Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Apple Businesses Software Linux

Yellow Dog Linux Gets 64-Bit Version For G5 352

An anonymous reader writes "There is an announcement on the page regarding the new release of a 64-bit distribution of Yellow Dog Linux for the Apple G5 and some custom hardware from IBM. The 64-bit release is being dubbed 'Y-HPC' and is scheduled to be released along with the new 32-bit Yellow Dog 4 at the end of May."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yellow Dog Linux Gets 64-Bit Version For G5

Comments Filter:
  • Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Neo-Rio-101 ( 700494 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:42AM (#8800722)
    Just curious.... but who wipes out MacOSX on the G5 to replace it with Linux? Call me a troll, but I just don't see the point when there are cheaper architectures out there.
  • Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:47AM (#8800756) Homepage
    Such a machine may well fall into your lap from somewhere - a friend always uppgrading to the latest wanting to sell off some stuff; getting an opportunity to buy it used, cheaply (from a failed business, for instance); or wanting a G5 for some reason, but not OSX.

    And don't forget the possibility of people that leave Linux to go for OSX, then, after a while, decide Linux was a better fit for their work after all.

  • Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:47AM (#8800758)
    The people for whom:

    1. The hardware provides an advantage over other hardware.
    2. The existing OS (OSX) doesn't do the job.

    The hardware costs $$, yes. And OSX is a very very good OS, but for some purposes cost of the hardware is a minor issue and an existing linux solution may do the job immensely well with a strong stable track record
  • Re:Gotta ask... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Moofie ( 22272 ) <> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:56AM (#8800796) Homepage
    They're well known in Mac circles. They've been around for a long time, and they seem to have a solid product.

    However, I can't see myself ever thinking "Boy, I sure wish my computer's UI was way crappier than the one I bought...let's install Linux!"

    *dons fireproof jockstrap*
  • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeathPenguin ( 449875 ) * on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:56AM (#8800799)
    Same reason someone would install Linux on an x86 with Windows pre-installed.

    That, and OS X is not fully 64-bit yet.
  • Fedora port? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2004 @01:57AM (#8800804)
    Did anyone else notice that these guys are gonna become a Fedora reseller with the next release? Y would you use them instead of the actual Fedora port for ppc?

  • Re:Just curious (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kc8apf ( 89233 ) <<kc8apf> <at> <>> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:10AM (#8800855) Homepage
    I put linux on my Xserve. It's a server. Linux fit the problem better. No GUI overhead, easier to maintain, etc.

    For G5s, the person generally is either using it as a server or for sciTech work, such as long simulations or massive calculations.

    The sciTech programs are typically written on linux x86 systems and then someone else gets the job of finding the best system to run them. Putting linux on a G5 ends up being easier than getting the initial developer to port the app. Not to mention it gives a consistant interface for all the systems regardless of architecture. This has the nice side effect of making it easier for the admins to maintain the systems and keep up to date on whats new.
  • Good to hear it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by menace3society ( 768451 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:14AM (#8800871)
    Being locked into an OS, even if it's the niftiest thing in the universe (which OS X is), and even if it's core is open-source, is a bad thing. If you buy a refrigerator, you don't want to be locked into whatever food it comes with, plus whatever further food stipends the manufacturer provides. Having another good software reason to buy a mac (64-bit Linux with AltiVec) will only help Apple's sales, and make the newest Macs a force to be reckoned with in high-end personal computing.
  • Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gantrep ( 627089 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:19AM (#8800890)
    Wouldn't it be just as light, slim and quiet with os x? The question is why run linux on a mac, not why choose a mac.
  • I don't get this (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:23AM (#8800909)
    I don't get this. I mean you buy the expensive hardware because it comes with that great operating system that just plain "works" and you put linux on it? I mean don't get me wrong, but if you're going to use linux, use it on an x86 that's cheaper. Unless you're specifically using this G5 machine for number crunching on a 64 bit level, what justifies the price of the hardware if you're not using that beautiful os?
  • Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:30AM (#8800938) Homepage
    Um, because you prefer Linux over OSX?

    Because you're developing Linux apps, not OSX apps, and that is easier to do using Linux directly than try to do it via OSX?

    Because you like the hardware, but want to distance yourself from a user community seen by many as insular, conformant and intolerant?

    Because you are working on UI issues (either as a hobby or professionally) and it is easier to experiment with new and alternative UI designs on an OS that does not have a deeply ingrained standard UI already?

    There can be any number of reasons. Don't disparage people for making choices different from yours (see my third example above).
  • Well, if you're going to use car analogies, then a PC running Linux is like a modified Honda that looks just like a normal Honda in every way. No fart pipe, no wing, no suspension kit, and no chrome wheels. But, it has been set up to go 0-60 in under 6 seconds, AND it could run a 24 hour endurance race without problems.

    The Mac is like a Honda with a giant fart pipe, fruit colored lights underneath the body, giant VTEC stickers, shiny chrome wheels, a fiberglass body kit, big thumping stereo and a giant wing on the back AND on the front too. The thing is so heavy it can only go 0-60 in 12 seconds, and the engine overheats because it weighs 5000 pounds. But, the owner thinks the damn thing looks good.

    Personally, I'm not really fond of car analogies, because they can be stated to support almost any position. The real problem is that a computer is not very much like a car at all.

  • Re:Just curious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mr. Frilly ( 6570 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:31AM (#8800947)
    no, the question was why run linux on mac hardware when you can run linux on cheaper i386 hardware.

    and i also run linux on a mac portable (12" powerbook). i do it 'cause i got the powerbook for free, and i didn't like os x.
  • Re:Question (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:36AM (#8800967)
    Yea, because obviously Apple isn't going to make another model that will support 16GB or anything. Seriously, what the hell is with this "planning ahead" bullshit?
  • by KrispyKringle ( 672903 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:45AM (#8801002)
    I'm a very recent (about a month and a half) convert to OSX. My desktop is Gentoo, which I also use on my PC at work. I run a Debian server, use RedHat far more than I'd like at work, and run OpenBSD on my own server. I've also got similar experience running FreeBSD. I used to have Windows on my desktop as well, up until late last year, simply for the software compatibility. It was only recently that I decided that everything I did in Windows could be done without significant extra effort on Linux.

    I had, prior to buying my 12" Powerbook, used OS9, and found it to be quite unpleasant in that the interface is perfectly friendly, if a bit archaic-feeling, but that there seemed to be a complete and utter lack of any real features in the area of networking, no multi-user capabilities, and generally poor reliability and usability. I had also used OSX a small amount, and it seemed to be, if a bit slow (and still does feel that way, even on my Powerbook), a perfectly tolerable Unix-ish OS.

    Nevertheless, I suspect I'll have a Linux desktop around for a long time (and in some respects truly do prefer it over OSX). Firstly, I found switching to a closed-source OS to be a bit of a bother. Certain minor things I'd like to change I can't, at least, without significant work. While the initial installation is easy, and getting a working desktop for basic stuff like email, web browsing, etc, I can't change certain things how I'd like. The sec ond issue I have is more anticipatory--sooner or later, I just know Apple is going to bite me in the ass with upgrades. OS 10.1 users are apparently expected to upgrade to Panther. When 10.4 comes out, am I going to be expected to plop down another $120 just like that? And finally, in terms of usability, yes, OSX has many nice features. And it's pretty. But it runs X11 apps clunkily at best, Fink and OpenDarwin ports and all are great, but there's not NEARLY the range of Free software available (e.g. the lack of a non-alpha level, non-X11 Free, or even free, word processor). Closed Broadcomm drivers mean I can't put my Airport Extreme card into passive mode. And of course, I'm simply less familiar with OSX, as well. If I decide to implement GRSec and PAX protection on my Gentoo box, I can do it. Being a bit of a security hobbyist, how do I know my Apple is as secure?

    OSX is great, to be sure, for a desktop. It patches the weakness of desktop Linux and is, in many ways, a paragon for that endeavor. And XCode and all are certainly good enough that I have no real issues doing development ON OSX, though most of what I write is written FOR Linux/x86. But I'd never use it for a server, rarely for anything truly serious, certianly not on a desktop where the price of Apple hardware is prohibitive, and not simply because Aqua apps look ``a hell of a lot slicker'' :P

    Overall, however, I am happy.

  • by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <.teamhasnoi. .at.> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:48AM (#8801014) Journal
    One reason to run Linux on a Powerbook is to go wardriving. Apple hasn't released the specs for their Airport card, so the only way to passively scan and/or spoof your MAC addy is to run Linux.

    Granted, this is offtopic as I'm not talking about a G5 or 64 bits of anything, but I think this demonstrates that there are uses for Linux on a mac.

    Of course, I would run Mac on Linux if I was going to do this, but it definitely shows that Open Source has advantages over closed and can do things that closed source can't because of licensing, lawsuits, and lameness.

  • Re:Just curious (Score:0, Insightful)

    by OpenBoot Troll ( 734892 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @03:20AM (#8801107) Homepage Journal
    Because i386 hardware sucks!?! Good enough reason?

    I'd rather run Linux on anything but i386, though I know that's primarily what Linux is designed for.

  • by faaaz ( 582035 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @03:22AM (#8801112)
    Actually, no. You can plug in an USB-WIFI (I use Netgear something or other) and use KisMAC. By the by, why would Linux help if the Airport specs are closed?
  • Re:why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @03:36AM (#8801150)
    One word. Server.

    Sure you can use macosx as a server but it's shall we say quixotic. Try getting a decent build of LAMP with an array of PHP modules and you'll see what I mean. Most linux distributions have some sort of a packaging system that makes that process relatively smooth. Mac has no such thing. There is darwinports but it does not resolve dependencies (really!). Fink is incomplete, pkgsource is iffy and out dated and neither one fits into the macosx file hierarchy. COmbine that with quirky installs of perl and python and you have a recipe for disaster.

    If you want a g5 as a server you'll probably be happier with netbsd or linux (too bad freebsd does not support it).

    BTW anybody use debian ppc on a g5? I'd like to know what your opinion is.
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @03:51AM (#8801208)
    Amazing what giving blacks rights did to the south. a 100% turnaround. Advocating for civil rights cost the democrats the south for decades. Now a white southerner would not vote for a democrat if jesus was on the ticket.
  • Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeremyp ( 130771 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:09AM (#8801616) Homepage Journal

    Because you like the hardware, but want to distance yourself from a user community seen by many as insular, conformant and intolerant?

    Which user community is that? The Windows, Mac, Linux or BSD community? There are people in all of those that could be described as you have described them.

    I'd never base my choice of hardware or software on what the other people who use it are like (if you can even make such a generalisation).

  • Re:Just curious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 10Ghz ( 453478 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:30AM (#8801672)
    So that would be, what, a year behind the G5?

    G5 NEEDS that ultra-fast FSB since it does it's RAM access through it. Athlon64/Opteron does not, since the CPU talks with the RAM directly via the integrated mem-controller. While 2GHz G5 has 1GHZ bus, it's NOT one bit better than the 800Mhz bus on A64, since on A64 that 800Mhz is 100% available to NIC's, PCI-devices, HD's etc. etc., since RAM-access does not eat in to the bandwidth (like it does on the G5).

    G5 is a fine CPU, but it's not the be all end all CPU some people make it out to be. In some cases it's considerably behind A64 (where's the integrated mem-controller huh?)
  • by hak1du ( 761835 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:32AM (#8801681) Journal
    No, it's not myth. You really should try it.

    I have. In fact, I still have an OS X machine because I need it for work. I find it no easier to maintain or update than a Windows machine, and it's considerably more work to maintain than a Linux machine (Linux machines basically just update the entire system and applications automatically; on OS X, only the OS updates itself and may even break applications in the process).

    Furthermore, OS X applications crash with roughly the same frequency as Windows applications in my experience (big change from a few years ago, when Windows was horrible).

    The thing about Mac OS isn't that it looks good, it's about usability of the GUI.

    That, too, is a myth. Macintosh applications are all over the place when it comes to usability. There are some really good ones and some really lousy ones. The applications Apple ships out of the box are, overall, probably a bit better than average.

    And the OS X UI is far from consistent; in fact, arguably, its consistency is worse than either Linux or Windows. OS X has Cocoa, Carbon, Cocoa/Carbon with the "device" look, the OS 9 UI, X11 (including Gtk+, Qt, wxWindows, and Tcl/Tk apps), Windows ports, and other interfaces, all running on the same screen. They all look and behave differently. Even Cocoa and Carbon, where Apple has tried hardest to make them consistent, don't have consistent key bindings, don't have consistent ways of remapping keys, and don't see the file system the same way.

    Linux doesn't even have universal cut'n'paste for Christ's sake,

    Sure it does. Of course, just like OS X, not every application supports cut-and-paste. Unlike OS X, Linux does at least have a standard mechanism that every GUI application (no matter what toolkit it is written in) could use if it chose to use it.

    OS X has all the inconsistencies of X11 (because it supports X11), and it adds to that its own set of inconsistencies that go far beyond what X11 has. On X11, at least all toolkits see the same key maps and same cut-and-paste mechanisms. On OS X, you don't even get that much.

    Of course, your objection is likely going to be "X11, Carbon, and OS 9 don't count, they are just add-ons". Well, yes, if you only look at one of the many UIs running on OS X, you get more consistency. But in that case, it does make sense to compare OS X/Cocoa to all of Linux, you have to compare OS X/Cocoa to Linux/Gnome, and then Linux/Gnome still wins in terms of its consistency and overall integration.

    Anyway you cut it, Apple doesn't walk on water. They make a decent product with nice graphical design and reasonable support. But they don't have any technology or ideas that other companies don't have as well.
  • by btbo ( 769556 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @06:39AM (#8801701)
    For me it would be really useful if there's also a 64-bit JVM for it.
  • by Reverant ( 581129 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @07:00AM (#8801773) Homepage
    And don't forget the possibility of people that leave Linux to go for OSX, then, after a while, decide Linux was a better fit for their work after all.
    You can't begin to imagine how true this is. I've been wanting to get a Mac for 3 years now, mainly because of OS X. When I did (Powerbook 667), I just found that KDE does the job better, quicker, and best of all, it's Free as in Speech. I can't tweak OS X (Aqua, the Finder,, etc) and I'm not talking about the usual lame hints and tips, I'm talking about tweaking the code to add/remove that needed/useless functionality. Not to mention bug squashing that I can't wait for Apple to solve. The Powerbook (titanium) hardware is great (the first laptop in years to have working sleep/resume, the ACPI subsystem on pc notebooks just won't work on most laptops I have tried), save the orinoco driver for the Airport card that doesn't properly support scanning and has some issues here and there.
  • Re:Just curious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kalemba ( 549251 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @07:50AM (#8801951)
    Because you like the hardware, but want to distance yourself from a user community seen by many as insular, conformant and intolerant?

    insular, conformant AND intolerant?

    if you're looking to avoid this type of "user community" than you should pack up and leave linux and /. and probably geekdom in general.

    this is the funniest thing i have read today.
  • by leandrod ( 17766 ) <`l' `at' `'> on Thursday April 08, 2004 @08:01AM (#8802028) Homepage Journal
    It is interesting that for /. crowd everything not an IBM-compatible PC is either proprietary or custom or whatever.

    The truth is there is nothing more custom or proprietary to RISC than to the IBM-compatible PC, probably less. While the BIOS and such became common knowledge and the legal ability to produce x86 clones became widespread, there is nothing inherently open there: AMD-64 and IA-64 can well shed all that and become AMD and Intel exclusives. In fact it seems that IA-64 is already there.

    On the other hand, SPARC is a standard, the PowerPC is joint developed, and all RISCs use open standards like OpenFirmware. And definetely IBM stuff is made in volume and widely available, if pricier than your standard white box stuff.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2004 @09:49AM (#8802777)
    You know its possible to load OSX up under just a command line, as well as start X from here too.

    Its extremely fast without the Aqua layer running, then again its even faster without X.

    X is alright, but I'd be safe saying (anonymously) that even Windows has a better desktop environment than KDE. Some people use this just because they want to prove their geek status. I work with several of these folks.

    As for tweaking the code, why would you need to tweak the code to a lot of this? What kind of selfrespecting geek would use this -- and I'm not even talking the pretentious kind that would remove OSX and install the YellerDawg to prove it. There are several open apps that work natively that one could tweak and get better results. Finder??? It does what its supposed to do, but if you need to extend it, there are folder scripts, standard applescripts, and otherwise. You can build scripts and put them in your finder bar if you need direct access to them. If you don't like that, I have seen a few open finder replacements. Aqua? If you don't use it, ya don't use it. Oh no...its not the theme I want!!! Its more fuckingly powerful than ANYTHING you will ever find in KDE or gnome, but some geeks seem to think changing the windowing interface to something uglier, nonprofessional, and nonconforming even to itself is paramount in their requirements. Some of us OSX geeks get pissed about the brushed aluminum that has popped up, but even the nonstandards associated with this are far more standards oriented than anything you will find in the open.

    Face it, you don't want a computer, you want a religion. You want folks to know you choose your religion. If it wasn't computers, you'd be shoving your B'hai Faith down peoples throats to prove that you have made an intelligent, if not somewhat irrational, choice. You don't want to be down with the Jebus people, and Allah just doesn't cut it. 72 Virgins is not a prime number or the pilgramage cuts into your excuse not to get out of your parents basement.

    Maybe its just a way to shove off any women that might strike up a conversation with you about your Mac. I've found that my cute widdle iBook is as good as a dog to meet women. You've found a way to have them approach you and then repell then just as fast. Its forethought like this that keeps the geek population eternally nonlaid.

    Yeah, this is probably a fucking troll. Not because of the computers, but some gatdamm mormon is going to mod this down because I didn't feel fit to include their 'faith' as either a nonstandard almost cultlike religion, or admit that they actually controll the fate of the internet and McBride will become their patron saint of litigation and technology.
  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @12:38PM (#8804742)

    Again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of things related to Linux.
    This thread started with the usual, uninformed bashing of Linux by Macintosh users. Why don't you guys just shut up and stop bashing Linux? We don't want to hear that OS X is better--if we thought that OS X were better, we'd be running it, rather than YDL. In fact, I don't even see the Apple stories anymore because the Mac and OS X really don't interest me.
    But when you do make stupid, uninformed claims about Linux, as you did, you have to expect that people answer.

    ... a complete reversal of the actual situation. You were the one starting the uninformed bashing. The first post in the thread merely asked a question about why pick a Mac rather than an x86 to run Linux on. You were the one who decided to started trashing another OS. The uninformed claims are being made about Mac OS by you. The claims of superiority of Linux as a desktop OS over Mac OS are plain nonsense - at least at the current state of Linux developments. Sorry I don't buy your story that you own Macs at all. You are a troll.

  • Re:Just curious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Thursday April 08, 2004 @02:23PM (#8806113)
    No; Apple is in the business of selling hardware. They create the software to sell the hardware. You'd still have to pay for the R&D on that software even if you don't want it, because they pay for the software by selling the hardware. Essentially, the software costs them nothing because they don't have to pay any per-machine licenses. But OS X is the reason most people buy a Mac. You'd probably just pirate a copy of OS X to put on it anyway; if you want a daily-usable unix system, OS X blows Linux out of the water on hardware support, commercial app support, basically everything you might want to do that doesn't involve programming. And even then, Apple's free IDE is pretty fucking sweet.

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.