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

[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: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.