Yellow Dog Linux Finds New PPC Hardware Vendor

inditek writes "C|Net's News.com reports that Terrasoft Solutions, the vendor that sells and contributes to the development of Yellow Dog Linux has found, and continues to look for, some hardware alternatives based around the PowerPC now that Apple is moving to Intel chips. They say Apple's move makes for a good opportunity and more open space for a chip they think has a lot of life left in it." team99parody also writes "This is great news for customers like the US Navy who rely on Linux-on-PowerPC for important tasks like sonar imaging systems."

Comments

Continuing PPC Support

[Sv-Manowar]

It should be interesting to see the effect on Yellow Dog post-x86 macintosh, to see how the PPC Linux platform can compete on its own merits. Of course the comparison will be affected by the existing base of PPC hardware and the potential of stalled development given reduced demand for the platform. IBM have been using PPC in their own products, and its possible that their own demand will continue to drive desktop PPC chip development at the same pace as current.

Re:Continuing PPC Support

[PDXNerd]

It should be relatively easy to predict - this is a niche market. Always has been, even when Macintosh was PPC. Now that the major marketer for these chips is gone, the remaining market will still be what it was - a niche segment. Add into that the relatively low market share of Linux and I think we are all literate enough to read the writing on the wall.

AMD/Intel are too cheap, too powerful, and too prevelant.

Re:Continuing PPC Support

[Amiga Trombone]

It should be relatively easy to predict - this is a niche market. Always has been, even when Macintosh was PPC. Now that the major marketer for these chips is gone, the remaining market will still be what it was - a niche segment. Add into that the relatively low market share of Linux and I think we are all literate enough to read the writing on the wall.

You probably have a point there. While Power and PowerPC derivatives will certainly continue to be used in servers and embedded applications, you have to wonder how much R&D IBM will be willing to put into implementations suitable for desktops and notebooks. Even Apple didn't command enough of a market share to make the expense cost-effective for IBM. Somehow I doubt we're going to be seeing any exciting new PPC chips targeted at the consumer PC market.

Which is a shame, really. It's a great chip.

Re:Continuing PPC Support

[Lars T.]

It doesn't help much if you want to build a high-end desktop/server/notebook computer. Are you going to use automotive chips in it? Apple's move at least means the 970 and 74xx will get more expensive. The XBox CPU seems to be an exclusive deal, and nobody knows yet how Cell will actually perform for general computing tasks, nor if it will be SMP-able.

Re:Continuing PPC Support

[Guspaz]

Let's not forget consoles. At the very least the GameCube can account for a few million PowerPC chips, and since both the XBOX360 and the Playstation 3 feature PowerPC-based chips, that will put a few hundred million more PowerPC chips into the world.

It depends how you define PowerPC chip though. Both the 360's processor and the PS3's Cell processor use the PowerPC instruction set, but probably don't have "PowerPC" in the model number. I'd say they count, though, just like you would count x86 processors based on chips using the instruction set.

Isn't it odd?

[Jukashi]

Isn't is odd that the only time something is described as having "a lot of life in it" is when its pretty apparent the thing is dying? Why not be a little more honest say something is "not as dead as it appears"?

Oh Dear

[eno2001]

I can just see the new troll: "PPC is dying. Anandtech confirms it".

Heh. I remember getting all excited about PPC back in 1994 when Apple first announced the move. It seemed like it was a natural and logical extension from the 680x0 family (one of the best CPUs ever for desktop systems). It's kind of sad how it didn't wind up being as much of a player as it should have. Even the guy who wrote Minix quipped back then that the future would be everyone running some kind of *nix OS on their PPC desktops. Now that dream is gone because even Apple went with Intel. I sure hope Intel can get it together and make a decent CPU/Mobo combo that dumps all backwards compatibility, BIOS and segmented memory.

Re:navy

[zulux]

What is so damned special about PPC for sonar imaging.

It's working.

Seriously, when something is working, don't screw with it. Just leave it alone, and use your talents to solve a new problem.

Continuing Cell Support

[Anonymous Coward]

"It should be interesting to see the effect on Yellow Dog post-x86 macintosh, to see how the PPC Linux platform can compete on its own merits. Of course the comparison will be affected by the existing base of PPC hardware and the potential of stalled development given reduced demand for the platform. IBM have been using PPC in their own products, and its possible that their own demand will continue to drive desktop PPC chip development at the same pace as current."

The Sony/IBM/Nintendo Cell comes to mind. Plus all the embedded systems out there.

--
The "are you a script" word for today is untidy...much like Taco's code.

Re:It's Surprising

[maetenloch]

Also depending on where these systems are deployed and what kind of power/cooling/space constraints they had, the Navy may have been more focused on flops/watt rather than absolute performance.

Re:It's Surprising

[cmacb]

It probably doesn't matter that they are PowerPC or Intel processors. If the OSs used are Linux, and the applications are written in any language except the Microsoft lock-in variety, you just change processors, recompile, and you are back in business. Avoiding lock-ins gives you tremendous flexibility, bargaining power, and fallback options. Being locked into an OS, and thus destined to use whatever hardware your OS provider commands you to use is a sad sad thing, and hopefully a thing that won't last too much longer. Unless tech decision makers are even dumber than I think they are.

Re:It's Surprising

[antifoidulus]

Um, that might work for your average PC program, but I wouldn't try doing that on a complex, incredibly expensive real time embedded system where failure can equal lives lost....
Something tells me the transition isn't nearly as simple as a /. post.

You can get a PPC Linux system from IBM right now*

[Anonymous Coward]

*if you understand the fact that the difference between POWER and PowerPC is pretty small and IBM uses the term 'Power Platform'. They are API compatable in linux-land. (meaning the system that I use on my PowerPC laptop will work just fine on a Power 5 server without recompiling...)

Go check out OpenPower for starters.

These are server stuff specificly to use the Power 5 proccessors with a Linux-specific machine.

For example the low end of it is a Power 710 'express'. A rack mount system with a 1.65 ghz Power 5 proccessor with 36 meg cache(!), 2 gigs of RAM, and 2 73gig 10k SCSI drives.

Very fast, huge cache, ok amount of memory, ok fast harddrives. 4,500 USD

You can get dual proccessors for under 10k, which realy realy realy kicks the ass of anything you can get from Sun for that price range. The Power 5 systems with their 36meg cache and HUGE transistor counts blow the AMD opterons out of the water.

IBM does not have a OpenPower workstation, and does not have a OpenPower desktop though. These are server/database systems and it shows. They AIX workstations you can order, but have Linux installed on them instead if you wanted to, and those aren't much more expensive.

IBM's stuff has always been expensive though. I'd rather have a army of 3rd party manufacturers make PowerPC machines.

However I don't see much of a point, other then platform snobishness.

Personally I like my PowerPC lappy; a Apple Ibook, but it's the last one I'd buy because it's video card is the ATI 9200 and is the last supported by Open Source drivers.

There is the R300 project for newer cards, but I don't think that it's paticularly usefull at this point (although I am gratefull for it, don't get me wrong.)

Having a PowerPC machine realy drive home the values of having free software.

Free software is stable, it's cross-platform, and it 'just works'. All propriatory software runs like ass on my system, if at all. It's a night and day difference.

Trouble is, what is the advantage to PowerPC desktops over x86?

NONE that I see. The newer intel setups are faster, use less power, and are supported well by open source drivers.. much better then the overpriced apple hardware. The ibook when I bought it was vastly superior to all small Pentium 4-m systems aviable and was cheaper.. for the 12 inch long-lasting-battery form factor.

Since then Intel has surpassed it wholy with it's Centrino/Sonoma stuff.

(and beleive me, the x86 Apple stuff will be overpriced, too. I'd probably avoid it personally)

Truth is they are both proccessors, they do both the same thing. Other then price and speed, the differences are purely academic at this point when considuring their use with Linux. Both work fine, x86 allows propriatory applications easily, PPC doesn't.

To me they are on equal ground. If third parties start suppling powerpc laptops that are well supported by free software, I'd strongly considure it.. but otherwise I realy don't care to much.

IBM needs to realy get in gear about their Power systems otherwise they will simply lock themselves into a small high-end market with slowly, yet consistantly, shrinking share.

If the average geek AND the average developer can't have easy access to PPC machines then Linux will stop being cross platform in a few years. It's ineveitable, and there is nothing nobody can do about it. Most people don't have 5000 dollars to burn just to have a extra server in their basement, or feel like spending 1000 dollars for a slow ass machine of lesser quality then what they can by at walmart for 300 dollars.

The biggest hope for future PPC machine in my future will be the Sony PS3. If they release a Linux distro for it, I'll buy it in a second. At 3ghz with a limited core it will be somewhat faster then my aging AMD desktop and my 1.2ghz Ibook. The SPE's offer interesting possiblities and will be fun to mess around with, especially when it comes to things like ray tracing and whatnot. If Sony gets Nvidia to release drivers for it it can actually have the possibility of being a rather kick-ass Linux box, otherwise it will just end up being a nice toy.

Re:It's Surprising

[larry bagina]

If the OSs used are Linux, and the applications are written in any language except the Microsoft lock-in variety, you just change processors, recompile, and you are back in business.

Or unless it uses assembly language.
Or unless it uses processor specific compiler glue (like gcc's SSE/MMX/Altivec support).
Or unless it makes byte-order assumptions.
Or unless they were using a PPC only compiler (like IBM's xlc or metrowerk's mwcc)
Or unless they were using 3rd party libraries
Or unless a lot of things.