Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors 71
Morganic writes "After checking periodically for the past couple days, I noticed that YDL 3.0 has hit the mirrors, a day early (in fact, the page above still says it's not available, but the mirrors at the bottom are carrying it). Anyone got a BitTorrent?"
....7 Years of Bad Luck! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:....7 Years of Bad Luck! (Score:2)
Changes... (Score:4, Informative)
Very nice!
Er. (Score:4, Interesting)
There's nothing "OS X-only" about them (Score:5, Informative)
That said, Yellow Dog Linux supports machines as the team has the chance to add such support. It already supports, for instance, the 12" PowerBook and the Xserve family. They may be a little behind the latest product introductions, but support will always be added.
Re:There's nothing "OS X-only" about them (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't be surprised if a third party enabler for OS 9.2 on the new PowerBook or any other new machine. The mac community likes their OS 9. I only use it for the original Unreal, but everything else runs fine in Classic.
Is Bit Torrent faster? (Score:1)
Re:Is Bit Torrent faster? (Score:5, Informative)
For more info on BT, visit the official BitTorrent [bitconjurer.org] site.
Yeah, it's out (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, it's out (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, it's out (Score:2, Informative)
Next try was to re-burn install1 on a higher quality CD and it worked fine. It's reminds me of the descriptions of the latest Red Hat, but with mac add ons like pbbuttonsd and the like.
Re:Yeah, it's out (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yeah, it's out (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, it's out (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, it's out (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Yeah, it's out (Score:1)
The installer locked up somewhere on disk2, leaving me with a hosed system.
Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (Score:2)
Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (Score:2)
Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (Score:3)
any reviews (Score:2)
Re:any reviews (Score:1)
well, you could upgrade to 9.1... not a huge improvement, but if you can't run OS X and dont want to do linux, you might as well...
Re:any reviews (Score:2)
Re:any reviews (Score:2, Informative)
Im still waiting (Score:1)
Radeon 8500??? (Score:1)
Do you notice a big improvement over the old Rage cards on OS X thanks to 'Quartz Extreme'? None of the sites I've researched talk about the real-world performance gains of this card.
Why bother? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
That, and after 6 or 7 years, I just understand and am comfortable with Linux.
Not that I don't think OS X is a good and/or capable OS, and that some of the iApps are really slick. But being comfortable with the UI is #1 with me, and I just can't get comfortable with OS X's UI. Really the only think I miss running Linux on my iBook (read: have to boot into OS X for) is playing DVDs on my TV. And Flash I guess. Other than that, it's perfect.
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
Granted, for laptops, the iBook is a sweet piece of hardware -- but parallels do exist. And they're faster than a 900 (or 700, or 800) mhz G3.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some Linux die-hards buy Apple laptops because they are the nicest laptops around. These people are just really into Linux, so they don't want OS X.
Another major use is for older computers. Pretty much any OldWorld machine is going to be too slow to enjoy OS X. Throwing Linux on these machines can extend their usefulness. They can be used as fileservers, routers, mp3 players, etc. Some people also use them as their main desktop, although I personally think Mac OS is just fine for older computers.
However, I think it is rather foolish to run Linux on newer Apple hardware. OS X is just too uber-cool. Besides, the only thing I've found that runs on Linux but not on OS X is MOL, but amazingly I've gotten by so far without it.
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
Re:Newbie question. (Score:4, Informative)
I have older PM 6500 and Imac Rev B that can't run Mac OS X (not supported, not enough RAM, not enough CPU power).
I've installed YellowDogLinux 2.3 on both, it just works
I don't feel the need to upgrade to 3.0 since they are used headless, as servers not as desktop.
Re:OS X runs on any iMac; just upgrade to 128MB RA (Score:2, Informative)
Nope, on my RevA iMac it boots, then crawls but never runs (with 160 MB of RAM).
It runs quite smoothly (but I still see the Beach Ball of Death at least once an hour) on my 400 MHz iMac DV, of course the 640MB of RAM help but a faster drive would help too.
Re:OS X runs on any iMac; just upgrade to 128MB RA (Score:1)
The beachball of death sounds like a pre-jaguar problem, and I would think things would look abit better with jaguar onboard.
Ofcourse, if you already have jaguar installed then I'm just plain wrong...
Re:OS X runs on any iMac; just upgrade to 128MB RA (Score:1)
I'm afraid you are, both run 10.2.5. Maybe they would run it faster if they had faster hard drives.
All iMacs are supported (Score:2, Informative)
I have older PM 6500 and Imac Rev B that can't run Mac OS X (not supported, not enough RAM, not enough CPU power).
Sir - please don't spread misinformation, especially in a post marked 'informative" (and being informative indeed in other aspects). So far all iMacs are "supported" for the latest version of MacOS X - please check the official Jaguar requirements [apple.com]. It's only a a matter of adding RAM, but that's not really tha
Re:All iMacs are supported (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the idea I tried to outline is still valid. On older macs , installing Linux may be a better investment than Mac OSX:
(1) On such computers Mac OS X is slow, even after upgrading memory, there's still bottlenecks like bus speed, slow CPU, slow I/O, while linux can accomodate itself of such low-end config. Sure, as you say, KDE and Gnome should be avoided, but twm for example run correctly. On the other
Re:All iMacs are supported (Score:2, Informative)
However, the idea I tried to outline is still valid. On older macs , installing Linux may be a better investment than Mac OSX:
To clarify: I didn't question the general idea, I was just in mood for some anal nitpicking
Runs fine on iMac Rev. A w/96MB RAM (Score:1)
Re:Newbie question. (Score:1)
It costs more because it's better. I've often seen the comparison drawn b/w computers and cars. Buying an Apple is arguably something akin to buying a luxury European car in preference to a domestic family sedan. It doesn't necessarily go any faster but it has more comfortable seats, a really good stereo and satellite navigation.
Anyway, I run Linux on my 500MhZ iBook. The GUI is much more responsive and it runs all the same good stuff that comes with
Re:Newbie question. (Score:1)
iPod Boot? (Score:1)
Re:iPod Boot? (Score:1)
Re:iPod Boot? (Score:1)
Re:iPod Boot? (Score:1)
Mirrors? (Score:2, Informative)
(In fact, I installed 3.0 a couple weeks ago by doing this -- just add the new apt repositories for 3.0 to your sources.list file.)
--saint
Don't install on 2-harddrive system! (Score:1)
YDL 3.0 will trash the partition map on one of your hard drives if you have more than one.
You can't fix it unless you install YDL, which is not very easy, since YDL installer is quite crash-prone while it's busy trashing your hard drive!
forget ydl, get Gentoo! (Score:1)