Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors

pudge posted more than 11 years ago | from the cute-and-fluffy dept.

Apple 71

Morganic writes "After checking periodically for the past couple days, I noticed that YDL 3.0 has hit the mirrors, a day early (in fact, the page above still says it's not available, but the mirrors at the bottom are carrying it). Anyone got a BitTorrent?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

....7 Years of Bad Luck! (5, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 11 years ago | (#5864840)

"Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors" ....Just what Yellow Dog Linux needs, 7 years of bad luck for each mirror broken.

Re:....7 Years of Bad Luck! (1)

jdkincad (576359) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865675)

You bastrad, you stole my comment.

Changes... (4, Informative)

icemax (565022) | more than 11 years ago | (#5864850)

Yellow Dog Linux version 3.0 is Terra Soft's most recent release which offers a completely rebuilt Installer, 1300 packages on 6 CDs (3 Install, 3 Source), a unified KDE and GNOME desktop environment featuring shared menus, applications, and user interface. With enhanced support for the latest ATI and NVidia graphics cards (full 3D support for the ATI Radeon series), "video issues" are a thing of the past.

Very nice!

Re:Changes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5872164)


a unified KDE and GNOME desktop environment featuring shared menus, applications, and user interface

Great! Now we can have another big round of whining and bitching about how YDL has coopted KDE or is stealing Gnome's work or some such shit. Exactly what I was waiting for!

Er. (3, Interesting)

rplacd (123904) | more than 11 years ago | (#5864861)

They probably haven't made the release public because they want the mirrors to catch up. Now that you've told the world about it, the mirror sites have to compete with users trying to download it.

Re:Er. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5869715)

> They probably haven't made the release public because they want the mirrors to catch up. Now that you've told the world about it, the mirror sites have to compete with users trying to download it.

In future, they need to reconfigure their main site to only grant access to the mirrors for the next few days after a release, *then* open the main site to all comers after the mirrors are updated.

This issue has come up before about other sites. Don't blame Slashdot for poor site management.

Will this boot on OS X only Macs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5864888)

Just curious.

There's nothing "OS X-only" about them (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865636)

Apple hasn't done anything to prevent any other OS from booting on the new machines; it simply isn't updating Mac OS 9 to support them any longer. Nothing sinister, nothing crippled, no "blocking".

That said, Yellow Dog Linux supports machines as the team has the chance to add such support. It already supports, for instance, the 12" PowerBook and the Xserve family. They may be a little behind the latest product introductions, but support will always be added.

Re:There's nothing "OS X-only" about them (2, Interesting)

dadragon (177695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5873197)

Apple hasn't done anything to prevent any other OS from booting on the new machines; it simply isn't updating Mac OS 9 to support them any longer. Nothing sinister, nothing crippled, no "blocking".

Don't be surprised if a third party enabler for OS 9.2 on the new PowerBook or any other new machine. The mac community likes their OS 9. I only use it for the original Unreal, but everything else runs fine in Classic.

Re:There's nothing "OS X-only" about them (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5877154)

liar fag. most people wit macs, being the dumb shits that they are, like OS 9. Both OS 9 and X suck dick, but Steve Fucking Slobs doestn care he has losers sucking on his cock and wanting OS 9 more than X.

His fuckheaded ego doesnt allow him to sell the more desired OS 9 anymore.

Lets face it, they both suck, and you are a fucking OS X zealot.

Re:There's nothing "OS X-only" about them (-1, Flamebait)

JesseDeadArm (669227) | more than 11 years ago | (#5881512)

again, anoymous coward, SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO POST CAUSE OF LITTLE ACORN-PENIS-MCSHORT DICK's like this kid here. wut? u upset cause your 98box is a piece of shit? now reply to this with your address you little fuck.

Re:There's nothing "OS X-only" about sugarbitch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5883743)

Blithering fat fag. If this were a public setting in real life, something you know little about, and you mouthed off to me like that, I'd probably smile and shrug you off, and then fucking damn near kill you later. You first off will fuck off from using Apple ][e caps lock on me. You fat sexless can't afford shit live with parent's victim of child molestations piece of fucking garbage. I'll have you know I get sweet pussy on demand, I'm getting paid as we speak quite a handsome salary. You are a fat sexless poor mediocritomaton loser. As far as my hardware and my "98" box piece of shit, talk about McShortdick - you measure up with home hardware? Most of the hardware I fuck with at work costs considerably more than a brand new M3. I still have a "piece of shit" Ultra 80 here, and lots of other pieces of shit you couldn't even fucking manage to install an OS on. hahhhhhahahaha.

And lastly, AOL kiddie newbie PG-13 asshole, never, ever fucking use your :"u" and "wut" and your fucking leet speak with me you fucking piece of garbage. Never.

Also, fat fag, if you would look, there is a threshold for browsing on Slashdot. Instead of censoring a whole group of people your fucking fat lordship doesn't take kindly to, stop fucking reading it. The world doesn't owe it to you to say things you like, you stupid, fat jobless leech puke FUCKER.

Re:There's nothing "OS X-only" about sugarbitch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5888623)

judging by this pent-up anger, I am pretty sure you must not get the sexual relief that you say you are getting. Judging by your language, you are about 8 years old. Pick up a phone, call your mom, and tell her to pick you up from the computer lab at your grade school, you obviously need a time-out.

Whatever happened to decency or just plain having some sense, you can't insult somebody by posting meaningless words in a forum. People like this will be the end to the greatness of the anonymous function of slashdot. You must be at least this tall to ride, thankyou.

Re:There's nothing "OS X-only" about sugarbitch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5889228)

Hey, dude, how about takin this for a ride?

[goatse.cx]

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m g
o / m m \ m m m m m m \ m m m m m m/ m m\ m m m o
a| m m m | m m m m m m \ m m m m m| m m m| m m ma
t| m m m `. m m m m m m | m m m m | m m m : m m t
s` m m m m| m m m m m m | m m m c\| m m m | m m s
e \ m m m | / m m m / m\\\ m --mm \\ m m m : m me
x m\ m m m\/ m m--~~ m m m m m~--mc| \ m m | m mx
* m \ m m m\m-~ m m m m m m m m m m~-c\ m m| m m*
g m c\c m m \ m m m mm.--------.mmmmcc\| m | m mg
o m m c\ m m \cmmmmm// m mmm m (m(cm; m\ m | m mo
a m m c \ m . cC mmm) mmmmmmm (m(cmmm; m| m/ m ma
t m m c /\ | m C mmmm)/ m_ m \ (ccmmm; m|m/ m m t
s m m c/ /\| m Ccmmmm) m _ m | m(cmm; m / m\ m ms
e m m | m ( m cCcmmmm)\mm_mmm/ m// m/ / m m \ m e
x m m | m m\ c|mm m \\mmmmmmmmm// (mm/ m m m | mx
* m m| \ m m\mmmm) m `---- m --' m m m m m m | m*
g m m| m\m m m m m mccm\ m m m /m m m m m mm/ | g
o m | m m m m m m m/ m m| m m | m\ m m m m m m| o
a m | m m m m m m | m m/ m m m \ m\ m m m m m | a
t m | m m m m m/ / m m| m m m m | m\ m m m m m |t
s m | m m m m / / m m m\mm/\mmm/ m m| m m m m m|s
e m| m m m m m / m m m m| m m| m m m | m m m m |e
x m| m m m m m| m m m m | m m| m m m | m m m m |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
And you know what I think of your little diatribe? I think it sucks big fucking pig ass, you god damn fuckin bitch. I would want to watch you choke on tear gas. And then piss in your eyes.

Is Bit Torrent faster? (1)

sergeantmudd (647674) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865130)

I understand the concept of BitTorrent, but is it a faster download or is it just being nice to Terra Soft's poor little mirrors?

Re:Is Bit Torrent faster? (5, Informative)

mhesseltine (541806) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865411)

I understand the concept of BitTorrent, but is it a faster download or is it just being nice to Terra Soft's poor little mirrors?
It's a bit of both. Because you are sharing up/down bandwidth with other users, you may find that you can d/l from 5 people each @ 200Kbps, for a d/l of 1Mbps, which may be more than the one mirror can handle. Also, since the downloads come from peers, it does reduce the bandwidth necessary for the mirror to provide.

For more info on BT, visit the official BitTorrent [bitconjurer.org] site.

Yeah, it's out (3, Interesting)

yummyporkproducts (577076) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865173)

I downloaded it last night, though I've run into problems installing it.... I manage to get 98% done and the installer crashes. Grrrr

Re:Yeah, it's out (3, Interesting)

apemn88 (670585) | more than 11 years ago | (#5867200)

Yep...downloaded at 22k/s, burnt it, and it crashed just before finishing. Anyone got this to actually install? I'm running dual 1.42, Radeon 9000, gig of RAM....

Re:Yeah, it's out (2, Informative)

dadragon (177695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5867763)

Late-2001 iBook. Works fine, but my first attempt at burning install1 didn't work so well, it crashed at 11%.

Next try was to re-burn install1 on a higher quality CD and it worked fine. It's reminds me of the descriptions of the latest Red Hat, but with mac add ons like pbbuttonsd and the like.

Re:Yeah, it's out (3, Informative)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 11 years ago | (#5873194)

iso 3 is bad. Seems to be bad on all mirrors.

Re:Yeah, it's out (1)

yummyporkproducts (577076) | more than 11 years ago | (#5880798)

Yup, there was a problem on ISO 3 with some KDE artwork libraries... maybe more stuff. I did manage to get it to install by going with Gnome instead of KDE... then I couldn't get my network interfaces to work.

Re:Yeah, it's out (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 11 years ago | (#5888414)

I grabbed a good iso off the bittorrent network. Thou I had to re-download all 3 cds again.

Re:Yeah, it's out (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5869505)

Check the MD5sums. I also had a problem, but the checksum on the 3rd CD iso doesn't check out.

Re:Yeah, it's out (1)

brauwerman (151442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5899522)

Even with good ISOs (I checked the md5sum), the installer still can't handle my IBM mouse (just like 2.3), and the installer trashed by partition map (see the warning and "workaround" at http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/pipermail/yell owdog-general/2003-April/007186.html ).

The installer locked up somewhere on disk2, leaving me with a hosed system.

Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (4, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865214)

"Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors" ...a handful of people rejoice! :-)

Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (3, Informative)

jeblucas (560748) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865856)

"Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors" ...a handful of people rejoice! :-)
That's kind of unfair. YDL is just about the only hope for users of some older Macs [yellowdoglinux.com] to keep the machines interesting. My 225MHz PPC Performa 6500 is looking forward to it's life as a MAME [mame.net] box.

Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865895)

http://www.yzedf.com/pics/s200/Macintosh%20Plus/it %20is%202003.JPG bah, Mame is for sissy boys...

Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5872130)

There's also Debian, which is a much better distribution, IMHO.

Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (1)

RestiffBard (110729) | more than 11 years ago | (#5871153)

agreed. other than the reply mentioning older Macs what purpose will linux on a Mac serve now that you can run most OSS apps in OS X?

Re:Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 Hits Mirrors (2)

jeblucas (560748) | more than 11 years ago | (#5872441)

at purpose will linux on a Mac serve now that you can run most OSS apps in OS X?
Personally, I'm not sure. For me, Mac OS X is what I want in an OS. A well-supported configured OS with access to Open Source software. Some folks will always want the utmost in customizablity that comes with a flavor of Linux, and want to put it on the sexiest hardware of all time, hence the persistent existance of Linux on Mac.

I uninstalled linux last night... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5865408)

I have 3 macs at home, two of them running OSX and 1 running YellowDog. As fait would have it, I uninstalled YDL last night from the last machine. I probably wont bother with it again until I can boot it from a firewire driver (without having to re-part my primary)

any reviews (1)

paradesign (561561) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865752)

have any of you bought this and have been using it? it was released for purchase a while ago. i tried 2,0 a while ago on my g4, it was slow. i want to use this on an 8500av but worry that itll crawl. also my av input/output card (apple's AV expansion card) isnt supported so ill have to stick with MoL to use it. but im sick of running 8,6 on it and want a modern OS. any feedback, esp on older machines.

Re:any reviews (1)

ALpaca2500 (125123) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865789)

"im sick of running 8,6 on it and want a modern OS."

well, you could upgrade to 9.1... not a huge improvement, but if you can't run OS X and dont want to do linux, you might as well...

Re:any reviews (1)

paradesign (561561) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865994)

well thats jsut it, im sick of the old mac OS, and cant run the new one. so im wondering if Linux will solve my problems. im going to run 9,2 in MoL if it works with the AV hardware. in 8,6 i have to use 'apple video player' to access the AV stuff. i dont think its in 9,x. or was it replaced with something after system 8.

Re:any reviews (2, Informative)

Durin_Deathless (668544) | more than 11 years ago | (#5866989)

To my understanding there was a bug in 2.0 that made it crawl. 2.3 was really snappy for me on a G3/300, as alway YMMV

Im still waiting (1)

madsenj37 (612413) | more than 11 years ago | (#5865788)

I have an ATI Radeon 8500 and I am still waiting for support. Until then I will continue to only use OS X.

Re:Im still waiting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5868352)

the support is there....

Radeon 8500??? (1)

Steve Cowan (525271) | more than 11 years ago | (#5882879)

I have an older 'Sawtooth' G4 and I'm considering a Radeon 8500. I didn't know YDL doesn't support it. Thanks for the info, that definitely is cause for me to rethink this.

Do you notice a big improvement over the old Rage cards on OS X thanks to 'Quartz Extreme'? None of the sites I've researched talk about the real-world performance gains of this card.

Dear Apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5865924)

Dear Apple,

I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.

with much gayness,

Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.

Re:Dear Apple (-1, Flamebait)

JesseDeadArm (669227) | more than 11 years ago | (#5881605)

wow i've never seen THIS ON SLASHDOT B4 hey, YOUR A LOSER

Re:Dear Apple suck on this, sugarbitch (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5883800)

1) AOL kiddie contractions like "B4" are lame as hell.

2) Its, "You're a loser." As in YOU ARE. You know how much of a stupid fat retarded shitheaded fuckwad retard you have to be to get that wrong you half educated 13 year old puke twit?

Dear Randy O'Day (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5865931)

Dear Father O'Day:

Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.

I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).

Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!

Sincerely,

Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.

Why bother? (2, Interesting)

hoser (95281) | more than 11 years ago | (#5866595)

I'm asking this to provoke some answers rather than trying to be a troll, but why would someone want to use a linux distro on a mac in the age of OS X?

Re:Why bother? (4, Interesting)

Eagle7 (111475) | more than 11 years ago | (#5866715)

I cannot stand the UI in OS X (I am too attached to X Windows, with X style copy & paste, multiple desktops with edge flipping, and sloppy focus). And the OS X mouse driver sucks - the acceleration (AFAIK) is horrible and not adjustable, and none of the third party utilities for it have made it usable enough for me.

That, and after 6 or 7 years, I just understand and am comfortable with Linux.

Not that I don't think OS X is a good and/or capable OS, and that some of the iApps are really slick. But being comfortable with the UI is #1 with me, and I just can't get comfortable with OS X's UI. Really the only think I miss running Linux on my iBook (read: have to boot into OS X for) is playing DVDs on my TV. And Flash I guess. Other than that, it's perfect.

Re:Why bother? (1)

shylock0 (561559) | more than 11 years ago | (#5869066)

So why buy a Mac at all? When PC hardware is so much cheaper (okay, speed arguments aside, but I've never seen YDL breaking the sound barrier), why not just run an x86 distro? There's even choice. If you're notan Intel fan, run AMD.

Granted, for laptops, the iBook is a sweet piece of hardware -- but parallels do exist. And they're faster than a 900 (or 700, or 800) mhz G3.

Re:Why bother? (4, Insightful)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 11 years ago | (#5867387)

Heh, ya couldn't see this one coming a mile away...

Some Linux die-hards buy Apple laptops because they are the nicest laptops around. These people are just really into Linux, so they don't want OS X.

Another major use is for older computers. Pretty much any OldWorld machine is going to be too slow to enjoy OS X. Throwing Linux on these machines can extend their usefulness. They can be used as fileservers, routers, mp3 players, etc. Some people also use them as their main desktop, although I personally think Mac OS is just fine for older computers.

However, I think it is rather foolish to run Linux on newer Apple hardware. OS X is just too uber-cool. Besides, the only thing I've found that runs on Linux but not on OS X is MOL, but amazingly I've gotten by so far without it. ;) But to each his own, and if Linux users want to buy Apple hardware, I'm glad they are supporting my favorite computer company.

Re:Why bother? (1)

chennes (263526) | more than 11 years ago | (#5868468)

I bought a mac a few months ago, switching from primarily linux. And I love OS X - it's what I use day-to-day now. But I'm also a complete dork, so dual-booting OS X and YDL has a certain geek-appeal to me. While I don't actually use YDL for anything except testing my programs to ensure cross-platform-ness, it was entertaining to install and play with.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5893974)


Heh, ya couldn't see this one coming a mile away...


That was the only reason I clicked this story.. Watch it raise to 5 insightfull soon too.

I could very well be buying an ibook for my next laptop. Being familiar with Linux I don't bother learning another OS. Linux works great on just about any hardware you can get. Sometimes you come over a cheap ultra5 and don't feel like solaris either. Just use Linux. Least hassle if you know what your doing.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5867832)

There is some hardware support that is present in Linux but not Mac OSX. USB ethernet adapters is one example. You can plug a USB ethernet adapter into an older iMac, install Linux on it, and have a perfectly good firewall or router.

I think it's somewhat silly to buy a Mac specifically to put Linux on it, but if you've already got the computer sometimes Linux (or BSD) is a better choice.

Newbie question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5867278)

Why is there a need to run linux on PPC?

OSX already had BSD layer beneath it, with the terminal, and the interface is much more appealing to the user.

Why would someone install linux on such expensive hardware?

tia

Re:Newbie question. (4, Informative)

ramdam (570137) | more than 11 years ago | (#5867843)

Mac OSX only runs on modern mac with lot of RAM (read 256+) and good video card.

I have older PM 6500 and Imac Rev B that can't run Mac OS X (not supported, not enough RAM, not enough CPU power).

I've installed YellowDogLinux 2.3 on both, it just works ;-)

I don't feel the need to upgrade to 3.0 since they are used headless, as servers not as desktop.

OS X runs on any iMac; just upgrade to 128MB RAM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5867997)

OS X runs on any iMac, ever.

Just be sure to upgrade to at least 128MB of RAM, and probably more if you can afford it.

Re:OS X runs on any iMac; just upgrade to 128MB RA (2, Informative)

Virus1984 (624552) | more than 11 years ago | (#5868204)

OS X runs on any iMac, ever.

Nope, on my RevA iMac it boots, then crawls but never runs (with 160 MB of RAM).

It runs quite smoothly (but I still see the Beach Ball of Death at least once an hour) on my 400 MHz iMac DV, of course the 640MB of RAM help but a faster drive would help too.

Re:OS X runs on any iMac; just upgrade to 128MB RA (1)

Blocked By Sand (623943) | more than 11 years ago | (#5869034)

I've got a PowerMac 400/GbEthernet with 448mb ram, and Jaguar works perfectly. I can even play some of the newer games on it (only 16mb Rage Pro). It was pretty expencive in the day but it still runs perfectly.

The beachball of death sounds like a pre-jaguar problem, and I would think things would look abit better with jaguar onboard.
Ofcourse, if you already have jaguar installed then I'm just plain wrong... :)

Re:OS X runs on any iMac; just upgrade to 128MB RA (1)

Virus1984 (624552) | more than 11 years ago | (#5869776)

Ofcourse, if you already have jaguar installed then I'm just plain wrong... :)

I'm afraid you are, both run 10.2.5. Maybe they would run it faster if they had faster hard drives.

All iMacs are supported (2, Informative)

Trurl's Machine (651488) | more than 11 years ago | (#5868017)

Mac OSX only runs on modern mac with lot of RAM (read 256+) and good video card.

I have older PM 6500 and Imac Rev B that can't run Mac OS X (not supported, not enough RAM, not enough CPU power).


Sir - please don't spread misinformation, especially in a post marked 'informative" (and being informative indeed in other aspects). So far all iMacs are "supported" for the latest version of MacOS X - please check the official Jaguar requirements [apple.com] . It's only a a matter of adding RAM, but that's not really that expensive. You are right, of course, that the GUI would crawl on this graphics card, but

(a) I don't think it's a big problem on a machine running, as you described it, a "headless server"; Darwin can be boot up this way as good as Linux

(b) I honestly doubt whether KDE or GNOME would fare any better on this machine.

Re:All iMacs are supported (3, Insightful)

ramdam (570137) | more than 11 years ago | (#5868504)

You're right Mac OS X's "officially" supported (I knew that, sorry for having generalized).

However, the idea I tried to outline is still valid. On older macs , installing Linux may be a better investment than Mac OSX:

(1) On such computers Mac OS X is slow, even after upgrading memory, there's still bottlenecks like bus speed, slow CPU, slow I/O, while linux can accomodate itself of such low-end config. Sure, as you say, KDE and Gnome should be avoided, but twm for example run correctly. On the other side, we cannot change the window manager of Mac OSX.

(2) They have not very standard memory extensions and it's not that cheap to upgrade (when it's possible) them to a point that you can use Mac OS X without pain.

Regarding Darwin, I don't know much but may be it's an alternative for server use. I haven't chosen it, because at that time I didn't trust him enough and used Mac OS X as a development platform only.

By the way, my imac is "really" headless because the screen is dead (THT problem, I was told it often happened on this model). I had to borrow 6500's monitor to do the Linux installation. (Hopefully, The internal video connector in the iMac was the same - DB15)

Re:All iMacs are supported (2, Informative)

Trurl's Machine (651488) | more than 11 years ago | (#5868526)

You're right Mac OS X's "officially" supported (I knew that, sorry for having generalized).

However, the idea I tried to outline is still valid. On older macs , installing Linux may be a better investment than Mac OSX:


To clarify: I didn't question the general idea, I was just in mood for some anal nitpicking ;-). Indeed, Linux seems to be the best way to run anything unixish on Macs from last century. What REALLY makes no point to me is running YDL on a brand-new Mac. If you are really zealous on open systems, don't launch them on proprietary hardware; if you aren't, there's nothing wrong with MacOS X.

Runs fine on iMac Rev. A w/96MB RAM (1)

douglasq (590528) | more than 11 years ago | (#5869038)

Won't win any speed awards but I use it as a server and my daughter plays her games on it in Classic (she's 4, no need to discuss frame rates)

Re:Newbie question. (1)

trouser (149900) | more than 11 years ago | (#5877596)

Apple hardware isn't expensive. You get what you pay for.
It costs more because it's better. I've often seen the comparison drawn b/w computers and cars. Buying an Apple is arguably something akin to buying a luxury European car in preference to a domestic family sedan. It doesn't necessarily go any faster but it has more comfortable seats, a really good stereo and satellite navigation.

Anyway, I run Linux on my 500MhZ iBook. The GUI is much more responsive and it runs all the same good stuff that comes with OSX. Like bash, emacs, python, apache, blah blah, unix wanker, etc.

Re:Newbie question. (1)

trouser (149900) | more than 11 years ago | (#5877642)

oh, and I almost forgot - a higher resale value and you can get chicks and ...... I'll just crawl back under my rock.

iPod Boot? (1)

rockforever (669205) | more than 11 years ago | (#5867607)

All, I don't want to jack up my OS X installation on my iBook. Can I install this on my iPod and boot from it???

Re:iPod Boot? (1)

madsenj37 (612413) | more than 11 years ago | (#5867821)

Since linux uses a different file system you might be able to reformat you ipod but you could just install it on there. It wouldnt be a an mp3 player anymore.

Re:iPod Boot? (1)

bhippel (132196) | more than 11 years ago | (#5871059)

Well, upon digging around, I saw how YDL 3.0 doesn't yet support booting from Firewire drives, so it's a no-go for now. Once it supports this, I don't see how it wouldn't work.

Re:iPod Boot? (1)

madsenj37 (612413) | more than 11 years ago | (#5871123)

I accidently hit the submit button on my last post before I was done with my post. What I was trying to say was that Linux has a different file system, so you would have to reformat your hard drive (iPod) to support it. If you did this, you probably could not use it as an mp3 player while it was formatted for use with Linux. It might be possible to have more than one partition on it, but you can wait for YDL to support firewire booting before you try that.

Re:iPod Boot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5868535)

you'll melt your ipod too. It's not designed to boot, nor is it designed for long session of read/write as an HD, the cooling just isn't there. Go for a cheap portable HD instead.

Minimal YDL Install (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5868217)

Is there somewhere where it is possible, to download a minimal YDL installer (to save bandwidth).

It's for an old powermac (7200)

Mirrors? (2, Informative)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 11 years ago | (#5877150)

Just remember, you can use apt-get to upgrade to v3.0 without having to download all the ISOs and such if you have a working 2.3 install.

(In fact, I installed 3.0 a couple weeks ago by doing this -- just add the new apt repositories for 3.0 to your sources.list file.)

--saint

Don't install on 2-harddrive system! (1)

brauwerman (151442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5899506)

Watch out!

YDL 3.0 will trash the partition map on one of your hard drives if you have more than one.

You can't fix it unless you install YDL, which is not very easy, since YDL installer is quite crash-prone while it's busy trashing your hard drive!

forget ydl, get Gentoo! (1)

daSilVetZ (671948) | more than 11 years ago | (#5912344)

Forget ydl, it's way too mandrakeish for my tastes. Grab Gentoo linux ! It might be slightly harder to setup, but it's way better. Customized precisly for your needs, faster, and once you try the "emerge" command, you can never go back! :)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?