Yellow Dog Linux Gets 64-Bit Version For G5 352
An anonymous reader writes "There is an announcement on the YellowDogLinux.com 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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)
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:3, Funny)
Don't tell me.
Your real name doesn't happen to be Tony Soprano and you don't happen to live in New Jersey, where many such G5s fall into your lap from a truck somewhere, right?
Re:Just curious (Oh so true!) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Just curious (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple, are you listening?
Re:Just curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
Insular: an "insular community" is something of an oxymoron, but Mac communities tend to be relatively accepting of people who don't own Macs, as long as they don't hate Macs either. (If you hate Macs what the hell are you doing at that forum anyway?) I never got into any forums of the others, but if real-world experience is anything like the forums, Windows would be the most insular. "Your computer should do this... well here's your solution.... buy a PC..." (And befor
Re:Just curious (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Just curious (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I initially began using Linux to fulfill both my curiosity, and for the availability of such high-powered software - all of which is largely free. That was back when I began my college work; I'm now old enough, and thereby have enough money in the bank, that the latter reason for my taking up Linux is not an important reason for my continuing use of it.
Truly, my interest and love for Linux is now supported solely by my unending curiosity in complex software systems. I want to be able to take apart and piece together all elements of my system; I want to be able to inspect and tinker.
I think a user's inability to do this on this still greatly proprietary MacOS platform, answers your original inquiry. YellowDog does support a true niche market; I'm glad they've been, and continue to be successful, and I think the reason for their success is that many people still cherish the ability of open software systems. Even if that system isn't as cohesive as MacOSX.
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
Presumably people who want to run certain Linux applications on the G5 processor.
Why was this a question? Isn't the answer pretty obvious.
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
64-bit applications, for starters.
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Interesting)
I love OS X, but am really looking forward to trying out 64-bit Linux on a dual G5.
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Informative)
For the first, the answer is I/O. For purely CPU bound benchmarks, the G5 compares fairly well with 64-bit x86 chips, but it's nothing to write home about. On the other hand, the I/O subsystem smokes, so unless you're doing almost pure number crunching, that's something you have to take into account as well.
As for putting Linux on it, it's funny you should ask that in a comment for this particular story - prior to this release I would have asked the same thing. However, YDL appears to now offer something that OS X doesn't - a full 64-bit address space for applications. Mac OS X is not "full" 64-bit; the OS can manage all 8GB of RAM, and apps can use 64-bit ints. But, apps run in a 32-bit address space.
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Informative)
Athlons are up to 800 something Mhz, and Xeons are stuck around 400Mhz, at the top end.
For moving data around, G5s are pretty damn fast.
Re:Just curious (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just curious (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
Yes but:
a) Only 2GHz G5's have 1GHz FSB. 1.8GHz has 900Mhz and 1.6GHz has 800MHz bus
b) When G5 accesses the RAM, it goes through that bus. And that can eat ALOT of bandwidth. On the Opteron/Athlon64, the CPU talks directly with the RAM, it does not go through the bus. That reduces latency ALOT and it means that the 800Mhz the A64/Opteron-bus runs at is completely available to other I/O-
Re:Just curious (Score:3, Informative)
Second point, the PowerPC 970 does NOT use Hypertransport as it's bus! Hypertransport in the PowerMac G5 is ONLY used as
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
So that would be, what, a year behind the G5?
Re:Just curious (Score:3, Insightful)
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 CP
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, check out the performances at various tasks such as FFT's. Or why not crypto? Don't make such blanket statements, instead do some research aimed at what you wish to perform on the hardware.
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Informative)
The answer is "people like me" and the explanation is as follows: roughly once or twice a year, I find that my job requirement shifts a bit, and the platform of choice for said work might change overnight from windows to macos to linux. One of the reasons I used yellowDog for about a year was because I really liked my g4 machine and its cinema display, and didn't want to junk it just so that I could run the OS (linux) which I needed at the time to get my work done.
These days I usually spend about 1/3 of my time in windows, 1/3 in linux, and 1/3 in MacOS. Certainly I enjoy my life the most while in MacOS, but that's beside the point. The solution for getting my work done has come down to runing Mac at the office, and Linux + vmWare at home. With this setup I have just one machine at each location, and between the two I cover all my needs in a day. The linux machine is the stablest and fastest a=of them all, and I really wish that masos could be one of my vmware sessions... but that's another story.
Anyway, I agree that YellowDog linux is really a niche product, given that slicker OSes+applications exist for the hardware in question. But sometimes Linux is what you need, and sometimes a Mac is what you want to use, and that's when YellowDog is the answer.
Re:Just curious (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
Check these pages for who [terrasoftsolutions.com] and why [terrasoftsolutions.com].
Here's one reason: J2ME development (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the only software that is available for Linux and not for Mac. For some people, a couple missing programs is what they need.
Personally, I would like to dual-boot Linux alongside OS X. You don't have to "wipe out" Mac OS X and run only Linux. The only thing that stops me from doing this is that my Apple is a PowerBook, and there is still no support for Airport Extreme wireless cards in Linux. I'm always on wireless nets (between my apartment, my girlfriend's, and the university campus), never plugged in. As soon as that is supported, I'll start looking to set up a dual-boot.
Re:Here's one reason: J2ME development (Score:2)
Re:Just curious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just curious (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI, you can install OSX Server without the gui... In fact, you can install it on a machine without a keyboard, mouse or monitor. It could be locked away (but that would make it switching disks a little hard). The XServes have a serial port so you can even do it over a terminal.
A lot of people only think of the capabilities of OS X Client when in the server role they should look at OS X Server. You can configure everything over SSH, and they are a bunch of GUI tools to make things even easier.
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
Linux is faster then MacOSX and many Linux users like kde and gnome better then aqua. Of course you can run these apps wiht Fink underOSX, the applications seem to run better or compile better with Linux. Thinks like the Gstreamer and mplayer for example I have had trouble wiht previous versions of FreeBSD.
Re:Just curious (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just curious (Score:2)
So we're looking at Linux with its pile of out of the box working dev tools.
Laurent
PS: I'll never see the MaxOS GUI, all boxes are accessed through an xterm under ssh :)
Mac OS X is not the OS to end all OSs (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheesy marketing drivel, yes, but with a grain of truth. At the risk of being moded down to Hades by Mac lovers, let me very carefully point out that to some of us, OS X is not the operating system to end all operating systems. It has some problems (like a clumsy finder that dumps its bloody .DS_Store files all over every filesystem it can get its hands on), some severe limitations (like a Mail program that doesn't do TLS), and lacks important capabilities (no well-integrated office program except MS Office).
Don't get me wrong, OS X is probably the best operating system available for pure-consumer type users. When my co-worker complained to me a few days ago that he caught some sort of dialer virus thingy, I told him (politely) to get rid of the problem (Microsoft) and buy a Mac. Is Linux for him? No. He would be very happy with Apple's closed-world, choice-is-bad philosophy.
Some of us, however, like choice, and don't want to, say, pay extra for modern features like virtual desktops that Apple's engineers consider too confusing for us and are covered by shareware. I want a modern mailer (good grief, even the 0.5 BETA of Mozilla Thunderbird [mozilla.org] has TLS), I want Konqueror instead of the brain-damaged Finder, I want my right-click-lelf-click-done! mouse back. But I love the hardware: My iBook G4 is quiet under heavy loads, for example, and battery life is good.
Linux on a PowerPC gives you the best of both worlds -- even more so because you can use Mac-on-Linux [maconlinux.org] to run your Mac OS X applications from inside Linux. Nobody is talking about wiping OS X off the computer (well, except maybe for this guy [osnews.com]), because, remember, though Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are jealous computer gods, Linus is not. I did dual-boot for years with Windows before swiching completely. You can have your cake and eat it, too.
A lot of Mac people I have gotten to know after buying my iBook have no idea how good KDE and Gnome have become, they seem to think that Linux users still have to figure out the refresh parameters for X11 by hand. With more and more Linux people moving to PowerPC hardware, I think we'll see more discussions between OS X and Linux users. Linux can give OS X a good run for its mon-, er, can force Apple to try harder, a lot harder, in fact. And that is good for Mac fans, too.
Can we make our own G5 based machines? (Score:2)
Or does Apple lock up all the G5s that IBM makes?
I like the specs and power of the G5, but can't really afford a Mac.
Just curious.
Will it work on a pSeries? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never been that impressed with Linux on Macs (Score:5, Interesting)
Since so many geeks are fond of comparing computers to cars, think of it like this. A Mac is like a cross between a BMW and a V6 Accord. It's fast, stylish, reliable and expensive, but it definitely looks cool to most people. A PC can be anything from a pinto to a ferrari, but is usually like a typical late 80s, early 90s American car on reliability. It may go faster and turn sometimes better, but it falls apart a lot faster than the more expensive hybrid Honda/BMW (aka, the Mac of cars).
Many of my peers in CS used to not be able to understand why I almost never use PCs anymore. We do a lot of work in Java, some of it in C/C++. They cannot comprehend how the Mac JDK runs faster than a Windows JDK. Or for that matter how convenient it is to have your Swing apps look 99% native. If I demonstrate an app to my prof on my laptop, which is a 1Ghz G4, it usually has more of a wow factor because Apple's Swing defaults to Aqua which is a hell of a lot slicker than anything from KDE or Redmond.
It's all of the little things that make MacOS X worth using over Linux. From the ease of which you can install software to the consistency of the interface to the amount of good software for it as opposed to Linux. Linux is great, but it's not really got much of a place on modern Macs. Between the services that Apple provides like its own version of Apache and Fink, you have most of the software you'd use Linux for.
Re:I've never been that impressed with Linux on Ma (Score:2)
Sorry, tried to get into the car analogy mindset
I can only afford an late 80s, early 90s car. (Score:2)
You may like MacOS, and prefer it over other, cheaper, functionally equivalent alternatives. Fair enough.
I don't think your car analogy works though. Car "geeks" don't drop their late 80s, early 90s car for a new BMW/Accord for "geek" reasons. If they do, they aren't car "geeks", they are "ricers".
This is what car "geeks" do to their Hondas - The New LCRX [honda-perf.org].
Could you be a MacOS "ricer", and not know it?
Re:I've never been that impressed with Linux on Ma (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: word processing (Score:2)
A very impressive project.
Re:I've never been that impressed with Linux on Ma (Score:2)
Is this true?
Are there any benchmarks/evals online anywhere?
Poor analogy (Score:2)
The Powerbook is the VW Golf DTi (up to 150BHP, but at over 40mpg), the iBook is the Polo equivalent.
There is no BMW equivalent in the computer world (Compaq were the nearest thing till Ms. Fiorino came - perhaps she should be put in charge of Iraq?), but I'd suggest that Sony is roughly equivalent to Honda, and Toshiba to To
Re:I've never been that impressed with Linux on Ma (Score:2)
This is definitely good for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is definitely good for Apple (Score:2)
But since Windows only runs on x86 architecture, MacOS would have to be ported to x86. The neat thing about Linux is that it runs on everything.
Re:This is definitely good for Apple (Score:2)
Re:This is definitely good for Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is definitely good for Apple (Score:2)
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/ (Score:2)
Good to hear it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good to hear it (Score:5, Informative)
Aha! (Score:5, Informative)
BladeCenter JS20 [ibm.com]
Specs, as stated on IBM's page:
Modular blade server optimized for the BladeCenter enclosure
Two PowerPC® 970 processors at up to 1.6GHz standard
512MB standard/4GB max PC2700 ECC DDR memory
Up to two IDE hard disk drives for 80GB maximum internal storage
Two Gigabit Ethernet controllers standard with load balancing and failover features
$2,699
How disappointing. For the sake of perspective, here's the Xserve G5 Cluster Node:
Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
512MB DDR400 ECC SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA drive
Mac OS X Server (10 Client)
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
$2,999
OK, so the IBM server is slightly cheaper. But look what you get:
slower processors: 1.6 GHz vs. 2.0 GHz
slower memory: 333MHz vs. 400MHz
slower storage: ATA-100 vs. SATA
no storage in the standard model: 0 GB vs. 80 GB
less expandable storage: 80 GB vs. 750 GB
less expandable memory: 4 GB vs. 8 GB
That being the case, I'd say this is a disappointing product. Why would anyone choose it over the Xserve?
Re:Aha! (Score:2)
Re:Aha! (Score:2)
Ever Used YDL? (Score:5, Informative)
Flexibility. Sure you may want to use OS X day to day. But sometimes you just need to be in a true X environment. Yes you could do that otherwise in OS X, but it tends to have a high overhead (2 window managers, one sitting on top of another), and OS X is a bit quirky when it comes to certain NIX things (case sensitivity, others).
The other issue is that YDL is a GREAT solution when you want to just do number crunching. No need to run the OS X GUI, just a rock solid number crunching OS. If I remember correctly the Navy is using a bunch of XServes (G4 era) with YDL on them for this reason.
Basically it boils down to whether you want to run the OS X window manager and OS X apps, or you want to run "real" LINUX with it's app suite and it's window manager.
Besides, if you X86 zealots can have 18 differant distros why can't PPC users have a few too.
Performances for some classes of apps and Choice (Score:5, Informative)
- Performances ! Run lmbench or do large HPC and compare. There is a real market for such type of applications, and so far, OS X is still way too far behind (lack of 64 bits address space is one thing, lack of large pages support is another, raw kernel perfs gets in the loop as well). The G5 makes a very good 64 bits machine to run linux on for such applications.
- Choice. There are other reasons to choose an OS but "it's slick". Some of us (I know some people have difficulties getting this concept) do actually value the concept of Open Source and want to actively participate for personal and/or political reasons. I prefer running Linux even if it isn't as great as OS X for doing "end user" things, but then, I also contribute in making linux better hoping we will reach that level one day. Apple definitely defines a goal to reach when it comes to GUI (though some aspects of the latest OS X versions can be criticized I beleive).
It's funny, it's always the same question popping up, some of the Apple folks themselves, on mailing lists or conference keep asking that same question, they just can't imagine somebody would want to use something else than their pet OS, but life is about choice & diversity, as much as I like what Apple produces, I'd hate to see it become a monopoly.
In short, as a linux box, a G5 is great
Limit number of OS supported (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there a 64-bit JVM for it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is there a 64-bit JVM for it? (Score:3, Informative)
What's custom about IBM? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Fan Control? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fan Control? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, somebody at Yellow Dog once told me that most of their sales were in the sciences/HPC arena. It may be that their custom software requires more parts of the OS or core libraries to be open/modifiable than Apple provides. Yes, you might be able to pull it off by downloading Fink, or building your own Darwin kernel or whatever -- but if you can get Linux pre-installed (something the Yellow Dog people provide), then why bother?
Re:why? easy. (Score:2, Informative)
One obvious reason is that Yellow Dog is completely free as in beer and OSX is not. You have to purchase every second update and it is not *completely* open source. Even if it IS apple, the magic words, "open-source" does make people listen up.
If compatibility with industry standard programs such as Microsoft Office and Photoshop is not needed, and if the UI is unimportant to you, then linux might be an option.
People use OSX to have the best of both world
Re:why? easy. (Score:3, Informative)
'Y-HPC' -- Terra Soft's new 64-bit offering will be available pre-installed on Apple, IBM, and Momentum 970-based hardware, from the Terra Soft Store, and for download from the forthcoming YDL.net Professional account.
and
Built upon Yellow Dog Linux v3.0.1, a beta version of Y-HPC is now available for download via YDL.net Enhanced accounts, offering double-precision, 8GB memory addressing, 64-bit
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and OS X is not fully 64-bit yet.
Re:why? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why? (Score:2, Interesting)
I know several linux geeks who really liked OSX when they started using it but found it more and more annoying as time went by. Not being very customisable was a common complaint. (no focus follows mouse etc)
Also, if you want a linux box with 8GB of RAM, it wouldn't be a bad choice.
Some people think software freedom is important. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not quite:"of course linux" (Score:3, Informative)
No, Linux is inherently no better for scientific apps than any other operating system. The Navy were interested in the PowerPC G4's inherent advantages when it comes to scientific applications. Their current software was also already running on a Unix platform. Yellow dog plus XServe was a pretty straight forward cost effective replacement.
The
Re:why? (Score:2)
So, to all 12 people out there interested in Yellow Dog Linux, tell us why.
Just kidding!
Re:why? (Score:2)
Well, I don't have a G5, but I do run YDL. (If I had a G5 Mac, I'd have it set up to dual boot.) I've got a couple of older PowerMacs (in the 200MHz 603e range) that will never run MacOS X (in fact, were never upgraded beyond MacOS 8). Mostly I use them for testing software portability. (I've also got a Sparc Linux box, and x86 BSD and Solaris boxes). When I get newer PowerPC hardware I'll probably put one of the old box
Re:why? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:why? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Gotta ask... (Score:2)
Yeah most people probably wouldn't ever think that. They may however think something like "Boy, I sure wish my computer's UI was way more customizable than the one I bought...let's install Linux!"
It all boils down to the users preferences.
Of course, applications would probably factor into the decision to install Linux as well.
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:2)
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Probably more important is Yellow Dog's long-standing PPC Linux hardware solutions, e.g. the Yellow Briq Node G3/G4 standalone server. Terra Soft does a good bit of HPC consulting and installation (check their web pages for a few site descriptions and PPC Linux "wins").
In short, Yellow Dog is _the_ Linux distro for Macs, has been since 3.1 or so when it really blew Mandrake 8 away in terms of legacy and peripheral support. People doing real Linux work on PPC, especially if they're serious about PPC but don't care about having OS X, already are familiar with Yellow Dog. With *nix aficionados supposedly moving to the Mac in droves, opinion leaders are going to steer them toward Yellow Dog, rather than Debian or Mandrake/PPC. It's Red Hat for Macs, more or less.
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get this (Score:2)
How is a G5 more expensive than an x86 PC of the exact same components.
(Its not)
Re:I don't get this (Score:2)
In terms of appearances, it's easy to match the look and style of OSX with Linux themes, so that's not a deciding factor. If anything, you get far more choice of slick, profesional themes with Linux than with OSX.
Re:I don't get this (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's not myth. You really should try it.
In terms of appearances, it's easy to match the look and style of OSX with Linux themes, so that's not a deciding factor. If anything, you get far more choice of slick, profesional themes with Linux than with OSX.
That's the dumbest thing I've read on Slashdot today. The thing about Mac OS isn't that it looks good, it's about usability of the GUI. Linux doesn't even have universal cut'n'paste for Christ's sake, le
Re:I don't get this (Score:2, Insightful)
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 applic
Re:I don't get this (Score:3, Insightful)
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 d
Re:In answer to the 'Why Linux' folks (Score:2, Insightful)
[OT] How times change. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can it run from a CD? (Score:2)
Re:fgg (Score:3, Interesting)
I can give you one reason why I would run Linux instead of MacOS on Apple hardware: I just happen to like Linux more. I have fiddled around with OS X and it just doesn't appeal to me. Sure it has some nice things and some nice eye-candy, but still.
Apple hardwa
Sounds like crap (Score:5, Informative)
The points you make simply dont make true or are irrelevant. I also wonder if you have ever tried Linux on PPC hardware?
I have , and I can tell you that in my experience yellow dog linux runs a hell of a lot faster than a similarly specced intel box.
1) You mention that Linux is optimized for Intel, well in case you didnt know Linux is distributed as source code. the majority of the code is going to be similar for all processors. However there are optimisations contrary to your comments for PPC hardware , including stuff like altivec.Its GCC that does the real work!
Also , one of the really really nice things about Linux on PPC (specifically Yellow Dog) is that Mac hardware is considerably more predictable than x86 hardware. Generally speaking all blue G3's have the same mobo , chipset etc(accounting for minor variations) The upside of this is that a Linux distro such as Yellow dog can be tailored much better to the hardware, and eliminate many driver problems.
Again contrary to your comments.
in response to
2) Im loath to comment on this really but statements like "Linus sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code" and "a bunch of kids playing with source code" Make me realise that you are in fact a troll. But nonetheless I would argue, that since the source code for the Linux kernel is so open as opposed to having closed bits like you refer to in OSX, you have considerably more control over it. In fact you have so much control over it that it can be embedded in all sorts of bizarre devices such as
my response to
3) You make some valid points about GUI's while I agree that OSX, has a much nicer GUI than KDE or Gnome; The whole linux is not ready for the desktop argument is rapidly becoming a regurgitation from people who havent tried the latest Desktop environments. I'd also like to add that the simpler / less eyecandy / GUI with Linux is precisely the reason many people will want to run it on the box particularly as a server. In addition its a great way to make use of that tired old G3.
My comment on 4)
Yes, linux can be a pain to install software, but , and this is somewhat related to my comments on 1) my only experience with Linux on PPC is Yellow dog, and again , due to the predictability of the hardware there is no real need to build from source, you are not really going to do a much better job than Terrasoft at optimising it. Yellow Dog supports both RPM and apt-get. with these tools an update is only a couple of commands away. And they are very good at keeping it updated.
My Conclusion,
You are a Zealot and one who's stuck in his ways at that!
I personally like OSX, and the reason I want a power book , has got nothing to do with any problems I have using my linux desktop. The area which linux falls short is the lack of tools like iMovie and cubase. I also prefer Apple as a company to Microsoft.
Nick