TerraSoft Releases YellowDog Linux 3.0 248
chriseh writes "For those of us who prefer Linux to the candydrop OS, good news! YellowDog Linux 3.0 has been released. For those who don't want to wait, you can get an enhanced membership at YDL.net and download ISOs directly. As per other releases, ISOs will be available to everyone/mirrors two weeks after the CDs have been on sale.Finally, I can run Linux on my 12" Powerbook."
extrarice amplifies: "New features include: Redesigned installer, a unified KDE 3.1/GNOME 2.2 desktop (both WMs share the same icons and menus), Kernel 2.4.20, and the usual package refinements/updates. More release info can be found here.
Note: ISOs are not available yet, and CDs are scheduled to ship in mid-April. I have been running YDL 2.x for about a year now, and it's a fast, stable distro."
Running Mac apps (Score:2)
At the minimum, is it possible to run Darwin/PowerPC binaries on Linux/PowerPC?
Re:Running Mac apps (Score:5, Informative)
Is there an equivalent of Wine for running Mac OS X applications on Linux/PowerPC?
[/quote]
Yes, it's called "Mac On Linux", available here [maconlinux.org].
Basically, it boots the MacOS on top of Linux, as opposed to emulation.
Re:Running Mac apps (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Running Mac apps (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Running Mac apps (Score:2)
FreeBSD on Intel can run binaries compiled for Linux on Intel, so it's not an unreasonable question.
If you did have binary compatibility then you might be able to copy across libraries like Quartz from your Mac OS X partition to your Linux partition. Not much chance I grant you, given that the whole display infrastructure is differ
Re:Running Mac apps (Score:2)
No, although Mac-on-Linux is similar to VMware: it allows you to run Mac OS itself on Linux.
How many of the libraries in Mac OS X have equivalents in Linux (how close is GNUstep to Apple's stuff, etc)?
Not very many.
At the minimum, is it possible to run Darwin/PowerPC binaries on Linux/PowerPC?
Not that I've heard, and it's hard to imagine why you'd want to. Why not just recompile?
Re:Running Mac apps (Score:2, Redundant)
There is. [maconlinux.org]
Re:Running Mac apps (Score:3, Interesting)
GNUstep works okay with Apple stuff although there are some compile issues because of Aqua. Linux Journal has a neat article about this. You can view the TOC here [linuxjournal.com]
running OS 9 & OS X under linux (Score:2)
Candydrop OS? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Candydrop OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially when they're based on an open system [opendarwin.org] based on [apple.com] BSD [slashdot.org], that ship with gcc, perl, python, Java [slashdot.org], and apache [slashdot.org]
Re:Candydrop OS? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that neither Intel, AMD, IBM, nor SUN give away blueprints for their chips. The only reason you get the choice of whose chips you run on for PC clones is because the X86 architecture is so old and backward compatible that it has been reverse engineered. I think you can pretty much kiss those days goodbye with the onset of 64bit machines. That is, Win64i will only run on 64bit Intel hardware, and Win64a will
Unified desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
So, will there be extreme uproar and protest over YDL unifying GNOME and KDE, too, or will everyone have finally realized RedHat had a good idea?
Redundant (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unified desktop (Score:5, Informative)
MOST of the developers were mad because they changed KDE _fundamentally_ - they made incompatibilities in the libraries. This had/has the effect of some programs not even being able to be compiled on red-hat - and most developers I know that use red-hat have recompiled their kde and kde_libs so they work "correctly".
The rest of the gripes weren't really grounded - most of the kde developers I know didn't care about how they made it look.
Derek
Re:Unified desktop (Score:2)
IMO this just shows how great it was that RedHat went out and did something daring creating Bluecurve, even if they didn't do it was nice
Why would I want this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you are. (No offense.) There are many of us who have older PPC boxes around, that are just dying to have a lean, stable OS installed so they can be put back to use. Besides, YDL is a PPC hardware distro, not an Apple hardware distro. There are a variety of reasons why PPC hardware is preferable in general to x86 hardware. YDL fills an important niche.
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2)
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Less heat, due to lower power consumption, which leads directly to longer battery life if you're dealing with a laptop. Hot laptops are not nice either. The chip size itself becomes a factor if you're looking at embedded devices, and PPC is often chosen for embedded devices partly because of the heat/power issue.
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2)
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2)
If you need a small web or email server, or something of that sort, a system like a PowerMac 7600 makes lots of sense to purchase.
Last time I checked, these puppies were going for as little as $20 on eBay, with no bidders.
The most expensive part of getting one is usually the shipping!
Non apple PPC? Where? (Score:2)
Re:Non apple PPC? Where? (Score:2)
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:5, Insightful)
OSX wouldn't run so well on my 333 Mhz lombard anyway, and linux is way better than OS 9.
Oh, BTW, I run Debian. I don't see any reason for these specialized PPC only Distros, and I don't know why they make news. Why would I want a distribution for one architecture that's different from the distro on all the other architectures I run? Also, why would I want to wait the rediculous periods between yellow dog releases when I can just use debian unstable and have the latest and greatest daily?
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:3, Interesting)
bingo! last year i decided that the time had come to retire my 9600/233... this machine was a beast back in '97 (6 pci slots, 12 ram slots, scsi drives...) a shame to waste. enter yellowdog 2.2 and voila: a spiffy webserver! [slashdot.org]
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2)
that was the "slashdot effect"? pah! piece of cake!
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some people will "settle" for mostly latest but ultimately greatest, so that they get the stability they r
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2)
then you're not doing enough. for instance, yesterday's reason for continuing to run linux was rdiff-backup (note: this "solution" [nongnu.org] doesn't work)
Silence, infedel! (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, I don't know. Linux (well, Unix in general) makes my head hurt.
Re:Silence, infedel! (Score:2)
Re:Silence, infedel! (Score:3, Funny)
We prefer to refer to him as the Daemon [freebsd.org], thank you very much! ;)
-Dan
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I, personally, have better things to do than dink around with package installation, X configuration, and hardware compatibility issues. I'd rather be running iTunes, developing PHP apps, and popping in the occasional DVD movie than pitter around with Linux nonsense.
I *like* Linux. Don't get me wrong. That's what my Dell Inspiron Pentium III 500 is for. But on a Mac? No way.
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:3, Interesting)
don't be a dick (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're not interested in running Linux on PPC hardware, fine, but don't be a dick about other people doing so.... Jeez...
FWIW, I'm getting a laptop to replace my workstation at the office, and I am considering getting a Mac laptop and running Linux on it, not because I want to "dink around with package installation, X configuration, and hardware compatibility issues", but to d
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2)
My experience with macs is a bit limited, but I do still have to maintain a handful of them at work in a production environment...So the 'powers that be' have decreed that OSX isn't ready for primetime yet, and we still need to run OS9 on everything. The fastest machine is a G4 400 mhz machine, and it's STILL god-awful slow running OS9...
My Actual question, though, is How much 'zippier' or more responsive is Linux on Mac that OS9? Is the mulit-tasking any better
Of course you want it. You like doorstops, right? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, maybe because timothy says "I have been running YDL 2.x for about a year now, and it's a fast, stable distro."
Except for that whole crashing thing [google.com], of course. It crashes during install [powerbooklinux.net] and it crashes during configuration [imaclinux.net]. But if you just pop the CD in, then timothy's right, it's a fast, stable distro, if you want to use your powerbook as a paperweight or a doorstop.
Re:Of course you want it. You like doorstops, righ (Score:2)
timothy [monkey.org] didn't say that; the second submitter, extrarice [hoshichan.com], did.
Also, your first link, to "google.com", doesn't work. This corrected link [google.com] works, but it doesn't support your claim of "that whole crashing thing" -- the reviewer only had YDL crash on him once, due to its energy-saving behavior on laptops. I can't check your other
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2)
However, OSX itself is a very unsecure OS. While it flaunts the power of UNIX, it is a crippled UNIX, with a few gaping holes in the security login.
While most users will not have an issue with this, power users will.
Hense a very stable Linux OS is a desirable workaround. Ontop of that, YDL supports running OSX ontop of the Linux OS.
supporting evidence please.. (Score:2)
I'd like to hear just a few bits of evidence in support of such a strong statement...
Re:Why would I want this? (Score:2)
Not all machines shipped with MacOS X. MacOS X makes it easier to learn to use the machine, but not easier to use it- many complex tasks are made more d
It's now official (Score:5, Funny)
Somewhere in California - At 8:30 PDT with the release of Snoopy Linux 2.1, Goober Linux 1.0, and Yellow Dog Linux 3.0, the number of Linux distributions finally surpassed the number of actual Linux users.
"We've been expecting it for some time," Merrill Lynch technology analyst Tom Shayes said, "but this is a little sooner than most expected. We've seen explosive growth in the number of Linux distributions, in fact my nephew just put out LittleLinux Chart Tommy Linux 1.1 last week."
Long time Linux guru Bob Tallman said, "This is great for the open source movement. I have 7 different versions installed on my computer at home. Some guys I know have over 30."
Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer said, "Microsoft will have to play catch up with the number of versions that Linux has, but we think we can do it. With the break up of Microsoft imminent that will instantly double the number of Windows versions available."
Microsoft also announced the release of Pocket PC for Workgroups, Windows GT special edition and Windows 2000 - the Director's Cut with special code added by Bill Gates himself that wasn't in the original release.
Re:It's now official (Score:2)
2) Yellowdog has been around for a while.
Re:It's now official (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's now official (Score:2)
2) Thanks!
Re:It's now official (Score:2)
Next time you cut-and-paste, how about giving BBspot [bbspot.com] credit?
TheFrood
Re:Bravo (Score:3, Informative)
I'm confused... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you say "powerbook"? I don't think you can buy one without an OS on it for cheaper than you get an apple branded one...
You may think that there are equivalent ibm clone laptops, but alot of people like the design and performance of the powerbook and can't get what they want elsewhere...
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
I can see the reason for running Linux on an Apple laptop, but still think it's silly to buy an Apple laptop just to use Linux. Especially since I've yet to run into a Linux app that wouldn't compile with a minimum of fuss on 10.2 with xfree86.
As I've asked before. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure I can see running this on an old PowerMac that Mac OS X doesn't support. But wasting your time/effort to wipe out a prefectly good *nix based system that you can actually buy software off a shelf in a store for (besides the 50 distros)
Just seems like a waste of time.
Now, the little BriQ device they have, sure, YDL would be cool on them. But to wipe out a new system with Mac OS X 10.2.x on it seems wrong.
Re:As I've asked before. (Score:3, Informative)
Why ruin a perfectly good system with Mac OS X and install Linux over it?
[/quote]
You don't have to. You can install the two side-by-side.
It's nice to have a modern operating system on hardware Apple has long-since abandoned (I have YDL 2.3 installed on a PPC Clone)
Re:As I've asked before. (Score:2)
As I've answered before... [slashdot.org]
I like my OS X where it belongs -- inside a MOL window. :)
Re:As I've asked before. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, to each his own I guess. My experience with MacOS X hasn't been that good. We have over 15 Macs in our office (all G4s or iMac G4s) - most of them running MacOS X but mine only run YDL. For the most part, I get much better performance/response than my colleagues, even after Apple has added yet another beta browser to MacOS X. The anti-aliasing of everything in MacOS X also gives me a headache on CRT monitors after about an hour.
Also, call me old fashioned, but I still believe in free (as in "Freedom"), and MacOS X ain't. I use YDL, because they are a small company that *only* does PPC, so I know that their attention will be on *my* hardware and not some entirely different architecture.
While I'm starting to dislike MacOS X less, I still can't work with it anywhere near as quickly as Linux. And, with YDL on my Powerbook, I can setup a micro version of my servers [mcgill.ca] and develop on a closed system while on the train, etc. with the exact same paths/etc. as my servers (IBM Xseries running RedHat, YellowDog briQs and G4s running YDL). Running the same OS on all my hardware makes it really easy to move the code around different architectures. It also means that I'm not forced to use a specific architecture, and can get the hardware that best suits the needs.
So, while YDL might not be for you, but if you own/like Apple hardware, having a distro that keeps your hardware relavant for longer is a good thing for you - whether you use it or not.
Hey, c'mon now. (Score:2)
No fair, Cyberdog doesn't count.
Re:As I've asked before. (Score:2)
"Free as in Freedom" is the new liberal paradigm of software development. In many ways it flys in the face of greed and discounts the acheivement of the individual hacker in favor of the "group effort." Face it man, you're not a Quaker, you're a d
Re:As I've asked before. (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, I'll bite. About a year ago I was loaned a iBook, great I thought, a Unix with a nice GUI. Then I found that there was no colour in the shell, no vim, no bash, no multiple desktops. I just thought screw it, installed YellowDog 2.something and straight away I had WindowMaker, bash, vim, the Gimp, GQview and mozilla -- basically all the tools I use every day on desktop RedHat boxes and servers.
I have posted to /. about this be
Re:As I've asked before. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, that's really too bad.
Debian? (Score:2, Informative)
Finally, I can run Linux on my 12" Powerbook.
The poster seems unaware that Debian can run on Apple hardware. Or should I be assuming that the user had tried to run Debian, but unique hardware had prevented it?
Posted from an ssh tunnel to a PowerMac 7600 upgraded to a G3 running Woody.
Gentoo PPC (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gentoo PPC (Score:2)
I would recommend YDL for ho
Re:Gentoo PPC (Score:2)
from the screenshots.... (Score:4, Funny)
Hm. FireWire boot support? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am frequently carrying my 12" dual-usb iBook around, and leaving my 120 GB external FW drive at home, and I must have Mac OS X on the boot disk.
All I want to be able to do is install Mac OS X on my 10GB internal drive, and then install YDL, SuSE PPC, or whatever other Linux distro I feel like, on the external drive.
YDL through at least 2.3 didn't support this. Now, with 3.0, and two full years to deal with FireWire on Macintosh computers, it still looks like booting from FW drives isn't supported.
Maybe I've missed something. Maybe deep in Apple's ADC documentation is a caveat that I missed: "Thou shalt not install Operating Systems which cometh not from Cupertino and One Infinite Loop onto the Disks of Wired Fire which hath emanated from The Land Of Thy Computer."
Mac OS X can certainly boot from external FW drives, so it's possible in theory to do.
What have I missed?
Re:Hm. FireWire boot support? (Score:2)
I have OS X installed on my Mac and I then installed OS 9 on my iPod.
Boot into OS X and have the iPod connected (or in your case you external firewire drive) and in System Preferences you can change your boot disc. Switch it to the firewire drive. Reboot.
That worked for OS X and OS 9. Might give it a shot for YDL. I didn't see a slowdown either which was nice.
Re:Hm. FireWire boot support? (Score:2)
Re:Hm. FireWire boot support? (Score:2)
Highly recommend for any older mac (Score:4, Informative)
Check this [maconlinux.org] project out. It only runs old macos9 apps but you can still run your mac apps on a stable developer class operating system. Linux will run quite nicely on your old mac. Kde might be a little slugish with all the effects turned on but its alot faster then running aqua on it.
Re:Highly recommend for any older mac (Score:2)
Re:Highly recommend for any older mac (Score:3, Informative)
Still OS X for me (Score:2)
I had YDL 2.3 on a Lombard PowerBook for the better part of a year. It was easy to install and worked just fine (with only general problems with sound in KDE). But after using it for the first month or so, I put OS X on it and never booted into Linux again.
I am proud to say that I have no x86 machines with Windows installed (only Linux), but I really fail to see why I would use YDL or any Linux distro (at least on a New World Mac) when OS X is available (along with Xfree86 and X11 and the full line of Un
Re:Still OS X for me (Score:2)
I work on Linux and NetWare at work. Sometimes, I'd like to be able to hax0r up a nice little proggy at home that I can test there, and deploy at work (at least, in the Linux realm). For the most part, I can use Mac OS X to do a lot of the things, at home and at work, that I need to do (and, at work, I have Linux systems to test on
I realize that, with Fink (which I use) and Obe
Re:Still OS X for me (Score:2)
And I thought about it after I posted, but I would run Linux on an Old World mac for basic desktop computing... it would give me a "modern" OS X-like environment without having to use OS 9.
I do use Linux for services. My webserver runs off Linux and so does my NFS/SMB file server... shares with Winders and Macs no problem. Frankly, you can't beat building a 500 dollar x86 server running Linux. While I'd like to buy a use
Unified desktop (Score:2)
Yellowdog is the Microsoft of Linux! They're disrespecting the KDE project! Use Mandrake! It's a giant conspiracy by The Man to oppress Linux!
</slashdot-kneejerk>
Oh, wait, that said "Yellowdog", not "Red Hat". In that case, it's a welcome move to provide unity among the desktops and enhance the user experience. My bad.
Re:Unified desktop (Score:2)
It wasn't that simple. Yellow Dog (presumably) isn't anti-KDE/pro-Gnome. I think of it as more neutral if not KDE-favoring. They wont/don't short-shrift KDE for the sake of Gnome. Redhat did more than just alter the look/feel of a few icons and desktop backgrounds.
needs java (Score:2)
One big reason I have not made the switch is because of a small but vocal portion of the Mac user
Re:needs java (Score:2)
See http://developer.apple.com/java/ [apple.com]
And if your developing for java it really shouldn't matter what platform you develop on as long as your target audience has a current JRE.
Re:needs java (Score:2)
Try here. (Score:2)
They were real good about porting to linux (x86) when sun was dragging it's feet.
Run from an external Firewire disk? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Run from an external Firewire disk? (Score:2)
Distribution of Distros (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe Mandrake should follow this business model. After all, if they are hemmoraging money like they are, this would give a chance for at least some income without violating the GPL.
try gentoo ppc (Score:2, Interesting)
I dual boot with OS X. OS X is fun, but gentoo is much faster and more configurable.
how i installed gentoo: install [desertsol.com]
"VMWare" for PPC? (Score:2)
To all of those who would ask 'Why?' (Score:2)
For maximum persecution, of course. It's the ultimate statement of geek martyrdom.
Run your neo-hippy operating system on neo-yuppie hardware. I love it!
(i'm joking. sorta.)
Go PPC! (Score:2)
It was a good, solid OS, though I haven't used it since I rolled my own LFS-style. It was very similar to the Redhat 7.2 distro I have running on a workstation at work. It blew away OS 7.5 (which came on the 9600) and OS 9 (which is the highest version the 9600 can run).
For people wondering why do this when OS X is so pretty: I'd say Yellow Dog is an excellent solution to pre-Blue & White PowerMac OS needs. OS X won't run on most sys
Re:Go PPC! (Score:2, Informative)
You can use XPostFacto to install OS X onto many pre B&W Macs. OS X 10.0 and 10.1 will install onto a 604 based system; 10.2 requires a G3 or G4. I used XPostFacto to install OS X 10.0.3 onto my ancient 7600/120...mind you it runs like shit, but it is possible nonetheless.
Other choices as well (Score:2)
It's nice to have a choice. Use whatever works well for you. Hell, use them all and play around with them. You can get a used G3/233 from ebay for less than $150 now.
Have GNU/fun!
Apple Monitor Support? (Score:2)
Does YDL have utilities for this? Would be a nice thing for those making a permanent change.
17" LCD (Score:2)
I installed YDL 2.3 and it horked on the VideoCard.
All my hacks were useless (I even delved into the XFree section to torque some of the code around there.)
Does the new YDL kernel support the 17" widescreen? Or has there been no advances on that front?
8500 vidio in/out (Score:2)
Can you upgrade like Debian with apt-get? (Score:2)
ptrace bug (Score:2)
Szo
Yellow Dog makes your useless Mac usable again. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hey (Score:2, Insightful)
But they don't mind having proprietary hardware to begin with? Idiots.
Re:Hey (Score:2, Interesting)
Really? How fast does MS Office start up on it?
I've found Warcraft III to run somewhat slowly on my computer. Is it faster on Yellow Dog?
Escape Velocity Nova seems pretty zippy already. Is it really faster? Maybe it loads faster. I have to wait 5 or 6 seconds at the loading screen...
What about CarbonCopyCloner? I've had to back up some stuff and it seems really damn fast.
How about... oh, gosh, what to choose... oh, iLife! The
Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! (Score:2)
Wanna bet? I'll bet it WONT start at 2000 UTC.
Re:What makes yellowdog so significant? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because last I checked, Debian also ran on the x86...yet it isn't the most popular distro. Why? Ease. Yellow Dog is like Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE on x86 - easy to install, easy to setup, etc. You don't have to jump through inordinant hoops to get it up and running. Mom, Dad, brother, sister, aren't going to install Debian. They WILL install Yellow Dog.
The idea is the attract users, not scare them away. The idea is to break the idea that linux is hard to setup, hard to install, hard to use, not perpetuate it. Debian is great for a certain class of linux user whether x86 or PPC-based. It is not great for most more generic users/new users however.
Re:Great but... (Score:2)