum allocated RAM of 16GB (when the 4 GB RAM modules). The 64 processors-based configuration will support up to 1 TB of RAM.
It will be possible to install in those computer many ATI graphic cards, and to use them in paralell, in order to allow a very high quality rendering.
Prototypes based on 8, 16, 32 and 64 processors are already working fine.
those machines will be available with an enclosure similar that to the G5' one.
The pre-production should start next month, but the availability should only be at the end of the year together with Panther Server.
Price will vary from 12 000 $ for the 8 CPUs version to 50 0000 $ for the top version including all the optionis.
Some people will probably consider this as a risky project. However, it seems that Apple and IBM could have already pre-sell some of those machines to prioritized clients, such as:
- Industrial Light and Magic
- Raytheon
- General Dynamics
- Genentech
- Amgen
- Pixar
- NASA
There are other names such as large american administrations."
I won't dispute that you're more productive running straight 'NIX rather than OS X; that's your call and your work environment. However, I've moved from x86 with Linux to MacOS X primarily because I need MS Office to exchange Excel spreadsheets with my CPA. She won't waste time fiddling with Open Office and she happens to be a great accountant. That's a straight home business decision.
At work I'm seeing a pretty fast transition from Linux to MacOS X among professors and professionals. They like the ease of use and access to commercial applications, combined with the traditional 'NIX toolbase, that OS X offers. Cheap desktops for students remain running Linux. This too, doesn't surprise me - Linux makes for a very cheap desktop solution when scaled up in large deployments. I expect to see our older Suns and DEC Alpha systems completely replaced with either PCs running Linux or Macs. I also expect to see us run a cost/compute comparison between the G5 and Opteron for clustering.
IMO Apple has successfully reinvigorated their software and hardware product line such that they are now producing very desirable products, and this is reflected in the purchasing decisions across my lab. Whatever you may think of the OS X UI I see a large number of highly qualified professionals and academics jumping to the platform primarily because they don't want to spend time learning hardcore 'NIX; they're too busy conducting research and writing papers.
So, what doesn't work for you seems to work well for them. Customizability is a tradeoff for sure, but these people transitioning to OS X are certainly not stupid or children; they are professionals who prefer to focus on their specialty rather than the near unlimited customizability of X (X Window System). A personal choice, in opposition to yours, which is equally valid.
Cheers,
--Maynard
The multitude of X86 cheap stuff doesnt work on these platforms. You probably pay 3-6 times what you'd normally pay for NICS and GFX cards. Apple does this all the time.
That's funny -- I just got back from CompUSA, where I paid all of $15 for a D-Link 100baseT NIC that will work with both Macs and PCs. The exact same trick works with most SCSI cards, several flavors of NVidia and ATI graphics cards, and Creative's Soundblaster line.
It's been many, many years since PCI cards for Macs cost substantially more than their PC counterparts. Like, almost a decade now.
And here's the thing: in many cases, those Mac cards will work unmodified in Linux-on-IBM/PPC servers and workstations. Also, occasionally, in Sun kit. Reason is, the "BIOS" in the PowerMacs, IBM's e-Servers and all of Sun's hardware is the same: OpenFirmware, AKA OpenBoot. Once you've set up your PCI card to support OpenBoot on one platform, it supports them all, and all the platform vendor has to do is write an OS-level driver for the card.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
It's one guy posting all this sh**.
Goto the logs, find his IP and deal with
him already. Christ.
Their choice, if it makes them more productive is completely valid.
.twmrc and do everything from the '$' prompt!
My argument is that Linux makes me much more productive, and not simply because I'm "used to it" -- there are real, hard, numbers-based reasons why I work faster in Linux than in other systems. It has to do with saving (i.e. reducing the number of) clicks and keystrokes and minimizing (i.e. making less obvious or visible) distracting widgets when they're interfering with my visual workflow, thereby reducing unneeded eye movements.
I didn't post to try to run down the decisions of others... I posted because I'm tired of hearing:
"The irony is, the lack of costume features is part of what makes OS X a much better platform for just getting work done. A computer is a tool, not a home, it's not a fashion statement. OS X gets this right. Trivial time-wasters like themes--while they may keep you from getting bored--really don't have much practical value. " [From the parent post to my post.]
It's a basic argument that I hear nearly all the time now from Mac OS X enthusiasts that I know: preferences are crap, Linux preferences doubly so.
I'm not sure why the Mac OS X crowd feels the need to try to convince everyone that preferences only exist for geeky elitist people to dote over. I don't change my preferences every five minutes, I change them all once when I install, and make additional tweaks very rarely and if needed as I am working. Geeky elitist people don't need preferences, they just build a good
I don't have any geeky elitist pride, I use KDE!
One of my biggest worries (and irritations that led to my original post) is that GNOME is no longer in the same league. They've taken out most of the preferences, including traditional X preferences like focus-follows-mouse. Why? They feel that there are "right" choices (click to focus) and "wrong" choices (focus follows mouse) and they want it to "just be right" without the user having to worry about it.
I mean, if removing a choice (GNOME) or never offering a choice (Mac OS X) is a way of "getting it right" then I suppose there's an implication that every time I've selected a non-default preference over the years, I've been doing it "wrong". Which seems clearly untrue to me. I have no problem if people don't like my choices, but I remain convinced that they make me more productive beyond mere "I like it that way!" value.
I only hope KDE doesn't follow GNOME and remove every preference, locking the user into a basic set of Windows-like or MacOS-like management and appearance preferences. Then I might be stuck with TWM!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
1. OSX is unix. Click terminal.app, you're looking at a tcsh shell. Bash is bundled. So is perl, python, tcl and, yes, AppleScript. There's even a full-fledged IDE for AppleScript.
2. ImageMagick compiles quite happily on OSX. You can get binary packages from Fink.
3. AppleScript is merely the most visible frontend to what Apple calls the "Open Scripting Architecture" or OSA. You know all that neat process-automation you can do with the GIMP because it has a scripting language built-in? You can do that in almost every MacOS Classic and OSX application ever written in the last decade via OSA, and you can do it in not only AppleScript, but any scripting language that supports the OSA interface. Which, at last check, is just about all of them.
From the sounds of it, you've got your workflow pretty well optimized for your needs, so I wouldn't suggest that there's any overwhelming need for you to change it. But by saying things like "OSX only helps the computer illiterate" when by the looks of things you haven't the faintest clue what OSX is, you only make yourself look like yet another troll.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Mac zealots are so predictable: any posting that says OS X is less than spectacular gets modded down. Which brings me to another disadvantage of OS X: the zealots in the user community. Zealotry is one of those things that keeps OS X from improving: after all, if it's already perfect, how could it possibly be improved? The Mac user community is another reason why OS X has little place in an enterprise or in a scientific or engineering environment.
that would be pretty cool. all it would take is for windows to get onto the PPC....which they might do since they want to compete with Linux in every zone.
:-)
also, Apple culd exist fine in this eco system, infact, it would help Apple since all that software would suddenly be a lot easier to port.
it would also be nice to have a PPC windows box
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Its probably unlikely, but you have to wonder if maybe we are going to see IBM go after Apple and its horde of cash. Otherwise wouldn't this be in direct competition to Apples servers? That might be an even stranger relationship than the current laptop competition (with different cpus).
... fired for choosing IBM! ;-)
;-)
I'm surprized you did not mention this age-old phrase in your very fine reply!
Paul B.
4U means the physical size of the server. 4-way means that there can be as many as 4 CPUs in the box. It doesn't mean that there are 4 CPUs in each server. Base configuration means the bare minimum of equipment (cards, memory, HD) and software (Linux, AIX) that will ship with the box. Mostly likely the $3500 box will have 1 CPU as a starting point. Companies then can estimate the final box fully loaded.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
However all the big engineering apps, CRM apps, and databases like Oracle only exist in x86 Linux or AIX. ;-)
I think for many applications if will be relatively easy for IBM to convince s/w vendors to port to this box. I've read somewhere a rumor that IBM some time ago just said to Cadence (the main EDA player, and IBM buys A LOT of licenses from them) not to release the next version of their suite for Suns unless Linux/x86 version is released simultaneusly -- here it goes, ic5.00-linux!
Seeing IBM to strong-arm or sweet-talk MS into releasing office on PPC would be a bit too far-fetched, but, who knows, maybe MS would want to expand beyond Intel/AMD...
Paul B.
stfu kike
Sometimes I despair of Slashdot. Here's IBM offering us a quad processor system at a price we can afford and we go off maundering about Mac OS X. This is not about Mac OS X. It's about a quad processor machine that you can afford to put under your desk. Isn't anyone else excited about that?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
That's funny because Apple was still using Nubus a decade ago. Their first PCI systems were introduced in 1995. If, as you allude, there was some stretch of time when Macs didn't support non-OF card and OF cards were more expensive, it certainly wasn't more than ten years ago.
A few years ago, I had to turn a bunch of old Performa 5400/180s into something useful; ended up putting Linux on them and running a specialized application that required two NICs on the box. Had a hell of a time finding a NIC that would work in that machine even under recent versions of MacOS. This machine was released in early 1997.
While other less capable operating systems lose and sink slowly into oblivions, Linux sets the pace for success as the leader of the operating system pack. As more and more companies adaopt Linux each day, we all come to realize the obvious: Linux is the winner.
MINAE, Mac Is Not An Emulator, runs the MacOS X environment and apps natively!
Wine for Macs!
That's funny because Apple was still using Nubus a decade ago. Their first PCI systems were introduced in 1995. If, as you allude, there was some stretch of time when Macs didn't support non-OF card and OF cards were more expensive, it certainly wasn't more than ten years ago.
Funny how I said "almost ten years", and yet somehow you saw "more than ten years."
You might want to consider seeing a doctor about this problem.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
That's the most stupid and pompous statement I have ever heard.
Well, it's true. Learn to differentiate between shades of meaning.
The original post said that OS X helps in "just getting work done". Any competent computer user can "just get work done" on any platform. If OS X allows user Y to "just get work done" while they can't "just get work done" on other systems, then they aren't terribly computer literate.
ON the other hand, if OS X is the platform that some prefer, then I have absolutely no problem with that, as I've said multiple times in this thread. I only object when others say that my preferences prevent me from getting work done. They don't. They help me to get more work done.
What the hell do you mean by advanced methods?
I mean that from a purely clicks/keystrokes perspective, or from an eye motion perspective, traditional X environments are some of the most efficient methods in existence.
Five mouse/keystrokes for a given task is less advanced than two or three mouse/keystrokes for the same task because reducing the number of operations required to complete a given tasks saves time for repetitive work. The learning curve argument in this case is moot because 1) a learning curve only applies once, and 2) the learning curve for two new mouse/keystrokes to replace five old mouse/keystrokes is negligible.
Similarly, the appearance of OS X, while more intuitive and easier to grok for the beginner, has higher contrast levels and more colors. this increases the number of apparent objects in the field of vision and forces widgets into the group of perceived objects. If you are not familiar with computers and these objects are likely to be missed, this is beneificial behavior. If you are familiar with these objects and can find them easily when needed, then the increased visibility only serves to compete with more important elements in your field of vision (i.e. content).
For these reasons, I would argue that customization capability is good and that the "just right" features of OS X are intended primarily to aid the functionally computer illiterate.
This does not mean that only functionally computer illiterate users will use OS X, as you seem to have interpreted me to say. Far from it. But for the very computer literate, I argue that more customization can be, and indeed almost always is, helpful.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I'm looking for a new architecture, but haven't found one priced suitably. I need a computer specialized in extracting 53 14MB rar archives, and also being able to burn and still use a newsreader program while the discs are burning. My celeron 366 SHITS when burning a CD. Not to mention while extracting files. I don't understand why even when I niced a rar extraction process my computer craps with lots of IDE writing activity.
"The exact same trick works with most SCSI cards, several flavors of NVidia and ATI graphics cards, and Creative's Soundblaster line."
You are quite wrong on this point. VGA cards and SCSI cards need an onboard BIOS to be able to boot from. The x86 cards will not work on a PPC platform. Period.
You can get BIOS-less SCSI cards, but you cannot use them as your boot device. As for the VGA cards, there is no such thing as a dual platform one (you might be able to find a hacked BIOS for it that allows you to bood it on a PPC machine, but it probably isn't worth your time). on VGA cards, the mac card is usually slightly more costly (because they are less common)
For sound cards and NIC's, you have a point.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
You are quite wrong on this point. VGA cards and SCSI cards need an onboard BIOS to be able to boot from. The x86 cards will not work on a PPC platform. Period.
Really? That will come as a shock to Adaptec, who have been selling SCSI cards that support PCs and Macs for years now. (Admittedly I've never personally tried to boot from one, but the product detail page makes no mention of any such restriction.)
Video cards are in general stickier, but not entirely: several manufacturer's flavors of GeForce 2MX will work perfectly well in both Macs and PCs, and I believe the same goes for the Radeon 7500. Not entirely sure about later-generation cards.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
When you're finished, you might take a look at mac OSX and discover that Apple provides an X11 server for it, with which you can run the Gimp. Not only this but, surprise, MacOSX has a thing called a, wait for it... shell. Even bigger will be your surprise to discover that ImageMagik has been compiled for OSX, and that you can do all your commandline shell business just the same as you do it in Linux.
But I suppose it's fun to be able to vent from time to time isn't it?
Not too shabby. The more compiler hackers that use PPC, the better gcc will become, no? Maybe this new machine will add some motivation.
Yeah, maybe "Duncan3" can get his company to help if indeed "Duncan3" reall is Adam L Beberg that spends, "Most of my waking hours are spent working on Cosm, one of the projects of my company Mithral Communications & Design, Inc. Cosm is a set of protocols for doing cross platform development and large scale distributed computing." That would be a lot better than bitching about how sucky a free thing is.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's a joke...you tightass...laugh! Read the submission guidelines, for what they're worth... :)
"Really? That will come as a shock to Adaptec, who have been selling SCSI cards that support PCs and Macs for years now."
Wow, one whole Adaptec card that works on both PC and Mac. I guess you didn't look at Adaptec's entire product line. Here is a clue. The 2906 does not have a BIOS. it is specifically ment for SCSI scanners, Zip drives, and hard drives that aren't the boot drive. You cannot boot off a SCSI card unles it contains a BIOS. This card does not. Not a SINGLE Adaptec SCSI card with BIOS contains a PC and Mac BIOS in the same card. Not only this, but they do not offer a download for the Mac BIOS if you already have the PC card. You must purchase seperate cards for seperate platforms. period.
As for the AGP cards, there is not a SINGLE manufacturer I can find that produces a card that will work in both Mac and PC. It just isn't there. You must have a different BIOS ROM on the card to use it in different platforms. In fact, two of the most popular and available nVidia card mfg's don't even support Mac on any of their cards: www.evga.com www.bfgtech.com In fact, I can't even find a manufacturer that has a card with PPC BIOS in it. This completely changes how "commodity" video cards are for the mac. They simply are harder to find, and thus, more expensive. I do know that ATI branded cards have a Mac product line (but they are different cards than the PC cards), but there are no ATI 3rd party cards with Mac support. Even then, walking into Best Buy and looking for a new video card for your mac is probably the wrong angle to approach getting a new 3d card for your mac.
The same goes for SerialATA cards, and for IDE Raid cards, and that is why you don't find many inside G4 machines.
In short (and this has always been true, and will be true for the near future), any PCI or AGP card containing a BIOS must contain a ROM specifically for the platform you are using it in. There is no such thing as a dual platform BIOS because x86 ROMs cannot run on PPC machines. and PPC ROMs cannot run on x86 machines. Until card manufacturers stop being cheap and include a ROM chip big enough to contain both BIOS's and a fancy way for the card to select which one to present to the host machine (probably in the form of a jumper or dip switch), everything you have said above is incorrect, untrue, and just plain wrong.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
Awesome! I have an old PowerPC 850 that is running potato on it. It's pretty good for a webserver (considering I got it for free). It would be great when the new PPC comes out.
Wow, one whole Adaptec card that works on both PC and Mac.
You made a categorical statement. A single counterexample is all that is needed to disprove such a thing, and I granted that you may have been correct about boot support.
As for the AGP cards, there is not a SINGLE manufacturer I can find that produces a card that will work in both Mac and PC.
You are correct that no manufacturer officially supports it or admits to it. However, it is nonetheless true that on a PowerMac G4 running G4 firmware 4.1.8, it is possible to drop a standard PC GF2MX card into the slot and have it boot. (Usually only in a few low resolutions though -- to get full support for the card's features, you do in fact need to flash it with the Mac-specific BIOS. Results also appear to vary wildly depending on how far the manufacturer strayed from the nVidia's reference design.) I have personally done this.
I have yet to see an official explanation from Apple, nVidia or any of nVidia's resellers as to why this is so: either the G4 firmware has some stub code to specifically to handle the case of a reference gf2mx card in the AGP slot, or nVidia figured out some cute way to handle platform detection in firmware. (Certainly the former seems more likely.)
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
However, the Jaguar Dev Seed (or any other unfinished builds) would have expired by now.
Unless he's unaware of the fact he's running a beta OS and has his system date wrong... and in that case, his opinion on operating systems should be ignore anyway.
IBM was pushing to our organization for a while that Linux will run on existing F50 RS/6000s. We where seriously considering moving some of services onto existing pSeries machines and possible continue with that trend for new hardware. Then the truth came out when it was tried... Linux on pSeries can not see any SSA hard drives. When we pointed out to our sales rep. that they had pushed SSA as being better than SCSI and wanted to know when IBM would make drivers for SSA controllers available for Linux they refused to respond. As a result, the project of using Linux on pSeries was killed and the only option handed down from the top of the organization is that Dell should be used for all Linux services. The general feeling seems to be that IBM lied/over-hyped it's support of Linux on pSeries. It also does not help that our requests for /dev/random and iptables in AIX seem to also have been ignored since AIX 5.2 fails to provide either. I would like to consider myself as an advocate of IBM but cutting through the hard felt feelings here to ever get IBM's foot back in the door is going to be difficult. Hopefully they are for real this time so they don't turn other organizations away like they did mine.
It could be labeled as a weapon of some sort. This earlier slashdot story mentions a story about the PS2 being a possible weapons platform. Or course with computers getting so fast everyone is going to have a super computer sooner or later.
"VGA cards and SCSI cards need an onboard BIOS to be able to boot from. The x86 cards will not work on a PPC platform. Period.
Really? That will come as a shock to Adaptec, who have been selling SCSI cards that support PCs and Macs [adaptec.com] for years now. "
See, your contradictory example did not contain a BIOS SCSI card. That card you mention is not capable of BOOTING your machine. So my argument stands
As for the AGP cards, you still need firmware updates for the card, which most cards don't support. I believe nVidia may post BIOS ROM's on their website for Mac support, but no MFG officially supports it, and you admitted that you did not get one working without hax. So my argument still stands here.
You have not refuted a single point I have made about your argument all night.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
WTF is wrong with you?
"Dur, I have not red teh artical, but I think it proabaly doenst' say waht yuo read."
FUCKING READ BEFORE INSERTING YOUR RETARDED COMMENTS
And exactly how is the parent flamebait?
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
Does anybody who knows, know if they will be using Yellow Dog Linux as the distro for these machines, or will they roll their own? I presume IBM, when they say linux-on-intel, mean "Red Hat", and I've heard that YDL is pretty much RH but on PPC. So does it stand to reason that that'll be their choice, or are they going to reinvent the wheel?
Sure would be big boon to YDL if true, methinks.
--
$tar -xvf
Good: while that table compares apples and oranges, it contains the data we need. What it tells us is that:
So, we have to conclude that the idea that PPCs are particularly power efficient is a myth.
Yipes the Linux boxen will smoke! 3500 US ok as long as it doesn't run windows I do not care. This could make it possible for a small company to finally make money renting compile time! To individuals who want to test source in a hurry and find that their old 64 bit dev platform is too small and slow. Time shares on real smokers is expensive, this could change things big time, good stuff IBM, keep it up and Open Source will finally start making quantuam leaps past the M$ world.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
a quad PPC would require a stupid amount of heat sinks. Unlike PowerPC's, Particle Projection Cannons produce crazy amounts of heat!