Mandrake Linux 10.1 for PPC Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mandrake Linux 10.1 for PPC Released

Posted by pudge on Monday October 4, 2004 @05:42AM from the ppcpenguin dept.

OctaneZ writes "DistroWatch is reporting the first release of Mandrake 10.1 for PPC, this is the first PPC upgrade from the Mandrake camp since April of 2003. Release 10.1 includes stepping up to kernel 2.6.8, Gnome 2.6, and KDE 3.2.3. Release Notes and Torrent are available."

23 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

But... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-04 05:55 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Wireless networking doesn't work, sleep mode doesn't work on portables, why would I use Linux when there's Mac OS X pre-installed, graphics support sucks....
1. Re:But... by allden · 2004-10-04 05:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Sure, if you have money you can own a jet. Why do you have to wait for hours in the airport to catch a flight?
2. Re:But... by fracai · 2004-10-04 06:16 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Because you still don't own your own private airport? What's your point here?
  
  --
  -- i am jack's amusing sig file
3. Re:But... by JMZorko · 2004-10-04 06:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  ... because OSX doesn't always do it. OSX is wonderful (I use it all of the time) but there are some things Linux does that OSX does not:
  1. AIO calls on non-file FDs i.e. sockets, pipes
  2. userland calls for atomic operations (without using Carbon)
  3. more current compiler support i.e. you can use any FSF version of gcc and not have to worry about having weird things happen if you mix FSF gcc with Apple's gcc
  Now, #2 above can be done under OSX with a bit of PPC assembly, and as for #3, you can use FSF gcc alongside Apple's gcc, but you won't be able to make calls into Carbon / Cocoa with FSF's gcc, and Apple's gcc is always behind FSFs gcc (Apple's is 3.3, FSF is already at 3.4.2 I think, working on 4.0). FSF gcc changes eventually make it into Apple's gcc, but it takes time as Apple needs to add a lot of their own stuff that won't ever bein the FSF version.
  Regards,
  John
  
  --
  Falling You - beautiful
4. Re:But... by fracai · 2004-10-04 08:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I should have elaborated. If the computer is your airplane, the OS is the airport. It seems like a backwards analogy here, but it kinda fits. It works the other way around too, the airplane being the OS that runs on the airport.
  
  Either way, you can land different planes at different airports. Sometimes you do it just because you can.
  
  I'm sure there are plenty of old Macs out there that don't run OS X that can find new life with a linux system.
  
  It's like those really old airplanes you always find in jungles. They're no use to me now, but there might be booty inside.
  
  --
  -- i am jack's amusing sig file
5. Re:But... by mh101 · 2004-10-04 12:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  why would I use Linux when there's Mac OS X pre-installed
  
  That's just what I was thinking. =)
  
  I mean I love Linux and all, but there's no way I'm going to take OSX off my Mac! Now, replacing Windows is a different story...
  
  --
  Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
6. Re:But... by Stevyn · 2004-10-04 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure that makes a lot of sense to other people, but I'll be taking a cab for a little while I think.
7. Re:But... by marcello_dl · 2004-10-06 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody said you gotta take it off. Multibooting macs is rarely a problem (remember old hfs users had to partition the hd to benefit from a smaller sector size) and you can boot OSX on a linux session with the amazing Mac on Linux.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Here we go again, by funkdid · 2004-10-04 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

this was discussed in great detail here:

http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/04/10/03/2211236 .shtml?tid=106&tid=3

I prefer mandrake on the PC, but for the PPC patform Yellow Dog now suports (sort of) 64bit architecture. (Ooh Ahh).

Given the choice I'd go with Yellow Dog. Good to see Mandrake is keeping up with updates for mac though. I'd love to see their Live CD with PPC support (if that's even do-able)

--
I boycott signatures
1. Re:Here we go again, by DustyCase · 2004-10-04 07:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "I'd love to see their Live CD with PPC support (if that's even do-able)" I'd love to see it too. A live CD that approached the "Oooohhh Ahhhh" factor of the Knoppix CDs that I use on Intel-based architecture would be a wonderful thing. I don't understand why a live CD for a *nix friendly platform like the Apple/PPC is so rare. It would seem that the heavy lifting was already done.
2. Re:Here we go again, by justMichael · 2004-10-04 07:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Gentoo has a LiveCD or pick a closer mirror.
  
  I can't vouch for it though, I had their 1.4 LiveCD, but one of the Apple updates broke it and I haven't bothered to try again.
  
  -- Sex Toys...
3. Re:Here we go again, by funkdid · 2004-10-04 07:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I think the issue lies in the way that Macs use a bootstrap, rom etc. Installing Linux on x86 architecture is very different from doing it on a mac.
  
  --
  I boycott signatures
4. Re:Here we go again, by Lord+Kano · 2004-10-04 10:28 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I prefer mandrake on the PC, but for the PPC patform Yellow Dog now suports (sort of) 64bit architecture. (Ooh Ahh).
  
  I agree that Mandrake is a bit better on x86 that on PPC. I'm running two PPC machines with Mandrake 9.1 and one x86 with Mandrake 9.0 and the x86 version works a bit smoother. There are complications with glibc and some depends but I don't plan on using any other flavor of linux on those PPC machines.
  
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
5. Re:Here we go again, by zonker · 2004-10-05 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't yellow dog supposed to make their distro available for free (or at least the cost of a disc and shipping) as per the gpl?
  
  i've got a friend that has an old imac that he'd like to play around with linux on, but i can't seem to find a good free copy of ppc linux for him...
  
  --
  Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
DIsappointing... by Power+Everywhere · 2004-10-04 12:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's somewhat of a bummer that they didn't get GNOME 2.8 or KDE 3.3, the two latest versions of said software, into this release and instead had to use older versions. Will we see them in a minor update, or will we have to wait til Mandrake 10.2?

--
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
1. Re:DIsappointing... by Stevyn · 2004-10-04 16:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Mandrake always was a little out of date with desktop environments. Version 10 shipped with KDE 3.2 and it took forever to get an update to even KDE 3.2.1. But I've run KDE 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and now 3.3. There isn't much different between each of them so I couldn't say it's much of a big deal.
2. Re:DIsappointing... by arose · 2004-10-04 20:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's because the releases are so close together. Gnome 2.8 was released just before Mandrake 10.1 community, there is no way it could be included.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
No Mandrake For Me by seancallaway · 2004-10-04 18:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this or not, but Mandrake 10 screwed up my partition table. It didn't even recognize 20 of the 60 GB in my drive. Since then I haven't used Mandrake. Anyone else have a problem like this before?
1. Re:No Mandrake For Me by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-05 00:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually that was a kernel 2.6 problem and along with Mandrake, SUSE and FC (and likely quite a few other distributions) suffered that issue.
  
  It has now been resolved, and there is no need to make the link with Mandrake alone.
  
  Do a simple websearch and you will find lots of info on how to circumvent this issue and also fix resulting problems.
  
  BTW I have installed Mdk10.1CE on an XP laptop with 1 large ntfs partition - no problem in resizing (after defragging the drive so that there would be enough space) installing and then dualbooting.
  
  -- aRTee
2. Re:No Mandrake For Me by seancallaway · 2004-10-05 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I was dual-booting with Win2K and I only noticed the problem because it killed my existing NTFS partition (*insert angry face here*). I'm not trying to bash Mandrake (I've heard great things), but it just put a bad taste in my mouth. The install was just an experiment as I try (still trying) to find the perfect Linux distro. Right now, I'm still with Red Hat.
Obligatory "no Airport Extreme" post by AvantLegion · 2004-10-05 14:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Let's get it out of the way now:
"No Airport Extreme drivers! Waaah!"
It does suck, though. :(