Slashdot Mirror


Yellow Dog Linux 4.0 - Finally in Limited Release

sloopy writes "Terra Soft Solutions has released the long awaited and overdue next version of Yellow Dog Linux - version 4.0, for ydl.net enhanced subscribers and pre-installed on new machines, with full release to hopefully soon follow in the coming weeks. With this new release, they finally include native support for the new G5s (32-bit kernel/toolchain currently, full 64-bit soon) and continued support for the G4s and newer G3s."

223 comments

  1. Platform question by MediumFormat · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's so good to know that Yellow Dog Democrats now have a platform in the Digital Age!

    1. Re:Platform question by jusdisgi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, it's called moveon

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  2. I like Linux but... by Shisha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would have thought that Linux on Apple hardware makes most sense on the server side, in which case the fact that it's not all full 64-bit defeats the point.

    On the desktop side, I see no advantage of running Linux rather than OS X. Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on my IBM laptop all the time, but on OS X I can run the same programs and also all the nice Mac OS X only things like iTunes.

    1. Re:I like Linux but... by colinleroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like to run linux on my iBook (which doesn't even have OS X installed), just because it's the easiest way to have a consistent experience between computers (same softs, same config, same everything) . I also prefer lots of things of GNU/Linux over OS X, even customized OS X.

      --
      blah
    2. Re:I like Linux but... by Dielectric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about for relatively recent Apple hardware that will run OS X poorly, like my aging 350MHz iMac? There is very little software left for OS 9, so just last night I was looking into converting the little blue gumball to Linux. This announcement is like a message from the computer gods for me. Linux it is!

    3. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      i'm a linux user. period.

      i want a nice piece of mobile hardware, and a 1ghz 12" ibook fit the bill.

      what's so difficult to understand about that?

      I gave OS X a chance, and after 3 months, I wiped the system and put crux on it. OS X has a pretty face, and if you are in the artsy fartsy croud, then i imagine it's wonderful to impress your friends with transparency, and a gui that's like a video game.

      but i need a fast CLI that behaves like the x86 counterpart, i need fluxbox, a lightweight minimalist gui, i need a browser, and something to play my mp3s.

      even on my brand new ibook, os x was sluggish...i can't but compare it to online FPS gaming....sure you are getting 175 frames per second locally, but there's this thing called LAG which ruins the whole experience. OS X is laggy. I never had to wait for similar thing in linux, or xp or even os-9, why should i have to start waiting now?

    4. Re:I like Linux but... by nbert · · Score: 2, Informative
      Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on my IBM laptop all the time, but on OS X I can run the same programs and also all the nice Mac OS X only things like iTunes.
      You also could run all your OSX apps using http://www.maconlinux.org/. It's pretty fast and reliable afaik
    5. Re:I like Linux but... by richdun · · Score: 2, Informative

      The biggest problem with OS X is its great for the high-end G4s (like my 1.5GHz Powerbook) and the G5s, but they pushed it onto to the lower end machines too much. My only first-hand use experience with OS X has been on there, so I've only used a nice quick version as opposed to slow laggy performance of the iBooks. I can play the UT2004 Demo great in full res on my Powerbook (with the mobility 9700 and 128mb vram), but good luck on any Apple machine much lower than that.

    6. Re:I like Linux but... by mauryisland · · Score: 4, Informative

      I run YellowDog on my iBook for the same reasons as you do, and the only downside is that the silly modem doesn't work, making it necessary to boot into OS X when travelling without an ethernet or wireless connection to the Internet. Other than that, though, it's been mostly YellowDog, because I'm way more familiar with Linux.

    7. Re:I like Linux but... by Shisha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see your point, even though since I use the same programs (emacs, kmail, latex, gcc, gnuplot, web browser) on both, and they're the only thing I use often enough, and of course they use the same config files. I don't even get any conflicts using them concurently. The reason why I wouldn't ditch OS X is because of Mathematica, which AFAIK does not run on PowerPC Linux of any flavour Yellow Dog included.

    8. Re:I like Linux but... by krunk7 · · Score: 1
      My friend runs OSX on an 866mhz G3 iBook with no problems whatsoever. At work we have OSX on a G4 450mhz. I just purchased a 1ghz G4 iBook and have no doubts it will run OSX to my complete satisfaction.

      Now, are we running UT2004 @ 100fps. . .no. In fact if we open up several heavy apps at once like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, etc. than they slow down. But that's not what I use a laptop for, rather I use it for software development and portability. For these uses the iBook fits perfectly for a very good price.

      It seems that you weren't looking for a laptop, but a desktop replacement. Those are two very different things.

    9. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For us Linux users (who see no point in running OSX), it makes sense to get a laptop that just works(tm), and for that purpose Apple laptops tend to beat most of what the PC world puts out.

      For an Apple-fan, it may not make sense to run Linux on an iBook, because the alternative is running OSX.

      But for a Linux-fan, running Linux on an iBook makes sense because the alternative is a Dell.

    10. Re:I like Linux but... by jkabbe · · Score: 0, Troll

      A closer look reveals that MacOnLinux won't work on his IBM laptop since it's a PPC-only setup.

    11. Re:I like Linux but... by richdun · · Score: 1

      Yeah I understand you on that. I mainly was looking for a portable machine but one that I could do everything on and wasn't too thick, hot, or with the letters DELL on it (no offense to Dell users, I had a very nice Dell desktop, but I've always preferred hard metal cases to plastic).

    12. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      10.1 and 10.2 where kinda slow on my iBook 500. 10.3 has a lot of optimizations for G3 chips, and runs very nicely. I did upgrade to a 5400 RPM 40 gig drive though.

      Forget about playing any recent games on an 8 MB graphics card tho' :( Myth II runs fine :) I got all the way through NOLF I on it!

    13. Re:I like Linux but... by nathanh · · Score: 0, Redundant
      On the desktop side, I see no advantage of running Linux rather than OS X.

      Software freedom.

    14. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      An even closer look makes me suspect he already has a mac somewhere, because its running OS X...

    15. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yep, I run YDL on an iBook 500 (lucky me, hw modem, but its still flakey compared to MacOS 9-X) generally because I wanted a more widely supported UNIX-like install for development, i.e. avoiding hoop jumping that used to be so common with earlier OSX releases, but are now, mostly, history...

      Secondly, YDL can run a bit faster than OSX on this hw if I use a lighter wm/desktop e.g. fluxbox, xfce, etc. In which case it can be a little faster. That being said my Pismo(also a 500) runs OSX faster than the ibook and the only real hw diff is the 66M v. 100M bus...

      Downsides: modem support is not very good(probably limited hw doc access), as is power management support(probably same as with modem), and airport support isn't too hot either(i.e. I end up doing quite a bit of manual configuring...), sound support is well, basically crap, and DVD playback non-existant...(although these last 2 are extremely minor issues for me as this system is not really for gaming or video watching...)

      In fact with recent OSX releases I have been seriously considering moving back to OSX, but am leery of dealing with all the multimeg updates(modem)... installing fink(or whatever, again multimeg + modem ick) But then I'd have good modem support, power management, sound, and airport config again(or at least in a non-manual, or not as manual sort of way...)

      Newer iBooks/Powerbooks: er... isn't there a conexant(? binary) driver for the sw/USB modem? I've heard that it introduces potential stability problems, but I've never encountered them...

      YDL itself: at the time it installed with the fewest problems v. debian/slackintosh/suse and seemed like it would receive the most attention, although it now seems that debian or gentoo would be as good alternatives if you have any clue, but I guess that you wouldn't be attempting to run linux if you didnt... I'd also hazard that maybe a Darwin based distro would be even better as the kernel would likely have better support for hw, maybe, but I've never really investigated myself as I'd rather just get all the goodies and run OSX if I was going to bother with a Darwin base...

    16. Re:I like Linux but... by nuggetman · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah. I forgot you can't code OSS apps for mac.

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    17. Re:I like Linux but... by amichalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about for relatively recent [emphasis added] Apple hardware that will run OS X poorly, like my aging 350MHz iMac? ... just last night I was looking into converting the little blue gumball to Linux.

      According to EveryMac, your computer was released 10/5/99 - that's five years give or take a few weeks. How is that relatively recent when Apple only started selling Macs 20 years ago?

      The list price was $999 which means you have gotten core computer usage for ~$200 a year, or less than $0.55 a day. Perhaps it is time to upgrade to a system that DOES run OS X.

      Did you know about this or this? Both are in the range of your existing investment - AND YOU GET A NEW APPLE COMPUTER!

      --
      I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    18. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For many people (like me) Linux is unuseable. I just can't understand how anyone who is used to the powers of Quartz Extreme and the consistency of the Mac user interface can work with those clumsy windowmanagers for X11 (the whole pack, and yes compared to the Mac GUI, even GNOME is a joke).

    19. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Use what you want, but stop that condescending "why use Linux when you can use MacOS" crap. I've installed both on my Powerbook and never boot into MacOS, because it's the horror. I don't use Gnome either btw.

    20. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>I just purchased a 1ghz G4 iBook and have no doubts it will run OSX to my complete satisfaction.

      no doubt...but your satisfaction ain't mine.

      i'm a proficient mac, freebsd, linux(slack, crux & debian) admin, and I have used OS X on a brand new G5 tower.

      To me, the lag is still there. It's just inherent to OS X. Some people are ok with it. I just don't put up with it, when even OS 9 had a snappier interface.

      most mac users scoff at my subjective comments, beause they don't have my experience. most who are hardcore multiplatform know what i mean.

    21. Re:I like Linux but... by leinhos · · Score: 4, Informative

      And then what should he do with the existing iMac, ,throw it away? He still should put Linux on it (YDL or some other distro). The point was made in an earlier post that running Linux on PPC hardware gives the user a consistent operating/user environment across platform architectures. While one could install Fink, there are still differences in the development environment that delays porting from a regular GNU/Linux environment to the BSD/OSX environment. YDL essentially is Fedora Core (1?) on PPC, so going back and forth from an Intel-based machine is relatively painless.

    22. Re:I like Linux but... by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Oh, yeah. I forgot you can't code OSS apps for mac.

      You can code free software apps for Windows too. What's your point?

    23. Re:I like Linux but... by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Agreed! What's your experience with WINE on PPC hardware? My friends still get together for StarCraft lan parties, and where OS 9 will run StarCraft quite nicely (including game delivered right button support), I don't want to dedicate the machine to StarCraft. Linux would make my three old Macs useful for more than the occational lan session, but I've not messed with WINE on PPC and StarCraft is their primary function. Ha, that sounds cool (:

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    24. Re:I like Linux but... by macmaniac · · Score: 5, Informative
      According to EveryMac, your computer was released 10/5/99 - that's five years give or take a few weeks. How is that relatively recent when Apple only started selling Macs 20 years ago?

      The list price was $999 which means you have gotten core computer usage for ~$200 a year, or less than $0.55 a day. Perhaps it is time to upgrade to a system that DOES run OS X.

      FWIW, if you put at least 256mb of memory in it, you can usably run OS X on a 350. I have it running quite surprisingly well with Panther on an iMac/333, which is even worse, with 512mb of RAM. It's obviously not good for having lots of apps open or for number crunching or whatever, but it's a very good machine for browsing the 'net or email and things of that nature - which was one of the major selling points for the iMacs initially anyways.

    25. Re:I like Linux but... by Dielectric · · Score: 1

      Ha ha! But you're assuming I'm not a cheap bastard!

      BTW, I consider it relatively recent because my last Mac was a 6100/60. Not a bad machine in it's day.

      Believe me, I've drooled over the iBook as an inexpensive OS X entry. Someday...

    26. Re:I like Linux but... by Dielectric · · Score: 1

      It does have 384MB in it, but I was under the impression that the vid card was not well supported under OS X. Truly, I've considered it, but I don't really want to dump ~$100 into a 5 year old machine.

      I look at YDL, for me, as extended life support.

    27. Re:I like Linux but... by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      I've run both Jaguar and Panther on my iMac 350 over the past year. It worked fine without any tweaking. I had the model right before the DVD player was added, so I can't speak to video playback, but for everything else, it was fine. (also with 384MB RAM)

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    28. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I may be mistaken, but WINE works only on x86 platforms; it's not an emulator, but rather a set of compatibility libraries. In order to run a Windows application on OS X, the machine code (which is x86) has to be converted to PPC instructions - a task that Virtual PC 6 handles well (but with some tradeoffs involved)

    29. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sure, but idiots with enough money to buy an iBook are one of the best markets there is! I say the Yellow Dog Linux guys are onto something there.

    30. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For us Linux users (who see no point in running OSX), it makes sense to get a laptop that just works(tm), and for that purpose Apple laptops tend to beat most of what the PC world puts out.

      For an Apple-fan, it may not make sense to run Linux on an iBook, because the alternative is running OSX.

      But for a Linux-fan, running Linux on an iBook makes sense because the alternative is a Dell.
      Actually, for the newer iBooks and Powerbooks, many important things don't work (sleep, external video, Airport, Bluetooth). It takes a little more research, but for x86 you can find laptops where at least all hardware is supported.
    31. Re:I like Linux but... by Graff · · Score: 1
      How about for relatively recent Apple hardware that will run OS X poorly, like my aging 350MHz iMac?

      Mac OS X 10.3 runs just fine on the 350 mHz iMac. My parents are running it on one and they have had few, if any, problems. The big thing is to make sure that you have at least 384 MB of RAM in the machine, any less and you will run into swap quickly which slows the machine down considerably.

      It won't be a speed demon by any means but you can surf the web, use Microsoft Word and Excel, play some of the less taxing games, etc. It is a great setup for basic computer use. Linux will probably make the machine seem a bit quicker but then again you'll lose the great UI that Mac OS has.
    32. Re:I like Linux but... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I am running Mandrake on two machines. One is a Duron the other is a Mac 6400. I decided to run Mandrake 9.1 on both machines to make the interface consistant. The config files are in the same places on both machines. The config files are in the same format.

      The huge amount of resources available to linux users makes getting support a breeze.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    33. Re:I like Linux but... by larkost · · Score: 1

      WINE does not currently run on PPC hardware, at all, since it is an API implementation, not a emulator. There is a project going to combine WINE with a hardware emulator (BOCHS) and that will then work, but very slowly.

      There is a Mac-On-Linux project that is in some ways similar to WINE on x86, and you can run MacOS 9 on top of Linux on PPC. For more information see their site

    34. Re:I like Linux but... by Oliver+Lieb · · Score: 1

      In early 2000, I bought my mum an iMac DV 400Mhz. About four months ago, I upped it from 128 to 512MB and installed 10.2. For whatever reasons, it refused to run 10.3, but it purred along for a couple months running 10.2 ...until the hard drive died.

      I was able to shoehorn in an 80GB drive (I did have fun trying to find a good 5400RPM model), and once again installed 10.2.

      I wouldn't want to run Final Cut Pro on it, but for email/web surfing and word processing, it's fine.

      I believe the DV cost $1200 in the spring of 2000, that's ~$270 per year of use. It was $100 for the RAM and $75 for the HDD.

      The DV models are still viable low-impact desktops. Having the firewire is a Godsend, being able to boot off an external LaCie made the second resurrection much less of a headache.

    35. Re:I like Linux but... by amichalo · · Score: 1

      I would recommend throwing it away (or recycling it if possible).

      The reason?

      It may end up costing more to run than a new system. When you are talking about a 5 year old PC, you are talking CRT, larger (size) but smaller (capacity) hard drive, inferrior cooling methods, slower processors, ram, and networking.

      All this adds up to a system that runs slow and hot, driving up energy bills to run the system AND cool the room as well as taking a lot longer to perform a specific task, thus directly increasing energy consumption.

      If you think that energy consumption isn't important, than I cannot help you. One day soon you will.

      --
      I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    36. Re:I like Linux but... by plasm4 · · Score: 1

      and one day soon the streets of Paris will be full of horse shit.

    37. Re:I like Linux but... by huchida · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good sales pitch, but the question wasn't, "should I buy a new Mac?" (I mean, do you really think that didn't occur to him?) The question was if the distro would work on his aging machine. Which is an entirely valid query, considering Macs are built to last long past their usefulness... And that one of Linux' selling points, if I'm not mistaken, is that it is a speedy and capable OS to an outdated system.

    38. Re:I like Linux but... by andreyw · · Score: 1
    39. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you are talking CRT,

      It's the same on the obvious successor (eMac, the iMac isn't sold at the moment),

      > larger (size) but smaller (capacity) hard drive

      Maybe he doesn't need any larger? Besides, replacing the IDE HD is cheap, or he could use a FW HD.

      > inferrior cooling methods,

      The later generation CRT iMacs used convection cooling (fanless!), which you can't even get on any current Mac if you wanted.

      > slower processors, ram,

      Maybe he doesn't need faster? Because he runs Linux as opposed to OS X?

      > and networking.

      10/100 is 10/100, AFAIK, none of the current Apple machines targetted at the iMac segment have Gigabit ethernet.

      > All this adds up to a system that runs slow and hot, driving up energy bills to run the system

      How much more energy did the CRT iMac consume, compared to the LCD iMac or the eMac?

    40. Re:I like Linux but... by solios · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pismos have the 100mhz bus going in their favor... they also have two megs of CPU cache, whereas the iBooks have much, MUCH less. :)

    41. Re:I like Linux but... by CPM+User · · Score: 1
      I tried installing YDL on my iMac & had trouble with the screen brightness. It would default to full brightness every time I booted YDL. Being software controlled, I couldn't find any utility for adjusting it down and I suspect that you may find the same problem.

      Is there any way round this now ?

    42. Re:I like Linux but... by crackshoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you could also run x11 and a lightweight window manager and kill off aqua. but... yeah, my solution to a slow running mac is either netBSD or WDL (depending on the age of the machine. those old macintosh classic's run BSD, old g3's run YDL pretty well, but kde is only a touch faster than aqua - icewm is a better solution, i've found.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    43. Re:I like Linux but... by scosol · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why anyone would run linux on any desktop that can use OSX.
      I've been a 10-year FreeBSD/Linux user and just recently moved to OSX and have really just been thoroughly loving it.
      Even if you want nothing to do with the OSX interface, you just just run X and whatever WM you like, and run nothing but your favorite X apps- then drop to a shell when need be.
      Oh and your modem works, and your sound works, and your TVout works :)
      I really just can't imagine too much closer to the "best of both worlds".
      As the above poster said, it really only makes sense server side.
      (I personally would use Free/NetBSD but whatever)

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    44. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the intended audience isn't MAC turds but Linux/Unix users who don't want or need the fartiest GUI around.

    45. Re:I like Linux but... by RedBear · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason why I wouldn't ditch OS X is because of Mathematica, which AFAIK does not run on PowerPC Linux of any flavour Yellow Dog included.

      Hey, to anyone who wants to run Mac-only applications on top of YDL (or probably any Linux distro running on a PPC processor) you might want to know about Mac-on-Linux. Apparently it's capable of running pretty much any version of the Mac OS from System 7.5.2 to OS X 10.3.x, at near native speeds. I've never had the chance to try it myself but it looks pretty interesting. The site says it's not an emulator, which is why it's fairly fast. Check out the multi-session support too. You can run 2-3 different versions of Mac OS at the same time. Probably more, only limited by memory and cpu speed.

    46. Re:I like Linux but... by RedBear · · Score: 1

      How about for relatively recent Apple hardware that will run OS X poorly, like my aging 350MHz iMac?

      Hi, I don't know if you realize this, but your 350Mhz iMac (slot loading?) is capable of running OS X 10.3 adequately for common desktop uses, provided you make sure it has the latest firmware update and give it plenty of RAM (Crucial.com is a good place to get RAM for Apple computers). Might want to upgrade the hard drive too, to at least 10-20GB, but that's no big deal. Couple hundred dollars and you'll have basically a new computer. Seriously, I have direct experience with a 350 that's probably the same model as yours. It runs fine with OS X, but it ran out of space after a while because I only gave it a 5GB partition on a 10GB drive. Shortsighted on my part.

      Let me just reiterate the firmware thing: If you don't have the latest firmware, your Mac will die when it encounters OS X. Literally. IIRC your model MUST have firmware 4.1.9 before installing OS X. If it does, no problem. If it doesn't, don't even attempt to boot any CD that has OS X on it. Booting from any bootable OS X CD will destroy your computer, unless that firmware is up to date. Check the following Apple Support documents before doing your upgrade. After that, have fun, because it will work great! Will probably last another good 5 years. Might even work with upcoming 10.4 Tiger release, but that's iffy.

      iMac (Slot Loading): Install iMac Firmware 4.1.9 Before Mac OS X 10.2
      Mac OS X: Chart of Available Firmware Updates
      iMac: How to Install an iMac Firmware Update

    47. Re:I like Linux but... by matantisi · · Score: 1

      Well, some of us like to support Linux development as a "political" decision. Also the opportunity to play with a full 64-bit system when it's available is exciting. A real 64-bit OSX will be a lot longer coming.

    48. Re:I like Linux but... by eeg3 · · Score: 1

      How about for relatively recent Apple hardware that will run OS X poorly, like my aging 350MHz iMac?

      Your 350mhz iMac runs OS X poorly? I'm on one right now, and it runs great, without any upgrades. If you upgrade the RAM, it'll be even better. OS X 10.1 might run a tad slow on it (of course the first version won't be as fast as the improved one), but Panther is blazing. With all due respect, you're flat-out wrong on OS X's performance.

      Fortunately, with OS X every time a new version comes out it runs better on slower hardware... atleast so far atleast. The changes from Puma -> Jaguar -> Panther have always increased speed.

      Linux can't compete with OS X on the desktop. Anyone who says it can is living in a fantasy world, or is simply a linux zealot. No offense, but slashdot can be blinded by the latter occasionally.

    49. Re:I like Linux but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what it's worth, I'm running 10.2 on a 300 MHz iBook with 192MB RAM. It doesn't rock, but it doesn't suck, either. I've used several older machines of that era with Mac OS X, and the key is lots of RAM. (So, yes, I'd like to swap the 128MB for 256MB. And fix the batter problem, too, so I could use it on the road.)

      Right now, my iBook is my personal web server, but I kind of plan to replace it with something like a Kuro Box some time.

      200MHz Power PC with ethernet, USB, 64MB of RAM, Linux. Costs about $150, you add the hard disk. Target is NAS, but it looks like it will make a good, power efficient home web server.

      Of course, I'm going to let my friend tell me how it goes with his first.

    50. Re:I like Linux but... by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      I use mac on linux instead of classic mode on OS X, but i've never tried running mac-on-linux over yellowdog to attempt to run OS X apps.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    51. Re:I like Linux but... by mr.scoot · · Score: 1
      It does have 384MB in it, but I was under the impression that the vid card was not well supported under OS X. Truly, I've considered it, but I don't really want to dump ~$100 into a 5 year old machine.
      If you do install OS X, make sure you update the firmware first. If you don't, you're likely to end up with no video, and no easy /cheap way to fix it. The 350 and 400 mhz iMacs were er.. problematic in this regard.
    52. Re:I like Linux but... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      If you do install OS X, make sure you update the firmware first. If you don't, you're likely to end up with no video, and no easy /cheap way to fix it. The 350 and 400 mhz iMacs were er.. problematic in this regard.

      Basically all of the pre-DVD iMacs were like this. My 233 took a firmware update to handle Panther (had 8.6 when I got it).

      That said, it ran surprisingly good. Much better than XP on equally old/priced hardware. I think it had 256MB RAM, but I can't verify since I loaned this machine to a friend of my little brother who needed a starter computer.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    53. Re:I like Linux but... by dtungsten · · Score: 1

      Whaaaa?? I say in incredulous confusion, as I type this from a 333MHz iMac running - not in a way that I would call "poorly" - Mac OS 10.2.8. Though maybe it runs poorly for you in some way that I am not aware.

    54. Re:I like Linux but... by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 1
      If you do install OS X, make sure you update the firmware first. If you don't, you're likely to end up with no video, and no easy /cheap way to fix it. The 350 and 400 mhz iMacs were er.. problematic in this regard.

      You can fix it by reinstalling OS 9 (or, I think, just booting off an OS 9 CD) and applying the firmware patch. I thought I'd killed my 350 in the process of replacing the Panther Developer Preview (which ran fine w/o the firmware update) with the retail version (which did not), but it was no big deal to get it working again.

      --
      Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
    55. Re:I like Linux but... by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1

      Linux can't compete with OS X on the desktop. Anyone who says it can is living in a fantasy world, or is simply a linux zealot.

      I know this does not represent the opinion of most Macintosh users, but:

      What about us poor souls that like twm better than Aqua? Or, we who prefer typing "cp ~/foo ~/files" over dragging it through a desktop window? Or, we with zero money to spend on system upgrades, and 64MB of RAM? (Or, we who really like being able to set the screen resolution to 16x12. ;))
      Last time I ran OSX (10.2 prerelease, internal edition) it took the machine three episodes of Cowboy Bebop to bring up a freakin' Get Info window! (Actually, that's just when I gave up watching the inverted rectangles grow and reset the machine.) Why should I bother when I can just click my snappy, customized desktop menu, choose an xterm (eight flavors to choose from), and type "ls -hld"?
      Why let iTunes take up screen space and 20MB of RAM, when I can just have MikMod running on terminal 5? Who gave the Dock the right to take up 17MB? Why should an activity monitor take up 22MB? Who needs an AIM client that uses 30MB? A web browser that uses 40MB? A window server that uses 62MB?!
      My Linux system's total RAM usage usually peaks around 25-30MB, even with mikmod, top, naim, lynx (twice), twm, and my latest game running all on top of each other. And, not only that, it costed me $0 to install. Even the CD I burned it onto and the Internet connction I downloaded it with were free.
      Why do all lines and fonts have to be antialiased in realtime? Why require a Radeon 8000 for decent compositing performance? While we're on the subject of video, why kill the Mach64 video driver?!

      </rant>

      I'm writing this from my OSX machine, because some moron ripped the Ethernet port out of my iBook and I don't have the money to fix it. I've got to admit, running on a decent system, OSX does give a better desktop experience than Linux. I seriously doubt I could run my Wormhole screen saver as my desktop picture under Linux and get the framerate I've been getting. (500+ fps, when uncapped) And Linux doesn't support Halo.
      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    56. Re:I like Linux but... by eeg3 · · Score: 1

      You can make OS X boot to the command line then launch X11 from there with TWM on top, avoiding the Quartz WM. After that, you can run all of your linux apps, after you install them with fink, or Gentoo MacOS (Portage for OS X). All of that saves precious RAM.

  3. Yellow Dog Linux by bunburyist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the site, YDL will "Bridge the gap between Intel and Apple, between x86 and PowerPC. Once you have become comfortable with the KDE or Gnome desktop, you can sit down with any Linux computer and feel right at home.
    Linux will be around for a very long time. It may change, grow, expand, but it will most likely never die. No corporation (even Microsoft) can halt the production of Linux as everyone has the opportunity to offer improvements, to help it become better than it was. Linux users will never be in the position of finding their OS is no longer supported."
    This is cool! Basically it allows you to keep all your existing stuff (from what i gathered) and move to a completely different and (in many people's opinion) better processor architecture, not to mention fancy keyboard/mouse with cool looking box/monitor. Question: Can you dual boot it though? because OSX is so damn pretty and it has X11 to support some linux st0ff.

    1. Re:Yellow Dog Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't tried YDL yet, but I'm dualbooting my ibook with gentoo and OSX so there should be no problem.

      And of course there is Mac on Linux which let's you run OSX at allmost native speed while working in linux.

    2. Re:Yellow Dog Linux by colinleroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Question: Can you dual boot it though?

      Sure, you can. The boot loader on ppc linux is 'yaboot' and handles that fine.

      --
      blah
    3. Re:Yellow Dog Linux by jusdisgi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, you can dual-boot. Furthermore, with mac-on-linux, you can run your OSX installation in a window on linux. Not emulation, either...it just boots the os native.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    4. Re:Yellow Dog Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are aware of the fact that you can simply plug a mouse in with more than one button?

      And if you are refering to notebooks, it is equally easy to map a key you don't need when running linux, e.g. the apple key to a mouse button.

    5. Re:Yellow Dog Linux by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

      No, but you are probably one of the few who finds it easier to whine about the problem than actually buy a replacement mouse (or plug your PC's in. Any USB mouse will work with modern day macs).

    6. Re:Yellow Dog Linux by kchayer · · Score: 1
      I haven't tried YDL yet, but I'm dualbooting my ibook with gentoo and OSX so there should be no problem.

      I can beat that. :) I have OS X (Panther), Mandrake Linux 9.1, NetBSD 1.6.2, and OpenBSD 3.5. Four operating systems, five if you count System 9.2. It's a bit of a pain to boot the BSDs, but it all works.

      Oh, it's an iBook dual-USB 600, upgraded to 640 megs RAM and an 80 gig hard drive (boy was THAT a pain).

      --

      "I say consider this day seized!" -Hobbes
      "Tomorrow we'll seize the day and throttle it!" -Calvin
  4. Doesnt run on 17in gen 1 powerbook :( by smittenracing · · Score: 3, Informative

    too bad it wont run on my 17 inch gen 1 powerbook :(

    1. Re:Doesnt run on 17in gen 1 powerbook :( by phrasebook · · Score: 1

      Care to share why...

    2. Re:Doesnt run on 17in gen 1 powerbook :( by smittenracing · · Score: 3, Informative

      YDL does not support the 17in powerbook Check it out Here

    3. Re:Doesnt run on 17in gen 1 powerbook :( by aftk2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's strange...apparently when you first attempt to run the installer, the screen goes black, and the only words visible are:

      YOU BOUGHT A 17INCH POWERBOOK TO RUN LINUX?!

      It won't let you proceed beyond that point...

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    4. Re:Doesnt run on 17in gen 1 powerbook :( by dan_bethe · · Score: 1

      You can virtualize it. Run native Linux as a MacOS process using qemu.

  5. Re:YALD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah yes, and I'm sure trying out ppc linux distributions is the main reason why your x86 box is broken.

  6. Re:Doesnt matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "when we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price" - RMS

    We are not _all_ complete freeloaders, some of us just don't like to pirate commercial OS's or pay the MS tax.

    Hint: MS tax is not applicable to Apple boxes :-D

  7. support dropped by zenrandom · · Score: 5, Informative

    The unfortunate thing is that YDL has dropped support for the oldworld rom architecture. So now your beige g3's and the wallstreet powerbooks and earlier are no longer officially supported.

    1. Re:support dropped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes lets forget about harnessing the 64 bit G5 architecture's full power for a while so we can keep the distro running on old ass hardware that SUCKS.

    2. Re:support dropped by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      You don't have to abandon new hardware to keep supporting the old. Just look at the x86 branch...it's got features that are only usable on p4-ht hardware (like, say, hyperthreading support), and options that sane people would only turn on for a 386 (like, say, math-coprocessor support).

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    3. Re:support dropped by bedouin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but not supported and will not run are two different things. I'm pretty sure you can install YDL 4.0 on old-world machines, just not with Terrasoft's help.

      That said, I think that's a dumb move on their part. I'd imagine half (if not more) of YDL users are running it on old machines that either can't support OS X, or run it too sluggishly to bother. The beige G3s are still powerful machines. If you can still install Fedora on a circa-1994 Pentium, you should be able to put YDL on a G3 from 1998.

    4. Re:support dropped by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      likewise, gentoo is a pain to install on oldworld macs. i had to use debian bootdisks to do it!

    5. Re:support dropped by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I believe you can run Gentoo still on the old ones?

      This page has some info...

      Check out the link on this page a few lines down about the gentoo linux ppc faq...will show you all supported macs...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:support dropped by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      If you can still install Fedora on a circa-1994 Pentium, you should be able to put YDL on a G3 from 1998.

      I think the biggest concern is that the Old and New World Powermacs use different boot loaders, and Terrasoft doesn't want to get involved with that.

      Not that I can say I blame them. On the Old World machines, you have to either use BootX (which boots Linux from inside of Mac OS, once the latter has fully loaded into memory... what a pain) or Quik (which, from some of the threads I see on debian-powerpc, seems to be a little problematic.)

      I doubt it's a matter of functionality, just a matter of support. Although I do find it funny that Debian supports Old and New World Powermacs, and even 680x0 based Macs, and doesn't seem to get any props for it. Oh, well.

      --saint

  8. Re:Doesnt matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.ebay.com

  9. sweet , really sweet by Krafty+Koder · · Score: 4, Funny
    this is just brilliant prose: From their site
    "you cradle your new 12" PowerBook G4 (small enough to hide at the office) running Yellow Dog Linux. Feeling so empowered by this transformation, you quickly demand full reimbursement for the cost of your Mac from your health insurance company, stating with affirmation that an Apple with Yellow Dog Linux is an NIH funded, clinically tested, FDA approved form of alternative medicine. And you would have walked to Canada to get one!

    Yes, this is why people run Linux on a Mac. Hard to explain, isn't it? "

    1. Re:sweet , really sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i could care less about the FDA

    2. Re:sweet , really sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i could care less about the FDA"

      I couldn't care less.

  10. Suffocating the old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope they update their website. Currently, it says YDL is for the home user who desires to breathe life into old hardware"..

    For those of use who continue to use a pre-G3 at home because that's all we really need, we can't use the new YDL. How many moms/aunts/not-so-technical cousins are using such older machines?

    1. Re:Suffocating the old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >How many moms/aunts/not-so-technical cousins are using such older machines?


      i highly doubt that those people are using their old computers every day, wondering if installing linux on it would improve their computing experience.

    2. Re:Suffocating the old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont you just run Debian then?
      As far as I know it runs on older macs too.
      Debian Sarge will be out soon (=this year maybe..?)

  11. Finally? by rharder · · Score: 4, Insightful
    With this new release, they finally include native support for the new G5s...

    Finally? Goodness, you guys sure do ask a lot. G5's haven't been out all that long. =)

    1. Re:Finally? by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we're linux users. We're used to linux running on an architecture long before the hardware actually exists...at least that's the way it always works with new chips from Intel and AMD.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  12. Question for Yellow Dog users... by dave-tx · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm a new owner of a powerbook and have thought about installing YDL, but I haven't seen a reason for it... With X11 installed, it seems to me that I can do everything I need with OSX, which is *nix enough to do everything I do with my Fedora Core system.

    Can any YDL advocates provide some insight as to why they prefer this over OSX?

    --

    >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

    1. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, Linux is free software (as in GNU free) which is important to some. Desktop Linux has some things that MacOS X lacks or can only gain with extra hacks. For instance, I'm very comfortable with virtual desktops in Gnome 2.6 and miss them terribly when I'm on a Windows or Mac machine. There are other reasons too - the shareware culture is still prevalent in the Mac world: you can often find yourself being asked to pay ~$30 for a little utility that would be free under Linux, if needed at all.

      Other reasons include apps like Evolution fitting in on Linux, but not on MacOS (and Evo 2 is really, really sweet, far better than Apple Mail in my estimation), improved semantic/source compatibility with the x86 Linux world, want to learn it for future job markets etc etc.

      There are lots of reasons.

    2. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if you have any experience with linux on a highend x86 laptop, you know how fast your X11 apps are SUPPOSED to run.

      in fact you know how it feels for a system to boot in under 10 seconds, to a command line, you fire up fluxbox in 1/2 second and have access to your CLI, Pan, Gimp, Firebird etc.

      you haven't even dreamed of the system response times i get in the real world.

      disclaimer, i own a 12" powerbook and a g4 silver tower, amongst my stable of mostly x86 hardware.

    3. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by dave-tx · · Score: 2, Informative
      Thanks for the explanation, those seem like very good reasons.

      As an aside, I wanted to point you toward a virtual desktop pager for OSX that I've been using and really like:

      http://wsmanager.sourceforge.net/index.php

      --

      >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

    4. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      disclaimer, i own a 12" powerbook and a g4 silver tower, amongst my stable of mostly x86 hardware.

      Home is where the boxen are, eh?

    5. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Thanks but the only time I use a Mac is when I'm round at a friends who has one. I'm one of those "open platforms are important" guys I'm afraid ;)

    6. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by ztirffritz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The biggest and best reason that I am familiar with is this: Linux does not make as many demands on the computers as OS X, and is more stable than OS 9. I have an old 233 Mhz Red A iMac that was at the end of its rope. I was about to turn it into an aquarium when I learned of YDL. Now I have a functioning computer that allows me to continue using my computer that I purchased in 1998. It certainly is no racehorse, but it can browse the web and check email, has Open Office, and all of the usual trimmings that come with a Redhat distro (YDL is based on Redhat). There was a reason that Apple jumped head-first into OS X...OS 9 was near useless. It was the same software for years with bandaid on top of bandaid. Imagine if you were still using Win95 with some prettier graphics and a few added features that made it crash a little more often. OS X solves all that. But on my prehistoric iMac OS X is a pipe dream. It will never happen. Linux is a nice compromise.

      --
      Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
    7. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      http://www.opendarwin.org

    8. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Darwin doesn't include 99% of the APIs that Mac apps use, ie Carbon and Cocoa. Because of that it's merely a slow implementation of UNIX, not something that is especially interesting for running Mac apps.

    9. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by Zane+Edwards · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether or not you want to put your new laptop to sleep, use airport extreme, or want 3D graphics. You can use a Wireless PCI card adaptor, and shut your computer down to work around those quirks. The think with Apple hardware is, it is cutting edge and it takes some time to support. I remember how much work it took to get firewire recognized on my old iMac running linux. Now, it just works out of the box. The latest Debain (Sid) supports bluetooth out of the box now.

    10. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      in fact you know how it feels for a system to boot in under 10 seconds, to a command line, you fire up fluxbox in 1/2 second and have access to your CLI, Pan, Gimp, Firebird etc.
      True, Linux boot time *can* be very good, depending on the distro. But OS X sleep works so well that I rarely reboot. Saving two or three minutes per months is not a very big advantage IMO.
    11. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are other reasons too - the shareware culture is still prevalent in the Mac world: you can often find yourself being asked to pay ~$30 for a little utility that would be free under Linux, if needed at all.

      Amen, brother. I'm pretty new to Macs, and this is probably my biggest gripe. Seems like things are slowly changing, however. I wonder how the migration from Shareware to OSS will affect the Apple Community.

      My second gripe is the whole Resource Forks/Metadata issue. It seems like OS X is moving away from this, but I have to deal with legacy code that must run on OS 9 and X. Using the command line tools (cp, mv, etc.) is enough to break this stuff. And I don't get to use Vim.

    12. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Can any YDL advocates provide some insight as to why they prefer this over OSX?

      It's scads faster than OSX. Scads I tell you!

    13. Re:Question for Yellow Dog users... by despik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check out the free Desktop Manager for all your virtual desktop needs. It uses undocumented Apple APIs, so it's very fast and looks great!

      --
      "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
  13. 64 bit "soon" ? by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So I can run 32bit compile-as-you-go-and-fight-dependencies Linux, or 64bit it-just-works OSX? Wow, I mean, choice is good, but I had no idea it would be this good.
    This isn't meant as a flame, but why would you run Linux on the machine instead of OSX? Is there some Linux threading thing that your app neads? Some Linux app that you wrote needs a POSIXism the way Linux implements it instead of the way BSD does?
    Why reinvent the wheel (poorly)?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      I'm as much an Apple fan boy as the next guy and can count 2 PBs, a dp G5 and an iPod to my name but even I wouldn't claim Panther is 64bit, sorry it isn't. And even Tiger, which will be much more 64bit still won't be 100%.

      Edward

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    2. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by SteveM · · Score: 1

      So I can run 32bit compile-as-you-go-and-fight-dependencies Linux, or 64bit it-just-works OSX?

      Only if you are running OSX 10.4 Tiger. Which isn't due for general release until next year.

      SteveM

    3. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by Secahtah · · Score: 1

      I really agree with this. The only reason I could see for running Linux on a Mac is that MacOS 9 and before were really not that great... but as the parent and other posts have pointed out, OS X _is_ UNIX underneath the hood.
      I like Powerbooks, but I can honestly say that for the price, IF given the option, I would run OS X on x86 for any desktop system. So with that in mind, why pay extra for the hardware and then run Linux on it?
      And as others have pointed out, the older MAC systems (which aren't capable of running OS X) are not supported. So this kills that idea too.
      I don't much see the point.

    4. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by jusdisgi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hey smart guy...

      1)OSX is not fully 64-bit either.
      2)YDL created yum (Yellowdog Package Manager) that handles dependencies automatically.
      3)There are lots of reasons folks might want to use Linux instead of OSX. Check around this story for lots of them. In my case, I just like KDE's interface a hell of a lot more than OSX's "real purty, but not at all utilitarian" approach.
      4)If that wasn't meant as a flame, you need to work on your posting.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    5. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by thedillybar · · Score: 2, Interesting
      >32bit compile-as-you-go-and-fight-dependencies Linux, or 64bit it-just-works OSX

      At least if you fight with dependencies, you actually know what the dependencies are. This can be very helpful when pushing it out to many machines or when you find out that a library is buggy/exploitable.

    6. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      I'm having several problems with shared objected compiled with the ROOT librairies with OSX.
      That's why I use while I still use Linux "on the desktop".

    7. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the obvious reason is that then you wouldn't be classed as an OSX user. I think we all know that it's compulsory for any OSX user to post their fanboy shit to any thread on any online forum no matter how irrelevant or technically innacurate (OSX !=64 bits). I guess it depends how much you care about thousands of people thinking you're an arrogant dick.

      Also, you could spend the $129 on weed and prostitutes. Hope this explanation wasn't too technical for you.

    8. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by JamesKPolk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfair comparision between YDL and OSX. For YDL, you choose what "it" you want to work. For OSX, Apple chooses for you.

    9. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by Mr_Icon · · Score: 1
      2)YDL created yum (Yellowdog Package Manager) that handles dependencies automatically.

      No they didn't. Linux@DUKE created and maintains yum

      --
      If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
    10. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      or 64bit it-just-works OSX?

      This is one lie about OSX that drives me crazy. "It just works" ... unless of course, it doesn't.

      OSX just works if you don't use anything but a firewire drive and a usb camera. Try to use 3rd party hardware like a usb2.0 cdburner or a usb2.0 802.11g adaptor and you'll find that OSX just doesn't work.

    11. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      3)There are lots of reasons folks might want to use Linux instead of OSX. Check around this story for lots of them. In my case, I just like KDE's interface a hell of a lot more than OSX's "real purty, but not at all utilitarian" approach.

      Different strokes for different folks. While I prefer OS X, I am glad that there is Yellow Dog and other distros for my Mac hardware. I want more choice, not less, even if I choose the default preinstalled OS.

      I'm also glad that you and others are using Linux on Apple hardware. If I ever decide to make the switch, you've already blazed the trail for me. Thanks!

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    12. Re:64 bit "soon" ? by henryhbk · · Score: 1
      I have definately found cases where YUM didn't handle the dependencies. (found the same in fink as well), and most package managers are like this (fedora core 2 has driven me crazy a few times). The problem with all these shared libraries and interdependencies, is they are getting WAAAAY too complex.

      When most users want an app, they want the app, not to spend a couple of hours figuring out a bug in the dependency train. Unfortunately, in a free-software world, there are no market forces to incite developers to change (similar issue is documentation on apps) these complexities. It is very easy to cause ripples in the chain with a new release of one of the apps in the chain. This makes debugging things like YUM very hard, and "put-offing" for the average user. I agree it is better than no package manager, but it has a ways to go.

  14. does it bite? by mihal · · Score: 1, Funny

    if yes, once it becomes 64-bit, it'll be bloody dangerous.

    --
    Sig. No Sig.
  15. Re:Gentoo by jusdisgi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    First off, who the hell is modding these posts offtopic?

    Secondly, yes, I prefer Gentoo PPC to Yellow Dog as well. However, I wouldn't recommend it to very many people I know, just because it has a significantly higher knowledge requirement and learning curve. While I have no problem with that (and run Gentoo on my x86 stuff also) and like source-based stuff, it's definitely handy that there's a binary distro out there too.

    Also, I can only assume that your comparison was based on the old version of YDL, which is pretty crufty by now.

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  16. Shameless plug alert! by jonathan_atkinson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I once wrote an article which summarises my experience with Linux on Apple hardware. It was published on OSNews. It's a little dated now (I wrote it a little over a year ago), but it offers my opinion on Yellow Dog Linux, which was overwhelmingly positive. Check it out here.

    --Jon

    --
    Cleanstick.org: Dumb weblog about nothing
  17. Not clear... by tkrotchko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Its not clear if the G3 PB line is supported; it might be nice to get this for the Pismo line which can be a hair too slow for OS.X.

    Any experience out there?

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:Not clear... by prockcore · · Score: 1

      it might be nice to get this for the Pismo line which can be a hair too slow for OS.X.

      I have YDL running on my pismo, it works extremely well.

      My biggest complaint about linux on PPC is there is absolutely no flash plugin available.

    2. Re:Not clear... by saintlupus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My biggest complaint about linux on PPC is there is absolutely no flash plugin available.

      dpkg --get-selections | grep -i swf
      libswfdec0
      swf-player

      This is on a Powerbook running Debian... I don't know if the swf-player has been packaged up for YDL, but it works okay here. It doesn't do anything real fancy (like homestarrunner, for example) but it can handle older, basic Flash pages with no real problem.

      --saint

      (Junk characters? What the fuck. Nice code, Taco, way to keep the trolls at bay. Typing to get around the goddamned poorly written lameness filter.)

      (Hmm. Still won't let me past. You know, this place is turning to a cesspool of GNAA posts and taco-snotting references, and I can't copy and paste a command line into a message without the rickety backend of this overhyped site having a seizure. How horrid. Let's see if I can post this yet.)

      (Still not working. Let's take some of the junk characters out of the command line that I pasted in and see if that helps.)

      (Yeah, that did it. Of course, I had to delete half my actual post, but at least I'm past the Royal Filter. Go fuck yourself, Taco.)

  18. Re:Well, great for old Macs and stuff to gain teh by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    I asked a similar question on spymac a while ago (when I first bought a PB and was puzzled why people would install Linux). The answer I got then was to keep ancient Mac hardware useful.

    But if YD is dropping support for even moderately old boxes and adding 64-bit support then what's the point? Well one I can think of (sitting here typing on my shitty work Dell laptop and dreaming of the Al PB and DP G5 I have at home) is for the quality of the hardware. If I *wanted* specifically to run Linux then I would choose to run it on a Mac because the hardware is so much better than any PC box: this is especially true of laptops. Even IBM's rather nice Thinkpads.

    Edward

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  19. Re:I like Apple but... by non · · Score: 0, Troll

    the very first thing i did with the G5 at work was to fink xmms so i wouldn't have to use iTunes.

    --
    ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
  20. Linux + Powerbook by trans_err · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Finally! I have long awaited this release as YDL3 was becoming slightly dated. A lot of people ask, why Linux when I can already use my sleek powerbook to run X applications and hell even apt-get software from Fink's binary repository. The answer is the same to why someone would want to run Linux on an x86 machine. Why run linux when you could just use cgywin?

    MacOS X does Just Work, but sometimes it doesn't work the way I want it too. Sometimes I want to be able to compile any package and KNOW that it is going to work. Sometimes I want a pure linux development environment, and I am willing to take in a few of the caveats (ie. improper pmud).

    Othertimes I just feel mired by a sleek GUI when I know how quickly I can execute the same task with a full linux environment.

    Linux on apple hardware is a great thing (don't dis it until you try it :D).

    1. Re:Linux + Powerbook by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      A lot of people ask, why Linux when I can already use my sleek powerbook to run X applications and hell even apt-get software from Fink's binary repository. The answer is the same to why someone would want to run Linux on an x86 machine. Why run linux when you could just use cgywin?

      I think there are key differences:

      • It's easier to buy an x86 machine without Windows, than a Mac without a Mac OS.
      • OS X is a unix, Windows is not. Running Cygwin and X on top of Windows is much more of a kluge than it is on OS X. (I know Windows has a POSIX compatibility layer, but still. You could probably factor in the general suckitude of Windows as well.)

      However, if I ever get an Apple I'll probably install Linux anyway :)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Linux + Powerbook by norkakn · · Score: 1

      Everyone already knows where to get a mac with linux.... from yellow dog.

  21. Re:Doesnt matter by jusdisgi · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hint: MS tax is not applicable to Apple boxes :-D

    Sorry, but it is. MS owns a significant chunk of apple. But the worst part is that this way, not only are you paying them tribute for the copy of OSX you aren't going to use, but also for the inflated hardware price.

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  22. But..... by coolmos · · Score: 4, Funny

    With OSX, those nice guys at SCO won't sue you. You really need Linux to get them after you.

    Run, Yellow dog, run !

  23. Firewire boot by Danathar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've have some powerbook owners who would like to be able to run Yellowdog but off of an external Firewire drive. Last I checked Yellowdog did not support this. Does anybody know what the status is on this feature.

    Even though having a dual boot system is fairly safe "if you know what you are doing" there are people who don't want to muck with their OS X disk.

    1. Re:Firewire boot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mac OS X supports booting off of an external Firewire drive. (It even can boot off of an iPod.) So why not do the reverse, booting Linux off of the builtin disk and OS X off of the external drive?

  24. Re:Well, great for old Macs and stuff to gain teh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, "the AC" did exactly that...

  25. Re:Well, great for old Macs and stuff to gain teh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hardware freaks with money that realize that OS X is not freebsd or linux.

  26. Re:Doesnt matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    MS no longer owns a "significant chunk" of Apple, they sold (at least most) of their stock years ago when the value went back up.

    As for inflated hardware price - if you want PPC nicely packaged, Apple is the only game in town. If you don't then don't worry about it.

  27. Re:Doesnt matter by CharAznable · · Score: 2, Informative

    That is false. M$ had invested $150 million (which is not that much) on non-voting Apple stock in 1997, but has long sold it (and made a hefty profit)

    --
    The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
  28. Re:Doesnt matter by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    First $134M worth of shares is NOT a significant chunk of a multi-billion dollar company. Second, Microsoft sold those shares a long, long time ago.

    But nice try at spreading some FUD, you should at least try to make it plausible.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  29. Firewire Boot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if there is support for booting from Firewire in this release?

  30. Re:Doesnt matter by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    I don't think you watched the news when it happened and updated your information years after. MS doesn't "own Apple", but MS did buy some non voting shares in 1997 and has now sold them all anyway. The parent is right, there is no MS tax.

  31. Re:I like Apple but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You don't deserve a G5.

  32. Re:Doesnt matter by FosterKanig · · Score: 1

    What? Will this rumor ever die?

    MS bought 150 million in non-voting stock back in 99 or so. The shares have since been sold. Please, let this rumor die.

  33. incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    #1 they had non-voting shares

    #2 "Had" is the appropriate word...all of those non-voting shares have since been sold (back before the .com burst). MS owns next to nothing of Apple if any.

  34. Re:Gentoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Uhm. What the hell? This gets modded as +1 interesting? Good to see that slashdot's tradition of rewarding intelligent arguments for a case is in full swing.

  35. Re:Doesnt matter by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    Btw, to pick up on the "inflated hardware price" remark, show me where you can get the exact same features for a lower price and then i'll believe you. For example, which windows pc's have firewire 800?

  36. Trying to understand the appeal by amichalo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is not a flame or a troll but a real question.

    If OS X can run most/all linux apps via X11, then why would someone want to run Yellow God native?

    I thought the achillies heal of linux is the difficult/multivariation/infinitely configurable interface. Seems like if OS X nips that issue, and offers support of linux apps (X11), then I don't get the need to buy a G5 and ditch the OS it comes with for Yellow Dog.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
    1. Re:Trying to understand the appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are allready about 2 dozen posts pointing out what reasons people might have to run linux on a Mac so I won't go into this.

      There is just one point I'd like to comment on: I thought the achillies heal of linux is the difficult/multivariation/infinitely configurable interface.

      I think you thought wrong. Actually it is one of linux' greatest strength and one of the main reasons I prefer it over OSX that you can actually have the interface you like. Wether it be simply the shell, something like ion, a lightweight wm like fluxbox or a complete desktop environment like gnome and kde. Choice is a nice thing to have and the good thing is, at least the two DEs mentioned aren't any more difficult then OSX imho.

    2. Re:Trying to understand the appeal by bwy · · Score: 2, Informative

      If OS X can run most/all linux apps via X11

      This isn't as easy as it sounds- you can't just install Linux apps on OS X. If you are lucky you can recompile them making minimal changes and have it work. Tools like Fink help out a lot- I guess I'd compare it to a graphical apt-get for OS X even though I'm sure that isn't entirely accurate.

    3. Re:Trying to understand the appeal by Graff · · Score: 2, Informative
      Tools like Fink help out a lot- I guess I'd compare it to a graphical apt-get for OS X even though I'm sure that isn't entirely accurate.

      A few things.

      First of all Fink uses apt-get as part of its package management. Fink is basically a Mac OS X-enhanced version of apt-get with some other good features added in.

      Secondly, Fink is not graphical at all, it is completely command-line. There is, however, a 3rd-party graphical front end to Fink called FinkCommander.
    4. Re:Trying to understand the appeal by bwy · · Score: 1

      So, the comparison is closer to apt-get and Synaptic I suppose...

    5. Re:Trying to understand the appeal by for_usenet · · Score: 1

      Because a lot of times, it is NOT just a simple matter of recompilation. Some of my code for my dissertation never ended up working on OS X (and thankfully, it was not required to run on that platform - it was just more of a convenience for me to be able take it anywhere and debug it).

      The same code work on IRIX/MIPS, Linux/x86 and Linux/PowerPC, but I could never get it running on OS X - even though the code itself was compiled with the -Wall and -pedantic flags when using gcc. And this code was not doing anything out of the ordinary - one failure point was in a shared memory application, while the other was a simple malloc, the only out of the ordinary issue being that it would need to allocate a huge amount of RAM (usually a couple of GIGs)...

      So Linux on Apple hardware is a good thing, despite OS X being such a powerful and flexible OS, and I (along with my trusting 8500 running Woody) will defend that position to anyone who cares to ask ;-)

      cheers

    6. Re:Trying to understand the appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a G4 because I write scientific/computational code and wanted to try out Altivec. However, I'm finding that OSX is too noisy and I have trouble getting repeatable timings between runs. Although it's possible to lock down OSX or use other tricks like booting into single user mode, it is much more difficult than simply using Linux.

    7. Re:Trying to understand the appeal by trouser · · Score: 1

      licensing

      --
      Now wash your hands.
  37. Not to derail the thread, but... by kimota · · Score: 1

    please answer a couple of basic questions for this non-Linux head, namely:

    What's the origin of the name "Yellow Dog Linux"? Is it tied to the old song "Yellow Dog Blues"? If so, what exactly is the connection?

    For that matter, what's the origin of "Red Hat"?

    (At least I know Debian's story.)

    --Kimota!, did a cursory google search once upon a time, but came up with nothin'

    --
    Who moderates the meta-moderators?
    1. Re:Not to derail the thread, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably a reference to Georges Simenon's "Le Chein Jaune" ("The Yellow Dog") a mystery novel. I also recall once eating at a bistro named Le Chein Jaune as well.

      Hope that helps.

    2. Re:Not to derail the thread, but... by atomm1024 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know about Yellow Dog, but the Red Hat installation program flashes trivia by occasionally to keep you busy, and it provides a few insights. First of all, Wikipedia says this: "Red Hat's name came from the manual of the beta version, which contained a request for the return of Marc Ewing's characteristic red and white-striped hat, should anyone find it." The installer trivia says, if I remember correctly, that when Ewing was in college people would often ask for "the guy in the red hat" for computer help. So he came to be associated with the hat.

      --
      Signature.
  38. IBMs article by Refrag · · Score: 3, Informative

    IBM has an article on Yellow Dog on PowerMacs. I personally can't see running anything but Mac OS X on a PowerMac, but to each his own.

    --
    I have a website. It's about Macs.
  39. Trolling?! by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

    Oh for God's sake.

    Raising the concerns of running linux with a one button mouse is NOT trolling. Why is it that when you make an even vaguely negative comment about an Apple product you instantly get modded down?

    I'm an apple fan; they're beautiful, reliable and generally all good, but they are NOT PERFECT.

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
  40. Money by Cajal · · Score: 1, Troll

    Does it not bother anyone that this is still only available to ydl.net Enhanced members, which means you need to pay about $90 to get it? I thought Linux was supposed to be free. :P

    1. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was waiting for the .torrent.

      ~~~

    2. Re:Money by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      I thought Linux was supposed to be free.

      You thought wrong. Nowhere is it required that Linux be distributed for free; it's only that you must be able to distribute it yourself for whatever charge you chose, including free; also that you must distribute the source to anyone to whom you distribute the binary.

      So if a friend subscribes to YDL net, he has the authority to redistribute it to whomever he cares to for whatever price he sets it at. Many distributors of Linux have simply chosen to distribute their product for free, as that's where the price is driven and the marginal extra that they may be able to make isn't worth the headache.

      But in this case YDL has chosen not to make it free. Read the GPL FAQ for yourself to learn about this.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    3. Re:Money by Cajal · · Score: 1

      Dude, it was a joke. Hence the ":P" after my comment.

    4. Re:Money by md358 · · Score: 0

      I hate to say it, but even after years of using nix I still assumed it would be free. Glad I didn't post anything rash.... I'd hate to see the flames come out of a cross between a mac and linux zealot :)

  41. Re:Doesnt matter by BJZQ8 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    OOOOOoooooh! Shiny Firewire 800! Not like you could BUY a PC Firewire 800 card for a PC or anything...

  42. What about the airport cards? by bach37 · · Score: 1

    Does this new release offer any way to get the iBook airport cards working in Linux?

    1. Re:What about the airport cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airport cards work with linux, airport extreme cards don't.

      There are some pre-alpha drivers for them floating around somewhere and development seems to be going on but they don't seem to be doing pretty much yet apart from simply loading. ;-D

  43. Re:Doesnt matter by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    The point is, you cannot get it WITH a windows machine, just like other innovations, thus nmac hardware is not so comparable.

  44. Re:Interesting article on YDL: by Saunalainen · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    And with the recent news that Steve Jobs has been diagnosed with terminal cancer
    Not true. All the news reports state that he is expected to make a full recovery.

    I suspect your other doom-laden predictions are equally overstated. Even your own link to Forbes shows that Apple shares have increased more than $10 over the past 8 months (look at the share prices in the graph compared with the text of the article).

    Conclusion: parent is a troll.

  45. Re:Doesnt matter by ztirffritz · · Score: 1

    Oh, you're that person that always talks about the slow agonizing death of Apple and complains about the price of their equipment. You are absolutely right, you could buy a FW800 card for you PC or Linux box. The point being made here is that it is built into the computer by default. As I'm sure a 1000 people have already tried to show you...if you build a PC that is comparable to a Mac the price difference is not that great. Depending on the computer, sometimes the Mac is even cheaper. A dual G5 Mac is a great example. You can't compare it to a dual Pentium, you have to compare it to a dual Xeon or Itanium. The prices go up a bit in that scenario. I'm not bashing Intel. They make a great product. It is M$ that ruins it for them. They're great with Linux.

    --
    Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
  46. Re:Doesnt matter by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    wtf? you saying you can't order a windows box with a fw800 card pre-installed? you could order one right away. how about a spin on this, you can't get some macs _without_ it even if you dont't need it..

    you live in a fantasy land or something or the apple bug bite you too bad? blind zealotry never helped anything.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  47. Debian/PPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luckily, Debian supports lots more (and more platforms too). It'll be even closer to what you run on x86 etc (assuming they're Debian as well ;).

    And sarge/unstable have had all of the new YDL features for a while now, of course :)

  48. Distro issues are not Linux issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Damn. I wish people would stop blaming Linux for their crappy distro's dependancy problems. If you don't like how your distro installs packages, use another one already!

  49. YDL 4.0 torrents by jgarland79 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a torrent for YDL 4.0rc1?

    --
    Microsoft Windows runs on stress and frustration.
  50. Does hibernation work as smoothly as in OSX? by ion++ · · Score: 1

    What happens when i close the lid on my PB? Does it sleep as fast as OSX does? Does the sleep led work? how fast does it wake up?

    1. Re:Does hibernation work as smoothly as in OSX? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      I don't know but suspend works great on my HP OmniBook so Linux (2.6 at any rate) definitely supports it nicely. I think for PowerBooks some fiddling is still required on a few distros, maybe YDL has this nailed.

      Suffice it to say that suspend is really cool. I don't think I've switched my laptop off for ages, I just press the half-moon button and within a few seconds it's "off". A few more seconds and it's back on. The only gripe I have with it is that when I resume the screensaver has come on, as xscreensaver is time based. That should be easily fixed though.

    2. Re:Does hibernation work as smoothly as in OSX? by ion++ · · Score: 1

      You want the screensaver on, else everyone stealing your laptop can get to your files.

  51. One Extra Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intall version 3 on beige hardware first, then use rpm or yum to "upgrade". There may be some corner cases where you might need to manually edit config files.

  52. Re:Interesting article on YDL: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In addition to that, the financial numbers are not merely misleading but wholly false. Apple has billions in *cash*, not debt.

  53. ok, lets start testing please :) by Zane+Edwards · · Score: 1

    Start firing up Azureus, just need the torrent. Or is this not "free" to a long time ydl user?

    1. Re:ok, lets start testing please :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be free for all in a month or two. Right now it's only for paying users so that the devels can eat ;)

  54. not particularly new - old world alreay on way out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old-world G3s already required a different boot loader and bunch of extra steps since YDL 3.whatever was designed to boot with Open Firmware...

  55. Re:Doesnt matter by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

    That was, in a blurry way, my point. There are literally thousands of PC manufacturers/assemblers out there. If you want it pre-installed, you can get it. Apple is the ONLY game in town for Apples, and if you want it pre-installed and Apple doesn't offer it, well then you're out of luck. Conversely, if you DON'T want it, you're out of luck there too.

  56. Live CDs? by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to run gentoo on x86 (no, I don't care about the optimization, I just liked gentoo's system for controlling daemons and whatnot ) -- overall I ran linux of some sort or another for a few years and was pretty comfortable with it.

    I moved to OS X after a linux hardware-incompatibility disaster and by and large I've never looked back. The thing is, I do simulation work in my free time that requires serious opengl and without hardware acceleration I'm SOL. Going mac made sense anyhow, since by day I'm a graphic designer and have always been on Macs, or at least since about '92. Until OS X I didn't consider the Mac to be a valid development platform, and until 10.2 I didn't consider OS X to be a valid system at all for general use )

    What I'm curious about is wether live cds for PPC are available. I had heard about a gentoo ppc livecd but I couldn't actually *find* it.

    I want to see what's happened in the few years I've been away and I'd like to see the level of hardware support. yes, I know that for my 12" PB support's going to suck, but really I just want to *see*.

    Consider this an appeal for nostalgia.

    --

    lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    1. Re:Live CDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What I'm curious about is wether live cds for PPC are available. I had heard about a gentoo ppc livecd but I couldn't actually *find* it.
      Several Gentoo mirrors have the LiveCD .iso files under
      experimental/ppc/livecd/
      experimental/ppc64/livecd/
      For example Netherlands):
      http://ftp.easynet.nl/mirror/gentoo/experimental/p pc/livecd/
      http://ftp.easynet.nl/mirror/gentoo/experimental/p pc64/livecd/
      Good luck.
  57. Hope Memory Support Is Improved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know if the new YDL will support more than 768MB of memory? I installed YDL v3.1 on my 12" G4 PowerBook (which has 125MB) and couldn't get it to recognize more than 768MB.

    1. Re:Hope Memory Support Is Improved by lethe1001 · · Score: 1

      125<768

  58. Desktop Manager by alfredo · · Score: 1

    As mentioned above. I love it.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  59. Minimal requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Before buying an iBook in November I used Debian/x86 for years as my primary environment. I am thinking of going to a dual-boot+MoL environment, but am holding off because of having a small-ish (30GB) hard drive. What would be the disk requirements for a minimal install + X (no KDE or Gnome for now) + openoffice.org? Also, what the pros and cons of YDL versus Debian? I like the Debian way of doing things (huge selection of packages that tend to work and be consistent), but I have no idea about its support for Macs (other than that packages seem to be fairly widely availible).

    1. Re:Minimal requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      osx 10.3 default install is about 2-3 gigs ish with mol and ydl witht hat it ends upabout 4-5. So you would then have about 22-24 to play with for files and fino..

      These sizes are on the the high side of the scale but its its what i rember from when i did a base install.

  60. Re:Gentoo by mausmalone · · Score: 1

    Do either work in PearPC? I've been meaning to give the emulator a spin, but am not willing to buy a copy of OS X to run on it.

    --
    -=-=-=-=-=
    I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  61. Linux is the future for my computers from the past by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    tangent to the argument, but to most of us mac users, your imac isn't that old. It's definitely at it's tail end, and thank god for linux, that can add more life, but many mac users are doing fine on 4 or 5 year old machines, many without any major upgrades.

    My beige G3 with an upgraded CPU sits on my room mates desk where it gets 4 or more hours use a night.

    My G4 tower is still my editing station. It has undergone numerous upgrades from the day it arrived as a stock G4/400, but professional editing needs are a bit out of the norm.

    My main computer is my G4 Titanium laptop.

    The only real reason I have to get anything new is techno lust. And the thought that I can keep going with my older hardware with a pared down linux system is very comforting.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  62. Fedora Core2 on PPC suspends nicely ... by timothy · · Score: 1

    ... unless it was a rigged demo :)

    I saw this at OSCON; at the Red Hat booth, though they were giving away DVDs of the X86 version of FC2, their demo laptop was actually a 15" powerbook.

    I asked "Does suspend work?" and I think a wave of solid gloating hit me as he pressed the power button and the machine quietly dropped to sleep.

    I counted between 7 and 8 mississippi as (after another button push) it woke up, which is close enough to my iBook (under OS X) that I definitely count it as "working" :)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  63. Re:Doesnt matter by CrackedButter · · Score: 1


    I notice you don't provide a link for such a machine. Also my point is being diluted with this nitpicking, i'm simply saying that for the hardware to be priced as it is, it can be because there isn't an exact match anywhere else. Look how much Apple price their monitors, they can do this because nobody else offers a 30inch screen and nobody else offers a monitor with firewire!
    Plus this zealotry you speak of is a typical excuse to shy away from a real response, its tiring to see it because it shows there isn't anything contructive coming from such a person as yourself.

  64. Re:Doesnt matter by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

    Do I have to Google EVERYTHING for you? Here's a Link for you. There it is, Firewire 800 in a PC, available pre-installed. And look at that, it's $1600. Available with a 30" LCD monitor if you want. It's one of a dozen manufacturers that do it. My point is that you CAN get a PC with or without Firewire 800...go to your local corner computer shop and they'll build you one with a 30" LCD and Firewire 800, too. Blind zealotry that the other poster spoke of is not an excuse, it's a fact. You helpfully ignore that a PC can be gotten with any amount or lack of equipment you want...and Apples are Apples, no more, no less. I don't dis any Apple product or user...but when you make statements like Firewire 800 not being available on a PC, you shoot yourself in the fruit.

  65. Re:Doesnt matter by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    I don't know why there is so much importance on my example of firewire 800. Apple has had other innovations which cannot be found on the windows side, one of them being plainly obvious. However you are correct on your point for firewire 800 being available for pc's.

  66. Hack free virtual desktops on XP! by CaptainPinko · · Score: 1, Informative

    For instance, I'm very comfortable with virtual desktops in Gnome 2.6 and miss them terribly when I'm on a Windows

    Well miss them no longer! From the Microsoft XP Power Toys Website you can download DeskMan which wil give you 4 virtual desktops and a cool composite screen not even available on Linux (AFAIK). Just install it, right click on the toolbar in the context menu Toolbars->Desktop Manager and there you go. Different backgrounds for each and key bindings too! All from your friends at Microsoft so that I don't think it qualifies as a "hack". (also I found some really cool PowerToys for my TabletPC).

    I'm not saying this to apologise for Windows but for those who want their virtual desktops.

    --
    Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
  67. AirPort Extreme Card Drivers by pixelcort · · Score: 2, Informative

    Now if only we can get AirPort Extreme Card drivers, we'll be all set.

    I'm not well informed on the issue, but I've heard it has something to do with the chipset manufacturer not releasing any specs or drivers for the product in question.

    I haven't seen much third party reverse engineering to create a driver for this card; perhaps because of fear of DMCA stuff.

    --
    http://pixelcort.com/
  68. Re:Debt-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loaded with cash and debt-free to be more precise.

  69. As long as there are idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this rumor will never die.

  70. You're a liar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't prefer anything to Yellow Dog.

    You don't, and have never, ran YDL.

    You're a liar and a troll.

    (And please learn about the $150 million in non-voting shares that aren't owned anymore.)

  71. Here's why Linux on Apple hardware by kitzilla · · Score: 1
    On the desktop side, I see no advantage of running Linux rather than OS X. Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on my IBM laptop all the time, but on OS X I can run the same programs and also all the nice Mac OS X only things like iTunes.

    I primarily run OS X these days, but I've lived with Yellow Dog on an older iBook and it was a great experience. Nobody is even close to Terrasoft's Mac hardware support, particularly on laptops. My iBook YDL 3.0 install was even better behaved on PPC than its parent, Red Hat 8, was on x86. Airport and power control works right out of the box.

    I'm with you on iTunes. But guess what? It will be supported by Codeweavers in the full release of Crossover Office 3.1.

    The primary reasons for running YDL on Apple hardware are the same as running Linux on any platform: free or inexpensive software and freedom from Corporate hegemony. OS X totally rocks. But it ain't cheap, and you'll sink big dollars approximating the functionality of Linux' totally free Open Office, GIMP, and so on. The boxed edition of YDL is quite reasonably priced, and comes with the riches of Open Source software we all take for granted.

    In a commercial setting, Mac hardware is elegant and durable. More importantly, Terrasoft is an authorized Apple reseller. That means great support, making PPC Linux a viable alternative for mission-critical installations.

    I'm not sure YDL's claim to be lighter than OS X is justified these days. OS X has been running pretty well since Jaguar (even on older G3s), and the big two desktops are ... well ... pretty big. But with Linux on PPC, you can pick and choose window managers and programs to get the most out of your hardware. Can't really do that on OS X.

    Finally, a lot of people simply *like* their Linux desktop environments. KDE folks get used to the way KDE works, and the same could be said for Gnome or Windowmaker or whatever. Familiarity breeds efficiency.

    I have money in OS X software, so I run Panther on all my Apple gear. But Linux is a great call for a lot of PPC users. And it will scream on a dual G5 when Terrasoft releases their 64-bit native suite.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  72. WINE and other things PC by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
    Actually, WINE does almost work on the PowerPC, thanks to the DarWINE project.

    Also, both Windows and Linux x86 can be run on OS X under BOCHS (slow), and QEmu (quick). QEmu has the added benefit of both being a hardware and pure-cpu level emulator for a wide range of (target and host) systems.

  73. Mac OS X != Linux by emil.ede · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't understand the opinion "why use Linux when one can run most of the linux apps in Mac OS X". Sure it's night and day from Pre-OSX but my experience is that most FLOSS applications (especially those with a GUI) work a lot worse on Mac OS X than on Linux (and to me that's logical, of course more development time goes into the linux versions than the mac ports).

    Mainstream FLOSS applications like Firefox, dcgui and X-Chat performs a lot worse (slower, less stable, etc.) on Mac OS X than Linux. Atleast that is my experience.

    And if one wants to run Photoshop and other commercial applications; use Mac-on-Linux.

    On the other hand I understand that lots of people like Mac OS X, it's a well designed OS.

  74. From IBM article on this by dmdimon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After about 40 seconds (on a dual-1.8GHz G5 machine), you get to the Yellow Dog welcome screen where you can log in as a user, reboot, choose the desktop environment, and the like. For what it's worth, OSX boots in a very impressive 15 seconds on the same machine.

    1. Re:From IBM article on this by dmdimon · · Score: 1

      You just got words from my mouth - my first experience was the same. At that time I was (and am, in fact, somewhere inside my heart) a big fan of BeOS - and that thing was incredibly fast! I tried a lot of systems time ago, on both PC and Mac, and have to say that at time most stable was OS/2 and fastest was BeOS (at least this is my point). I tried some flavor of Linux at that time, and was not impressed.

  75. Re:Gentoo by hkb · · Score: 1

    Time to get out more...

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  76. More "just works" than your dad's computer though by Slur · · Score: 1

    Some devices you name may require drivers, and if those drivers are supplied then these devices will "just work." As always, buyers should check whether Mac OS X support is available for a given device before spending the money.

    Apple has done a lot of the work of building the underlying subsystems that make writing new drivers much simpler. Check out the various "driver families" supplied in IOKit.

    And frankly there are many many devices that work on OSX without requiring a third-party driver. For example, most cameras require no add-on driver for full functionality in iPhoto / iMovie.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media