×

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!

Linux Coming to Power Mac G5

pudge posted more than 10 years ago | from the we-expect-nothing-less dept.

Apple 67

Justen writes "Terra Soft, the people behind Yellow Dog Linux (YDL), announced that they will be supporting the new Power Mac G5. Since they are an Apple Authorized Reseller, you can purchase your Power Mac G5 through Terra Soft and have YDL pre-installed on a separate partition from Mac OS X. According to Terra Soft, 'as Yellow Dog Linux was in 2000 enabled for the IBM Power3 by IBM Lab and Linuxcare, and subsequently for the Power4, the effort to support the 970-based Apple computers is anticipated to be completed with relative ease.' Life is good. Anyone wanna loan me $2,000?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

67 comments

Never understood this. (2, Insightful)

digerata (516939) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288591)

I'm sorry, but why in the hell would I want to pay the premimum cash for the premium computer and *not* run the premium OS X.

Re:Never understood this. (5, Insightful)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288694)

Considering it's impossible to buy one that won't ship OS X, your question makes little to no sense. This isn't going to be instead of OS X, but in addition to it. You still have the privilege of paying for the Mac OS, even if you don't plan to use it.

Re:Never understood this. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6288976)

Boy, did YOU ever miss the point.

The question is, now that you've bought your nice, new G5, why would you want to run Linux on it? The only thing Linux has over Mac OS X is the ability to use software that's already compiled and packaged for IA-32, and that's not true when you're using a PowerPC. And Mac OS X has tons of advantages over Linux. So what's the rationale here?

Re:Never understood this. (3, Insightful)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6289514)

Personal preference? Linux can be made to be much more light weight than OS X, it is more customizable, etc, so I can understand why some people would want to use Linux, but I don't think I'd pay the extra for Mac hardware if I didn't want OS X.

Re:Never understood this. (2, Interesting)

Parsec (1702) | more than 10 years ago | (#6289914)

I think you could still strip OS X down to the Darwin core by modifying the rc scripts... or isn't that light-weight enough?

Personally, I use Macs for the UI and hardware integration... wishing to use Linux implies some compromise in those areas. Certainly, I'd consider Linux on Mac hardware for a server... but I'd have to see the performance numbers vs. generic Lintel hardware first and weigh Linux features vs. MOSX features. A big factor would be if you are running a file-server for MOSX, something which netatalk [sourceforge.net] doesn't seem to do quite perfectly yet.

Re:Never understood this. (1)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6303756)

I agree about the UI and hardware integration, which is why I wouldn't buy a Mac to use Linux on. Darwin and Linux aren't the same though. Some people just like Linux better, maybe because there are software packages which haven't been ported from Linux or they're Linux developers who like Apple hardware, or whatever. Apples do tend to have high quality hardware, so I can see why some people would go this route (especially for laptops) if money for hardware weren't an issue.

Re:Never understood this. (4, Informative)

trouser (149900) | more than 10 years ago | (#6290102)

Actually I'd say you're the one who missed the point.

Pretty much all Linux apps can be compiled for all supported architectures and the pre-compiled binaries are available in several popular distributions (YDL, Debian and Gentoo spring to mind).

Besides, that's not why I, and I suspect many other folks, run Linux. It's free of restrictive licenses, you can get the source code to everything, you can reconfigure pretty much anything to work the way you want, you can become actively involved in the development of apps, drivers, the kernel, etc.

OSX is closed. Darwin is only a little bit open. You can see the source but there are a lot of licensing restrictions imposed on what you can actually do with it.

Since Linux works very well on my Mac hardware and doesn't impose the limitations of OSX it's what I prefer to run most of the time, though my system is dual boot. Best of both worlds really.

Re:Never understood this. (1)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 10 years ago | (#6290858)

I don't see how I missed the point. And yes, all the reasons you listed are why I decided to start building my own systems using AMD CPUs and install GNU/Linux. I don't get why anyone would pay extra for Mac hardware, especially since part of that cost is an OS that I wouldn't personally use. My big question: is there anyway to build a PPC-based system without buying a Mac? Those dual-proc G5s sound pretty sweet, but only if they can run a Linux kernel.

Re:Never understood this. (1)

gladbach (527602) | more than 10 years ago | (#6292423)

I've heard of plenty of people to buy a phat daddy apple laptop lately, to just put linux on it...

Sure, I would never buy atm a workstation, but the laptops kick ass! Although I have found that osx/fink has more than taken care of most of my linux app needs. Add the new gentoo/fink/darwinports metaproject thing that is coming about, and OSX is going to have a ultra phat daddy toolset...

But, regardless, I wouldnt put yellowdog linux on my new Powerbook.... I'd put gentoo. ; )

Re:Never understood this. (1)

clarkcox3 (194009) | more than 10 years ago | (#6295911)

Darwin is only a little bit open. You can see the source but there are a lot of licensing restrictions imposed on what you can actually do with it.
Just curious, but what license restrictions are you referring to?

Re:Never understood this. (1)

trouser (149900) | more than 10 years ago | (#6298793)

It's not released under the GPL. It's released under the Apple Public Source License [apple.com]. This is not free (as in speech), it's just open source.

You can get the code. You can modify it and use the modified code (solely for personal or internal research purposes), you automatically forfeit any rights to the modifications you make, they are automatically owned by Apple, and I have a feeling Apple can arbitrarily revoke your right to posess or use the code, including your modifications, at any time.

Not free at all.

Re:Never understood this. (1)

clarkcox3 (194009) | more than 10 years ago | (#6299108)

Actually, after reading the license at the link you posted, I'm not sure you read it. Nowhere does it say that you forfiet the rights to your modifications, or that they become the property of Apple.

The only real ristrictions I see are that modifications to APSL code must also be APSL (that's no worse than GPL), You must make your changes public, (that's the idea of "free" as in speech code), and you must allow Apple to distribute your modifications.

Re:Never understood this. (1)

GlassHeart (579618) | more than 10 years ago | (#6299274)

Pretty much all Linux apps can be compiled for all supported architectures

I seriously doubt that.

A lot of C programs out there (both commercial and free) contain assumptions on the size of various types like "int" being 32 bits and "short" being 16. Some also assume a certain byte ordering (usually assuming little-endian). Some assume that structures are padded in a particular way (i.e., no padding). Some rely on the order of evaluation on a particular platform. Most of these are mistakes that are quite difficult to catch on a single platform, because the code works "correctly" on that platform. This is a problem common to C and C++ programs, and is not unique to Linux but certainly affects Linux.

Darwin is only a little bit open. You can see the source but there are a lot of licensing restrictions imposed on what you can actually do with it.

What restrictions are you referring to?

Since Linux works very well on my Mac hardware and doesn't impose the limitations of OSX it's what I prefer to run most of the time

Let's discuss the "limitations" you cited, one by one.

  • "restrictive licenses" - doesn't affect daily use, so it shouldn't affect which OS you run most of the time.
  • "can get source code" - likewise irrelevant to daily use.
  • "can reconfigure" - how much time do you spend reconfiguring as opposed to working?
  • "can become involved" - you can volunteer for Darwin development as well, you know, and you can likewise write a new OS X app.
So I'm afraid I don't see why you prefer Linux to use "most of the time". The factors you cited are valid, but are not relevant, because the limitations don't affect usage.

Re:Never understood this. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6289895)

Neither OSX or Linux is important in any way. They need to make Macs run Windows like a real computer.

Re:Never understood this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6290722)

Please. Mac have been running Windows for years.

Re:Never understood this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6306182)

Excuse my French, but what the FUCK are you talking about? Since when have Apples been the only "premium computers" out there? Your typical slashdot reader probably pays Apple's high prices so that they CAN run OS X. If you want to run Linux, there's nothing in the world stopping you from getting a machine that doesn't come with OS X, or even building your own.

Re:Never understood this. (1)

beatnikcafe (686937) | more than 10 years ago | (#6369576)

So if you buy an Apple but only run Linux there is an alternative. Buy a G4 PPC (non-apple) and just run YDL. Since you can run Mac OS and YDL side by side on a Apple G3 or better, why would you buy anything else?

kernel support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6304251)

ok, let's break this down logically:

. both linux and osx/darwin are "unix-like".
. generally, any tool that compiles for linuxppc should be able to compile for osx/darwin (assuming you've installed the latest devtools from apple).
. linux has package management such as apt and portage (rpm blows, admit it.), but osx/darwin does have fink (apt port) and darwinports (bsd-ports, uh, port).
. so really the major difference is the kernel, linux doing its monolithic thing and osx/darwin doing it's mach thing.

BUT (and this is key here) what happens if you want to use a tool in osx that requires the linux kernel? just about more than half of every interesting networking tool requires the linux kernel (airsnort, iptables, etc.)

so what is a true geek to do? run MOL (mac-on-linux). put linux in charge of hardware and low level unix, and boot osx from within it as your tty7. add it to your init.d default or whatever, with boot-args="-v" the whole shebang can look like one long boot sequence to get uber-osx running.

Loan 2K ? (4, Funny)

muonzoo (106581) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288610)

Anyone want to loan me 2K?


Sure, I'll loan you 2K. I expect you to pay it back at 16% P.A. compounded daily over 24 months. Interested? Contact me. Where's a G5 to do the interest calcs when I need one?


Oh... perhaps your really wanted me to give you 2000$? ;-)

Re:Loan 2K ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6288757)


but maybe he should give you spelling lessons first?

Re:Loan 2K ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6301968)

Pudgie Tirebiter is an idiot if he actually buys the lowend model. The real deal goes for $3k.

But one questions remains... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6288618)

I don't understand why anyone would bother running Linux on a Mac. For $99 you can purchase Mac OS X and get real live tech support for problems that (probably won't) pop up. There's a lot of technical reasons you should run Mac OS instead of Linux.

  1. PowerPC hardware, PowerPC operating system
  2. Linux has its origins on IA32, Intel's 32-bit architecture. Every platform Linux has migrated to since then has been beset with porting problems-- Linux runs 32% more efficiently on Intel than PowerPC. This is very telling as PowerPC is in general much faster per clock than Intel. Somewhere in the translation from PowerPC to IA32 something got lost.

    Mac OS is 100% native for PowerPC. The Mach kernel has been optimized for the G3, G4, and 970 since Apple began writing the operating system back in 1996. Why choose a hacked and kludged OS from another platform when you can have an environment tailor-made for the system you'll be running it on? Mac OS certainly isn't plagued by same driver problems Linux is (in)famous for.

  3. Control over the source code
  4. In Linux, the development model is highly irrational: anyone is allowed to submit patches, and one man (Linus Torvalds) sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code, attempting to integrate it into the kernel. Apple's model is much more modern and decisive: the code for the low levels of Mac OS is available for anyone to download and modify, while the more complex parts of the system (QuickTime and OpenGL) are kept closed-source so those that know better-- the Apple programmers-- are the only ones allowed to tinker.

    The results because of these differing development models are clear. Apple released a major update to the OS once a year, and releases about five minor updates to the OS, as well as several dozen security patches and driver updates, in the interim. Since March of 2001 we've gone from 10.0 to 10.2.5! Linux is still stuck at some sort of bizarre "in-between" 2.5 kernel patch and won't move on to 2.6 until well after Apple has released Mac OS 10.3.

    It's not hard to see the difference here is a bunch of kids playing with source code instead of doing their homework vs. highly qualified professionals pushing their skills to the limits. The Mac OS user benefits.

  5. Graphical user interfaces
  6. I don't even think I have to touch on this. While Linux offers several GUIs from GNOME, KDE, and Enlightenment, Apple offers only one. But here we have a case of quality vs. quantity. Apple controls the GUI for its operating system while anyone can hack and modify the various Linux GUIs as they please. This has led to a lack of desktop standards and a whole lot of bickering and flame wars over human interface guidelines. Most of the GUIs for Linux are simply poor knock-offs of the Windows 95 interface.

    Apple's Aqua and QuickTime graphical interfaces are faster, more elegant, and very consistent. A Mac user can sit down at any Mac and (assuming someone hasn't installed Linux) get right to work. With Linux, it's hit or miss as to whether the user will know what to do when he logs in! Getting work done is the most important aspect of a computer. After all, it is just a tool. Linux fails in this area miserably-- you're forced to edit and tinker and kludge and hack to make things perfect. A Mac allowes you to just sit down and roll up your sleeves and get some work done. I don't have time to play at my job.

  7. Software!
  8. I've used Linux before and the headache of downloading drivers and libraries and making sure the versions all sync up are too mucvh to handle, especiallly considering one has to compile these applications. On a Mac, I mount a disk image and drag the .app file to /Applications, and I'm done. Hell, most software for Mac even installs it there for you. To put this in perspective, let's look at a recent task I performed under both Linux 2.4 and Mac OS 10.2.

    Sendmail and sshd were both cracked recently and needed updated. The guys who code these programs were on the ball and had patches ready and waiting just hours after the security holes were discovered. Both a Linux box and my dual 1.42GHz Mac system needed updated. Here's a breakdown of how this went on my Mac:

    1. open System Preferences's Software Update Control Panel
    2. hit the CHECK NOW button
    3. hit the INSTALL button
    4. wait for Mac OS to download, install, and optimize the updates

    Total time: 4 minutes

    Now here's how it went in Linux. I was severely unimpressed:

    1. download the source code for sendmail and sshd
    2. check the readme file for library and driver version requirements
    3. download new library files
    4. compile new library files
    5. update older applications not compatible with new versions of library files
    6. compile source for sendmail and sshd
    7. email a mailing list about errors during compilation
    8. wait a few days for the correct response
    9. recompile new sendmail and sshd
    10. update Linux kernel with patches
    11. reboot Linux

    Total time: 200 minutes (over the course of 3 days)

I don't think I need to go on anymore-- these examples are pretty common. Anyone willing to shelll the money out for a Mac is smart enough to know you should run Mac OS. I just don't get the mentality of the fringe who shells out several grand for an Apple system and runs an operating system on it that makes it harder to work with and cuts down productivity.

Re:But one questions remains... (4, Funny)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288811)

Lessee:

Linux Coming to Power Mac G5
Posted by pudge on 05:14 PM June 24th, 2003


But one questions remains... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 05:20 PM June 24th, 2003

MS word says your post is 952 words long. 952 words divided by 6 minutes is a hair over 158 WPM. OH MY GOD YOU MUST BE MAVIS BEACON!

I am your biggest fan.

Re:But one questions remains... (5, Insightful)

muonzoo (106581) | more than 10 years ago | (#6289530)

Hmm here are my calculations:
  1. Open HUA, visit the site I ripped off [trollaxor.com]. (7 words)
  2. Select all (Control-A) ( call that 1 word)
  3. Paste (1 word)

For me that's 9 words in 6 minutes or a more realistic (for a Troll) 1.5 WPM.
Mavis is safe and sound; more importantly, she isn't on slashdot.

Re:But one questions remains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6304770)

At least he posted as AC, so he didn't whore the Karma for something he didn't write.

Re:But one questions remains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6293044)

Probably an Orbitouch [keybowl.com] user.

Re:But one questions remains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6292645)

I should say one very big reason to run Linux: Eric S. Raymond said it best with his arguement against [zdnet.co.uk] OS X's core, Darwin, when it first came out.

License problems don't seem like a big deal for an operating system someone else is working on but it will always bother me that they took FreeBSD and made it not-exactly-free. I just can't see the strategy behind that, especially now with OS X's popularity.

Also, "closed-source so those that know better" just doesn't fly with me and most people here at slashdot. Open Source projects are generally quite good at removing excess code. You mentioned Quicktime? I just can't see Apple's music format of choice, AAC, as going anywhere outside of apple with IT'S moronic license [vialicensing.com]. Ogg Vorbis [vorbis.com] does very well completely open source.

Re:But one questions remains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6295456)

yeah Qucktime blows, its bloated closed source CRAPOLA. Ogg rules, it's open and anyone can see to use it, perty soon it will overtake MMS and MP3. Open, Linxu is the future.

You're not paying attention (1)

FredFnord (635797) | more than 10 years ago | (#6299455)

ESR is now quite happy with the latest version of Apple's license, which was released in direct response to his complaints about it.

The open source community (as opposed to the Free-As-In-What-I-Say-Is-Free software community) complains, Apple revises, and then ESR, at least, is happy. But people like you have to go back to his INITIAL complaints in order to find something to complain about.

That's annoying. Also (possibly intentionally, possibly not) intellectually dishonest.

-Fred

Re:But one questions remains... (3, Insightful)

karlm (158591) | more than 10 years ago | (#6295784)

I like OS X. I'll be getting a G5 laptop soon after they arrive and will probably run OS X on it at last 90% of the time, with some forrays into Linux and hopefully the boys in Dresden will have a PPC-64 verion of L4 out by that time. In most ways I prefer OS X to Linux, but your arguments need improvement. You must also remember that there is non-Mac G3 and G4 hardware out there that does not have the Mac firmware necessary for OS X. This hardware is mostly for scientific computing and embedded applications.

1. PowerPC hardware, PowerPC operating system

Linux has its origins on IA32, Intel's 32-bit architecture. Every platform Linux has migrated to since then has been beset with porting problems-- Linux runs 32% more efficiently on Intel than PowerPC. This is very telling as PowerPC is in general much faster per clock than Intel. Somewhere in the translation from PowerPC to IA32 something got lost.

Mac OS is 100% native for PowerPC. The Mach kernel has been optimized for the G3, G4, and 970 since Apple began writing the operating system back in 1996. Why choose a hacked and kludged OS from another platform when you can have an environment tailor-made for the system you'll be running it on? Mac OS certainly isn't plagued by same driver problems Linux is (in)famous for.

OS X began life on m68k NeXT boxes, not PPC hardware. Linux is also 100% native on PPC hardware. The last numbers I saw showed Linux PPC outperformed OS X on the same hardware. I like some of the ideas behind Mach w/ a BSD server. Too bad they put the BSD server in the kernel address space for performance reasons. The driver gap is largely historical at this point, but still a valid but minor concern.

2. Control over the source code

In Linux, the development model is highly irrational: anyone is allowed to submit patches, and one man (Linus Torvalds) sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code, attempting to integrate it into the kernel. Apple's model is much more modern and decisive: the code for the low levels of Mac OS is available for anyone to download and modify, while the more complex parts of the system (QuickTime and OpenGL) are kept closed-source so those that know better-- the Apple programmers-- are the only ones allowed to tinker.

The results because of these differing development models are clear. Apple released a major update to the OS once a year, and releases about five minor updates to the OS, as well as several dozen security patches and driver updates, in the interim. Since March of 2001 we've gone from 10.0 to 10.2.5! Linux is still stuck at some sort of bizarre "in-between" 2.5 kernel patch and won't move on to 2.6 until well after Apple has released Mac OS 10.3.

It's not hard to see the difference here is a bunch of kids playing with source code instead of doing their homework vs. highly qualified professionals pushing their skills to the limits. The Mac OS user benefits.

You missed your opportunity to jab Linux in the ribs. The tender spot here is Linus switching the entire VM subsystem out in the middle of the 2.4 serries. The weakness in the development model is that it is less conservative with no PHB breathing down Linus's neck. The "bunch of punk kids writing a kernel" argument just doesn't hold water. Some of the most respected coders of our day contribute to the Linux kernel, including some very telented professionals at IBM. Sure lots of rubbish gets submitted, but it gets filtered through a heirarchy or very good coders. Linus may be a little overwhelmed, but that results in some good improvements getting dropped on the cutting room floor rather than rubbish making it into the kernel. Per man-hour, the Linux kernel development is therefore very inneficient, but you have an absolutely huge number of coders.

Your argument about not letting people see the QuickTime and OpenGL code is way off. The same effect could be gotten by opening the code baseand not accepting patches from outside Apple. The people that would use unofficial branches of the code would know and accept the risks. The other 99.9 % would be no worse off, and perhaps better off. Your argument is illogical. The reason Apple keeps certain parts closed is that those parts have more easily defnded patents/copyrights, not that those parts are more complex than the kernel.

You also seem to not understand or pretend not to unersand the Linux kernel numbering system. Development continues on the 2.2 and 2.4 serries kernels. So what if Linux kernel version 2.6.1 comes out after Mac OS version 10.3? Linux certainly isn't "stuck" and there's nothing bizzare about having an unstable developmnt branch. You might as well have argued that the Linux kernel is playing catch-up being at version 2 while Mac OS is at version 10.

4. Graphical user interfaces

I don't even think I have to touch on this.

You should have stopped there. I absolutely love the Mac GUI. I have heard that 10.3 will allow for alternative window managers. I also get the impression you either don't know what QuickTime is or have some bizarre idea of what a graphical interface is. QuickTime is both an application and a set of codecs and file formats. I am unaware of an API for a GUI toolkit known as QuickTime. The QuickTime application utilizes the Aqua graphics APIs, bu I fail to see how you managed to group Aqua and QuickTime into a single set in this context.

4. Software!

Commecial applications was the soft spot here and you missed it. It's not other people's fault if you decide to go out on your own without knowing what you are doing rather than using packages made by experts. My Linux desktops downloaded and installed the mentioned updates at 4 a.m. while I was sleeping with no problems. I too used to manually download packages, deal with RPM hell/library version hell, install packages, configure them, uninstall them, etc. Debian is a wonderful thing, as are the BSDs. I hear Gentoo is also very good in that way.

BTW, why in the name of Zeus's butthole did you reboot Linux after updating sshd and sendmail? Was it an x86 box and Losedows confused you into thinking it's the hardware that requires you to reboot all of the time?

I think people that run YDL/Black Lab are probably either running it on non-Apple PPC hardware or are running it in a cluster envirnment. You can't run OS X on one of those G4 drive-bay bricks, and I haven't heard anything about OS X clusters. You will also get better performance for scientific computing, webserving, etc. YDL would also be nice for when the current MacOS has moved on to the G7 and is either unsupported or is ass slow on your dual 2 GHz G5.

Why bitch and moan about Linux if you are so happy with OS X? Do you feel somehow personally threatened that your OS of choice may not be the best choice in some situations? I agree that OS X is truly amazing. Some people obviously have a need for Linux on PPC hardware, maybe even Mac PPC hardware. Most are probably power users with some niche needs. I'm sure many of them are quite a bit more intelligent and rational than me and could make me look very foolish for second-guessing their decissions.

MacOS X clustering... (1)

FredFnord (635797) | more than 10 years ago | (#6299472)

...is pretty sweet, actually, though the software isn't built into the default OS install yet. I'd point you to the downloads, but I can't remember where they are. Sorry.

-fred

Re:MacOS X clustering... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6299510)

what a totally useless post.

i point and laugh at you.

-the anonymous crusader

Re:But one questions remains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6300814)

Your message has some value. The first sentence "I don't understand..." summarizes it accurately.

Everything you wrote is "true" from your point of view. Yet, I'm one of those people who do use Linux on Macs and I don't feel nor experience what you describe.

Why would someone use Linux on Macs? Here is an example: because MacOS X don't run at all or not so well or not so fast on old Macs. I started to use Linux on Macs before MacOS X was released. When finally OS X showed up I was already using Linux for quite some time on Macs (and PCs), so the "novelty" of OS X bringing the *NIX power to MacOS users eluded me.

Yes, Linux (or a BSD) requires you to do your home work but it's an accumulative process. Your first package compilation might take some time, but after you did it once, you can reuse the experience. The last time I updated SSH on my machines, it took me a few minutes (getting the tar.gz, verifying, unpacking, configuring, compiling, installing). As a matter of fact OpenSSL and OpenSSH, like Apache or MySQL for instance, are rather trivial to install.

Moreover, if you don't want to compile, like MacOS X, YDL also provides online precompiled updates. For instance, the recent xpdf vulnerability (leaked before it was published by CERT) can be eliminated by simply installing the last update of xpdf. Is it difficult?

shell> yum update xpdf

Note that the yum package management (like Mandrake's urpmi (PC/Mac) or Red Hat's Network Agent (PC) or Suse's YAST2 (PC/Mac), those three offering a very usable GUI by the way) will handle the dependencies for you (you don't need to use the rpm command directly or deal with tar balls if you don't want to). You want to update everything. Is it difficult?

shell> yum update

So why compile if your distributor provides the precompiled packages? Because like on any *NIX (including OS X) it allows you to customize even more. For instance, with Apache, you may want to totally disable DSO as well as most the modules, only include those that you really need, static not loadable (*). Another reason: you don't have to wait for the distributor: grab the source and do it yourself.

(*) OK, maybe not the best example for OS X, because Apache is tightly integrated and you need DSO for the mod_hfs (If I correctly remember).

Yes, the desktop integration of MacOS X is amazing. Does it mean that KDE or others are bad? Certainly not. Safari is based on what by the way? In addition, if your machine is going to be in fact sitting in the corner of a room to run a DNS and/or Proxy and/or (whatever) services, first you don't really care about the blue pixels, second, and more importantly, you DON'T want the blue pixels, you just want to run the minimal required by the services.

It is easy to extract a so-called "common" example to try to make a point. Here are some cheap shots (with some humor, and I do not -or only partially- subscribe to them):

(1) MacOS X is a SLOW pain in the ass!!! To change the address of the name server (assuming you don't use DHCP), you have to open a window (use the mouse? ykes!), click on a Tab, then Tab/click to the area, then click OK! Total time: 18 sec. It's much faster with a shell:

shell> vi /etc/resolv.conf # move cursor, xx..x,i or a,,Esc,:wq,Enter. Total time: 7 sec

(2) MacOS X is a STEAL!!! Windows XP Pro OEM = $149, MacOS X = $129 + $129 (Jaguar) + $129 (Panther)!!! [ Note: don't scream about using the OEM price for XP, you just need to buy a motherboard to get that price...]

If I was the owner of a recent G4, I think I would use MacOS X. But I decided to invest on new PC hardware rather than new Apple hardware. My remark at the beginning about the "I don't understand..." does not point at "technical" ignorance, it rather indicates ignorance about that the proverbial "the truth is in the eye of the beholder". On the other hand, as an opinion-making piece intended to the already converted your post has its charms.

In short.... (1)

beatnikcafe (686937) | more than 10 years ago | (#6369834)

YDL works pretty well, drivers and all on just about every G3 and G4. Driver issues haven't been an issue in my limited experience. Still i agree, OS X rocks but let 'em choose but hope they choose wisely. Any Apple sales is generally good for inovation in the PC or PPC industry.

Yellow Dog Linux (4, Interesting)

Graff (532189) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288644)

Yellow Dog Linux has always been a great addition to the Macintosh platform. It's good to see that they are keeping up their excellent support of Apple. More choice is always good and the fact that people can buy systems directly from TerraSoft with Yellow Dog Linux pre-installed is definitely a plus.

My hope is that both Apple and TerraSoft continue to work together and bring ideas back and forth between MacOS and Linux.

Re:Yellow Dog Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6289080)

More choice is always good

More choice is NOT always good. The people who are wasting their time porting Linux to the Mac could be doing something that actually contributes to the world, something that actually makes the world a better place.

Don't masturbate all day and justify it by saying "choice is good."

Re:Yellow Dog Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6289154)

If everyone masturbated all day, the world WOULD be a better place.

No wars - everyone would be too busy jerking off. "Sure Sarge, I'll shoot that bunch of people over there. But first, I've got to blow a load into this sock. You can help, or you can get out of the way."

Huh? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6288693)

Wait.... Does this mean people actually run YDL?

maybe i need linux? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6288709)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:maybe i need linux? (4, Informative)

agent dero (680753) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288778)

Maybe you should stop posting the same message [slashdot.org] over and over again, and realize that your machine doesn't run OS X, and you point is not valid at all.

This thread is about the new G5 and Yellow Dog Linux, not your problems with your old powermac, that won't even run YDL without BootX, which makes running YDL slow as hell.

Stop booing Macs because the one you run is old, and especially when your problem is the hard drive, you can stick a 7200RPM drive in any machine to make this excercise faster, mac or PC.

Because it's blue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6288781)

Remember Jeff Goldblum: get the iMac because it is blue.

Apple users care about what the computer case looks like. Insignifant considerations like actually doing things on the machine when it is turned on come in second, if at all.

Re:Oops! You're in the wrong place! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6312766)

I'm sure it was just a simple oversight but you actually meant to post this at www.asininefucktardswholiveinmomsbasement.com. Also, it's quite obvious that you don't use OS X since it has a built-in spell check but I'm also sure that is insignificant to you. What a dumbass.

Re:maybe i need linux? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6288810)

Since you say you have 64MB, I assume you're running OS 9, which had cooperative multitasking and limited multithreading; which often meant that one app would hog the processor and slow everything else to a crawl.

Still, your Mac does sound excessively slow. Have you tried de-fragmenting your drive recently? Otherwise, it's probably just your machine running short of memory, OS 9 and Netscape together will take up most of your 64MB RAM, so if you'v disk space free, try increasing the amound of virtual memory you've allocated.

Mike.

Re:maybe i need linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6302062)

My guess is that VM, combined with a slow fragged disk is his main problem. Computer problem. His social problem is that he is a troll.

But Lennux sux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6288793)

Whenever I go to those dog parks, you know, with the worn out grass and dirt made of years of dried powdered doggie shite I envision the linux terrain.

Something about Linnux reminds me of locusts, swarming and killing and for what? Nothing. Absolutley nothing. Linux users are like what mac users are to Windows, except the polar opposite, all white bread and raw dough stuffed in $20 T-shirts and $20 tennis shoes.

Linnux users are like those dog owners who walk their Yellow Dogs and crap on someone elses lawn just across the street while their neighbor does the same in return, all in the name of doggie etiquette.

Yellow Dog. I'm sure a linux head will have a micro-brew beer named Yellow Dog G5 soon sold warm over the Internet. Even Bill Gates had to refuse to adopt Yellow Dog or it's cuddly inbred lynux brothers. All they do is bark and crap.

World's First? (0, Troll)

lowtekneq (469145) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288896)

Apple's processor white paper states that the G5 is the "World's first 64-bit desktop processor". What about Sun's chips? I've even seen 64-bit laptops. Can someone clear this up?

Re:World's First? (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288939)

The G5 is not the first 64-bit processor, but it is the first 64-bit system a sane person would actually use as a desktop.

Re:World's First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6289062)

The PowerPC 970 is the first 64-bit processor ever designed from the ground up to be used in single-user personal computers.

Ergo, the PowerPC 970 is the world's first 64-bit desktop processor.

Re:World's First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6294617)

No, If there are already Sun Workstations it is NOT the worlds first.

Re:World's First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6289522)

How is this a Troll? It was stated that Sun was already using 64bit cpus in workstations and servers, i see no trolling there...

Re:World's First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6296128)

The key word is "desktop".

Apple is the first computer maker to offer a 64-bit sytem for consumers. Up until now, 64-bit systems have been used in high-end workstations costing $10K+.

Re:World's First? (1)

lowtekneq (469145) | more than 10 years ago | (#6299027)

Home > Sun Store > Desktops > Workstations > Blade 150

Actually Sun sells the Blade 150 for as little as $1,395.00.

The Sun Blade[tm] 150 workstation is an affordable, full-featured, 64-bit workstation with a 550/650-MHz UltraSPARC[R] IIi processor, up to 2 GB of memory, and 2D/3D graphics options for multi-display support. It offers considerably higher performance with more capabilities than previous generation Sun Blade 100, Ultra[tm] 5, or Ultra 10 workstation.

Re:World's First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6324361)

The DEC Alpha 64-bit CPU has been used in "desktops/personal computers" since about 1994. I think the "Jensen" model (EISA-bus instead of the proprietary Turbo Channels, shipped with WinNT 3.1) is a good candidate for this title. Also, later versions with PCI-bus were available for less than $3000.

Re:World's First? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6303261)

lol
"Slashdot Poll New G5 Powermac?"
First 64-bit personal computer, except for this UltraSPARC lying around over here

Linux ease-of-use (1)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 10 years ago | (#6288924)

I thought that yesterday's veritest g5 specint report [veritest.com] was funny when it comes to describing how they configured the systems. They compared OSX vs. Redhat 9.

One pages 5-6, the describe the apple process for each of the 2 configurations. Each config is about 1/2 page or 24 lines. Besides control panel stuff, you must edit /etc/hostconfig manually, physically remove a processor and reboot twice.

The redhat config, on page 7, is only 9 lines long, requires no file editing, and has only the initial boot to select 1 or 2 processors.

It seems that easy-of-configuration is a reason to use these new machines with linux!

Re:Linux ease-of-use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6295281)

yes, since we'll all be running SPEC benchmarks all day long, we will want to re-create those funky settings. meh.

also, you're forgetting that the configuration changes were being made to redhat systems on x86 hardware, not on a g5. we have no way of knowing how much work it would be to set that all up on yellow dog's linux on a g5, for example.

Bah... (4, Funny)

jafuser (112236) | more than 10 years ago | (#6293260)

This is hardly news. Linux is running on cell phones, VCRs, microwave ovens, and vacuum cleaners these days...

Give me something really geeky, like someone hacked their cat to run linux, or the mars rover, or a dill pickle or something...

makes sure sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6309369)

Well, why would one run Linux/BSD on a recent MAC ? Because its the only way to get rid of the IA32 crap.
No sun, no used alpha nor any other "unix" RISC workstation offer that price/performance ratio as the the G5. You do not want IA32, you go apple.

I'd rather buy an equally priced, 970 based IBM workstation, that accepts "PC-Style Hardware" and does not run OS-X at all, but, there is none as of now.

Besides, the PPC port of Gnu/Linux is application wise most likely the best supported after intel.

I may be the only one on this planet, but I prefer Windowmaker to the MacOSX GUI (I know about the common background of both). I am more than happy with the free software offered and could not afford the Mac Apps anyway.

I simply like that "Unix workstation" feeling and I am not a friend of those overblown GUIs. I consider using windowmaker with keyboard way more effective and pleasant to work. Maybe I haven't invested enough time configuring OSX for nearly-keyboard-only use, but right now I do not really enjoy working with OSX. Oh, and did I mention that windowmaker feels "snappier" than OSX big time ?

Thats why my ibook boots linux only nowadays. And same will most likely be true for the G5, after having given OSX through Panther a second chance, of course.

So, basically, if I use windowmaker and "linux/BSD apps" only anyway, why should I run darwin instead ?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...