Apart from the gossipy super, there's also a reference in the article to the phone number she'd obtained, and then a reference to calls made from that number to Utah and Canopy Group. If MOG wasn't making that up, she either went dumpster-diving for a phone bill or obtained a list of numbers dialed from the phone company through some other, even more shady, method. It's not like you can typically obtain someone's phone records just by calling the phone company - that kind of thing takes a court order.
Einstein's work explaining the photoelectric effect formed a foundation of quantum electrodynamics, from which spawned quantum mechanics. He opposed Bohr's estimate of what quantum mechanics meant to science (that reality at the quantum level can be explained only by probabilities, not by strictly measured and predictable outcomes), but his belief was not that quantum mechanics was wrong. He instead believed that there was another set of rules underlying quantum mechanics that would allow for predictability at the quantum level.
Apple's support of Bluetooth can give it some hope, but it's really not comparable to what Apple did for USB (and for CD-ROMs, if you want to go farther back). Bluetooth isn't standard on all Apple's machines, for example - you still need to buy an adapter to enable it. Bluetooth also isn't an essential technology for a computer - everyone needed to connect a mouse, keyboard, and other peripherals to their Macs when they dropped serial and ADB, but not everyone needs to sync their cellphone's address book that badly.
Bluetooth will live and die on its device support, since the technology is more integral to the devices. Compared to device-to-device support, whether Macs or PCs have integrated support fo the technology is a distant second.
SCO may not be allowed to make such an argument in court, but they would certainly make it in the press. This case has been about manipulating their stock price first and foremost. A press release like, "See, they changed it so they know we have a case!" would be exactly the sort of thing SCO wants so they can push uninformed investors to give them one more stock boost. They still have plenty of time for the executives to dump more stock before a final court ruling.
You can buy your processor from Intel or from AMD (and once you buy a motherboard, you're locked into that vendor for your processor upgrades for as long as you own that board). Likewise, for a Mac, you're pretty much buying a processor upgrade from IBM (or from Motorola for G4s). There are intermediaries you can go through from both sides (there are several processor upgrade vendors on the Mac side, believe it or not), but it boils down to Intel or AMD on the one hand or IBM on the other, since they're the ones manufacturing the chips.
Cases, motherboards, and most expansion cards (inasmuch as they're Mac-specific, anyway) are the only items you listed that can be said to be "locked in" on the Mac anymore. There's no special hard drive you need to buy for a Mac, they use DDR RAM, same as most PC motherboards, and the peripherals all use the same USB and Firewire as PC peripherals and are almost always compatible with both if they're compatible with a Mac.
What the difference between the Mac and x86 boils down to for this argument is that Apple sells its boxes as one package, same as its competitors (Dell, HP, Gateway), and there's no convenient route for the hobbyist or expert to take if you want to construct and maintain a machine piecemeal. You'll have as much luck upgrading a Dell piecemeal as you would a Mac - you can swap out most parts, but in general it was designed as one package, not as a box that can conveniently let you swap out motherboards.
Consider, too, that most of the time that I buy a new PC motherboard it's at a point where technologies have changed all around. I'd need a new processor to go with the board, then new RAM (either a new standard like DDR or a faster speed variety to take advantage of the new motherboard). If I really want to keep up, then a new hard drive (a faster ATA standard, or maybe even serial ATA) would be in order, and maybe a new video card to take advantage of a faster AGP port. I could get all that fairly cheaply compared to a whole computer from Apple, Dell, or another complete package vendor, but that comes down to a difference in markets, not different levels of lock-in.
On the whole, I think you have to come up with more than cases and motherboards to declare it evil lock-in. Another respondent mentioned software investment, but as I said there, almost any software purchase on any platform is going to lock you into the OS it's designed to run on. And if you design your software choices so that you can compile them anywhere, then it barely matters where you run 'em, PC or Mac - there's a bit of a price advantage to upgrading a PC piecemeal, but if you're just using the Gimp on KDE and a bunch of other open source tools you'll do just as well buying a Mac to run them then later switching to a PC and running the same things, when you're buying a package computer.
That works the other way around, PC to Mac. What's your point, though - that lock-in is bad? Once you make any software purchase you've locked yourself into a platform and OS, be it Mac OS, Windows, Linux or any other. Lock-in is simply unavoidable.
Your argument sounds like that made by people who feel we should all standardize on Windows - because that would preserve software investments. It sure would make for some pretty lousy stagnation in the market, though.
Basically, yes, I am saying "So what?" You aren't any more locked into a Mac than you are locked into anything else you buy. The only complaint I see here is that you can't put a Mac motherboard into a PC, and there aren't a couple hundred different distributions of Mac OS X available for download (only a few different distributions of the Darwin core).
Is your big argument that instead of only one processor vendor the x86 platform lets you choose from a whopping _two_? Or is it that it's eeeeeevil for someone to use Mac OS X because it's not completely open source? I always thought the strength of the open source community lay in the abundance of software one could grab and compile, and most of that stuff you can grab and compile under Mac OS X. Apple's even bundling X Windows with their OS these days.
Just as with anything on the x86 platform, you're only as locked in as you want to be with Mac OS X.
I run Mac OS X on my desktop, and I help run a Linux website. My shame runs deep at that terrible hypocrisy - Linux is a desktop OS, no one would want to use it as a server OS! My conscience pangs every time I use Mozilla or Firebird to view the site from Mac OS X. When I run openssh to connect to a server my head hangs low. Those crimes are bad enough, but then I start using text editors that only run on Mac OS X - I've locked myself in right there! How could I possibly expect to ever use a text editor on any other platform? They're too different!
Don't get me started on the hardware, either. My USB and IEEE1394 peripherals could clearly never work with another platform. There's no way I could ever read my HFS+ formatted hard drive in Linux. Nor could I ever burn important data to a Linux-readable CD or DVD using a cross-platform DVD-R drive before wiping the hard disk for use with another OS - that's just crazy talk. And the propietary DDR memory - what evil have I wrought?
OMG! I just realized teh softwarez I compiled 4 my Fedora box wil only run on Fedora!!!1!! I am locked in!
Jeebus, how much of a hardship is it to have a piece of software that only runs on an OS that only runs on one type of hardware? Most people only _own_ one box, so they're locked in already. If you're that worried about it, run only open source software that compiles on other platforms. Then it won't matter, even if you're running Mac OS X on a Mac - you can always shuffle your Apache configs to an x86 box running Linux/BSD.
You mean they've fixed it so you don't have to rigidly adhere to Python's indentation conventions? 'Cause that and tab damage are the things that keep me from learning it.
I know what you mean. I've avoided C because of those damned curly braces. Give me good ol' "begin" and "end" blocks from Pascal - at least with those you know where you stand!
Heh. Sure, I _could_ write something with awk and sed to modify XML files a developer sends me. The question is, would anyone but me be able to understand the script well enough to modify it? Heck, could I, if I didn't have to do anything with it for a year?
If you're taking that approach, you can set up a directory to hold all the virtual host configurations and just put a line in the main httpd.conf file to include all the files from that directory. That way when you add a new virtual host you can just copy one of the existing ones and modify the new file. Give 'em names that match their domains and it's easy to go back and make changes to a virtual host's configuration as necessary.
That approach makes it easy to script adding new domains. You can then go one step further and set up separate log directories for each domain's access and error logs.
I thought the point of UserLinux was to encourage businesses to use Linux as a desktop OS. The argument that it should choose an interface API based not on what businesses are already using but instead on what you'd _like_ them to use shows that you're not thinking like an enterprise customer.
If you want UserLinux to see widespread adoption in the enterprise, you need to be able to point to all those big names who already use libraries included in the distro. You need to throw in the QT libraries at the very least, so you can broaden the software support of the distro. If the best people can come up with is, "Use apt-get," it's definitely heading nowhere. In the enterprise, users usually aren't going to have the privileges to run apt-get on their own machines.
Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about the project in any event. After proposals to use UserLinux get filtered through a few meetings before getting to the decision-makers, the only argument they'll hear is, "You should standardize on our desktop instead of on the desktop that you already have in place." If every aspect of the distro is standardized on one technology and one alone, you won't even have "flexibility" as a selling point.
Actually, I would mod it as "interesting". Trademark is indeed separate from copyright law, and the trademark Linus owns isn't in dispute. SCO would use that Linux trademark in the sale of their binary run-only licenses for the Linux kernel. Therefore, it would be effective if they were forbidden from using "Linux" when referring to their license. SCO is asserting ownership over the kernel, after all, so forbidding them from calling their "property" Linux would be perfectly within Linus' rights under trademark law.
SCO could indeed simply refer to it by another name. But the whole point of SCO's action is to cast doubt on Linux, and if they can't call it Linux, their job becomes much harder.
There are links for the PPC live CDs up on LinuxISO.org (at the bottom of the page). Clicking the icon of a disc superimposed on a folder will yield a list of mirrors (only three or four so far), clicking the download link will select one of the mirrors at random. One of the mirrors for Gentoo is iBiblio, which isn't always the speediest mirror to download from but is certainly one of the more reliable mirrors around.
If you're going to a community college so you can get the early stuff out of the way cheap, don't bother with a laptop. You'll get a lot of strange looks if you're the only person using one to take notes. The classes in a community college that do require a bunch of notes should allow plenty of time for it, so any speed difference won't hurt you in the long run.
Some colleges, however, are requiring incoming students to have laptops of one stripe or another. That'll ensure there's nothing unusual about taking notes with the clickety-clack of a keyboard.
Either way, there are advantages to both laptops and pen & paper - I type more quickly and comfortably than I write, for example, but with pen & paper it's easier to scribble, doodle, or just draw quick arrows to easily provide visual associations to be used when studying later.
I wouldn't go with a Palm for note-taking, just because the writeable surface is too small to be comfortable when you're filling a class period with note-taking. Unless you buy a keyboard for it, in which case you're in about the same boat as you would be with a laptop, just with a smaller screen, a smaller keyboard (usually), and less money out of pocket.
The best guess I could make is that Apple has licensed the Unix trademark, and that's why McBride felt comfortable working Apple and Mac OS X into the list of licensees. Either that or buried in the cruft of the old NeXT stuff are some Bell Labs roots.
It's a perfectly reasonable excuse, given the history of the application. It's clearly not intended to be a "feature-complete" beta, given that the first beta didn't even have tabbed browsing. The problem is that "beta" has become synonymous with "pre-release", and Apple's using it in that sense with Safari.
So, we have tabbed browsing, but not draggable tabs. I assume Apple wanted to release tabs so people could play around with them, but didn't want to wait until everything surrounding tabs was completed, particularly if they expect to continue getting feature requests surrounding tabs. Apple's from perfect, but I wouldn't expect a final release of Safari with tabs without the ability to drag tabs around - that would be incredibly un-Apple-like.
The article linked to doesn't come out and say that the PC is the preferred platform for Photoshop, but the name of the file in the URL is "pcpreferred.html". On the other hand, the focus of the benchmarks, and the subdirectory of the URL, is "motion". Rather than advocate the PC for all Photoshop purposes, the page in question appears to advocate the PC for motion-based effects based on the benchmarks.
It's still noteworthy for Photoshop users, but hardly represents Adobe taking sides for overall use of their software.
It'll hit there when an ISO for YDL 2.3 shows up on the mirrors. Or on Yellow Dog's FTP site, for that matter. I guess they're delaying in the hopes that someone will buy the CD. Always good for a business to try to keep paying its operating expenses...
It'll run more reliably and flexibly as a server, I'd say. As a desktop system, OS X is definitely better than Linux. Linux on PPC is more mature than Darwin, however, and requires fewer system resources to run than OS X.
Of course there's also the fact that Linux supports more hardware on the PPC side than OS X or Darwin. Good luck running OS X on a Powermac 7200.
Gentoo only cites Distrowatch once on their page that I've seen. I cited it because it's one of the few means I have to gauge popularity. The other is Linuxiso.org - both have their "popularity" ranking based on the number of visitors to the distribution's page within the site.
Granted, it's not much of a measurement of how many people have installed and regularly use a distro, but to be honest there aren't any reliable ways of measuring that now anyway. You can check sales figures for Red Hat and SuSE, but not for free distros like Debian and Gentoo.
I wouldn't put Gentoo in the top five (Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, Debian, and SuSE would definitely be more popular, and I wouldn't be surprised if Yellow Dog were as well). But considering the buzz around it, top ten, as the original poster suggested, isn't unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from the gossipy super, there's also a reference in the article to the phone number she'd obtained, and then a reference to calls made from that number to Utah and Canopy Group. If MOG wasn't making that up, she either went dumpster-diving for a phone bill or obtained a list of numbers dialed from the phone company through some other, even more shady, method. It's not like you can typically obtain someone's phone records just by calling the phone company - that kind of thing takes a court order.
Einstein's work explaining the photoelectric effect formed a foundation of quantum electrodynamics, from which spawned quantum mechanics. He opposed Bohr's estimate of what quantum mechanics meant to science (that reality at the quantum level can be explained only by probabilities, not by strictly measured and predictable outcomes), but his belief was not that quantum mechanics was wrong. He instead believed that there was another set of rules underlying quantum mechanics that would allow for predictability at the quantum level.
Apple's support of Bluetooth can give it some hope, but it's really not comparable to what Apple did for USB (and for CD-ROMs, if you want to go farther back). Bluetooth isn't standard on all Apple's machines, for example - you still need to buy an adapter to enable it. Bluetooth also isn't an essential technology for a computer - everyone needed to connect a mouse, keyboard, and other peripherals to their Macs when they dropped serial and ADB, but not everyone needs to sync their cellphone's address book that badly.
Bluetooth will live and die on its device support, since the technology is more integral to the devices. Compared to device-to-device support, whether Macs or PCs have integrated support fo the technology is a distant second.
SCO may not be allowed to make such an argument in court, but they would certainly make it in the press. This case has been about manipulating their stock price first and foremost. A press release like, "See, they changed it so they know we have a case!" would be exactly the sort of thing SCO wants so they can push uninformed investors to give them one more stock boost. They still have plenty of time for the executives to dump more stock before a final court ruling.
You can buy your processor from Intel or from AMD (and once you buy a motherboard, you're locked into that vendor for your processor upgrades for as long as you own that board). Likewise, for a Mac, you're pretty much buying a processor upgrade from IBM (or from Motorola for G4s). There are intermediaries you can go through from both sides (there are several processor upgrade vendors on the Mac side, believe it or not), but it boils down to Intel or AMD on the one hand or IBM on the other, since they're the ones manufacturing the chips.
Cases, motherboards, and most expansion cards (inasmuch as they're Mac-specific, anyway) are the only items you listed that can be said to be "locked in" on the Mac anymore. There's no special hard drive you need to buy for a Mac, they use DDR RAM, same as most PC motherboards, and the peripherals all use the same USB and Firewire as PC peripherals and are almost always compatible with both if they're compatible with a Mac.
What the difference between the Mac and x86 boils down to for this argument is that Apple sells its boxes as one package, same as its competitors (Dell, HP, Gateway), and there's no convenient route for the hobbyist or expert to take if you want to construct and maintain a machine piecemeal. You'll have as much luck upgrading a Dell piecemeal as you would a Mac - you can swap out most parts, but in general it was designed as one package, not as a box that can conveniently let you swap out motherboards.
Consider, too, that most of the time that I buy a new PC motherboard it's at a point where technologies have changed all around. I'd need a new processor to go with the board, then new RAM (either a new standard like DDR or a faster speed variety to take advantage of the new motherboard). If I really want to keep up, then a new hard drive (a faster ATA standard, or maybe even serial ATA) would be in order, and maybe a new video card to take advantage of a faster AGP port. I could get all that fairly cheaply compared to a whole computer from Apple, Dell, or another complete package vendor, but that comes down to a difference in markets, not different levels of lock-in.
On the whole, I think you have to come up with more than cases and motherboards to declare it evil lock-in. Another respondent mentioned software investment, but as I said there, almost any software purchase on any platform is going to lock you into the OS it's designed to run on. And if you design your software choices so that you can compile them anywhere, then it barely matters where you run 'em, PC or Mac - there's a bit of a price advantage to upgrading a PC piecemeal, but if you're just using the Gimp on KDE and a bunch of other open source tools you'll do just as well buying a Mac to run them then later switching to a PC and running the same things, when you're buying a package computer.
That works the other way around, PC to Mac. What's your point, though - that lock-in is bad? Once you make any software purchase you've locked yourself into a platform and OS, be it Mac OS, Windows, Linux or any other. Lock-in is simply unavoidable.
Your argument sounds like that made by people who feel we should all standardize on Windows - because that would preserve software investments. It sure would make for some pretty lousy stagnation in the market, though.
Basically, yes, I am saying "So what?" You aren't any more locked into a Mac than you are locked into anything else you buy. The only complaint I see here is that you can't put a Mac motherboard into a PC, and there aren't a couple hundred different distributions of Mac OS X available for download (only a few different distributions of the Darwin core).
Is your big argument that instead of only one processor vendor the x86 platform lets you choose from a whopping _two_? Or is it that it's eeeeeevil for someone to use Mac OS X because it's not completely open source? I always thought the strength of the open source community lay in the abundance of software one could grab and compile, and most of that stuff you can grab and compile under Mac OS X. Apple's even bundling X Windows with their OS these days.
Just as with anything on the x86 platform, you're only as locked in as you want to be with Mac OS X.
I run Mac OS X on my desktop, and I help run a Linux website. My shame runs deep at that terrible hypocrisy - Linux is a desktop OS, no one would want to use it as a server OS! My conscience pangs every time I use Mozilla or Firebird to view the site from Mac OS X. When I run openssh to connect to a server my head hangs low. Those crimes are bad enough, but then I start using text editors that only run on Mac OS X - I've locked myself in right there! How could I possibly expect to ever use a text editor on any other platform? They're too different!
Don't get me started on the hardware, either. My USB and IEEE1394 peripherals could clearly never work with another platform. There's no way I could ever read my HFS+ formatted hard drive in Linux. Nor could I ever burn important data to a Linux-readable CD or DVD using a cross-platform DVD-R drive before wiping the hard disk for use with another OS - that's just crazy talk. And the propietary DDR memory - what evil have I wrought?
OMG! I just realized teh softwarez I compiled 4 my Fedora box wil only run on Fedora!!!1!! I am locked in!
Jeebus, how much of a hardship is it to have a piece of software that only runs on an OS that only runs on one type of hardware? Most people only _own_ one box, so they're locked in already. If you're that worried about it, run only open source software that compiles on other platforms. Then it won't matter, even if you're running Mac OS X on a Mac - you can always shuffle your Apache configs to an x86 box running Linux/BSD.
You mean they've fixed it so you don't have to rigidly adhere to Python's indentation conventions? 'Cause that and tab damage are the things that keep me from learning it.
I know what you mean. I've avoided C because of those damned curly braces. Give me good ol' "begin" and "end" blocks from Pascal - at least with those you know where you stand!
Heh. Sure, I _could_ write something with awk and sed to modify XML files a developer sends me. The question is, would anyone but me be able to understand the script well enough to modify it? Heck, could I, if I didn't have to do anything with it for a year?
If you're taking that approach, you can set up a directory to hold all the virtual host configurations and just put a line in the main httpd.conf file to include all the files from that directory. That way when you add a new virtual host you can just copy one of the existing ones and modify the new file. Give 'em names that match their domains and it's easy to go back and make changes to a virtual host's configuration as necessary.
That approach makes it easy to script adding new domains. You can then go one step further and set up separate log directories for each domain's access and error logs.
I thought the point of UserLinux was to encourage businesses to use Linux as a desktop OS. The argument that it should choose an interface API based not on what businesses are already using but instead on what you'd _like_ them to use shows that you're not thinking like an enterprise customer.
If you want UserLinux to see widespread adoption in the enterprise, you need to be able to point to all those big names who already use libraries included in the distro. You need to throw in the QT libraries at the very least, so you can broaden the software support of the distro. If the best people can come up with is, "Use apt-get," it's definitely heading nowhere. In the enterprise, users usually aren't going to have the privileges to run apt-get on their own machines.
Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about the project in any event. After proposals to use UserLinux get filtered through a few meetings before getting to the decision-makers, the only argument they'll hear is, "You should standardize on our desktop instead of on the desktop that you already have in place." If every aspect of the distro is standardized on one technology and one alone, you won't even have "flexibility" as a selling point.
This is the first time I've seen Slashdot put to a practical use. Doesn't that violate the terms of service?
I'm reminded of a message I once saw to the old Mac EvangeList:
"In future postings, please replace the word 'analyst' with the word 'chimpanzee'."
Actually, I would mod it as "interesting". Trademark is indeed separate from copyright law, and the trademark Linus owns isn't in dispute. SCO would use that Linux trademark in the sale of their binary run-only licenses for the Linux kernel. Therefore, it would be effective if they were forbidden from using "Linux" when referring to their license. SCO is asserting ownership over the kernel, after all, so forbidding them from calling their "property" Linux would be perfectly within Linus' rights under trademark law.
SCO could indeed simply refer to it by another name. But the whole point of SCO's action is to cast doubt on Linux, and if they can't call it Linux, their job becomes much harder.
There are links for the PPC live CDs up on LinuxISO.org (at the bottom of the page). Clicking the icon of a disc superimposed on a folder will yield a list of mirrors (only three or four so far), clicking the download link will select one of the mirrors at random. One of the mirrors for Gentoo is iBiblio, which isn't always the speediest mirror to download from but is certainly one of the more reliable mirrors around.
If you're going to a community college so you can get the early stuff out of the way cheap, don't bother with a laptop. You'll get a lot of strange looks if you're the only person using one to take notes. The classes in a community college that do require a bunch of notes should allow plenty of time for it, so any speed difference won't hurt you in the long run.
Some colleges, however, are requiring incoming students to have laptops of one stripe or another. That'll ensure there's nothing unusual about taking notes with the clickety-clack of a keyboard.
Either way, there are advantages to both laptops and pen & paper - I type more quickly and comfortably than I write, for example, but with pen & paper it's easier to scribble, doodle, or just draw quick arrows to easily provide visual associations to be used when studying later.
I wouldn't go with a Palm for note-taking, just because the writeable surface is too small to be comfortable when you're filling a class period with note-taking. Unless you buy a keyboard for it, in which case you're in about the same boat as you would be with a laptop, just with a smaller screen, a smaller keyboard (usually), and less money out of pocket.
The best guess I could make is that Apple has licensed the Unix trademark, and that's why McBride felt comfortable working Apple and Mac OS X into the list of licensees. Either that or buried in the cruft of the old NeXT stuff are some Bell Labs roots.
It's a perfectly reasonable excuse, given the history of the application. It's clearly not intended to be a "feature-complete" beta, given that the first beta didn't even have tabbed browsing. The problem is that "beta" has become synonymous with "pre-release", and Apple's using it in that sense with Safari.
So, we have tabbed browsing, but not draggable tabs. I assume Apple wanted to release tabs so people could play around with them, but didn't want to wait until everything surrounding tabs was completed, particularly if they expect to continue getting feature requests surrounding tabs. Apple's from perfect, but I wouldn't expect a final release of Safari with tabs without the ability to drag tabs around - that would be incredibly un-Apple-like.
The article linked to doesn't come out and say that the PC is the preferred platform for Photoshop, but the name of the file in the URL is "pcpreferred.html". On the other hand, the focus of the benchmarks, and the subdirectory of the URL, is "motion". Rather than advocate the PC for all Photoshop purposes, the page in question appears to advocate the PC for motion-based effects based on the benchmarks.
It's still noteworthy for Photoshop users, but hardly represents Adobe taking sides for overall use of their software.
It'll hit there when an ISO for YDL 2.3 shows up on the mirrors. Or on Yellow Dog's FTP site, for that matter. I guess they're delaying in the hopes that someone will buy the CD. Always good for a business to try to keep paying its operating expenses...
I blew my mod points, so I can't moderate... the link above redirects you to a gay porno site.
Linuxiso.org is a gay porno site? Not until they put up a page for Lesbian Linux. And someone's already submitted the link, so don't bother. ;)
It'll run more reliably and flexibly as a server, I'd say. As a desktop system, OS X is definitely better than Linux. Linux on PPC is more mature than Darwin, however, and requires fewer system resources to run than OS X.
Of course there's also the fact that Linux supports more hardware on the PPC side than OS X or Darwin. Good luck running OS X on a Powermac 7200.
Gentoo only cites Distrowatch once on their page that I've seen. I cited it because it's one of the few means I have to gauge popularity. The other is Linuxiso.org - both have their "popularity" ranking based on the number of visitors to the distribution's page within the site.
Granted, it's not much of a measurement of how many people have installed and regularly use a distro, but to be honest there aren't any reliable ways of measuring that now anyway. You can check sales figures for Red Hat and SuSE, but not for free distros like Debian and Gentoo.
I wouldn't put Gentoo in the top five (Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, Debian, and SuSE would definitely be more popular, and I wouldn't be surprised if Yellow Dog were as well). But considering the buzz around it, top ten, as the original poster suggested, isn't unlikely.