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."

Comments

Just curious

[Neo-Rio-101]

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.

Re:Just curious

[JanneM]

Such a machine may well fall into your lap from somewhere - a friend always uppgrading to the latest wanting to sell off some stuff; getting an opportunity to buy it used, cheaply (from a failed business, for instance); or wanting a G5 for some reason, but not OSX.

And don't forget the possibility of people that leave Linux to go for OSX, then, after a while, decide Linux was a better fit for their work after all.

Re:Just curious

[Anonymous Coward]

The people for whom:

1. The hardware provides an advantage over other hardware.
2. The existing OS (OSX) doesn't do the job.

The hardware costs $$, yes. And OSX is a very very good OS, but for some purposes cost of the hardware is a minor issue and an existing linux solution may do the job immensely well with a strong stable track record

Re:Just curious

[kc8apf]

I put linux on my Xserve. It's a server. Linux fit the problem better. No GUI overhead, easier to maintain, etc.

For G5s, the person generally is either using it as a server or for sciTech work, such as long simulations or massive calculations.

The sciTech programs are typically written on linux x86 systems and then someone else gets the job of finding the best system to run them. Putting linux on a G5 ends up being easier than getting the initial developer to port the app. Not to mention it gives a consistant interface for all the systems regardless of architecture. This has the nice side effect of making it easier for the admins to maintain the systems and keep up to date on whats new.

Re:Just curious

[gantrep]

Wouldn't it be just as light, slim and quiet with os x? The question is why run linux on a mac, not why choose a mac.

Re:Just curious

[JanneM]

Um, because you prefer Linux over OSX?

Because you're developing Linux apps, not OSX apps, and that is easier to do using Linux directly than try to do it via OSX?

Because you like the hardware, but want to distance yourself from a user community seen by many as insular, conformant and intolerant?

Because you are working on UI issues (either as a hobby or professionally) and it is easier to experiment with new and alternative UI designs on an OS that does not have a deeply ingrained standard UI already?

There can be any number of reasons. Don't disparage people for making choices different from yours (see my third example above).

Re:Just curious

[jeremyp]

Because you like the hardware, but want to distance yourself from a user community seen by many as insular, conformant and intolerant?

Which user community is that? The Windows, Mac, Linux or BSD community? There are people in all of those that could be described as you have described them.

I'd never base my choice of hardware or software on what the other people who use it are like (if you can even make such a generalisation).

Re:why?

[DeathPenguin]

Same reason someone would install Linux on an x86 with Windows pre-installed.

That, and OS X is not fully 64-bit yet.

Good to hear it

[menace3society]

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.

Re:I've never been that impressed with Linux on Ma

[KrispyKringle]

I'm a very recent (about a month and a half) convert to OSX. My desktop is Gentoo, which I also use on my PC at work. I run a Debian server, use RedHat far more than I'd like at work, and run OpenBSD on my own server. I've also got similar experience running FreeBSD. I used to have Windows on my desktop as well, up until late last year, simply for the software compatibility. It was only recently that I decided that everything I did in Windows could be done without significant extra effort on Linux.

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.

Re:why?

[killjoe]

One word. Server.

Sure you can use macosx as a server but it's shall we say quixotic. Try getting a decent build of LAMP with an array of PHP modules and you'll see what I mean. Most linux distributions have some sort of a packaging system that makes that process relatively smooth. Mac has no such thing. There is darwinports but it does not resolve dependencies (really!). Fink is incomplete, pkgsource is iffy and out dated and neither one fits into the macosx file hierarchy. COmbine that with quirky installs of perl and python and you have a recipe for disaster.

If you want a g5 as a server you'll probably be happier with netbsd or linux (too bad freebsd does not support it).

BTW anybody use debian ppc on a g5? I'd like to know what your opinion is.

Is there a 64-bit JVM for it?

[btbo]

For me it would be really useful if there's also a 64-bit JVM for it.

Re:Just curious (Oh so true!)

[Reverant]

And don't forget the possibility of people that leave Linux to go for OSX, then, after a while, decide Linux was a better fit for their work after all.

You can't begin to imagine how true this is. I've been wanting to get a Mac for 3 years now, mainly because of OS X. When I did (Powerbook 667), I just found that KDE does the job better, quicker, and best of all, it's Free as in Speech. I can't tweak OS X (Aqua, the Finder, Mail.app, etc) and I'm not talking about the usual lame hints and tips, I'm talking about tweaking the code to add/remove that needed/useless functionality. Not to mention bug squashing that I can't wait for Apple to solve. The Powerbook (titanium) hardware is great (the first laptop in years to have working sleep/resume, the ACPI subsystem on pc notebooks just won't work on most laptops I have tried), save the orinoco driver for the Airport card that doesn't properly support scanning and has some issues here and there.

What's custom about IBM?

[leandrod]

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.