Slashdot Mirror
Yellow Dog Linux Gets 64-Bit Version For G5
An anonymous reader writes "There is an announcement on the YellowDogLinux.com page regarding the new release of a 64-bit distribution of Yellow Dog Linux for the Apple G5 and some custom hardware from IBM. The 64-bit release is being dubbed 'Y-HPC' and is scheduled to be released along with the new 32-bit Yellow Dog 4 at the end of May."
Just curious.... but who wipes out MacOSX on the G5 to replace it with Linux? Call me a troll, but I just don't see the point when there are cheaper architectures out there.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
why would anyone with a g5 who's already running os x want to run yellow dog linux? (serious question.)
I've been skulking around here for awhile, and this is Article 1 I've heard about Yellow Dog. How do they expect ANY market penetration on ANY box, let alone a 64-bit Mac, with so little exposure? Isn't that whipping the coders for no payback? Call me a Troll, but I'm genuinely curious...
The following replies are posted by unwashed nerds.
Why not have YDL based off RHEL instead of Fedora? I don't get Terrasoft.
Since SuSE has locked up the deal with IBM, it would be good to have a less expensive or "free" 64-bit distro for pSeries hardware. Right now all you can get is SuSE and Redhat. (Debian will run on an rs6000, but not 64 bit AFAIK). To get one of these you have to shell out at least a grand. Then again, if you have a 64-bit pSeries, you are not worried about money.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
I first started using Linux almost 6 years ago when I was a 15 year old high school sophomore. Most of my friends and I thought it was da shit until OSX came out and then most of us dropped Linux like a bad habit for OSX. There are so many areas that OSX beats Linux for most geeky things that I couldn't even begin to start.
Since so many geeks are fond of comparing computers to cars, think of it like this. A Mac is like a cross between a BMW and a V6 Accord. It's fast, stylish, reliable and expensive, but it definitely looks cool to most people. A PC can be anything from a pinto to a ferrari, but is usually like a typical late 80s, early 90s American car on reliability. It may go faster and turn sometimes better, but it falls apart a lot faster than the more expensive hybrid Honda/BMW (aka, the Mac of cars).
Many of my peers in CS used to not be able to understand why I almost never use PCs anymore. We do a lot of work in Java, some of it in C/C++. They cannot comprehend how the Mac JDK runs faster than a Windows JDK. Or for that matter how convenient it is to have your Swing apps look 99% native. If I demonstrate an app to my prof on my laptop, which is a 1Ghz G4, it usually has more of a wow factor because Apple's Swing defaults to Aqua which is a hell of a lot slicker than anything from KDE or Redmond.
It's all of the little things that make MacOS X worth using over Linux. From the ease of which you can install software to the consistency of the interface to the amount of good software for it as opposed to Linux. Linux is great, but it's not really got much of a place on modern Macs. Between the services that Apple provides like its own version of Apache and Fink, you have most of the software you'd use Linux for.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
One obvious reason is that Yellow Dog is completely free as in beer and OSX is not. You have to purchase every second update and it is not *completely* open source. Even if it IS apple, the magic words, "open-source" does make people listen up.
If compatibility with industry standard programs such as Microsoft Office and Photoshop is not needed, and if the UI is unimportant to you, then linux might be an option.
People use OSX to have the best of both worlds: to have the familiar "hacker" interface, the shell, and also have the convenience of programs. If you're going to run a server, linux will run faster, without Cocoa or X Windows, no question about it. Or, if you're addicted to KDE or fluxbox, why use the Aqua interface then? (yes, there IS an X11 server for apple, but hey, it is an alternative...)
The most convincing reason, I think, is the rpm format. You can use programs like yum although I believe that is for i386, and redhat/fedora, but certainly, it derived from the original yellow dog updater (would anyone care to provide a link?). You can keep your system up to date easily with a known technology, set as a cron job, perhaps.
Did anyone else notice that these guys are gonna become a Fedora reseller with the next release? Y would you use them instead of the actual Fedora port for ppc?
I always see posts where people rationalize buying Apple laptops buy saying "if I don't like OSX I can always put linux on it". This makes it a lot easier for apple to get people to switch from linux to OSX. Maybe apple should try to make macs that are capable of running Windows so more people will switch to macs from the Windows world.
In a nutshell, some people are willing to go the extra mile for software freedom. I'm one of those people. I've paid for free software before and I'll do it again. I dig it, I thoroughly enjoy being a part of the free software community, and I enjoy being able to make copies of free software for my friends and help them get jobs done. All without breaking the law or compromising my values.
Digital Citizen
Being locked into an OS, even if it's the niftiest thing in the universe (which OS X is), and even if it's core is open-source, is a bad thing. If you buy a refrigerator, you don't want to be locked into whatever food it comes with, plus whatever further food stipends the manufacturer provides. Having another good software reason to buy a mac (64-bit Linux with AltiVec) will only help Apple's sales, and make the newest Macs a force to be reckoned with in high-end personal computing.
That's not the only software that is available for Linux and not for Mac. For some people, a couple missing programs is what they need.
Personally, I would like to dual-boot Linux alongside OS X. You don't have to "wipe out" Mac OS X and run only Linux. The only thing that stops me from doing this is that my Apple is a PowerBook, and there is still no support for Airport Extreme wireless cards in Linux. I'm always on wireless nets (between my apartment, my girlfriend's, and the university campus), never plugged in. As soon as that is supported, I'll start looking to set up a dual-boot.
I see this version supports upto 16GB of ram, does MacOS X support it too. Also the most highend model of apple can only support 8GB, so what is the point of having the OS support 16GB when you can't use it?
Activists United
I don't get this. I mean you buy the expensive hardware because it comes with that great operating system that just plain "works" and you put linux on it? I mean don't get me wrong, but if you're going to use linux, use it on an x86 that's cheaper. Unless you're specifically using this G5 machine for number crunching on a 64 bit level, what justifies the price of the hardware if you're not using that beautiful os?
Do you feel L337 yet?
Sorry, tried to get into the car analogy mindset
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
http://www.spamgourmet.com/ Your idea is too late.
Well, if you're going to use car analogies, then a PC running Linux is like a modified Honda that looks just like a normal Honda in every way. No fart pipe, no wing, no suspension kit, and no chrome wheels. But, it has been set up to go 0-60 in under 6 seconds, AND it could run a 24 hour endurance race without problems.
The Mac is like a Honda with a giant fart pipe, fruit colored lights underneath the body, giant VTEC stickers, shiny chrome wheels, a fiberglass body kit, big thumping stereo and a giant wing on the back AND on the front too. The thing is so heavy it can only go 0-60 in 12 seconds, and the engine overheats because it weighs 5000 pounds. But, the owner thinks the damn thing looks good.
Personally, I'm not really fond of car analogies, because they can be stated to support almost any position. The real problem is that a computer is not very much like a car at all.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Or the fact that it's cheaper to maintain and buy individual parts for a PC than it is a Mac, just like the typical disagreement of native vs import cars...
Slashdot is being taken over by boring mac astroturfing. We've all heard it before, creeps.
A Mac is like a cross between a BMW and a V6 Accord.
Built for insecure, middle-aged men desperate to recapture some sliver of youth and cool?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Forgive me if I'm wrong here. Reading http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/products/ or the link in the article:
:)
'Y-HPC' -- Terra Soft's new 64-bit offering will be available pre-installed on Apple, IBM, and Momentum 970-based hardware, from the Terra Soft Store, and for download from the forthcoming YDL.net Professional account.
and
Built upon Yellow Dog Linux v3.0.1, a beta version of Y-HPC is now available for download via YDL.net Enhanced accounts, offering double-precision, 8GB memory addressing, 64-bit tool chain, and the 2.6 kernel.
The key bits being the references to YDL.net Enhanced & Professional accounts. Enhanced costs $85 which isn't completely free as in beer. Granted, that is cheaper (possibly quite a bit cheaper over time/multiple release??) than OS X. However, I don't think it's the cost factor that will be the major attraction. As you mention, some server apps may be faster on the G5/Linux platform rather than G5/OS X. When choosing between OS X & YDL for the desktop, I personally don't see the advantage for the mainstream user (i.e. the largest group of Mac users).
All that said, having this choice is a good thing and if I ever get a G5, I'll give it a go
are there any distros for mac that work direct boot from a CD, a-la knoppix? Can you direct boot from a CD on mac?
I've always thought of a PC running Linux as being something like this.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
BladeCenter JS20
Specs, as stated on IBM's page:
Modular blade server optimized for the BladeCenter enclosure
Two PowerPC® 970 processors at up to 1.6GHz standard
512MB standard/4GB max PC2700 ECC DDR memory
Up to two IDE hard disk drives for 80GB maximum internal storage
Two Gigabit Ethernet controllers standard with load balancing and failover features
$2,699
How disappointing. For the sake of perspective, here's the Xserve G5 Cluster Node:
Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
512MB DDR400 ECC SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA drive
Mac OS X Server (10 Client)
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
$2,999
OK, so the IBM server is slightly cheaper. But look what you get:
slower processors: 1.6 GHz vs. 2.0 GHz
slower memory: 333MHz vs. 400MHz
slower storage: ATA-100 vs. SATA
no storage in the standard model: 0 GB vs. 80 GB
less expandable storage: 80 GB vs. 750 GB
less expandable memory: 4 GB vs. 8 GB
That being the case, I'd say this is a disappointing product. Why would anyone choose it over the Xserve?
You may like MacOS, and prefer it over other, cheaper, functionally equivalent alternatives. Fair enough.
I don't think your car analogy works though. Car "geeks" don't drop their late 80s, early 90s car for a new BMW/Accord for "geek" reasons. If they do, they aren't car "geeks", they are "ricers".
This is what car "geeks" do to their Hondas - The New LCRX.
Could you be a MacOS "ricer", and not know it?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Remember a few days ago when /. ran the story about Linux on the iPod? It isn't a matter of WHY anyone with a G5 would want to use Linux on their hardware. It is because they CAN. Just like running Linux on a dead Badger.
.deviatefromtheabsolute.
Have any of you ever used YDL at all?? I first used YDL in 2000, it was my first time touching Linux on a PPC and I felt it quite robust. Sure people wonder why you would used YDL on a Mac that has OS X on it. For the same reason that some people have Win 98 at the same time as XP.
Flexibility. Sure you may want to use OS X day to day. But sometimes you just need to be in a true X environment. Yes you could do that otherwise in OS X, but it tends to have a high overhead (2 window managers, one sitting on top of another), and OS X is a bit quirky when it comes to certain NIX things (case sensitivity, others).
The other issue is that YDL is a GREAT solution when you want to just do number crunching. No need to run the OS X GUI, just a rock solid number crunching OS. If I remember correctly the Navy is using a bunch of XServes (G4 era) with YDL on them for this reason.
Basically it boils down to whether you want to run the OS X window manager and OS X apps, or you want to run "real" LINUX with it's app suite and it's window manager.
Besides, if you X86 zealots can have 18 differant distros why can't PPC users have a few too.
I had, prior to buying my 12" Powerbook, used OS9, and found it to be quite unpleasant in that the interface is perfectly friendly, if a bit archaic-feeling, but that there seemed to be a complete and utter lack of any real features in the area of networking, no multi-user capabilities, and generally poor reliability and usability. I had also used OSX a small amount, and it seemed to be, if a bit slow (and still does feel that way, even on my Powerbook), a perfectly tolerable Unix-ish OS.
Nevertheless, I suspect I'll have a Linux desktop around for a long time (and in some respects truly do prefer it over OSX). Firstly, I found switching to a closed-source OS to be a bit of a bother. Certain minor things I'd like to change I can't, at least, without significant work. While the initial installation is easy, and getting a working desktop for basic stuff like email, web browsing, etc, I can't change certain things how I'd like. The sec ond issue I have is more anticipatory--sooner or later, I just know Apple is going to bite me in the ass with upgrades. OS 10.1 users are apparently expected to upgrade to Panther. When 10.4 comes out, am I going to be expected to plop down another $120 just like that? And finally, in terms of usability, yes, OSX has many nice features. And it's pretty. But it runs X11 apps clunkily at best, Fink and OpenDarwin ports and all are great, but there's not NEARLY the range of Free software available (e.g. the lack of a non-alpha level, non-X11 Free, or even free, word processor). Closed Broadcomm drivers mean I can't put my Airport Extreme card into passive mode. And of course, I'm simply less familiar with OSX, as well. If I decide to implement GRSec and PAX protection on my Gentoo box, I can do it. Being a bit of a security hobbyist, how do I know my Apple is as secure?
OSX is great, to be sure, for a desktop. It patches the weakness of desktop Linux and is, in many ways, a paragon for that endeavor. And XCode and all are certainly good enough that I have no real issues doing development ON OSX, though most of what I write is written FOR Linux/x86. But I'd never use it for a server, rarely for anything truly serious, certianly not on a desktop where the price of Apple hardware is prohibitive, and not simply because Aqua apps look ``a hell of a lot slicker'' :P
Overall, however, I am happy.
Granted, this is offtopic as I'm not talking about a G5 or 64 bits of anything, but I think this demonstrates that there are uses for Linux on a mac.
Of course, I would run Mac on Linux if I was going to do this, but it definitely shows that Open Source has advantages over closed and can do things that closed source can't because of licensing, lawsuits, and lameness.
They cannot comprehend how the Mac JDK runs faster than a Windows JDK.
Is this true?
Are there any benchmarks/evals online anywhere?
I use OSX but I like the fact that if I want I can switch OS's.
Also OSX is set up very differently to most LINUX installs. OSX particularly Panther, is much more LINUX like.
Open Source is good, Good on you Yellow Dog!
nothing to do with 64-bit YDL.
I'll give you two reasons:
:)
- Performances ! Run lmbench or do large HPC and compare. There is a real market for such type of applications, and so far, OS X is still way too far behind (lack of 64 bits address space is one thing, lack of large pages support is another, raw kernel perfs gets in the loop as well). The G5 makes a very good 64 bits machine to run linux on for such applications.
- Choice. There are other reasons to choose an OS but "it's slick". Some of us (I know some people have difficulties getting this concept) do actually value the concept of Open Source and want to actively participate for personal and/or political reasons. I prefer running Linux even if it isn't as great as OS X for doing "end user" things, but then, I also contribute in making linux better hoping we will reach that level one day. Apple definitely defines a goal to reach when it comes to GUI (though some aspects of the latest OS X versions can be criticized I beleive).
It's funny, it's always the same question popping up, some of the Apple folks themselves, on mailing lists or conference keep asking that same question, they just can't imagine somebody would want to use something else than their pet OS, but life is about choice & diversity, as much as I like what Apple produces, I'd hate to see it become a monopoly.
In short, as a linux box, a G5 is great
Yellow Dog Linux.
From the term 'Yellow Dog' Democrat. Coined in the South after the Civil War about people who'd vote Democrat if the candidate were a yellow dog.
I think that describes a target audience.
Not yet out of alpha, but soon: AbiWord.
A very impressive project.
As for space, that was the one reason I could think of. You do save on racks with the Blade form factor. However, it's not strictly 2 to 1. Since each BladeServer JS20 has only 80% of the processing power, you have to buy five fourths as many of them for equivalent performance, which partly negates the floor space savings.
Also, the JS20 consumes more power because it (apparently) uses the original 970, not the Xserve's 970FX. This means bigger power bills.
From the Gates of evil, no less. Of course, he might not mind Mac users who are interested in running Windows as well. From my experience, it's quite decent for office applications and light work with Windows-only development tools. Old games are great, for new games you probably want a native version.
The only release of OS X which has been a free update was the 10.1 upgrade. Everything else has been a regular "hand over your cash" type arrangement. Certainly, the last two major releases of OS X (10.2 'Jaguar' and 10.3 'Panther') have cost $129 to purchase as an upgrade. I think the free 10.1 upgrade was more a one-off anomaly (since 10.0 was such a piece of shit) than anything else.
But that said, there's no-one forcing users to upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3. Apple keeps supplying security updates to 10.2, and all modern OS X software runs fine on it. Steve Jobs doesn't personally visit each Mac user with a gun in one hand and a copy of Panther in the other forcing users to upgrade. Your point about Yellow Dog being free as in free beer is a good point though. I switched from x86/Linux to a G5/OS X setup, and the thing I miss the most are the free OS updates (yes yes...no-one made me buy Panther and iLife '04...I wanted them...but they cost money all the same).
Amazing what giving blacks rights did to the south. a 100% turnaround. Advocating for civil rights cost the democrats the south for decades. Now a white southerner would not vote for a democrat if jesus was on the ticket.
evil is as evil does
Actually it's Free as in speech. Terrasoft, suppliers of YDL, are a commercial enterprise interested in selling you a package based around their distribution of GNU/Linux. You can download the ISOs for nothing more than the cost of the bandwidth but they do sell a boxed set with a nice little book and varying levels of support. You can also buy new systems with YDL pre installed.
Now wash your hands.
I don't understand why anyone would bother running Linux on a Mac. For $99 you can purchase Mac OS X and get real live tech support for problems that (probably won't) pop up. There's a lot of technical reasons you should run Mac OS instead of Linux.
Linux has its origins on IA32, Intel's 32-bit architecture. Every platform Linux has migrated to since then has been beset with porting problems Linux runs 32% more efficiently on Intel than PowerPC. This is very telling as PowerPC is in general much faster per clock than Intel. Somewhere in the translation from PowerPC to IA32 something got lost.
Mac OS is 100% native for PowerPC. The Mach kernel has been optimized for the G3, G4, and 970 since Apple began writing the operating system back in 1996. Why choose a hacked and kludged OS from another platform when you can have an environment tailor-made for the system you'll be running it on? Mac OS certainly isn't plagued by same driver problems Linux is (in)famous for.
In Linux, the development model is highly irrational: anyone is allowed to submit patches, and one man (Linus Torvalds) sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code, attempting to integrate it into the kernel. Apple's model is much more modern and decisive: the code for the low levels of Mac OS is available for anyone to download and modify, while the more complex parts of the system (QuickTime and OpenGL) are kept closed-source so those that know better the Apple programmers are the only ones allowed to tinker.
The results because of these differing development models are clear. Apple released a major update to the OS once a year, and releases about five minor updates to the OS, as well as several dozen security patches and driver updates, in the interim. Since March of 2001 we've gone from 10.0 to 10.2.5! Linux is still stuck at some sort of bizarre "in-between" 2.5 kernel patch and won't move on to 2.6 until well after Apple has released Mac OS 10.3.
It's not hard to see the difference here is a bunch of kids playing with source code instead of doing their homework vs. highly qualified professionals pushing their skills to the limits. The Mac OS user benefits.
I don't even think I have to touch on this. While Linux offers several GUIs from GNOME, KDE, and Enlightenment, Apple offers only one. But here we have a case of quality vs. quantity. Apple controls the GUI for its operating system while anyone can hack and modify the various Linux GUIs as they please. This has led to a lack of desktop standards and a whole lot of bickering and flame wars over human interface guidelines. Most of the GUIs for Linux are simply poor knock-offs of the Windows 95 interface.
Apple's Aqua and QuickTime graphical interfaces are faster, more elegant, and very consistent. A Mac user can sit down at any Mac and (assuming someone hasn't installed Linux) get right to work. With Linux, it's hit or miss as to whether the user will know what to do when he logs in! Getting work done is the most important aspect of a computer. After all, it is just a tool. Linux fails in this area miserably you're forced to edit and tinker and kludge and hack to make things perfect. A Mac allowes you to just sit down and roll up your sleeves and get some work done. I don't have time to play at my job.
I've used Linux before and the headache of downloading drivers and libraries and making sure the versions all sync up are too mucvh to handle, especiallly considering one has to compile these applications. On a Mac, I mount a disk image and drag the .app file to /Applications, and I'm done. Hell, most software for Mac even installs it there for you.
To put this last point in perspective, let's look at a recent task I perf
I'm pretty sure Yellowdog uses yum as well now. The repository list has entries for it, and the SourceForge page for what appears to be the original updater hasn't seen an update in years.
Cheesy marketing drivel, yes, but with a grain of truth. At the risk of being moded down to Hades by Mac lovers, let me very carefully point out that to some of us, OS X is not the operating system to end all operating systems. It has some problems (like a clumsy finder that dumps its bloody .DS_Store files all over every filesystem it can get its hands on), some severe limitations (like a Mail program that doesn't do TLS), and lacks important capabilities (no well-integrated office program except MS Office).
Don't get me wrong, OS X is probably the best operating system available for pure-consumer type users. When my co-worker complained to me a few days ago that he caught some sort of dialer virus thingy, I told him (politely) to get rid of the problem (Microsoft) and buy a Mac. Is Linux for him? No. He would be very happy with Apple's closed-world, choice-is-bad philosophy.
Some of us, however, like choice, and don't want to, say, pay extra for modern features like virtual desktops that Apple's engineers consider too confusing for us and are covered by shareware. I want a modern mailer (good grief, even the 0.5 BETA of Mozilla Thunderbird has TLS), I want Konqueror instead of the brain-damaged Finder, I want my right-click-lelf-click-done! mouse back. But I love the hardware: My iBook G4 is quiet under heavy loads, for example, and battery life is good.
Linux on a PowerPC gives you the best of both worlds -- even more so because you can use Mac-on-Linux to run your Mac OS X applications from inside Linux. Nobody is talking about wiping OS X off the computer (well, except maybe for this guy), because, remember, though Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are jealous computer gods, Linus is not. I did dual-boot for years with Windows before swiching completely. You can have your cake and eat it, too.
A lot of Mac people I have gotten to know after buying my iBook have no idea how good KDE and Gnome have become, they seem to think that Linux users still have to figure out the refresh parameters for X11 by hand. With more and more Linux people moving to PowerPC hardware, I think we'll see more discussions between OS X and Linux users. Linux can give OS X a good run for its mon-, er, can force Apple to try harder, a lot harder, in fact. And that is good for Mac fans, too.
I want to use "linux" on my powerbook (it's very good hardware) because I'm fond of the gnome environment, I'm interested by its development, I prefer a linux environment to darwin os.
,prejudice or whatever to other people. I only post here to tell "if yellowdog do that, it's because there are people like me!".
in the other side, I'm also fond of MacosX, Cocoa and the quartz engine, I'm also love applications like omnigraffle or the aqua interface
so dual boot is for me.
please, do not try to always impose your taste, misconception
okay ? thanks
The Powerbook is the VW Golf DTi (up to 150BHP, but at over 40mpg), the iBook is the Polo equivalent.
There is no BMW equivalent in the computer world (Compaq were the nearest thing till Ms. Fiorino came - perhaps she should be put in charge of Iraq?), but I'd suggest that Sony is roughly equivalent to Honda, and Toshiba to Toyota.
All analogies are suspect, but if you're at all interested in marketing you need to think about them sooner or later.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
"In short, as a linux box, a G5 is great :)"
An x86-64 box is just as great and cheaper.
In our case we were already supporting 3 operating systems (OS9, Windows XP and Linux). Upgrading some of our machines to OSX would add an additional OS to support. Some of our Macs are too underpowered to run OSX. By turning those machines into servers runing YDL we can continue to get usable service out of them. My experience has been that YDL on older G3's has been extremely solid. As we are using YDL mostly for server applications, the advantages/disadvantages of the GUI don't matter. Trying to run the same services under OSX on these older machines would just swamp them. In addition to eliminating the OSX learning curve, there is the minor savings of $125 for the OS which seems to have a paid upgrade every year or so.
For me it would be really useful if there's also a 64-bit JVM for it.
I haven't looked around, but is it possible yet to build your own dual G5 based machine and put Linux on it?
Or does Apple lock up all the G5s that IBM makes?
I like the specs and power of the G5, but can't really afford a Mac.
Just curious.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
You can be as geeky cool as you want. I've been an unpopular nerd since 2nd grade. And I'm glad. :)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
It is interesting that for /. crowd everything not an IBM-compatible PC is either proprietary or custom or whatever.
The truth is there is nothing more custom or proprietary to RISC than to the IBM-compatible PC, probably less. While the BIOS and such became common knowledge and the legal ability to produce x86 clones became widespread, there is nothing inherently open there: AMD-64 and IA-64 can well shed all that and become AMD and Intel exclusives. In fact it seems that IA-64 is already there.
On the other hand, SPARC is a standard, the PowerPC is joint developed, and all RISCs use open standards like OpenFirmware. And definetely IBM stuff is made in volume and widely available, if pricier than your standard white box stuff.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
The press release doesn't mention if the OS supports the G5 fans correctly. Will all 8-9 fans (+1 for the 9800 Pro if upgraded) be blowing full throttle the entire time? My understanding is that current non-OS X installations do this.
As a long-time Mac user at home (though my day job is shackled to Wintel product) I'm in this odd position of desiring a non-MS solution for work, but being perfectly happy with my OSX box after-hours. I'm genuinely interested in Linux and open source, but can't see the benefit of porting from my Mac OS with all its integrated features. (My home machine is primarily used for 2D graphics work with Adobe Illustrator and PhotoShop.) Are there any compelling reasons for me to change?
Well, it would have been if slashdot had published the story i sent in July last year!
I actually emailed Terrasoft about this and received an email detailing this way back last year.
Respect is due dude, but i think that you are running away with yourself there , probably even trolling.
... ahem .. the iPod. Ask yourself this question, If linux is written by a bunch of amateur kids playing with source code, how come its so versatile and easy to port? I think that is as true a test as any on the quality of the code.
The points you make simply dont make true or are irrelevant. I also wonder if you have ever tried Linux on PPC hardware?
I have , and I can tell you that in my experience yellow dog linux runs a hell of a lot faster than a similarly specced intel box.
1) You mention that Linux is optimized for Intel, well in case you didnt know Linux is distributed as source code. the majority of the code is going to be similar for all processors. However there are optimisations contrary to your comments for PPC hardware , including stuff like altivec.Its GCC that does the real work!
Also , one of the really really nice things about Linux on PPC (specifically Yellow Dog) is that Mac hardware is considerably more predictable than x86 hardware. Generally speaking all blue G3's have the same mobo , chipset etc(accounting for minor variations) The upside of this is that a Linux distro such as Yellow dog can be tailored much better to the hardware, and eliminate many driver problems.
Again contrary to your comments.
in response to
2) Im loath to comment on this really but statements like "Linus sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code" and "a bunch of kids playing with source code" Make me realise that you are in fact a troll. But nonetheless I would argue, that since the source code for the Linux kernel is so open as opposed to having closed bits like you refer to in OSX, you have considerably more control over it. In fact you have so much control over it that it can be embedded in all sorts of bizarre devices such as
my response to
3) You make some valid points about GUI's while I agree that OSX, has a much nicer GUI than KDE or Gnome; The whole linux is not ready for the desktop argument is rapidly becoming a regurgitation from people who havent tried the latest Desktop environments. I'd also like to add that the simpler / less eyecandy / GUI with Linux is precisely the reason many people will want to run it on the box particularly as a server. In addition its a great way to make use of that tired old G3.
My comment on 4)
Yes, linux can be a pain to install software, but , and this is somewhat related to my comments on 1) my only experience with Linux on PPC is Yellow dog, and again , due to the predictability of the hardware there is no real need to build from source, you are not really going to do a much better job than Terrasoft at optimising it. Yellow Dog supports both RPM and apt-get. with these tools an update is only a couple of commands away. And they are very good at keeping it updated.
My Conclusion,
You are a Zealot and one who's stuck in his ways at that!
I personally like OSX, and the reason I want a power book , has got nothing to do with any problems I have using my linux desktop. The area which linux falls short is the lack of tools like iMovie and cubase. I also prefer Apple as a company to Microsoft.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
You know its possible to load OSX up under just a command line, as well as start X from here too.
Its extremely fast without the Aqua layer running, then again its even faster without X.
X is alright, but I'd be safe saying (anonymously) that even Windows has a better desktop environment than KDE. Some people use this just because they want to prove their geek status. I work with several of these folks.
As for tweaking the code, why would you need to tweak the code to a lot of this? Mail.app??? What kind of selfrespecting geek would use this -- and I'm not even talking the pretentious kind that would remove OSX and install the YellerDawg to prove it. There are several open apps that work natively that one could tweak and get better results. Finder??? It does what its supposed to do, but if you need to extend it, there are folder scripts, standard applescripts, and otherwise. You can build scripts and put them in your finder bar if you need direct access to them. If you don't like that, I have seen a few open finder replacements. Aqua? If you don't use it, ya don't use it. Oh no...its not the theme I want!!! Its more fuckingly powerful than ANYTHING you will ever find in KDE or gnome, but some geeks seem to think changing the windowing interface to something uglier, nonprofessional, and nonconforming even to itself is paramount in their requirements. Some of us OSX geeks get pissed about the brushed aluminum that has popped up, but even the nonstandards associated with this are far more standards oriented than anything you will find in the open.
Face it, you don't want a computer, you want a religion. You want folks to know you choose your religion. If it wasn't computers, you'd be shoving your B'hai Faith down peoples throats to prove that you have made an intelligent, if not somewhat irrational, choice. You don't want to be down with the Jebus people, and Allah just doesn't cut it. 72 Virgins is not a prime number or the pilgramage cuts into your excuse not to get out of your parents basement.
Maybe its just a way to shove off any women that might strike up a conversation with you about your Mac. I've found that my cute widdle iBook is as good as a dog to meet women. You've found a way to have them approach you and then repell then just as fast. Its forethought like this that keeps the geek population eternally nonlaid.
Yeah, this is probably a fucking troll. Not because of the computers, but some gatdamm mormon is going to mod this down because I didn't feel fit to include their 'faith' as either a nonstandard almost cultlike religion, or admit that they actually controll the fate of the internet and McBride will become their patron saint of litigation and technology.
I don't know how much the OS X kernel and Yellow Dog's kernel are alike--lots? not at all?--but does the inclusion of full 64bit-ness in YDL mean that Apple can use some of those same technologies and/or methods, to bring 64bit-ness to OS X sooner than having to do it all themselves?
Will this help bring 100% 64bit-ness to OS X, or not really?
--
$tar -xvf
It's named after Kai's Golden Retriever, hence 'Yellow Dog.' FYI - Kai is the CEO of Terrasoft, the producer of Yellow Dog Linux.
Has anyone managed to get Core 2 Test 2 running in VirtualPC, and would they care to share how?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
YD does use yum.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
... the U.S. government bought a bunch of apple Xserve's to use interpreting sonar images on submarines. Of coarse they wanted linux for an application like that.
No, Linux is inherently no better for scientific apps than any other operating system. The Navy were interested in the PowerPC G4's inherent advantages when it comes to scientific applications. Their current software was also already running on a Unix platform. Yellow dog plus XServe was a pretty straight forward cost effective replacement.
The interesting thing is that they didn't buy the Xserve's directly from apple because if the hire-ups knew that they were buying macs they wouldn't approve it.
Terra Soft, Yellow Dog Linux's developer, is also in the business of re-selling Macs with Yellow Dog. They have been doing this for years with Apple's full cooperation and blessings. There is nothing back door about this.
Just curious.... but who wipes out MacOSX on the G5 to replace it with Linux? Call me a troll, but I just don't see the point when there are cheaper architectures out there
The PowerPC G5, and to a lesser degree the older G4, are especially well suited for certain computationally intensive applications. The people who are buying Yellow Dog Linux equipped Macs are people who were in the market for some other Unix workstation, IBM RS-6000, Sun, etc.
Also, replacing Mac OS X is not necessary. You can dual boot into Mac OS X or Yellow Dog if you wish. However the type of folks I mention above are probably not interested in an end user desktop. For example the US Navy's sonar processing cluster.
If this Yellow Dog release is anything like past releases the new version will be first available to Enhanced account holders. Shortly thereafter it will be made available for public download. I beleave Mandrake also offers a similar program for their Club members.
BULLSHIT. If you even bought a G5 at all, you probably used OS X for all of 10 minutes before deciding to wipe it. Not a SINGLE Linux user I have introduced to OS X has gone back to that pathetic crap, and I've switched dozens of Linux users to OS X in the last couple of months alone (its great being an OS Xpert at the local Linux User Group).
They cannot comprehend how the Mac JDK runs faster than a Windows JDK.
That's a good thing, because it doesn't. I've tested the MAC JDK (latest one in OSX 10.3 on a dual 2.0 GHz G5) and just about every PC JDK (windows and linux) kick it's ass thouroughly. That's raw speed, mind you.
If you don't believe me, believe the scimark benchmark. (See the highest OSX entry at #20.)
Is there any virtualization software for Mac OS that could run a linux distribution like Yellow Dog in a window? I'm not talking about an x86 emulator like Virtual PC. I'm thinking of something like VMware, but for the G5 architecture.
I know I'm getting dangerously offtopic, but...
You are absolutely right about raw speed -- I'm guessing the guy was talking about apparent GUI speed using Swing.
He's right about that, Swing apps on Mac OS X with the 1.4 JDK seem almost 99% of native Aqua apps, both in look and feel and speed. If properly written, a Jdk 1.4 - Swing app can be made virtually indistinguishable from an Aqua app on the Mac (except for some of the more flashy features like 'drawers').
Our shop writes both server-side and client side Java, we do all the development on Macs, then test/deploy on Linux servers and win clients. While the Swing performance in 1.4 is quite acceptable on win/linux -- it feels more fully formed on the mac. I don't know much about the specifics but I've heard that Apple maps the Swing widgets to native cocoa widgets where possible, and this may explain it.
"That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
An Opteron based system is not necessarily cheaper. Certainly not one that can handle dual procs and the cooling is actually engineered, not merely stuck into a generic case where they hope it will cool properly.
Go ahead and price the rack-mounts from Sun (v20z), IBM (eServer 325) or even Tier 2 vendors (Microway, Boxxtech, etc.) and you'll see that the Xserve G5 is very price competitive.
Add in the cost of Fibre Channel HBA's, and the price diff goes in favor of the Apple solution.
Konqueror is the best graphical file manager I've ever used. It's extensible, supports hundreds of protocols, has tabs, address bar, icon themes, window splitting, text views, filtering, and much more.
Finder couldn't do those things a million years, nor would Apple want it to since Finder is supposed to be easy for a moron to use. Plus, Konqy doesn't have that ass-ugly metallic look!
Well, just keep in mind that much of your precious Konqueror's code was written by Apple. Seeing as how they took khtml from a broken, barely usable piece of shit and turned it into a browser that can compete with Mozilla/IE. Just a thought. Oh, and you can still use Konqueror on OS X if you so choose. I personally prefer a file manager that's stable, though. Finder just doesn't have the geek status bump that using a broken, bloated app does though. Besides, the real geeks just use the console.
If Yellow Dog is counting on this sort of customer for a significant percentage of its income, they are doomed. No offense to you, but you have to be in the gross minority. The parent question "who wipes out OS X for Linux?" is really implicitly asking whether Yellow Dog has a real business case, not whether there are 20 people in the world who would do that.
The other part of the question is also valid. 64-bit support obviously will only run on a G5. This limits the audience further to people who have bought recent XServes or Power Macs. Obviously that will change over time, but is this already a good time to be investing in 64-bit?
Both good questions not answered by your anecdote, I think.
So, you're nearly 21, but clearly liquored up to make such a ridiculous statement. I commend you on an attempt to describe how enamored you are with an OS in the rest of your post. It may indicate true geek credentials. However, I do question your foresight. Flashy and shiny are to a quasi-nerd the equivalent of a promised fix to a heroin addict. Young geeks are boys who love their toys. Mature geeks are men who know what toys are good for society, and what toys are good for a single company. To be able to distinguish between the two isn't the sign of maturity; the willingness to is.
Continue playing with OS X for its attractiveness. Who can deny that it's pretty? But, I would also recommend playing with the hard, rough edges of Linux. The more you and others play with it, the softer the edges will get due to wear and use. Over time, you may not be able to tell which is prettier, but you'll know which is better for everybody.
= 9J =
It's exactly because there's a demand for such things that ensures Apple will be concentrating on it. Apple knows that its hardware, while competent, doesn't blow the x86 out of the water. It is one of the few companies that is visibly optimizing its code.
- Choice. There are other reasons to choose an OS but "it's slick". Some of us (I know some people have difficulties getting this concept) do actually value the concept of Open Source and want to actively participate for personal and/or political reasons.
Yes, but how many people are willing to pay extra (OS X, like Windows, is "free") for principle?
The point is, I'm not belitting your choice one bit. I'm just agreeing with the parent question in the sense of wondering what Yellow Dog's business model is. When (not if, I think) Apple catches up with your first reason, will there be enough customers left for anybody else?
I've seen several points about running X11 only and not wanting to have to WM's running at the same time. Why not just use Darwin and run X11 on the box (or not and run a console only box). That way you still have the optimized core of OS X without the Aqua overhead.
That's what I've done on one of my old beige G3s. Plus the G3s boot directly into Darwin instead of OS9 + bootx like with LinuxPPC
FWIW, I've used the Mac OSX 10.2 for months (well, tech support for my wife), and I find no advantages over Linux + KDE (+ Gnome libraries).
Were I to acquire a Mac that my wife found superfluous, I would certainly set it up for Linux. I might later set it up as a Mac again...I don't know how well Linux works on the Mac, but I'd certainly give Linux a try. And I'd probably try that MOL (Macintosh On Linux) too, just to see how it worked. But I might not even bother.
I do know that many people prefer the Mac environment, but that certainly isn't everyone. Not even everyone who doesn't spend a lot of time tweaking their system. (I'd prefer to buy a larger hard disk, and a bit more RAM.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
We've been running Gentoo on a G5 here for a couple months now. Works fine. YDL, bah.
Add me to that list. Java runs noticably slower on my OS X Mac than on either Linux or Windows.
He's right that the aqua look and feel is pretty impressive though.
Wow! Amazing moderation. That went all the way up to 5, insightful and now it's all the way down to 1. Looks like the trolls got some mod points today and are moderating good comments down just to screw with the system.
Now, of Apple's hardware and software support in enterprise I have little knowledge. I do know that they offer that parts kit for customers who can fix things themselves. Apparently it's very easy to service an Xserve. But I can see how that wouldn't be enough for a lot of the big guys. So then there's AppleCare Premium Service and Support for Xserve, which (quoting Apple)
Is that "Enterprise ready" or "thin on the ground"? Not being in IT myself, I don't know what the standard is.Buisness case: I work in a place where two of my bosses, a coworker, and myself have replaced OSX with various distributions of GNU/Linux. The two bosses and myself run Debian and my coworker runs Gentoo. We use GNU/Linux because the rest of our environment is Debian and we are able to integrate better. Also there is the question of freedom which we all value. But again the main reason is usability and uniformity accross all of our platforms(i386, sparc, mips, ppc). So yes Yellow Dog has a buisness case for people like us.
As for your second question about why support 64-bit G5's now? Why not? Just because not many people have them yet and from your point of view even less would want Yellow Dog on them, why not support them now and be ready when more and more people start getting G5's and want to put Yellow Dog or another version of GNU/Linux on them, they will be ready. I dont know the internal working of Yellow Dog, but I would assume it is a lot like Debian in that as long as there is enough people and hardware to work on a port it wll survive. Also you fail to realize that these chips come from IBM and if my memory serves me they already have 64-bit PPC systems out there that one can put GNU/Linux onto.
GNU/Linux is constantly blasted for not supporting the latest hardware and what you are saying is that they shouldnt support the G5 because it is too new. Also, just because you view OSX as supirior does not mean everyone does. I find Debian runs much faster on my ibook G4 than did OSX 10.3. As the G5's and IBM's 64-bit PPC's become more prolific(IBM is looking for OEM mobo providers) Yellow Dog will have a stable OS for them to run. That is why it is good that they are supporting the arch now.
"We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
Whenever somebody ask a question like this, it seems that people are so eager to prove they exist. I'm not saying you don't exist. I'm asking how many there are of you! You cited four people. That's not a bleeding business case!
The point is, you don't know if it's a viable business. Nor do I. Which is why somebody asked the question.
As for your second question about why support 64-bit G5's now? Why not? Just because not many people have them yet and from your point of view even less would want Yellow Dog on them, why not support them now and be ready when more and more people start getting G5's and want to put Yellow Dog or another version of GNU/Linux on them, they will be ready.
That's quite a sentence there. :)
Seriously, a business should never ask "why not?" A business must always ask "why?" and "who will pay for it?" That's the nature of the beast. The late 90's dotcoms were exactly the businesses that asked "why not an on-line pet supplies store?" and "why not an on-line grocery store?"
Why not? Because investment wasted could've been used elsewhere. Even if the investment eventually is recouped, being "ahead of your time" is not a good thing in business.
GNU/Linux is constantly blasted for not supporting the latest hardware and what you are saying is that they shouldnt support the G5 because it is too new.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Debian and other free distros should support the newest hardware as quickly as it can. A distro that relies on getting paid, on the other hand, should work on stuff that will get them paid. Debian has no business objective. I presume Yellow Dog does, since they want $55 for a box set.
Also, just because you view OSX as supirior does not mean everyone does.
I didn't say OS X was superior. I was discussing if YDL had a business case. As any Linux user must know, technical superiority has precious little to do with market success. But just for the sake of argument, YDL's home page is now advertising "Introducing... Dual Monitor Support". I wouldn't be surprised if that feature sells more boxes than 64-bit support within the next quarter.
Just download from here. No installation necessary. Just drag the package to /Applications and make sure you have Apple's X11 installed.