Slashdot Mirror
IBM opens PowerPC design to LinuxPPC
David Snow writes "IBM is opening the door for Linux distributors to use computers with the PowerPC chip. This means Linux-branded G3 and G4 boxes. " Another in a
long series of pretty good Linux related moves on Big Blues part.
Also, I recently bought Civ:CTP, and there's a patch on Loki's web site that includes a PPC binary.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Like Netscape? (possibly the biggest memory-sieve I've ever experienced)
Get lost, troll.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
It seems to me that it was about three years ago that IBM first announced this, though there was no linux angle at the time.
Assuming that these are the same boards, or descendants of them, there is a *very* simple explanation as to why IBM is doing this. It's *not* the system's division that produced and demonstrated the original boards, but the CPU folks. It was nothing more (or less) than a way to sell CPU's. Fortuneately, I didn't hold out for one, as I needed the new machine for my (now complete) dissertation . . .
It might be easy for the company to recompile on diffrent hardware after they already ported to Linux, but just because it's Linux doesn't mean it's compatiable.
I can believe that some companies have ported to Linux-PPC... But, AFA x86 binary compatability, you comment is somewhat misleading... (or is there something about PPC-Linux that I wasn't aware of).
If I recall, Be left the PowerPC platform citing problems getting access to specs for the G3 processor itself. Apple wasn't being friendly with them, it seems. This information that IBM is releasing is a motherboard design. It shows how to physically and electrically make a board for the PowerPC. Being a software company, Be certainly doesn't care about this. They just want to know how to program for the proc and chipset.
However, most people I have spoken with who follow Be have told me that this was just an excuse. Infact, Be wanted to switch to x86 anyway, and they just sort of smeared Apple on their way out. Be could have gotten the info they needed, from someone else if not from Apple. If nothing else, they could have approached the LinuxPPC people, who have done just fine working with the G3.
In summary: this doesn't help Be, but I don't think that Be really wanted to be helped. If anyone out there follows this stuff more closely, please add to/correct my statement.
--Lenny, who dreams of an inexpensive PPC clone.
$500? The regular OS retails for about $100. Consumer OS X will pretty certainly be the same. The cloners were licensing the OS for less than $100/copy. If it had gone too high, they could have switched to buying it retail and reselling it, but their margins were too tight to make it effective for them.
More likely you'll see clones with just LinuxPPC but that may (a PPC mb != Mac mb) also support various MacOSes.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
At that time, yes there were ROM issues. The current ROM is mostly implimented in software now. There's a small ROM left, and I'm pretty sure that it is mostly just open firmware.
However, the OS is pretty closely tied to the hardware in a lot of other respects, so I still would like to see a legal, working clone (with MacOS on it - any modern version) before I buy it. A PPC running Linux is not special though; there are PPCs running AIX, BeOS and some even had NT and OS/2.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Check www.spec.org. It provides standard benchmarking code, and collects benchmarks for everything from PCs up to Big Iron. It will certainly have comparisons between PIIIs and the PPC-750, and should have Athlon data as soon as AMD gets around to compiling the benchmark software.
My understanding is that newer MacOS versions don't need the Apple ROM to boot, so IBM PPC board + MacOS = Macintosh for less scratch.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well, I don't think that Linux is any competition to Apple's "Power User" market, simply because the Mac power applications aren't running on LInux.
A white box PPC could really sell to the Mac Power User market. I know a few folks that would love a 6 slot G3 box with a fast integrated RAID system. Right now they have to piece together a 9600, an upgrade board, and a bunch of other parts.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
As someone else mentioned, an open PPC design is really nothing new - IBM's had one available for years. Think of this move as a little marketing to sell it to the Linux community.
The original intention of CHRP was to provide a mass market computing platform to compete with Intel. IBM would have made their money off the PPC and the chipsets, not the board design. Unfortunately, there's been very little demand for NT, AIX, vapor OS/2, vapor Solaris, and vapor NetWare running on commodity PPC systems. The Linux 'hobbyist' market could revive this. (Anyone have an estimate on Linux on Alpha system sales?)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I don't know about your setup, but NS 4.61/WinNT leaks memory like a sieve on my box.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
this is Slashdot, formerly "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters" soon to be renamed "If its not Linux its CRAP!" A good source for BeOS related stuff is BeNews /. is now mostly a circle-jerk site for Linux fans. I like linux too so thats why I read /. but its isn't really a general nerd-news site anymore.
Im a big fan of BeOS, but
IBM also co-designs and builds CPUs for a number of companies...some included above. The new copper technology for the PowerPC 4 is especially interesting. One day Intel will have to play catch-up.
Repeatedly, they have released new technologies (quicktime, qtvr, OpenDoc) only to see them fail because of lack of choice regarding hardware/platform and their marketing focus on their hardware.
-------
Just a sec, quicktime? FAIL? It's the most widespread video software around, when did it fail?
Anothing thing to keep in mind is that the reason Mac OS works (for the most part) so painlessly is that Apple controls the hardware. They don't have to support the wide range of hardware that other OS do. I think it's great that IBM is releasing the specs for these mobos (I don't think they will be making any themselves.) They'll make some nice servers. I really doubt that even Mac OS X will run on them. Apple has pared their new motherboards down to a much simpler boot rom so I guess it would be physically possible but I really can't see them cutting their own throats by letting people get the Mac experience and not buy their hardware from Apple. Gee, we could sell a $90.00 OS CD-ROM or $1,500-$4,000 worth of hardware. And before everyone starts screaming about how proprietary Apple is let's just remember that if you don't want to run Mac OS, don't. Linux is just as good a desktop system, right?
cheers,
Matthew Reilly
Why do you care? I'm serious, not trying to flame here. Explain to me why you care that Apple is so "proprietary." Do you use their software or hardware? Or is it just a sense of moral outrage?
I use their hardware and software on a daily basis, I'm a a graphic designer, and I have to say it does what it is supposed to do. I think the concept of open source software is great but I don't see any open source tools that I could do my job with so I use the proprietary ones. Apple has spent a great deal of money developing the tools I use, shouldn't they expect to get a return on them? They get their return selling their hardware for a premium. If this doesn't agree with you don't buy their stuff but you'll have a hard time doing print design without them. Now web design/production, that's another story.
cheers,
Matthew Reilly