How is the 4.2.0 mach64 support? In the past, in order to get XVideo support, I had to use Gatos (linked off of LIVID, hosted by SourceForge). Play an mpeg1 full screen with full framerate and nominal CPU usage is nice. Without it, I can barely get one to play at resolution without dropping frames, and pinning the processor. The Changelog doesn't seem to say much. Am I stuck having to download Gatos? Any plans on merging these, or have people already dubbed mach64 as "POS obsolete that I need to upgrade"? (fat fscking chance)
I like my hardware support, and I won't upgrade if it's a pain to maintain it/save it from upgrade zeolots.
What do i have to say? It's the american concept of entertainment. What you and I seek are more an art form. Something that has a redeeming value to it. Pure entertainment is just short of a complete waste of time.
I can provide two examples of such where entertainment has overridden what could be art. Similar in concept, but only one is real.
-- American companies change the voices to poor knockoffs, cut scenes, add overlays, and even change characterizations on occation.
-- The Mona Lisa with a toothy grin in front of a bright and shiny background.
Why would people do it? because it sells as entertainment, and the artisic values are sacrificed for market share.
And thus american culture became about as tasteful as a milk culture.
Since when does converting to Linux mean x86? I've heard many things about so-and-so using linux for this and that, but nobody ever mentions the arch. Since Linux runs on such other processors such as PPC, Hitachi's SH(Dreamcast, many WinCE, Zaurus), StrongARM, and MIPS, whats all the big fuss about changing their OS? Show some pride and acknowledge the fact that Linux is more than just PCs.
But I can still pick on you if you buy a POWER4 box just to run Linux and Gcc on it.
I'm sure this alone could be quite a debate. (main focus of this article. not free software)
What I consider the market here is a graphics creation/manipulation programs for consumer computers and better. I say this because if there was a raster image program named Illustrator or even Gillustrator, it still happens to be in roughly the same market. and computers basically mean anything but some embedded little thing for kids. I see a possible problem when the two pieces of software could end up on the same computer. (regardless of operating system differences)
If we have a narrow definition of a market, then it could be argued that one company that makes Wide-Ass(TM) recliners for the home can't sue another company that makes Wide-Ass(TM) airline seating. Just because a living room recliner will never be set next to an airline seat doesn't mean there isn't grounds for a dispute. I'm not sure what would really happen in this immaginary case. I'm not a legal consultant. (BTW, if Wide-Ass is a real trademark of anyone in the furniture biz, airline or otherwise, I apologize profusely for its use in my rant.)
This all brings back memories of the Apple Computer Inc. vs Apple Music, the origin of the "Sosumi"-named xylophone-esque sound. IIRC, there the arguement was that PCs aren't music devices, which i belevie was also brought up in the Napster case. (thus not acceptable like audio tapes are?)
In regards to the generic-ness of a name, who dictates what that is?
I think I'll start a credit firm and call it "American Dollar".
Who knows. If I IPO, I could be symbol USD on the NASDAQ.
Grain of salt people. I think Illustrator is justified in their ownership of the name within the relevant market, of which Killustrator falls into. Confusion just makes things worse, which is why I will name only one of my sons after me.
Does this mean that someone actually has a patch for 2.4 to make the memory management suck a little less? AFAIK, 2.4 still requires 1G address space for kernel, meaning any user program can only use 3G it self. Additionally, the address space is so fragmented, the largest contiguous chunk is about 2G. Really bites if you have a 4G system that you would like to use all on one process.
Tell me they are going to fix the memory management!
Right now, the kernel takes a constant 1G of virtual space. Which means any process can only take 3G of memory. Really annoying if you acutally have 4G or more of memory. And worse, the virtual address space is fragmented enough that the largest contiguous piece of space (say for a dynamic SINGLE array) is 2G. that really sucks.
I hear they are going to employ OpenBSD-like methods. Does this include thinking of Virtual Address space as just another resource, like memory used to be before VM? I've come to realize that VM separates the allocation of the address space and the physical space, when without it, they were bound together. Now, before it, contigous memory was scarce on a even lightly used system. So the big things that 2.5 needs to consider is good use of high memory (like putting the kernel in there for good), and actually making an allocation scheme for Address space, as that is still a vital resource that cannot be wasted.
$.02
"Did you wash your hands? You don't know where Linux has been."
Why are people complaining about one button mice and odd chipsets? The fact of the matter is, Linux runs very usable on a mac, even for a PC convert as myself.
Mice - the Linux kernel naturally supports 3 button mice. 2 button is usable, 3 is great. in the proper environment, a single button is still valid, though in general, a PC user is just to used too multi-button to even try single button for more than 5 minutes. Now, since Linux knows what a 3 button mouse is, all you need is drivers that do those buttons right. Guess what... they're already there. the Kensington Thinking mouse (4 button) has support for the three standard buttons. 4th, who knows. hack in support if you like clickers and it isn't already there. As for powerbooks, of which I own one (a "PDQ"), there are ways of emulating two or three buttons. This can be done using meta-click combos, or keys, like what I use, F11/F12. no problem. As for USB, Linux/PPC had decent usable USB support a couple stable kernels before x86 had rudimentary USB support, including the "new input layer" and all the normal USB. Conclusion: the only gripe about buttons one can have is that multi-'s aren't standard included, and in the case of a powerbook, because its built in, you suddenly feel obligated to use complicated finger combos, or as with mine, two handed...:/ But I have my Thinking Mouse when I need it.
"Proprietary" chipsets: some chips in the mac are similar to x86, like the USB controller, and are fairly well supported accross x86 and ppc in parallel. Firewire support is coming along, and most other features tend to be well supported within maybe 6 months of their release, often with little help from Apple. ATI did work with Ben Herrenschmidt on an issue that came up, and I commend them on taking that initiative. There also tend to be endian issues here and there, like in pcmcia (which works fairly well) and video. x86 have a habit of looking the other way.:)
Looking at Apple's released specs, the block diagram looks similar to the iBook and Cube, in that it has the core IO board "KeyLargo" and other ASICs are similar. just a matter of time before this bad boy works perfectly.
Basically, in terms of hardware support, the only thing hindering the Linux/PPC crowd is that it isn't trendy enough that things go quickly, and there is also the fact that Linus is quite obviously x86-biased. Binary-only distribution of programs also tend to hurt usability, if you go for those sorts. MTVp is still antique and unsupported, and since the open-sourcing, OpenOffice has been coming along, but is not quite there yet. (No, OpenOffice doesn't just compile on linux/ppc straight. It is to be considered a port, as it is taking that sort of effort to get it there)
I think the next big step in linux/ppc's development is user support. i've noticed small annoying issues that nobody addresses. User support is growing, now thanks to new stable distributions like Suse, Debian, etc, and the continued improving efforts of LinuxPPC Inc. and TerraSoft. But we have a way to go yet before it stays on par consistant with x86.
my $.02
(Using Linux 4 years, converted from PC to Mac hardware 2 years ago.)
Why use a standard ugly IBM box, when you can get that trendy Japanese cute thing going on by using iMacs instead? They run linux as well as the next personal computer.
Debian still supports Sparc systems, so no big whoop.
"RedHat files anti-trust suit against fellow Linux distributor Debian"
We can't make money off of people when these freaks are giving it all away for free. Not only that, their logo looks better. He felt we had to do *something*.
i disagree. the Cube can't be the new desktop. My main reason for saying this is that power aside, expandability is a must in a pro system. Apple consistantly makes systems with what Graphic Designers consider to be too few PCI slots. Average pro-user may not need that many, but Apple hasn't catered to the >3 PCI slot crowd since the 9600 (?). And completely eliminating PCI slots in its power desktops would be a huge mistake on Apple's part. Some people found this to be a problem with the iMac. Firewire and usb just doesnt cut it.
I must point out that before, the iBook was introduced by showing the square of i(consumer)/power columns and Mac(desktop)/book rows. continuing with that arrangement, our new column is miniaturized power systems. the Cube fits the mini desktop. i expect that within a year, Apple will introduce a mini portable that might be as desktop-replacement class as the powerbook. Given the engineering it took to make the Cube, it is possible. And this is one area that Apple has been greatly lacking in.
The only problem is.. what to call it. if the mini looks like a cube, and is called "G4 Cube"... could they realize the "G4 Little Black Book"?
They used the wrong spelling. They should have used "Dai Kata naa" or, "sure are large shoulders, aint they", or maybe "Dai Kitanai", which is poor grammer for "very dirty".
I could go on.
Re:When will Red Hat join?
on
SuSE For PPC
·
· Score: 2
I disagree. the PowerPC environment is still growing, playing catchup in a few areas to x86. I, as a user of LinuxPPC, value it for its cutting edge support and aim to be a viable linux solution. Part of this is because LinuxPPC.com is very close to LinuxPPC.org, which focuses on development including the kernel. If RedHat bought LinuxPPC, PowerMac Linux would almost certainly suffer IMHO. For those who want a more server-oriented, supported, with a full blown company behind it, Try Yellow Dog or Suse. But PLEASE, leave my LinuxPPC alone.
I've seen these things in ads in Asahi. Its more normal in Japan than anywhere I know of. The thing is the ones I've read about aren't purely DVD. its closer to a computer with a DVD drive, so, what the hell, lets have a player. PS2 probably got it for the same reason. all the hardware was there.
The big thing about these though, they are called "Car Navi". Yes, this is short for navigator, but knowing this and watching 'Lain', you must realize that the term "Navi" is not geek. its a normal adopted word, and that Car Navis seem all the less techno and more normal. A world where kick-ass computers are not geeky, but just another appliance. 'Lain' looks all the more disturbing now, doesn't it?
LEAP YEAR FAQ (Frequently Argued Question) Revision 1.2, 4/4/1998
Q: Is the year 2000 a leap year? A: Yes, because the rule is: in the Gregorian calendar, leap years occur in years exactly divisible by four, except that years ending in 00 are leap years only if they are divisible by 400. So, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2200 are not leap years. But 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
Q: But the year 2000 is not a leap year. A: No, 'tis too, because the rule is: in the Gregorian calendar, leap years occur in years exactly divisible by four, except that years ending in 00 are leap years only if they are divisible by 400.
So, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2200 are not leap years. But 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
Q: But century years aren't leap years. A: Some of them aren't, but 2000 is, because the rule is: in the Gregorian calendar, leap years occur in years exactly divisible by four, except that years ending in 00 are leap years only if they are divisible by 400.
So, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2200 are not leap years. But 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
Q: What makes you think that's the correct rule? A: Claus Tondering's wonderful Calendar FAQ, v. 1.7, http://www.pip.dkne t.dk/~pip10160/calendar.html, which says: The Gregorian calendar has 97 leap years every 400 years: Every year divisible by 4 is a leap year. However, every year divisible by 100 is not a leap year. However, every year divisible by 400 is a leap year after all.
So, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2200 are not leap years. But 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
Q: What makes you think he knows what's he's talking about? A: Because he agrees with the 1995 World Almanac, which says: "3 out of every 4 centestimal years (years ending in 00) were made common years, not leap years. Thus, 1600 was a leap year; 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not, but 2000 will be. Leap years are those years divisible by 4, except centesimal years, which are common unless divisible by 400."
Q: Why should I believe the 1995 World Almanac? A: Because it agrees with the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, which says: "Leap year: a year in the Gregorian calendar having 366 days..." and (under the entry "calendar") "The solar year of the Gregorian calendar consists of 365 days, except in a leap year, which has 366 days and occurs every fourth, even-numbered year. Centenary years are leap years only if they are evenly divisible by 400."
Q: Why do you assume the American Heritage Dictionary is right? A: Because it agrees with "Field Guide to the Stars and Planets," by Donald H. Menzel (Peterson Field Guide series), which explains the Julian leap years and continues "Pope Gregory... ruled that the 'century years,' such as 1900 or 2000, would not contain their allotted extra day unless divisible by 400."
Q: The "Field Guide to the Stars and Planets" is not to be trusted. A: I'd never dream of accepting it without cross-checking in the 1997 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, which says: leap years occur in years exactly divisible by four, except that years ending in 00 must be divisible by 400 to be leap years. Thus, 1600, 1984, and 2000 are leap years, but 1800 and 1900 are not.
Q: Grolier, Grolier, who the hell is Grolier? A: Jean Grolier de Servi*res Vicompte d'Aguisy, 1479-1565, patron of Aldus Manutius and lover of gold-tooled Moroccan leather bookbindings. But that's not important now. What's important is that Grolier's encyclopedia agrees with the Columbia Encyclopedia (at least the version on a shovelware CD called "Our Times"), which says In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII... ordained that thereafter the years ending in hundreds should not be leap years unless they were divisible by 400. The year 1600 was a leap year under both systems, but 1700, 1800, and 1900 were leap years only in the unreformed calendar. The reform was accepted, immediately in most Roman Catholic countries, more gradually in Protestant countries, and in the Eastern Church the Julian calendar was retained into the 20th cent. The present generally accepted calendar is therefore called Gregorian, though it is only a slight modification of the Julian.
Q: I don't agree with the Columbia Encyclopedia. A: But THEY pretty much agree with the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1997 CD-ROM) which says:
In the Gregorian calendar now in general use, the discrepancy is adjusted by adding the extra day to only those century years exactly divisible by 400 (e.g., 1600, 2000). Although the then go on to cloud the issue just a bit by adding
For still more precise reckoning, every year evenly divisible by 4,000 (i.e., 16,000, 24,000, etc.) is made a common (not leap) year.
So there could be an enjoyable argument about exactly what the Britannica means here.
Q: But none of these are actually _official_. A: Well, how about the National Institute of Science and Technology? They say:
"The year 2000 will be a leap year. Century years (like 1900 and 2000) are only considered leap years if they are evenly divisible by 400. Therefore, 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not leap years, but the year 2000 will be a leap year."
http://www.bldrdoc.gov/timefreq/faq/faq.htm
Q: Bollocks to that. The NIST isn't _my_ National Institute. As one of Her Majesty's loyal subjects I bloody well know that 1700 was too a leap year in England, so why should I believe any of this bumf, you sod? A: In the Gregorian calendar, 1700 was not a leap year. Neither Great Britain nor her colonies adopted the Gregorian calendar until 1752, making it possible to win properly phrased bets about the date of George Washington's birthday. Anyway we're all on the Gregorian calendar now, and if you don't like it, by jingo we'll kick your sorry butts just like we did in 1812.
Q: But the reason year 2000 is a leap year is that it's divisible by 1000. A: It's true that 2000 IS a leap year, but that is not the correct rule. In the Gregorian calendar, Century years which are leap years occur every four hundred years, not every thousand years.
Q: But what about the 3200-year rule? Q: But what about the 3600-year rule? Q: But what about the 4000-year rule? Q: But what about the years-divisible-by-900-leaving-remainders of-200-or-600 rule?
A: As long as you agree that the year 2000 is a leap year, I won't give you a hard time. Everyone understands that the Gregorian calendar will be off by about a day in 3000 years or so. There seem to have been various proposals for adding a rule to improve the accuracy of the Gregorian calendar, and it is possible that some of them may have actually been adopted in some country somewhere.
As far as I can tell, the earliest year about which it is possible to have any serious debate is 2800. Hopefully the issue will be resolved well before then.
Q: Are you sure that's really what Pope Gregory said? A: Well, actually, he said:
Deinde, ne in posterum a XII kalendas aprilis aequinoctium recedat, statuimus bissextum quarto quoque anno (uti mos est) continuari debere, praeterquam in centesimis annis; qui, quamvis bissextiles antea semper fuerint, qualem etiam esse volumus annum MDC, post eum tamen qui deinceps consequentur centesimi non omnes bissextiles sint, sed in quadringentis quibusque annis primi quique tres centesimi sine bissexto transigantur, quartus vero quisque centesimus bissextilis sit, ita ut annus MDCC, MDCCC, MDCCCC bissextiles non sint. Anno vero MM, more consueto dies bissextus intercaletur, februario dies XXIX continente, idemque ordo intermittendi intercalandique bissextum diem in quadringentis quibusque annis perpetuo conservetur.
I think "annus MDCC, MDCCC, MDCCCC bissextiles non sint" means "1700, 1800, and 1900 are not leap years." And I think "Anno vero MM,... februario dies XXIX continente" means "in the year 2000 February will contain 29 days."
For reasons of keeping secrets, this is true. However, it is inevitable that users of non-x86 systems will feel left out. This would probably be best as an Apple-operated project with select users running it. I'd like to see it for Linux/PMac, Linux/Alpha, and why not Solaris and a few BSDs. Binaries could serve to alienate more than no support at all IMO.
The whole situation reminds me of how companies see emulation. Reverse engineering to the point that you no longer need to use genuine hardware. While this is not piracy, it's seen as a promotor of it.
While I feel this should be legal, if someone could explain just why this should be and lock-picking isn't. its still illegal if you reverse engineer how to make a key that fits, right?
This is a huge achievment in that the iBook is of the new UMA board design, which is what the new iMac and i think the sawtooth (G4 450+) systems also use. The mother boards are all the same, they just change the daugher boards. Apple shelled out a lot for higher integration, so mass production of these works better.
The original iMacs were packed, the new ones are extremely open inside. the tranparent plastic and lack of fan is thus appropriate.
This is a change from the past systems. The difference between the black and bronze keyboard pbG3 systems was enough to annoy a few. like the backlight controls were changed. that made it hard to work with in the begining. With the new Unified Motherboard Archetecure (i think thats what it means), it is no longer a question of getting it booting, but a question of supporting the daughter boards. Since the iBook is booting (mostly), this means that it will be that much easier to make the new iMacs boot.
long live PowerPC.
Airport, and other trade secrets posted.
on
iBook boots Linux
·
· Score: 1
Apple has release ALL the specs of their computers. They haven't really said anything about it, but they exist in PDF format downloadable from their site, and they have them all from the original apple portable, to the duo, to the Yosemite, to the ibook. And in the iBook specs, they explain the interface to it is a standard ATA bus. It was stated that ATA is similar to ISA on the linuxppc devel list. Given that, its only a matter of time. Its prolly nothing more than a ethernet card.
Note: it has been written in G4 manuals there is a max 3 IDE drives, and to never ever have one as the secondary slave. this is why.
im sure we can think of some other implications, can't we.
I don't remember where these specs are, but i saw them on O'Grady's powerpage, and on the linuxppc devel list. anyone interested in knowing the archetecure of any american mac system (i didn't see the duo290 from japan), go right ahead.
Airport, and other trade secrets posted.
on
iBook boots Linux
·
· Score: 1
Apple has release ALL the specs of their computers. They haven't really said anything about it, but they exist in PDF format downloadable from their site, and they have them all from the original apple portable, to the duo, to the Yosemite, to the ibook. And in the iBook specs, they explain the interface to it is a standard ATA bus. It was stated that ATA is similar to ISA on the linuxppc devel list. Given that, its only a matter of time. Its prolly nothing more than a ethernet card.
Note: it has been written in G4 manuals there is a max 3 IDE drives, and to never ever have one as the secondary slave. this is why.
im sure we can think of some other implications, can't we.
I don't remember where these specs are, but i saw them on O'Grady's powerpage, and on the linuxppc devel list. anyone interested in knowing the archetecure of any american mac system (i didn't see the duo290 from japan), go right ahead.
Re:No, it IS how open source works
on
iBook boots Linux
·
· Score: 2
this phenomena is not exclusive to Open Source. The thing is Mr. Herrenschmidt didn't just buy an iBook and think "could i get it to work", but rather, LinuxPPC GAVE him one. Why? He is the primary author and maintainer of BootX, which made booting Linux on macs with bad OF possible, like powerbooks. He has also worked very hard on the PMU drivers, making it possible to sleep the WallStreets (pbG3), of which i have one and am greatful.
This is a tribute to the productivity of the Linux initiative, i think, and not purely an open source thing.
Slashdot Mirror
How is the 4.2.0 mach64 support? In the past, in order to get XVideo support, I had to use Gatos (linked off of LIVID, hosted by SourceForge). Play an mpeg1 full screen with full framerate and nominal CPU usage is nice. Without it, I can barely get one to play at resolution without dropping frames, and pinning the processor. The Changelog doesn't seem to say much. Am I stuck having to download Gatos? Any plans on merging these, or have people already dubbed mach64 as "POS obsolete that I need to upgrade"? (fat fscking chance)
I like my hardware support, and I won't upgrade if it's a pain to maintain it/save it from upgrade zeolots.
i think "uptime" would be more accurate than "entertainment". Unless you think Linux still belongs in the game section.
What do i have to say? It's the american concept of entertainment. What you and I seek are more an art form. Something that has a redeeming value to it. Pure entertainment is just short of a complete waste of time.
I can provide two examples of such where entertainment has overridden what could be art. Similar in concept, but only one is real.
-- American companies change the voices to poor knockoffs, cut scenes, add overlays, and even change characterizations on occation.
-- The Mona Lisa with a toothy grin in front of a bright and shiny background.
Why would people do it? because it sells as entertainment, and the artisic values are sacrificed for market share.
And thus american culture became about as tasteful as a milk culture.
Since when does converting to Linux mean x86? I've heard many things about so-and-so using linux for this and that, but nobody ever mentions the arch. Since Linux runs on such other processors such as PPC, Hitachi's SH(Dreamcast, many WinCE, Zaurus), StrongARM, and MIPS, whats all the big fuss about changing their OS? Show some pride and acknowledge the fact that Linux is more than just PCs.
But I can still pick on you if you buy a POWER4 box just to run Linux and Gcc on it.
I'm sure this alone could be quite a debate. (main focus of this article. not free software)
What I consider the market here is a graphics creation/manipulation programs for consumer computers and better. I say this because if there was a raster image program named Illustrator or even Gillustrator, it still happens to be in roughly the same market. and computers basically mean anything but some embedded little thing for kids. I see a possible problem when the two pieces of software could end up on the same computer. (regardless of operating system differences)
If we have a narrow definition of a market, then it could be argued that one company that makes Wide-Ass(TM) recliners for the home can't sue another company that makes Wide-Ass(TM) airline seating. Just because a living room recliner will never be set next to an airline seat doesn't mean there isn't grounds for a dispute. I'm not sure what would really happen in this immaginary case. I'm not a legal consultant. (BTW, if Wide-Ass is a real trademark of anyone in the furniture biz, airline or otherwise, I apologize profusely for its use in my rant.)
This all brings back memories of the Apple Computer Inc. vs Apple Music, the origin of the "Sosumi"-named xylophone-esque sound. IIRC, there the arguement was that PCs aren't music devices, which i belevie was also brought up in the Napster case. (thus not acceptable like audio tapes are?)
In regards to the generic-ness of a name, who dictates what that is?
I think I'll start a credit firm and call it "American Dollar".
Who knows. If I IPO, I could be symbol USD on the NASDAQ.
Grain of salt people. I think Illustrator is justified in their ownership of the name within the relevant market, of which Killustrator falls into. Confusion just makes things worse, which is why I will name only one of my sons after me.
>> support for 4GB userland process
Does this mean that someone actually has a patch for 2.4 to make the memory management suck a little less? AFAIK, 2.4 still requires 1G address space for kernel, meaning any user program can only use 3G it self. Additionally, the address space is so fragmented, the largest contiguous chunk is about 2G. Really bites if you have a 4G system that you would like to use all on one process.
Any further info on this claim?
"My data's lost in a tree!! Save it! Save it!"
Tell me they are going to fix the memory management!
Right now, the kernel takes a constant 1G of virtual space. Which means any process can only take 3G of memory. Really annoying if you acutally have 4G or more of memory. And worse, the virtual address space is fragmented enough that the largest contiguous piece of space (say for a dynamic SINGLE array) is 2G. that really sucks.
I hear they are going to employ OpenBSD-like methods. Does this include thinking of Virtual Address space as just another resource, like memory used to be before VM? I've come to realize that VM separates the allocation of the address space and the physical space, when without it, they were bound together. Now, before it, contigous memory was scarce on a even lightly used system. So the big things that 2.5 needs to consider is good use of high memory (like putting the kernel in there for good), and actually making an allocation scheme for Address space, as that is still a vital resource that cannot be wasted.
$.02
"Did you wash your hands? You don't know where Linux has been."
Why are people complaining about one button mice and odd chipsets? The fact of the matter is, Linux runs very usable on a mac, even for a PC convert as myself.
:/ But I have my Thinking Mouse when I need it.
:)
Mice - the Linux kernel naturally supports 3 button mice. 2 button is usable, 3 is great. in the proper environment, a single button is still valid, though in general, a PC user is just to used too multi-button to even try single button for more than 5 minutes. Now, since Linux knows what a 3 button mouse is, all you need is drivers that do those buttons right. Guess what... they're already there. the Kensington Thinking mouse (4 button) has support for the three standard buttons. 4th, who knows. hack in support if you like clickers and it isn't already there. As for powerbooks, of which I own one (a "PDQ"), there are ways of emulating two or three buttons. This can be done using meta-click combos, or keys, like what I use, F11/F12. no problem. As for USB, Linux/PPC had decent usable USB support a couple stable kernels before x86 had rudimentary USB support, including the "new input layer" and all the normal USB. Conclusion: the only gripe about buttons one can have is that multi-'s aren't standard included, and in the case of a powerbook, because its built in, you suddenly feel obligated to use complicated finger combos, or as with mine, two handed...
"Proprietary" chipsets: some chips in the mac are similar to x86, like the USB controller, and are fairly well supported accross x86 and ppc in parallel. Firewire support is coming along, and most other features tend to be well supported within maybe 6 months of their release, often with little help from Apple. ATI did work with Ben Herrenschmidt on an issue that came up, and I commend them on taking that initiative. There also tend to be endian issues here and there, like in pcmcia (which works fairly well) and video. x86 have a habit of looking the other way.
Looking at Apple's released specs, the block diagram looks similar to the iBook and Cube, in that it has the core IO board "KeyLargo" and other ASICs are similar. just a matter of time before this bad boy works perfectly.
Basically, in terms of hardware support, the only thing hindering the Linux/PPC crowd is that it isn't trendy enough that things go quickly, and there is also the fact that Linus is quite obviously x86-biased. Binary-only distribution of programs also tend to hurt usability, if you go for those sorts. MTVp is still antique and unsupported, and since the open-sourcing, OpenOffice has been coming along, but is not quite there yet. (No, OpenOffice doesn't just compile on linux/ppc straight. It is to be considered a port, as it is taking that sort of effort to get it there)
I think the next big step in linux/ppc's development is user support. i've noticed small annoying issues that nobody addresses. User support is growing, now thanks to new stable distributions like Suse, Debian, etc, and the continued improving efforts of LinuxPPC Inc. and TerraSoft. But we have a way to go yet before it stays on par consistant with x86.
my $.02
(Using Linux 4 years, converted from PC to Mac hardware 2 years ago.)
How did you get started in computers? And why Mac hardware as opposed to x86 or Amiga?
GenX tend to have interesting stories of computers in the 70s-80s.
Why use a standard ugly IBM box, when you can get that trendy Japanese cute thing going on by using iMacs instead? They run linux as well as the next personal computer.
better than voting for Kodos or Perot.
Debian still supports Sparc systems, so no big whoop.
"RedHat files anti-trust suit against fellow Linux distributor Debian"
We can't make money off of people when these freaks are giving it all away for free. Not only that, their logo looks better. He felt we had to do *something*.
.... mmm. no...
i disagree. the Cube can't be the new desktop. My main reason for saying this is that power aside, expandability is a must in a pro system. Apple consistantly makes systems with what Graphic Designers consider to be too few PCI slots. Average pro-user may not need that many, but Apple hasn't catered to the >3 PCI slot crowd since the 9600 (?). And completely eliminating PCI slots in its power desktops would be a huge mistake on Apple's part. Some people found this to be a problem with the iMac. Firewire and usb just doesnt cut it.
I must point out that before, the iBook was introduced by showing the square of i(consumer)/power columns and Mac(desktop)/book rows. continuing with that arrangement, our new column is miniaturized power systems. the Cube fits the mini desktop. i expect that within a year, Apple will introduce a mini portable that might be as desktop-replacement class as the powerbook. Given the engineering it took to make the Cube, it is possible. And this is one area that Apple has been greatly lacking in.
The only problem is.. what to call it. if the mini looks like a cube, and is called "G4 Cube"... could they realize the "G4 Little Black Book"?
They used the wrong spelling. They should have used "Dai Kata naa" or, "sure are large shoulders, aint they",
or maybe "Dai Kitanai", which is poor grammer for "very dirty".
I could go on.
I disagree. the PowerPC environment is still growing, playing catchup in a few areas to x86. I, as a user of LinuxPPC, value it for its cutting edge support and aim to be a viable linux solution. Part of this is because LinuxPPC.com is very close to LinuxPPC.org, which focuses on development including the kernel. If RedHat bought LinuxPPC, PowerMac Linux would almost certainly suffer IMHO. For those who want a more server-oriented, supported, with a full blown company behind it, Try Yellow Dog or Suse. But PLEASE, leave my LinuxPPC alone.
I've seen these things in ads in Asahi. Its more normal in Japan than anywhere I know of. The thing is the ones I've read about aren't purely DVD. its closer to a computer with a DVD drive, so, what the hell, lets have a player. PS2 probably got it for the same reason. all the hardware was there.
The big thing about these though, they are called "Car Navi". Yes, this is short for navigator, but knowing this and watching 'Lain', you must realize that the term "Navi" is not geek. its a normal adopted word, and that Car Navis seem all the less techno and more normal. A world where kick-ass computers are not geeky, but just another appliance. 'Lain' looks all the more disturbing now, doesn't it?
êá
LEAP YEAR FAQ (Frequently Argued Question)
... ruled that the 'century years,' such as
... ordained that thereafter the
... februario dies XXIX continente"
Revision 1.2, 4/4/1998
Q: Is the year 2000 a leap year?
A: Yes, because the rule is: in the Gregorian calendar,
leap years occur in years exactly divisible by four,
except that years ending in 00 are leap years only if
they are divisible by 400.
So, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2200 are not leap years.
But 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
Q: But the year 2000 is not a leap year.
A: No, 'tis too, because the rule is: in the Gregorian calendar,
leap years occur in years exactly divisible by four, except
that years ending in 00 are leap years only if
they are divisible by 400.
So, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2200 are not leap years.
But 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
Q: But century years aren't leap years.
A: Some of them aren't, but 2000 is, because the rule is:
in the Gregorian calendar, leap years occur in years
exactly divisible by four, except that years ending in
00 are leap years only if they are divisible by 400.
So, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2200 are not leap years.
But 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
Q: What makes you think that's the correct rule?
A: Claus Tondering's wonderful Calendar FAQ, v. 1.7,
http://www.pip.dkne t.dk/~pip10160/calendar.html, which says:
The Gregorian calendar has 97 leap years every 400 years:
Every year divisible by 4 is a leap year. However, every
year divisible by 100 is not a leap year.
However, every year divisible by 400 is a leap year after all.
So, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2200 are not
leap years. But 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
Q: What makes you think he knows what's he's talking about?
A: Because he agrees with the 1995 World Almanac, which says:
"3 out of every 4 centestimal years (years ending in 00)
were made common years, not leap years. Thus, 1600 was a
leap year; 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not, but 2000 will be.
Leap years are those years divisible by 4, except centesimal
years, which are common unless divisible by 400."
Q: Why should I believe the 1995 World Almanac?
A: Because it agrees with the American Heritage Dictionary,
Third Edition, which says: "Leap year: a year in the
Gregorian calendar having 366 days..." and (under the
entry "calendar") "The solar year of the Gregorian calendar
consists of 365 days, except in a leap year, which has 366
days and occurs every fourth, even-numbered year.
Centenary years are leap years only if they are evenly
divisible by 400."
Q: Why do you assume the American Heritage Dictionary is right?
A: Because it agrees with "Field Guide to the Stars and Planets,"
by Donald H. Menzel (Peterson Field Guide series), which
explains the Julian leap years and continues
"Pope Gregory
1900 or 2000, would not contain their allotted extra day
unless divisible by 400."
Q: The "Field Guide to the Stars and Planets" is not to be trusted.
A: I'd never dream of accepting it without cross-checking in
the 1997 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, which says:
leap years occur in years exactly divisible by four, except
that years ending in 00 must be divisible by
400 to be leap years. Thus, 1600, 1984, and 2000 are leap
years, but 1800 and 1900 are not.
Q: Grolier, Grolier, who the hell is Grolier?
A: Jean Grolier de Servi*res Vicompte d'Aguisy, 1479-1565,
patron of Aldus Manutius and lover of gold-tooled
Moroccan leather bookbindings. But that's not important now.
What's important is that Grolier's encyclopedia
agrees with the Columbia Encyclopedia (at least the version
on a shovelware CD called "Our Times"), which says
In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII
years ending in hundreds should not be leap
years unless they were divisible by 400. The year 1600
was a leap year under both systems, but 1700,
1800, and 1900 were leap years only in the unreformed calendar.
The reform was accepted, immediately in most Roman Catholic
countries, more gradually in Protestant countries, and in
the Eastern Church the Julian calendar was retained into the
20th cent. The present generally accepted calendar is therefore
called Gregorian, though it is only a slight modification of
the Julian.
Q: I don't agree with the Columbia Encyclopedia.
A: But THEY pretty much agree with the Encyclopaedia
Britannica (1997 CD-ROM) which says:
In the Gregorian calendar now in general use, the discrepancy
is adjusted by adding the extra day to only
those century years exactly divisible by 400 (e.g., 1600, 2000).
Although the then go on to cloud the issue just a bit by adding
For still more precise reckoning, every year evenly divisible
by 4,000 (i.e., 16,000, 24,000, etc.) is made a common
(not leap) year.
So there could be an enjoyable argument about exactly what
the Britannica means here.
Q: But none of these are actually _official_.
A: Well, how about the National Institute of Science and
Technology? They say:
"The year 2000 will be a leap year. Century years
(like 1900 and 2000) are only considered leap years if
they are evenly divisible by 400. Therefore, 1700, 1800
and 1900 were not leap years, but the year 2000
will be a leap year."
http://www.bldrdoc.gov/timefreq/faq/faq.htm
Q: Bollocks to that. The NIST isn't _my_ National Institute.
As one of Her Majesty's loyal subjects I bloody well
know that 1700 was too a leap year in England, so why
should I believe any of this bumf, you sod?
A: In the Gregorian calendar, 1700 was not a leap year.
Neither Great Britain nor her colonies adopted the
Gregorian calendar until 1752, making it possible
to win properly phrased bets about the date of George
Washington's birthday. Anyway we're all on the Gregorian
calendar now, and if you don't like it, by jingo we'll
kick your sorry butts just like we did in 1812.
Q: But the reason year 2000 is a leap year is that it's
divisible by 1000.
A: It's true that 2000 IS a leap year, but that
is not the correct rule. In the Gregorian calendar,
Century years which are leap years occur every four
hundred years, not every thousand years.
Q: But what about the 3200-year rule?
Q: But what about the 3600-year rule?
Q: But what about the 4000-year rule?
Q: But what about the years-divisible-by-900-leaving-remainders
of-200-or-600 rule?
A: As long as you agree that the year 2000 is a leap year,
I won't give you a hard time. Everyone understands that the
Gregorian calendar will be off by about a day in 3000 years
or so. There seem to have been various proposals for
adding a rule to improve the accuracy of the Gregorian
calendar, and it is possible that some of them may have
actually been adopted in some country somewhere.
As far as I can tell, the earliest year about which it
is possible to have any serious debate is 2800.
Hopefully the issue will be resolved well before then.
Q: Are you sure that's really what Pope Gregory said?
A: Well, actually, he said:
Deinde, ne in posterum a XII kalendas aprilis
aequinoctium recedat, statuimus bissextum quarto
quoque anno (uti mos est) continuari debere, praeterquam
in centesimis annis; qui, quamvis bissextiles antea semper
fuerint, qualem etiam esse volumus annum MDC, post eum tamen qui
deinceps consequentur centesimi non omnes bissextiles sint,
sed in quadringentis quibusque annis primi quique tres
centesimi sine bissexto transigantur, quartus vero quisque
centesimus bissextilis sit, ita ut annus MDCC, MDCCC, MDCCCC
bissextiles non sint. Anno vero MM, more consueto dies
bissextus intercaletur, februario dies XXIX continente,
idemque ordo intermittendi intercalandique
bissextum diem in quadringentis quibusque annis
perpetuo conservetur.
I think "annus MDCC, MDCCC, MDCCCC bissextiles non sint"
means "1700, 1800, and 1900 are not leap years."
And I think "Anno vero MM,
means "in the year 2000 February will contain 29 days."
For reasons of keeping secrets, this is true. However, it is inevitable that users of non-x86 systems will feel left out. This would probably be best as an Apple-operated project with select users running it. I'd like to see it for Linux/PMac, Linux/Alpha, and why not Solaris and a few BSDs. Binaries could serve to alienate more than no support at all IMO.
The whole situation reminds me of how companies see emulation. Reverse engineering to the point that you no longer need to use genuine hardware. While this is not piracy, it's seen as a promotor of it.
While I feel this should be legal, if someone could explain just why this should be and lock-picking isn't. its still illegal if you reverse engineer how to make a key that fits, right?
This is a huge achievment in that the iBook is of the new UMA board design, which is what the new iMac and i think the sawtooth (G4 450+) systems also use. The mother boards are all the same, they just change the daugher boards. Apple shelled out a lot for higher integration, so mass production of these works better.
The original iMacs were packed, the new ones are extremely open inside. the tranparent plastic and lack of fan is thus appropriate.
This is a change from the past systems. The difference between the black and bronze keyboard pbG3 systems was enough to annoy a few. like the backlight controls were changed. that made it hard to work with in the begining. With the new Unified Motherboard Archetecure (i think thats what it means), it is no longer a question of getting it booting, but a question of supporting the daughter boards. Since the iBook is booting (mostly), this means that it will be that much easier to make the new iMacs boot.
long live PowerPC.
Apple has release ALL the specs of their computers. They haven't really said anything about it, but they exist in PDF format downloadable from their site, and they have them all from the original apple portable, to the duo, to the Yosemite, to the ibook. And in the iBook specs, they explain the interface to it is a standard ATA bus. It was stated that ATA is similar to ISA on the linuxppc devel list. Given that, its only a matter of time. Its prolly nothing more than a ethernet card.
Note: it has been written in G4 manuals there is a max 3 IDE drives, and to never ever have one as the secondary slave. this is why.
im sure we can think of some other implications, can't we.
I don't remember where these specs are, but i saw them on O'Grady's powerpage, and on the linuxppc devel list. anyone interested in knowing the archetecure of any american mac system (i didn't see the duo290 from japan), go right ahead.
Apple has release ALL the specs of their computers. They haven't really said anything about it, but they exist in PDF format downloadable from their site, and they have them all from the original apple portable, to the duo, to the Yosemite, to the ibook. And in the iBook specs, they explain the interface to it is a standard ATA bus. It was stated that ATA is similar to ISA on the linuxppc devel list. Given that, its only a matter of time. Its prolly nothing more than a ethernet card.
Note: it has been written in G4 manuals there is a max 3 IDE drives, and to never ever have one as the secondary slave. this is why.
im sure we can think of some other implications, can't we.
I don't remember where these specs are, but i saw them on O'Grady's powerpage, and on the linuxppc devel list. anyone interested in knowing the archetecure of any american mac system (i didn't see the duo290 from japan), go right ahead.
this phenomena is not exclusive to Open Source. The thing is Mr. Herrenschmidt didn't just buy an iBook and think "could i get it to work", but rather, LinuxPPC GAVE him one. Why? He is the primary author and maintainer of BootX, which made booting Linux on macs with bad OF possible, like powerbooks. He has also worked very hard on the PMU drivers, making it possible to sleep the WallStreets (pbG3), of which i have one and am greatful.
This is a tribute to the productivity of the Linux initiative, i think, and not purely an open source thing.