'Black Lab' Linux For G3 Clusters 220
ChristianC writes "'Black Lab' Linux, a relative of Yellow Dog Linux, has been released for PowerPCs (including G3s and iMacs). The distribution offers Beowulf and Cluster computing - 20 G3s at once!
"
Re:with imacs? (Score:1)
School installs Black Lab Linux.
School has a 20 node Beowulf machine when the lab is closed.
With a port of MOSIX (which is planned sometime in the future, don't ask me for a date yet), the 'Imac' cluster could be used for cluster computation during lab time, and the computation processes would migrate away from machines currently in use.
troy@blacklablinux.com
Re:Benchmark comparisons? (Score:1)
my bet is: the G3s sux big time for this.
The idea of beowulf is to build a specialized high performance cluster (with high MFLOPs, but slow interconnectivity of the nodes) from cheap off the shelf components. but the trick with G3s is, you can't buy cheap hardware anywhere around (no naked MoBos available).
and the G3 isn't that great at FP-operations anyway (comparable to a celeron). it might be a little faster with integer (but no more than 20% over a P2), but that's of no use for beowulf apps most of the time....
if you want to build a cheap beowulf style cluster you better go with dual-boards and celerons with dual-adapters...
Re:iMacs (Score:1)
euphorik
Re:Benchmark comparisons? (Score:1)
I also wonder if there are differences in the level of optimization on the two different platforms.
Finally, if you don't need a high level of precision (for instance, running simulations with lots of iterations), there is suppose to be a libmoto floating point library from Motorola that improves on the computational speed.
Re:Will this work with PowerPC 601's ? (Score:1)
As to getting Beowulf to work on any hardware you already own, don't go thru Black Lab Linux, they're selling their own systems, hardware and software. See www.beowulf.org/software/ and, if you've got the guts and time, run compile it and run it yourself. After all, Beowulf is open source, and isn't really based on any hardware specs. The one issue you'll run into is Ethernet thru-put. Clusters with slow ethernet (either because the cards are slow, or the drivers aren't well written) tend to perform poorly. The Beowulf people have written many custom ethernet drivers to fix this, for PC and Alpha based linux. Finding comparable drivers might be tough on Apple/PPC based systems. However, even if you have slow ethernet, you can still run a cluster.
Re:Mac-nix? Lin-ac? (Score:1)
What makes you say that? Your own biases of who uses a Mac? "conceived"? Sorry, it's a reality.
From my own experience at two different universities, Mac users have a higher general computer "proficiency" level over Win users. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe they are more focused on getting their work done.
In fact, they are, imo, second only to those computer users who use some form of Unix/Linux as their main or exclusive platform. I don't think that is hard to believe; 2 years ago, some numbers were put forth that there was a greater percentage of mac users on the internet than Win folks.
As well, a large number of Linux users use it because it's "trendy" or because they want to be "hackers." The rest of the Linux users fit into the incredibily smart and proficient category of choosing the tool for what they want to do. The flexibility of Linux plays a large role in making it their tool of choice.
Finding that mix is not that hard. I started on a Mac (040, 20 mhz, C610, no fpu). Loved the interface. Tried windows, hated it. Went to unix, which was such a different format (CLI initially) that I had to learn it separately and without biases toward a different windowing interface (as would be until Win3.1 at the time). Fell in love with the CLI, and wondered how I could get both. Now, I get that via PPC linux and MacOS X server.
So if you just hold your regular biases toward Mac users, with them being the "pretty little imac" or the "GUI only" or the "my Mom uses a mac, therefore it sucks" folks, you'd be excluding some pretty damn proficient computer users.
Re:iMacs (Score:1)
If I buy a computer for its looks, it should remind me of a Corvette, not a kiddie car.
Re:I trust... (Score:1)
IMO, the biggest problem they have run into is glibc2.1. This has caused more headaches than anything else as it breaks many things. Give these guys a break please.
Re:No Kidding - Quicktime 4 still runs on 68020's! (Score:1)
Come on now, the 68020 is a true 32bit processor, somewhat not even all 386 where, don't compare it to a 286, even the original 68000 is a better processor than the 286.
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Re:Benchmark comparisons? (Score:1)
G3 and Celeron are nearly the same for FP - they both are rather sucky compared to other CPUs with good FPUs. The point is: G3 mobos are not cheaply available...
And FPU performance really has nothing to do with RISC/CISC chip design. Only a dumbass would say: Hey it's RISC, so it kicks the CISC x86's butt in FP performance. The G3 is a good example, it's RISC, but it's FPU sucks just as hard as the x86's. And know what? The StrongARM is also RISC, but it doesn't even have an FPU!!!!!!
Why Avalon uses Alphas? Well, it might be because they have excellent FPU performance/CPU, and they are generally available for a reasonable price...
unofficial feedback (Score:1)
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:2)
Doing mathematical equations (generating SSH keys) my G3 is twice as fast as my PII, both at 400 MHz (granted, the G3 has more cache).
Re:The present (Score:2)
Not everyone's a business person. Not everyone works from the premise of "getting" a new computer to run stuff on (see 68k NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux projects if you don't believe me). Computers are tools. Not everyone has the same criteria; it varies on their needs. This is obvious.
If you went with cost, you might have gone with an AMD or Celeron, not even a PII or PIII. But there are people who buy PIIs and PIIIs; they aren't stupid just because AMDs and Celerons are cheaper. They might have different criteria, e.g. they needed the little extra speed. There are some people that might want to build Linux servers cheaply.
But there are Linux ports beyond the x86. Why? People had the hardware. If I have an Alpha, need a web server, I might try running Linux on it. It would be stupid to purchase a new machine unless the Alpha was insufficient.
There are Mac users who desire or have reason using MacOS but also have use for running Linux. With PPC Linux, they can use both for the price of one box, not two. What, run MacOS? Plenty of people like it. Plenty of environments exist where it's simply easier to get a MacOS computer over intel.
Thus, likewise, there are people that already have two or three G3s and 604s. Why should they have to go out and buy equipment? Utilize what they have. To research scientists, who you admitted you are not, who might need a clustering option, Black Labs allows them to not spend $10,000-$20,000 on getting intel equipment. $10,000 not spent means more money for regeants or that back-burner experiment that they might not have had funds for. And since a lot of research money is NIH aka taxpayer's money, I am in general a more happy camper that funds are being used efficiently.
Re:Beowulf licensing/price/availability (Score:2)
i quote from the beowulf mailing list faq v2 at: http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~utha yopa/bwfaq2.html [anl.gov]
2. Where can I get the Beowulf software? [1999-05-13]
There isn't a software package called "Beowulf". There are, however, several pieces of software many people have found useful for building Beowulfs. None of them are essential. They include MPICH, LAM, PVM, the Linux kernel, the channel-bonding patch to the Linux kernel (which lets you 'bond' multiple Ethernet interfaces into a faster 'virtual' Ethernet interface) and the global pid space patch for the Linux kernel (which, as I understand it, lets you see all the processes on your Beowulf with ps, and maybe kill etc. them), DIPC (which lets you use sysv shared memory and semaphores and message queues transparently across a cluster).
As for the licensing info, presumably the patches to the Kernel will be GPL'ed. Check out: http://www.beowulf.org/software/softw are.html [beowulf.org]. I couldn't find any specific information on liscensing, although they do refer to the software necessary to implement Beowulf as:
implemented as an add-on to commercially available, royalty-free base Linux distributions
hope this helps
alex
Logical, Rational, Knowable. (Score:2)
Why do Mac people also use Linux?
1) As stated before, if you held out against the Wintel duopoly during the recent dark years, you're not a "just go along" type of person. (Yeah, the whole "Think Different" thing is pretentious, but there's a grain of truth to it. It's a stubborn streak that suits both Mac and Linux users well).
2) It's easy. MacOS coexists peacefully with another OS on the same hard drive. Most of the alternate O/Ss provide easy-to-use dual booters, and choosing between different startup drives has always been trivial on the Mac. You can boot from just about anything on a Mac: external HD, floppy, Zip, Jaz, whatever. So it's easy to experiment with little obligation.
3) This one is subtle, but I think the most important. Both Macs and Linux reinforce the idea that computers are *logically designed and predictable systems that can be mastered*. With Linux there is predictability and mastery, but it requires much greater initial knowledge (i.e., a steep learning curve). You've got to want to do something, then learn how to do it.
With the Mac there is a shallow learning curve, but you can keep going as far as you like. If you're Grandma and you just want to e-mail and file recipes, you can stop there. But I've found the Mac actually encourages "serendipitous" learning -- sometimes I've ended up doing new things just because it was so damn easy and predictable on the Mac. I got a cable modem, then before I knew it I was using my machine as a Web server and router, with three or four other Macs on a LAN with it. And it was *easy*. I've seen novices (like I was) go from using software to installing it, from attaching peripherals to swapping components, from using higher end apps to coding. Even when Macs crash, it can be *logically* narrowed down to an extensions conflict or offending app.
Compare this to the Wintel side of the world, where even experienced technicians just reinstall Windows to solve a problem. Whenever I use Windows I feel like the system is fighting me every step of the way. Sometimes things just don't work. Sometimes it just crashes. No one is ever able to explain it. It's all just freakin' voodoo. Although its not as bad as it used to be, how would anyone ever learn cool stuff by chance when the computer is this inscrutable device that doesn't do simple stuff right? If the computer is not logical and predictable, why even expend effort trying to understand it?
Even if you do make the effort, it's just one kludge after another. Right down to the processor and its assembly language. No offense to the Intel users out there, but x86 assembly language is just a mess. Let's not even discuss PowerPC, because I don't want to make this a Mac-vs-PC thing. Look at MIPS assembly language. Instructions logically grouped, all the same length, with consistent syntax. It's understandable. It's *knowable*. When you look at it you see logic behind the design.
But I'm getting a bit off topic here. Basically, I think the shallow learning curve of the Mac and its consistent design encourages users to learn more. It tells them that computers (and technology in general) are rationally designed things you can understand and master. Do that for long enough and you will build up the necessary knowledge and confidence to tackle Linux.
Re:Benchmark comparisons? (Score:3)
Whatever--to both of you.
G3s are comparable to a PII system in FPU and better in integer. I wouldn't call that "sux big time" and I sure wouldn't say that it kicks butt.
If you want FPU, you go Alpha. You want bang for buck and you're starting from scratch, Celerons or even AMDs might do you well. However, all of these assumptions go from a premise of the need solely for higher performance (using alphas) and/or starting from scratch with a budget (using Celerons).
The idea of beowulf is to build a specialized high performance cluster (with high MFLOPs, but slow interconnectivity of the nodes) from cheap off the shelf components
Eh? While true, that's only part of the picture. "Build" doesn't equate to " newpurchase."
There are, lo and behold, groups that have a bunch of G3s that were purchased for other reasons. Like who? University's who have public computing labs. Science/research labs, in general, like Macs. Some of these people might have an interest or developed a need for clustering and doing so on their current investment of computers is beats the pants off new purchases, aka makes it almost free.
Black Labs brings these people the simple option of using their current investment and/or money already pointed for Macs for other reasons (e.g. some chemistry software is preferentially run on macs). If you've looked at other clustering options for G3s (you did before you shot your mouths off, right??), you'd realize the AppleSeed project had some of these exact reasons in mind. And even here, there are pluses and minuses between using AppleSeed and Black Labs.
Re:Beowulf licensing/price/availability (Score:1)
In any case, yes, it should be freely distributable, but Cheapbytes doesn't sell them because of the United States' inane export laws. Beowulf is considered a munition because it can make computers more powerful than a certain plateau, which in theory can be used to develop weapons, etc.
In any case, if someone has a Beowulf cd, you can legally copy it (I assume that it was exported legally if you're not in the States)
Re:with imacs? (Score:1)
It's what I do on my G3 All-In-One running YD.
Re:Benchmark comparisons? (Score:1)
This is not true... the 604e has 2 fpu units and 2 integer units... the G3 only has 1 fpu unit which is why it doesnt kick the pentiums ass totaly in FP math (although benhmarks indicate that it is still faster)... the G3 was actualy designed as a low to mid range chip but it performed beyond expectations
the 604e is an excelent highend chip
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
thats becausse half the time explorere will die for you, you dont have to do anything!
Re:Secure Macs and Performance. (Score:1)
I am currently running an alpha of it. it is surprisingly stable and has excelent multiuser capabilities (compared to windows, not compared to a real multi-user OS)
restrictions can be placed on file acces, application access and even what CDs can be run in the machine (all, none, or only ones on a certain list) it includes a login screen and the ability to use your voice print for your login (very cool!)
it even has an option to make certain users access like at ease
all in all I am very impressed
Re:iMacs (Score:1)
I thought you would have hated it
I personaly dont mind it much, but it is certainly not my first choice... just to small for my hand.
where can i download it? (Score:1)
foreign mac users (Score:1)
Japan is a burgeoning personal computer market, and I think it's an intersting trend to see Apple capture so much share so quickly.
Re:Benchmark comparisons? (Score:1)
BTW... RS/6000 is a product line, not a CPU. The RS/6000 line uses the PowerPC series (601,603,603e,604,604e) for interger math and Power, Power2, Power2sc, and Power3 processors for floating point math.
Huh? I hope you don't mean to imply that RS/6000 systems have both a PPC chip and a Power chip, because they don't. They ship with either a Power series chip or a PowerPC chip.
(As an aside, the ASCI Blue Pacific system at Livermore is all PowerPC 604e's rather than Power3s, according to this web page [llnl.gov]. Personally, I think this is why the machine is so much slower than ASCI Blue Mountain, even though Blue Pacific's theoretical peak is higher; the PPCs only have 1 FPU, while the Power3s and the R10ks in Blue Mountain have 2 FPUs.)
PPC 604e FPU(s) (Score:1)
This is not true... the 604e has 2 fpu units and 2 integer units...
That's not what Motorola's PowerPC 604e product summary [mot-sps.com] says. It lists 3 integer units (2 single-cycle and 1 multi-cycle) and 1 floating point unit. If there's documentation to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
Re:G3 vs. rackmount PII -- per-node costs and perf (Score:1)
Where can I find docs on BlockMoveDataUncached()? Is it a NeXT/Apple proprietary call? It's certainly not ANSI C or POSIX...
I've never had to tweak stream_d like this on anything that had a decent compiler. The code is so simple that it shouldn't be that hard to optimize. On x86, gcc 2.7.2.3, egcs/gcc 2.90.29, and pgcc 3.0.4 all give stream_d results within less than 1% of each other. On our Origin 2000, there's about a 10-15% penalty for using gcc 2.8.1 in place of the SGI C compiler 7.2.1. I've assembled a summary of stream_d results for various systems at http://www.osc.edu/~troy/stream_d.html [osc.edu] (and yes, the Cray numbers there are real).
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
b) Apple has adopted the open source theory, at least more than most. They started with MKLinux (Linux on the Mach microkernel), and went on to release Darwin (OSXs foundation, also Mach based) as open source.(yeah, I know it's Apple's open source license, but Rome wasn't built in a day, and they've already revised it in response to feedback) This is already starting to seed other projects (http://www.darwinlinux.com).
Re:Mac users are competent (Score:1)
Quote: "If you didn't have it on the server where it could be BACKED UP, then you didn't really need it anyway--you just think you did..."
A fried OS isn't the only reason to format/replace a hard drive--backup important documents often.
Re:with imacs? (Score:1)
Or something like that. Sorry. Just spent half a day searching for an itty-bitty annoying bug. Gah.
--
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
G3s and iMacs (Score:2)
With iRacks! (Score:3)
droool...
-Isaac
My experience is the opposite. (Score:1)
I believe that technically competent Mac people are more visible than technically competent Windows people just because Mac advocates tend to be loud. Very loud.
I know some solid coders who love Mac, but not many. The competent Mac people get really touchy about how non-technical the Mac user base is, but that doesn't change matters.
Apple tries very hard to look cute and sell to hipsters. Some proficient computer users use their products, but not all that many.
--Lenny
Re:Paper: Clustering on PPC yields poor performanc (Score:2)
I didn't bother reading the report (Postscript..no printer happy...too lazy to use a reader), but I would suspect that the 604 would yield much better results. The 604 was made to be a more versitile "industrial" strength processor and therefore includes many features that are absent on the 603. The G4, which is supposed to ship before too long, is a decendent of the 604, and likewise may yield better results than the G3.
Then again, I could be on crack and be completely wrong....since I didn't read the report. So if I am wrong, please correct me kindly
Re:The present (Score:1)
to the 3 above (Score:1)
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:1)
Not very. Performance matters, and that paper about clustering PPCs says it's not very high on PPC, unfortunately.
Paper: Clustering on PPC yields poor performance (Score:2)
The article is at:
http://www.dhpc.adelaide.e du.au/reports/065/abs-065.html [adelaide.edu.au].
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
Besides it's so easy to maintain the macs that i can't belive your having these problems. rebulid your desktops, and run norton every 6wks.
then make a comparision, just as long as you not using Word or Excel or another crippled MS product as the benchmarker.
Re:iMacs (Score:1)
Ever.
I love the lil' guy.
Re:iMacs (Score:1)
That is, the tips of my fingers are all on the mousepad, my thumb is on the mousepad, and the 'heel' of my hand is on the mousepad. I just slide the mouse on its edges to move it. Surprisingly comfortable. The old mice feel really big and awkward now.
Related G3 clustering story (Score:2)
Re:Odd cross section argument (Score:1)
> but the lopsided numbers / market share I think
> are misleading, since it's hard to go ten
> minutes in any US city and avoid seeing either
> an ad or an actual iMac / G3, not to mention
> older and still humming Macs.
And thats the point: Outside the US Macs are completly unknown. Asking for a mac in munich is like asking for Prinz Andrew in a Bottle. And if you finally get one, it costs at least 30% more than in the US+import-toll. An imac for $2000?
Guess what...
thats quite sad because PCs are even cheaper than in the us (anyone needs a $500-PC?
And the further you went to the east (poland, ukrainia, russia) the more you see linux around. I was amazed to see a bunch of old 386/486-systems running at a remote friends home somewhere near St.Petersburg - all linux. In those regions you can find up to 25% of all systems running linux.
I wouldn't trust them yet (Score:2)
~luge
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:1)
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:1)
I mean, if you're not an Apple employee, that is...
(I particularly love Apple's workaround regarding the CGI problems with Apache: don't run CGIs. GREEEAAAAAT... Nobody uses _that_ old technology anyways...)
BTW: OSX Server is currently for sale for $499, and is _not_ a beta version..
Re:The present (Score:2)
(a) save time, (b) save money, and/or
(c) get a better product from an end-user standpoint.
One way IMHO is hardware maintainability. Power Macs (and most 68K Macs) are smart enough to select a bootable hard drive, boot directly from CD when requested, use default boot settings (just in case your newly-compiled Linux kernel isn't up to the task), etc. Compared to Intel machines, Macs are a breeze to maintain. So much so, in fact, that if it weren't for the lag in porting the latest versions of Linux S/W (apps as well as drivers, mind you), I'd say there's no reason to buy an Intel box.
Side note to haaz: Whither LinuxPPC 5.0?
I've doctored Intel machines running under WinXX, Win3.1, OS/2, WinNT, and dealing with the hardware was always a pain. Maybe that's changed somewhat, but the Mac was always easier to futz with.
-----
"Black Lab" Linux (Score:1)
SOOOOOO, isn't anyone besides be disturbed by the friendly words, "Enter the Lab" on their web site?
Re:iMacs (Score:1)
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:1)
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:1)
Grrrrrr (Score:2)
For one thing, there are some extremely talented ppl porting linux to the PPC. Consider this point. These ppl, who are a small minority of linux developers, have somehow managed to get linux working on the PPC architecture. Are their efforts are a waste of time? Why did they choose to develop for the PPC?
Perhaps you only want an Intel version of linux? Or maybe only an Intel, Sparc, or Alpha port of linux? The great thing about linux is that it is cross-platform! You are obviously too young to remember when Unix was a totally splintered OS. Linux represents a way to reunify Unix, which is a really important point. This requires cross-platform support otherwise you get HP-UX, Apollo-Unix, AIX, AUX, SCO, Ultrix, SunOS, ad nauseum.
As for a MacOS "emulator": Have you heard of SheepShaver or Mac-On-Linux? Not entirely there yet, but they are real close!
I have been a Mac user for over 10 yrs so I must be a retard. My first experience with Unix was with an IBM RT (try to figure out what was this POS). This at times was a tough machine to work with, but it did have a C compiler and introduced me to a better computing environment. I still like this computing environment and still use a Mac.
Re:Secure Macs and Performance. (Score:1)
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
Now, I use a 300mhz Mac at work, and the reason they feel slow is that they don't multi-task well. I know that Windows may not have "true" pre-emptive multi-tasking, but what it does have is still much better than the MacOS. Multi-tasking on my Mac reminds me of when I ran dosshell under DOS 6.0 and I could switch between applications on my 386sx-16. Look at the tips people offer for increased Distributed.net/SETI rates, one of them is "Kill the Finder" not too many people suggest "Kill Explorer" in windows to boost your processing speed. I don't love Microsoft by any means, Linux is my favorite OS for speed, hands down, but I tell my boss about twice a day that I could get twice as much done under Windows or Linux than I can with the Mac.
Re:Filth!!!!! (Score:1)
How can you say that a G3 with a Seagate Cheetah (ultra2 wide of course) is not fast enough for a disk system.
I didn't.
How can you say that a G3 with an 100Mbit card is any slower than what you can get with Linux for the x86?
I didn't.
What you forget is that we are not comparing the MacOS to windows here. We are comparing Linux on x86 to Linux on PPC. There is a big difference between these two comparisons.
Duh.
If you really say that bandwidth and harddrive speed are at the crux of the situation, then you are truly mistaken to claim that one should never use PPC hardware.
Never said that, don't believe that.
There simply is no difference!!! [between PPC Linux and 386 Linux]
Except for price, availability, diversity of vendors and configurations, and support. Those factors outweighed the superiority of the PPC architecture for me. I hope that won't always be the case.
-- Tom Geller [tgeller.com]
Re:Non-Apple PowerPC equipment (Score:1)
What rason do Microway, DCG, VA, etc. have to move away from their i386 boxes? Would they sell more computers? Have a bigger profit margin? Could they make up the *huge* development costs that would be involved in gearing up a PPC production line?
Ultimately, they have to look at what people want: The market bats last. And I just don't see enough of a popular groundswell to justify such a switch. If somebody could come up with numbers that show otherwise, I'll happily work to bring the plan to fruition. (I did some OEM negotiations with UMAX back when they did PPC clones.)
-- Tom Geller [tgeller.com]
Re:The present (Score:2)
"The platform has grown up, partly because Apple has close control over what goes on."
Oh, I agree completely -- it's a great architecture. But I'm a businessperson, not a research scientist, and Apple boxes don't give me enough real-world advantages to compensate for their disadvatages. I'm open to persuasion, but your arguments have to show me how I'll (a) save time, (b) save money, and/or (c) get a better product from an end-user standpoint.
--Tom
Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:4)
I won't bore you with the details, 'cause I'm sure you know them. Price, component availability, a community of support, yadda yadda yadda. Although I really wanted to use a PPC-based machine, I had to ask myself: What advantages would I gain?
Speed? Processor speed is virtually irrelevant in Internet serving, as bandwidth and disk access are the gating factors. Striking a blow against an evil company? Apple's not so clean, and certainly can't claim better corporate morality than AMD or the screwdriver shop where I bought my Linux box. (Needless to say, there will be no Microsoft code on it. :) )
Having said that, I'm glad to see Yellow Dog continuing with its plans. Until now, there have been three PPC Linux vendors that I know of: TurboLinux, mkLinux, and LinuxPPC Inc. (not the same as LinuxPPC.org). Frankly, none of them have approached the market with the resources, experience or commitment needed to make an impact. mkLinux is the side project of a book publisher; TurboLinux does PPC support as an afterthought (and devotes $0 to PPC Linux promotion AFAIK); and LinuxPPC Inc. has problems best not discussed in public. Yellow Dog seems to be making the first real stab at the market: I hope they can eventually convince people like me that running Linux on PPC is the best deal.
-- Tom Geller [tgeller.com]
Re:Will this work with PowerPC 601's ? (Score:1)
Re:The PPC route.. (Score:1)
Joshua Pearson
Ironic (Score:1)
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
Re:Mac-nix? Lin-ac? (Score:1)
LinuxPPC, Inc. are a bit shady of a company but I don't understand why the PPC is given such a hard time when it comes to Linux... No one says, Linux on Alpha? Stupid idea! - or - Linux on Sparc? Why waste our time!!
Is it because Apple is associated w/ the PowerPC that it is "uncool"?
Re:Fix NS (Score:1)
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:2)
At my school we have a few hundred p166s and they are so damn slow it is incredible. It takes 30seconds to launch NS, compared to 5seconds on my p100 at home. That is if NS even loads and doesn't crash upon startup. Just one example of the million things wrong with these computers. This only has to do with maintainance, and the kids screwing around.
Also, I can't imagine the narrow-minded school-board/administration present in my school and most schools, even considering Linux as an option; so please don't reply saying Linux would fix it.
RevDist and Assimilator (Score:1)
cheers,
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:1)
Paper cites immature Linux, network topo. (Score:1)
The graphs make it painfully clear that even 100Mbps Ethernet is too inefficient for serious parallel computation. A token-passing system like ATM is much better.
My third comment is a "me too": It would be interesting indeed to see the test repeated with 350MHz 604E processors, which should wipe the floor with those iMacs in FP - and maybe even the Pentiums! Somebody send me a crate full of PM 9600/350s, and I'll do the tests.
Mac hardware is ideal for Linux (Score:1)
1. Controlled configuration! Unlike the PC, there aren't that many oddball hardware configurations on the Mac. With my PC, I had to scrounge all over for Linux drivers for all the different things on it. With the Mac, my model either is supported or isn't.
2. Better CPU architecture. My 75MHz Mac is at least as fast as my P90.
3. Higher least common denominator. My Mac can do everything the PC can, and it has **ZERO** cards in it. Right out of the box, the Mac has SCSI, 16-bit sound, 24-bit video, 10baseT, high-speed (288-1000+ kbps) serial ports, USB-like hot-pluggable input bus (ADB)... and its PCI slots are still empty! All of these are (see point #1) standard. Support this one family of devices, and you've got a pretty deluxe Linux build that supports a broad cross section of Apple's product line.
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:3)
about mosix... (Score:1)
Discussion? (Score:1)
Still looking for some kind of filter so I can read the interesting (well, at least relevant) posts rather than the 'Macs-suck' posts
YS
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:1)
Re:Mac-nix? Lin-ac? (Score:1)
For myself, I will fight for Linux as hard as I fought for the Mac. Intel, AMD, or PPC, means nothing. It is Linux that matters. If I had to decide between Microsoft or nothing, I'd choose nothing.
Re:My experience is the opposite. (Score:1)
I venture to guess that most users, across all platforms, don't know and don't care how their computer work. Most Mac users I know, use them in publishing(newspapers) and Graphics, so I get skewed picture of the Mac user. They all know their computers inside and out. My niece is a DTP guru, she is Quark to the bone. She is a whizz when it comes to AppleScript, and does C like a pro. She is not computer illiterate, and she is a Mac user, and soon will be receiving a copy of MkLinux from yours truly.
I don't care if the Mac user is a power user or not. I am just glad they are Mac users.
My moved to Linux was political, an act of defiance against M$. I liked Linux and I stayed. Linux is perfect for Perl,love Gimp, and like the Soma effect of surfing on a very stable platform.
A G3 user and very loud!!
Beowulf licensing/price/availability (Score:1)
I'm just a touch confused. Red Hat's site seems to imply it's all under GPL, but I've yet to see any Cheapbytes-esque $1.95 CD...
Re:Secure Macs and Performance. (Score:1)
By the way, does anyone know of a web browser that would allow us to login or use a prefs file so anyone could use any computer and send mail as themselves via the browsers mail function? Right now we are using Eudora and storing the prefs on a file server. Thanks
Re:Mac-nix? Lin-ac? (Score:1)
Linux users seem to share this attribute, often having spent years fighting against Windows-compatibility issues, because they felt that having an internally superior system was worthwile.
While non-tech artists, or luddite grandmothers are one stereotype of the mac userbase, they aren't the whole thing. It's important to remember that a very high number of mac users are quite technically competent, and have chosen the platform because of this, not in spite of it.
Re:The present (Score:1)
I stuck with Amigas for years because I seriously disliked the Wintel platform from a technology POV. TBH, I still do and would move off it like a shot if I found another which had enough software to make life comfortable. I used Macs for years and loced them, in many ways. Sure, MacOS is behind the times and sure, they're only beginning to catch up on some architectural fronts, but this was in a school networking environment, with kids doing all sorts of silly things. Breaking them was near impossible, fixing them relatively simple. As I was leaving, WinNT PCs started appearing, and problems appeared - not just with the OS, either.
Fact is, x86 is only popular on the back of DOS, Windows and cloning. If another platform had had them for any length of time, I'd have to say that x86 simply wouldn't be here in any serious numbers. GNU/Linux always seems a trifle x86 centred to me - which makes sense, when you consider that it was written because Mr. Torvalds wanted an OS to fiddle with on the i386 he already had. Now, I know that GNU/Linux wouldn't have become as popular as it has without being x86 at the start, but it's worth remembering that there are often better platforms elsewhere. Most successful usually doesn't esual best.
Greg
Re:with imacs? (Score:1)
Sure enough, but the man said the distribution _offers_ the clustering. I don't think it is the central feature of the distro.
The distro is released for PPC (G3 and iMac) - *that* is the central feature. The fact that it also offers beo clustering, which would obviously be relevant for G3, is a neat add-on. See the distinction?
Re:The present (Score:1)
(a) save time,
(b) save money,
(c) get a better product from an end-user standpoint.
I assume you mean saving time over a x86 version of linux...
A: Saving time...Essentially all mac hardware is supported afaik since it has to be all compatible just to run the MacOS
B: Saving money...If you do happen to prefer x86 for the many reasons you perhaps -SHOULD-, this at least gives you something to use your mac for. The ability to take an 'old' G3 and get a passable web server is a useful thing, regardless of its performance compared to another platform.
C: Better Product...I'm not sure i can answer this because i'm not sure what your product is -- i'll try. If it's hardware then in my experience Linux gives you better control which equals better testing if you're going for Mac compatibility. If you market software for linux then knowing how it will perform on various architectures is quite useful to a customer. If you make coffee holders, well i'm not sure a PPC linux will do you any good over another architecture's.
Re:to the 3 above (Score:1)
and cros-platform too (we hope).
The present (Score:2)
Besides, what's the point of developing a unix for 286's etc. (minix)...for one because it can be done, but also because the more platforms an OS supports the more useful it can be -- even for that doorstop 8086 lying around (let's see you boot M$ Windows 98 on that.
I'll quickly admit,though, that i'm not a Mac advocate; i don't use one.
Re:to the 3 above (Score:2)
he's right. and mac linux is not as good as linux for an x86 or a computer with alpha archs. IMHO I don't think it is even worth making linux for a mac,...
I don't see how it matters whether it's a better platform or not -- part of linux's appeal is that you don't have to choose which architecture to worry about, simply the OS.
What i love about the GNU/Linux phenomenon is that it favors giving the user control (over hiding everything behind set rules like M$ does). That control should extend to what hardware they choose as well. Not everyone is looking for the biggest, best, or fastest computer.
There are several wine-ish products out there; i haven't used any of them so i have no idea of the quality, but they do exist.
M$ was wise not to ignore the Macintosh as a platform and i think we would be just as smart to concentrate on porting the wonder of linux to every system we can...because when it comes down to it, what's the loss if only 40 people end up using it? Those are 40 people using a better OS. Obviously the people porting it feel that it's worth it, if only for their personal experience.
Also, linux is not exclusively about business. If it was it probably wouldn't be where it is now. It's an OS and you do with it what you choose, on what hardware you choose (ideally at least).
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
-BigDaddy
Re:Odd cross section argument (Score:1)
>I don't understand why Apple pulled the plug on clones -- how about because they were making Apple look slow by releasing faster, cheaper machines?
I think you answered your own ? - linuxppc + clonemakers == no revenues for apple!
Re:Grrrrrr (Score:1)
If I may add something: Linux is about choice. Not only choice of OS, but also choice of hardware, so there you go. Furthermore, consider the general mindset of Linux developers/hackers: "if it can be done, it will". We wouldn't even have x86 Linux if Mr Torvalds hadn't thought of that when he was looking for a good opertaing sys for his 386 and found nothing.
And finally: WORLD DOMINATION(gnihihi). Linux will eventually run on every fscking toaster around, and I don't care if THAT doesn't make sense
Re:G3s and iMacs (Score:1)
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:1)
Well...they are more important factors in some cases, perhaps, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have a better chip and a faster cache and bus speed...when it comes to databased or dynamically created websites, like with PHP3, having a fast processor is also a big benefit. For that matter, running Perl goes better, too.
mkLinux is the side project of a book publisher
No, it isn't. It was, until recently, sponsored and supported by Apple and OSF, and is just as much an open-source project as any other. It's not beholden to PTF (the publisher you mention). Many NuBus PPC Macs can run Linux thanks only to MkLinux--so please don't go off and slag it like that.
rgds
-- Me, Myself and I [surf.to]
Re:The present (Score:1)
Scenario 1:
You administer systems for an advertising agency with about 100 employees and need to keep your graphic artists on the most powerful Macs available. You have plenty of reasonably powerful Macs that are a year or two old which aren't of any use to you. You have a few copy writers and accountants who use Windows, and you need to set up a server which any of the hundred employees in your company can access. Mostly this will be relatively small text files, and the heavy duty image file management will continue to run on a Solaris box. In an unrelated development, your LAN e-mail vendor has dropped Mac support.
Solution: turn a doorstop Mac into a combined Appleshare/Samba/IMAP server.
Benefits:
(a) Save time: The admin saves time because he has no client side software installs to do -- the server speaks each machines protocols natively. Installation is smoother because there are no unsupported hardware gotchas (e.g. sorry this kernel 2.2.2 hangs initializing an AHA9040U SCSI card). The users save time because they don't have to resort to sneakernet.
(b) Save money: Get good hardware at no cost. Don't need to buy 100 client licenses for NT.
(c) Better product: Better stability from user standpoint vs. NT; clients connect with OS native protocols (Appleshare or SMB) so less training is needed and fewer software conflicts. Server is implemented in reasonably reliable hardware, which can be swapped out at a moment's notice with another doorstep. Hey! I can also use Apache to allow clients to view pdfs of their ads over the Internet.
Scenario 2:
You work in a corporate environment with a few Mac ghettos. Your PHB has you on a search and destroy mission to eliminate these ghettos by year end, and your office is cluttered with Macs you can't sell because of cosmetic damage inflicted by the crowbar you needed to pry the users off (before you got the tasers). PHB comes back from a golf date and sends you a memo demanding you do something immediately to secure the web site and internal network against "hackers", and by the way, he wants you to set up an intranet with a database of employees and HR policies.
In a separate, unrelated memo, PHB announces that new capital acquisitions have been frozen, anyone who needs an exception can write up a detailed justification and send it to his secretary so it can be taken up at the bimonthly management commitee meeting. His secretary is a big time screwup but manages to keep her job by skillfully backstabbing other employees. You've been feuding ever since you took her Mac away, and she overheard you calling her a bitch in the coffee room this morning.
Solution: left as excercise to reader.
Re:The present (Score:2)
Scenario 1:
You administer systems for an advertising agency with about 100 employees and need to keep your graphic artists on the most powerful Macs available. You have plenty of reasonably powerful Macs that are a year or two old which aren't of any use to you. You have a few copy writers and accountants who use Windows, and you need to set up a server which any of the hundred employees in your company can access. Mostly this will be relatively small text files, and the heavy duty image file management will continue to run on a Solaris box. In an unrelated development, your LAN e-mail vendor has dropped Mac support.
Solution: turn a doorstop Mac into a combined Appleshare/Samba/IMAP server.
Benefits:
(a) Save time: The admin saves time because he has no client side software installs to do -- the server speaks each machines protocols natively. Installation is smoother because there are no unsupported hardware gotchas (e.g. sorry this kernel 2.2.2 hangs initializing an AHA9040U SCSI card). The users save time because they don't have to resort to sneakernet.
(b) Save money: Get good hardware at no cost. Don't need to buy 100 client licenses for NT.
(c) Better product: Better stability from user standpoint vs. NT; clients connect with OS native protocols (Appleshare or SMB) so less training is needed and fewer software conflicts. Server is implemented in reasonably reliable hardware, which can be swapped out at a moment's notice with another doorstep. Hey! I can also use Apache to allow clients to view pdfs of their ads over the Internet.
Scenario 2:
You work in a corporate environment with a few Mac ghettos. Your PHB has you on a project to eliminate these ghettos by year end, and your office is cluttered with Macs you can't sell because of cosmetic damage inflicted by the crowbar you needed to pry the users off before you discovered tasers. PHB comes back from a golf date and sends you a memo demanding you do something immediately to secure the web site and internal network against "hackers", and by the way, he wants you to set up an intranet with a database of employees and HR policies.
In a separate, unrelated memo, PHB announces that new capital acquisitions have been frozen, anyone who needs an exception can write up a detailed justification and send it to his secretary so it can be taken up at the bimonthly management commitee meeting. His secretary is a big time screwup but manages to keep her job by skillfully backstabbing other employees. She overheard you calling her a bitch in the coffee room this morning.
Solution: left as excercise to reader.
Re:Benchmark comparisons? (Score:1)
itachi
Re:Secure Macs and Performance. (Score:1)
itachi
SETI@home (Score:2)
Maybe someone can explain this for me. I'm not sure if it is because of the differences between RISC vs. CISC processors, or if the PowerPC is better at floating point operations, or just what.
I'm running the SETI@home screensaver on two machines. The first is a Macintosh PowerBook (several years old) 3400c, using the PowerPC 603e at 180MHz and running Mac OS 8.6. The second is a new desktop AMD K6-2 350MHz machine running Win98.
After completing a few data units, I noticed that the PowerBook is completing data units about TWICE as fast as the AMD. I can't figure out why this is!
Re:Usefulness of PPC Linuces? (Score:2)
Speed? Processor speed is virtually irrelevant in Internet serving, as bandwidth and disk access are the gating factors.
Perhaps if you're just spitting out raw HTML, but dymanic content needs speed.
I won't bore you with the details, 'cause I'm sure you know them. Price, component availability
Hmmm. Well, G3s take Ultra2 SCSI, Ultra ATA, PCI, and PC100 DIMMs. In fact, PPCs were using DIMMs before intel boxes were. Not sure what other kind of components you're looking for -- at least as a server.
The other advatange that PPC-based systems have is near-zero configuration issues, due to standardized hardware. The Yellow Dog site also cites lower power consumption with 20 G3s than 20 Pentiums, due to the far more power-efficient PowerPC. How useful is this in reality? I don't know.
Scott
Odd cross section argument (Score:4)
Like the other respondents to this point of view, I don't have an irate reply, but would agree with those other respondents as well that the total universe of Mac users is pretty broad.
Why would anyone want to run Linux / other Free OS on a Mac? That's not exactly the question here, but it seems to be lurking beneath the surface, and that same question was asked in a thread one level up from here.
I can't answer this for everyone, but here are the reasons I think that Linux and the Mac make a great combination, practically and normatively.
- Macs tend to have nice human engineering. The gulf is not as wide as it was 10 years or 5 years or maybe 2 years ago compared to the PC world, but well-labled parts, legible icons, attempts at friendlization still IMHO work better on Macs, but this comparison of course ignores that PC vendors vary tremendously in this respect.
- Macs use non-Intel chips
- They look cool. That factor sells a lot of PCs, however unsatisfying that fact may be.
- Ubiquity. Not as many macs in the world as PCs, but the lopsided numbers / market share I think are misleading, since it's hard to go ten minutes in any US city and avoid seeing either an ad or an actual iMac / G3, not to mention older and still humming Macs.
- The Mac OS begs for a replacement, or at least whines a little. I use one at work (an iMac) and am actually fairly happy with it (Most of my complaints I list on my web page and will skip here) but it crashes all the time! I would love to be running an underlying *nix, whether it still looked like the basically-well-conceived Mac OS or like my home linux machine.
I don't understand why Apple pulled the plug on clones -- how about because they were making Apple look slow by releasing faster, cheaper machines? -- but I wish they hadn't. Then we could perhaps be running on a G3 PowerComputing box with SCSI, firewire and USB by now
anyhow. I don't have a home mac, but if I find a cheap one I'd like to run some free OS on it.
timothy
Re:I wouldn't trust them yet (Score:3)
Kai Staats