Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Yellow Dog Linux 2.0 review 123

Posted by Hemos from the fighting-the-OSX-fight dept.
lotion writes "MaximumLinux.org has posted it's take of Yellow Dog Linux 2.0 on a PowerBook G4: "My distribution of choice was Yellow Dog Linux from Terra Soft Solutions. Adam and I had the opportunity to speak a bit with the co-founder and CEO Kai Staats of Terra Soft Solutions at the MacWorld Expo in NYC last month and I must say I was impressed. Not only was I impressed with there 2.0 release but there new hardware that they had rolled out that day as well.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yellow Dog Linux 2.0 review More

Yellow Dog Linux 2.0 review

Comments Filter:

  • OS X isn't unreliable... (Score:4, Informative)

    by __aaaaxm1522 ( 121860 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @11:16AM (#2218182)
    First off, let me state that I'm not a Mac Junkie. I own a Powerbook G4 simply because I liked the hardware, and because I could run Linux on it (the big screen was what drew me in).


    That being said, I run YellowDog Linux 2.0 on my Ti and it kicks serious ass. It is an excellent Linux distribution, and for all intents and purposes, I've pretty much replaced my Linux desktop with the G4.


    I've also played with OS X on the Ti quite a bit. While Aqua (the GUI) *is* slow, OS X itself has been nothing but rock-solid. I take exception to the author's comment " (it) flat out kills OS X in speed and reliability..." - OS X has been nothing but reliable. But yes, KDE on the G4 certainly runs faster than Aqua under OS X - no wonder, since Aqua's rendering system is PDF based...


    All in all though, YDL 2.0 is a great PPC-based Linux distro.

    • Re:OS X isn't unreliable... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @11:24AM (#2218199) Homepage Journal
      If you think OS-X is good now, wait until OS-X.1 is released next month. I've seen beta versions of it because my company is an Apple "Premier Developer." They've made a TON of gui fixes that result in faster reaction to user interactions. They've also improved on the so-called "bouncemark" measurement used to time how long a program takes to boot up. Overall, everything runs faster in the beta version. Plus they've added a few additional items, like DVD suppoer. Can't wait to play Crouching Tiger on my 21" wide-screen cinema monitor :)
    • Agreed, OS X has very few stability problems in most situations (and the ones it had problems in have mostly been ironed out as of 10.0.4). The GUI itself is slow (but useable for most people) and even that is being addressed with the 10.1 update due out in September. So any complaint on those fronts is specious.

      If you just want X11 you can even run XFree side by side Aqua and switch between the two on the fly or rootless X and stay entirely within Aqua. Or dualboot Darwin and the linux kernel and have everything you could ever want all on one machine. :)
    • So YD seems to be the major player right now. What with LinuxPPC pretty much down and out.

      Has anyone tried Debian's PPC distro? Is it as good as their others?

      What other PPC solutions are there?
    • While OS X is as stable as any other *nixy system, if aqua poops out on you it is essentially a crash, as there are no virtual consoles or key combinations that get you out of it. If you go to this page [cartoonnetwork.com] the flash content will freeze the desktop (using internet explorer). In linux, you can simply go to a different virtual console and kill stuff, but in OS X you have to SSH in from another box or reboot.
      I'm not advocating virtual consoles, but it would be nice to have a key combination that killed the loginwindow process.
      • While OS X is as stable as any other *nixy system, if aqua poops out on you it is essentially a crash, as there are no virtual consoles or key combinations that get you out of it. If you go to this page [cartoonnetwork.com] the flash content will freeze the desktop (using internet explorer). In linux, you can simply go to a different virtual console and kill stuff, but in OS X you have to SSH in from another box or reboot.

        I just went there, and I didn't lock up (I'm running OS X 10.0.4 and IE 5.1b1). In fact the page is still loaded in another window.

        But I have had the GUI lock up on me a few times, and some type of keyboard shortcut to kill it would be nice, since Option-Command-Escape won't always pop up the Force Quit window...

      • Hmm. I run 10.0.4 and IE 5.1 and I was unable to freeze my desktop using that page.

        Note that command-option-esc will bring up a "Force Quit" window that lets you kill any Aqua program, including Finder (it restarts itself afterwards). I don't know if this would work in your situation, but it might.

        Finally, I urge you to submit a bug report.
        • Someone else already pointed out that in the Omnigroup OSX-talk list. Apparently, the latest version of the flash plugin fixes the problem too, tho I don't use internet explorer.

          This was said to be a problem related to having quicktime buried low in the system.

          :\

          Embarrassing, as it is something that many poke fun at win2k users about.

          Command-Option-Esc often doesn't work, as it isn't as necessary as the ctrl-alt-delete for windows. Command Option Power reboots however.
          • Embarrassing, as it is something that many poke fun at win2k users about
            Quicktime may be fairly low level, but it's not in the kernel. I believe the criticism towards NT/2k is due to MS putting windowing routines in the kernel, which is IMHO, an entirely inappropriate place for them.
      • >In linux, you can simply go to a different virtual console and kill stuff, but in OS X you have to SSH in from another box or reboot.

        I thought of writing this with a team, then found this link:
        http://www.opensource.apple.com/bugs/X/Core%20OS/2 223446.html [apple.com]. So it's not in 10.1 (at least 5G24), but it's coming
    • But yes, KDE on the G4 certainly runs faster than Aqua under OS X - no wonder, since Aqua's rendering system is PDF based...

      LOL! PDF-based rendering doesn't mean it creates a PDF and processes it to draw something, it means it uses the same imaging model as PDF.

      Actually, it's almost identical to Postscript, but with Quartz they lose the programmability of PS and the licensing fees (fortunately). They gain "PostScript-like drawing features such as resolution independence, transformable coordinates (for rotation, scales, and skews), Bézier paths, and clipping operations." This gives them a unified model for printing and drawing. And it makes it easy to generate a PDF file, or to render a PDF file (printer spool files are PDF files). But how do you explain this to Joe user? Saying it uses the PDF model for rendering and describing image environments turns to "it uses PDF to draw."

      For example, if they said it was OpenGL based, the reaility might be that it uses the same multi-stage rendering pipeline as OpenGL, in that you have data to draw represented by vertices, they get transformed by the model-view matrix, and then transformed by the camera, then clipped to the viewable area, then perspective is applied (3D to 2D), then drawn. But that doesn't mean that it is creating a new OpenGL context and running OpenGL commands every time it draws something.

      There's also a misconception that Adobe worked on Quartz. They had nothing to do with it.

      So why is it slow? Because OS X 10.0 is just ass-slow. At *everything*. I've got one of them high-end G4s. When I was at the expo and they were showing how fast 10.1 is, I heard some people in the audience say "yeah, but how fast is the machine that it's running on?" Pfft! It looked twice as fast as my machine, and before the expo they didn't come any faster :)

      • >When I was at the expo and they were showing how fast 10.1 is, I heard some people in the audience say "yeah, but how fast is the machine that it's running on?"

        OK, so they were using Dual-800's at MacWorld. I was there. But I'll let you know, I'm using OS X 5G24 (soon to be 27) on my iBook dual USB (500mHz, 256k cache (sucks!) http://www.apple.com/ibook [apple.com] for the details)
        Anyway, "bouncemarks" are a somewhat relevant way to compare... Much faster here. And the GUI, while still somewhat buggy (this is a beta), is much faster. Just a few weeks till 10.1 is released.
        So, even on this piece of crap (relatively) laptop, it's pretty damn fast. Boots up in less than a minute. Classic (OS 9.2.1) boots up in the same amount of time it takes when I'm booting right into 9.2.1 itself (less than 30 seconds, usual extension set). Oh, and a bunch of bugs are fixed too, but this isn't the place to get into them.
      • Actually, I think people get the impression that the PDF rendering is slow because IIRC, Display Postscript renderers would generate a ps file then send it to a ps rasterizer. The resulting system was less than speedy. I don't know if Apple does it the same way, but I'd rather think that the GUI is slow because of a slow model rather than just plain crappy programming. As for OS-X, its slow largely because of Mach. The dated version of FreeBSD (3.2) doesn't help things, but the Mach 3.0 kernel is an absolute dog. Every so often a disscussion pops up on the HURD list about porting it to something better, but apparently they're quite stuck with it.
        • Actually, I think people get the impression that the PDF rendering is slow because IIRC, Display Postscript renderers would generate a ps file then send it to a ps rasterizer. The resulting system was less than speedy. I don't know if Apple does it the same way,

          Dear god no, they don't do it the same way! If that way was done at all.

          Like I said, it's the same model, but the rendering has NOTHING to do with PDF. You make CoreGraphics calls (CGDrawLine, stuff like that). It has nothing to do with PDF.

          but I'd rather think that the GUI is slow because of a slow model rather than just plain crappy programming.

          It's totally unoptimized. First you make something work, and then you make it fast. The number of changes under the hood to OS X since even the public beta are very, very dramatic. Even CoreFoundation has had it's share of updates from the 10.0 release to now.

          As for OS-X, its slow largely because of Mach. The dated version of FreeBSD (3.2) doesn't help things, but the Mach 3.0 kernel is an absolute dog.

          Mach 3 is a research project. Apple doesn't use pure Mach 3, and it's not slow. The dated-ness of FreeBSD has nothing to do with it. We use 3.x and 4.x, and you don't say that one's faster than the other :)

          It's only the BSD api and utilities that's at 3.2, it has no affect on performance or usability. OS X is an operating system in itself; it can function without the BSD subsystem. It's an optional install, on by default.

          Every so often a disscussion pops up on the HURD list about porting it to something better, but apparently they're quite stuck with it.

          Mach rocks. If you ever get involved as a developer of application software with writing code that works with the kernel, it's quite impressive.

          Mach is significant because of it's design. Implementations are free to be as slow as they want to be. There's a big difference between pure Mach and Apple's xnu kernel.

  • Config (Score:2, Insightful)

    by be-fan ( 61476 )
    I love the part where he kicks himself for taking 3 hours to figure out how to configure his TrackPad. The funny part is, that it would take ANYONE 3 hours to figure it out. That's because all normal OSs put all that configuration stuff in one place (be it a GUI panal or a tree of config files). Of course, all Linux distros have to be "special" so they all have different ways of configuring things. Still wondering why Linux hasn't taken over the world yet?

    • Re:Config (Score:1, Funny)

      by Subcarrier ( 262294 )
      Still wondering why Linux hasn't taken over the world yet?

      The world is like an eager virgin, waiting for Linux to take over. Sad thing is the geeks haven't noticed and probably wouldn't care.
    • That's because all normal OSs put all that configuration stuff in one place.

      You mean like /etc?

      Or like Microsoft...config functions in control panels, in exploder, My Computer-> Manage->{pick one}, Network->properties->Local Area Network->properties->TCP/IP->properties, Taskbar->properties, etc, etc. Like a normal OS.

      KDE->Control Center.

      Compare and contrast.

      (Don't know about Gnome, haven't used it since KDE 2.0 came out)
      • Or like Microsoft...config functions in control panels, in exploder, My Computer-> Manage->{pick one}, Network->properties->Local Area Network->properties->TCP/IP->properties, Taskbar->properties, etc, etc. Like a normal OS.

        Good example! OS X has everything in one place, in "System Preferences"

        I run OS X mostly on my G4 (the one I'm typing this on), but still run LinixPPC on my old PowerComputing clone, updated with a 450MHz G3 card.

      • You mean like /etc?
        >>>>>>>
        Yes, UNIX is a normal OS. /etc is a fine config structure. However, if you'd care to show me a *complete* list of config files in /etc that will let me configure *any* Linux distro, I'd be damn surprised. In theory /etc is great. In practice, it works out less well in non-propriatory *NIXs, simply by virtue of the fact that Open system types are loathe to enforce standards.

        My Computer-> Manage->{pick one}, Network->properties->Local Area Network->properties->TCP/IP->properties, Taskbar->properties, etc, etc. Like a normal OS.
        >>>>>>>>>>
        Huh? The only stuff that's not configured via Control Panel (in Win2K at least) are object-specific things like the Taskbar properties. And for the sake of usability, object-specific config SHOULD be object-specific. The Windows convention is that things that you can't directly see on the screen are configured via the control panel, while everything else is configured by right-clicking on it an hitting properties. Might not be the most efficient thing concievable, but it works quite well in practice. Certainly a hell of a lot better than the mish-mash Linux has in place. For example, say I want to turn off anti-aliasing in Windows. I can just go to Control Panel -> Display -> Effects. In Linux I have to break out the Xterm, go hunt for a HOWTO on the net, then edit a xftconfig, a config file whose structure is different from every other config file on the system.

        PS> And don't point me to some nifty KDE utility that does that for me. The user has to FIND these things, remember?
  • I actually installed YDL 2.0 yesterday after having run OS X for a long while and three things struck me about how far YDL and Linux in general has come since the last time I used it.


    How fast it is. Compared to the sluggish interface of OS X, KDE is incredibly faster on the same hardware.


    How easy it was to install. The last time I used LinuxPPC I had to spend weeks of configuring until I had X, sound and a swedish keyboard layout. This time it just works!


    How far KDE has come. KDE is really impressive nowadays (2.1). I'm amazed that the linux companies hasn't dared to say yet that Linux is ready for the desktop.

    • How far KDE has come. KDE is really impressive nowadays (2.1). I'm amazed that the linux companies hasn't dared to say yet that Linux is ready for the desktop.

      I'm almost inclined to agree. KDE itself is an absolutely great desktop. For me, the only thing that I think Linux needs is a consistent way to install programs. RPM's are great, Debian files are great, but there are still quite a few unpackaged programs that are distributed as tar.gz's. When we have a packaging system which can install any of them, and remember them in the same way so that they can be easily uninstalled, and which can figure out dependicies between the different systems, I will consider Linux ready for the desktop period.

      I should like to say I am actually grateful that companies haven't said that Linux is ready for the desktop yet - by premature announcement of the fact, they leave Linux wide open to criticism for claims that it cannot (quite yet) forfill. I'd rather that things are got just right, and then big announcements made.

      Just my $0.02
  • Anyone know how Yellowdog and Debian PPC compare? Judging from the fact that Debian (I386)is far superior to RedHat, I would expect Debian for PPC to come out on top. But there are lot of differences. So someone with more info please speak up.
    • Judging from the fact that Debian (I386)is far superior to RedHat

      Huh? I am inclined to disagree. Perhaps in YOUR opinion, but don't make absolute claims that are unjustified.

      Someone mod the parent post down to flamebait.
      • Sorry. That is a matter of opinion.

        I infer your preference is Yellowdog, or at least Redhat. Do you have any thoughts on that, or are you yourself a flamebaiter?
        • I didn't mean to sound harsh... sorry. I certainly think that Debian is a fine distro; I just don't like Debian elitists always claiming that Debian is the be-all and end-all of Linux (which wasn't your intention).

          Yes, my preferred disto is Redhat. I used to like Mandrake, but the USB support in the default install of Redhat is far superior to that of Mandrake, which is why I switched. (Mandrake couldn't handle my USB switchbox that shares my keyboard and trackball between my iMac and my P3).

          YellowDog is a decent distro. I have played around with 1.2 and it worked well on my iMac (the install sucked, but I was left with a fully configured, working system). Personally, since OS X's release, I've found little use in running Linux on the iMac... OS X seems to solve all the annoyances that I had with Linux/*BSD.
          • I certainly think that Debian is a fine distro; I just don't like Debian elitists always claiming that Debian is the be-all and end-all of Linux.

            It's pretty hard not to pipe in when people who have never heard of Debian are still futzing around with rpmfind or building common software from source. It's like, "don't you realize there's a better way?"
    • I haven't installed YDL 2.0 yet but DebianPPC was a bit of a pain to install, compared to YDL 1.0 or LinuxPPC 2k. Even NetBSD on my Quadra was easier to get up and running.



      Anyone tried Suse PPC beta?

  • Wonderful Distro (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gamgee5273 ( 410326 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @11:35AM (#2218221) Journal
    I've used MkLinux, LinuxPPC and YDL on my Power Mac 6500, and YDL has given me the easiest install (even though the disc isn't bootable for Old World machines) and it flies - no problems with X, no problems updating, no problems switching back and forth fron KDE to Gnome and back. Terra Soft is proving itself to be a major thinker in the Linux world, and hopefully that will follow with some more revenue for not only YDL, but also Black Lab Linux (embedded systems) and their briQ hardware. This is a killer distro.
    • Off topic - but I've got to ask.

      Did you get YDL 2.0 to install on a 6500? I spent two days trying - then flung my hands up in frustration & switched to LinuxPPC 2000 Q4. I never found a video setting which gave me a useable screen for the install - even ultra safe gave pure garbage right after bootup. This looked to be the same problem everybody on the mailing lists with a 6500 was having. No one that I wrote to ever got a useable solution.

      Do you have a stock machine, or a non-standard video card? Or did you run YDL 1.2? Enquiring minds want to know . . .
  • Shouldn't Slashdot at least correct the spelling in the submitted messages?
    • No, because to do so is a copyright infringement w/o noting the correction was made, and what exactly was corrected.

      I don't think it's worth the hassle of having stories look like this: "I think [their]* doing a good job"

      * the homonym "there" was replaced with the grammically correct "their"

      Their, there ... you knew what he meant, right? Being dyslexic, I do that sort of thing all the time.. and the way I figure, if I got my point accross, I used the right words. =)

      OK, mod this down Off-Topic now....

      • Hey, in your example, "their" is wrong, too. It should be "they're," the contraction of "they are." No offense, and to keep this on topic: I keep wondering why Slashdot loves Yellow Dog. It's not like there (;->) aren't a lot of good distros for PPC. Doesn't SuSE work on Macs, as well? Also, LinuxPPC is not dead, THE ARTICLE MENTIONS THEY'RE DOING THE WORK ON POWER MANAGEMENT FOR THE PLATFORM. The only problem with the PPC platform in general (MacOSX & Linux) is that a lot of free software works strangely or not at all--MacOSX compounds this problem with their (;->) screwy directory structure. For instance, it took me at least three hours to find the config file for MySQL on MacOSX.
      • I don't think it's worth the hassle of having stories look like this: "I think [their]* doing a good job" * the homonym "there" was replaced with the grammically correct "their"

        Still incorrect! That should be the contraction for "they are"... "*They're* doing a good job"

  • OK, I like linux. It's not the best choice for everything, but I see this article as further proof that Linux has become an even more viable OS option for users. The way I see it, any successful piece of software needs four things: Desired functionality, Availability/Accessibility, Platform acceptance & availability, and last but not least, Usability.

    Can you guess which one Linux is still lacking in???

    We're almost there. Linux can do anything Windows can do (and mostly better). You can now buy Linux off any computer store shelf, at bookstores, online, or even download it for free. Now, as the article shows, Linux runs smoothly on dozens of different hardware platforms, and GNU software runs on dozens of OS's, including Apple's. Now, if only it were easier to configure a damn mouse!!!!

    <RANT>I propose a petition to the IETF that the surrounding tags become official identification for /. readers!</RANT>

  • Upgrading Is, Quite Literally, Impossible (Score:5, Informative)

    by waldoj ( 8229 ) <<waldo> <at> <jaquith.org>> on Sunday August 26, 2001 @11:47AM (#2218244) Homepage Journal
    A warning to all considering purchasing Yellow Dog 2.0 that already run an earlier version: it's impossible to upgrade.

    I bought v2.0 as soon as it came out a few months ago (the same as I did with v1.0), wanting to support Terra Soft by giving them some money. Not having read all of the technical notes before purchasing it, I didn't found out until I got it in the mail that there was no upgrade path from v1.2. I complained on the mailing list, which started a big battle, but solved nothing. I sent another post about a week ago, asking if I could upgrade yet. No replies.

    Poking around on their site, I can only find a single reference to the fact that upgrading is impossible. Is that in the installation guide [yellowdoglinux.com]? Nope. The engineer's notes [yellowdoglinux.com]? No sir. Perhaps just a note in their on-line store [terrasoftsolutions.com]? Unh-uh. Surely the installation FAQ [yellowdoglinux.com]? No siree Bob. No, you'd have to go to the bottom of the support page [yellowdoglinux.com] and follow the Can I upgrade my previous install of YDL to 2.0? [yellowdoglinux.com] link, which says:
    While technically feasible, we have not yet posted instructions on using 'yup!' to update a YDL 1.2 system to YDL 2.0. Please stay tuned as we work out these details.
    This would indicate to me that upgrading is possible, just not via YUP, their fantastic apt-get type updating system. That, unfortunately, is not the case. Maybe there are other notices on their site, but I'm yet to locate them.

    I was told, at the time that I initially complained, that I just didn't properly appreciate how difficult that it was to get v2.0 out, and that it's really difficult to create a distribution that can be upgraded, and why should I worry about such details anyhow? Didn't I have proper tape backup and off-site storage procedures for my home iMac? Didn't I know that I was a fool to ever upgrade a machine? All of these things are true, but they don't excuse creating a release that without notifying purchasers beforehand cannot be upgraded.

    I like Yellow Dog Linux. I use it every day. I like Terra Soft, and I've enjoyed every enounter that I've had with their staff. I think that they've created a fine distribution. It irks me that it can't be upgraded, but that's their perogative and my incentive to run Mac OS X. But their lack of notification that this problem exists makes me nuts. This review, like all others, really makes me want to run v2.0. I sure hope that I can someday, because it looks like a gem of an update.

    -Waldo

  • Big OS X reason (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lally Singh ( 3427 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @11:48AM (#2218247) Journal
    I'm a big linux fan & all, but honestly, OS X's only drawback right now is speed, and that's getting fixed up in next month's release. Run all the X apps you want (thanks to the darwin ports collection!), and all the mac apps you want, side by side. I mean, assuming 10.1 does a decent job at speed (let's say easily usable but not 1:1 with LinuxPPC), what reasons would one have to stick with linuxppc? (not trolling, honestly curious).
    • I've used Mac OS 9, Max OS X, Yellog Dog 1.2, and SuSE 7.x on my Blue and White G3. Right now OS X and OS 9 share a disc, while SuSE sits on another one. My OS of choice is SuSE. I play around with OS X from time to time, and use OS 9 for watching DVDs. Using Windowmaker [windowmaker.org] I can set up a very OS X like desktop that runs faster. I have many more apps available right out of the box under Linux than I do OS X, and they don't crash at odd times. I have upgraded my OS X to the most recent version. I think that OS X is beautiful, and nice to work in. For me it is just a toy, though, and I do all of my important work on the Linux side.


      Ok, that's all I'm going to say. My hangover makes it hurt to write.

  • i have a TiPB with 128 mb ram also, and i don't have problems putting it to sleep. as long as the pmud daemon actually loads (sometimes it doesn't ???), if you close the lid or type 'apm' in a shell, it goes to sleep.

    and he complains about using batmon to monitor the battery. batmon? jeez. try the APM module for gkrellm and get with the times. :)

    i just used my PB on a plane flight from boston to sweden, and it was great. the only problem is that it's a little _too_ big to use in those darn British Airways seats!!! the person in front of me reclined and almost snapped my display in half. :(

    as for as yellowdog goes, i agree that it's great. i can't believe that they "recommend" tthe "dekstop user" install, as it doesn't even include gcc!!! i had tot uninstall and reinstall with the developer's workstation.

    one thing that it doesn't have that i missed was linuxconf (and when i try tto compile it is is missing 'crypt'? what's that?). but i suppose that webmin does everything that linuxconf used to do.

    on the extras cd they also include Mac On Linux. now _that_ is cool. i run OS9.1 in a little window in enlightenment. if you change the screen res inside the mac OS it actually resizes the window! well, at least i thought it was cool. the only problem is that when you wantt to change (or insert) CDs, you have to reboot the macos.

    before yellowdog i had been using OSX, and i was SO tired of using buggy apps and a piss slow GUI that i was incredibly relieved when my x server startted for the first time.

    all you mac users out there, give it a try. good job yellowdog!

    muerte

  • On x86, I prefer to run Debian. I'm considering getting a new Titanium G4 Powerbook, and I'd like to dual-boot OSX and a Linux distro. Has anyone tried Debian/PPC on the new Powerbook? I'd be very interested to hear your comments (positive or negative).

    • Re:Debian for PPC? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 )
      I use Debian PPC on the TiBook, as do many people on the debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org mailing list. I installed 2.2r2 and upgraded using apt to the latest unstable release. I then replaced the kernel with Ben H's 2.4.8-benh kernel, which includes support for sleeping and some other useful bits. I don't have any problems at all, other than Linux using the battery a bit faster than MacOS 9 does.
  • YDL 2.0 is all very interesting, but what about Terrasoft's briQ machines - no that's something special. Apple should invest some money in this company and help them make a success of the briQ - that's gotta be a superior product right there.
    • The briQs are too expensive! Their 500 MHz G4 machine is almost $2,000!

      For $1,690 you can get a 733 MHz G4 with 4 PCI slots (the briQ has one slot that doesn't even come as PCI) and three RAM slots. The BriQ has 2. Plus the 4X AGP slot with a nVidia card. And the CD-RW drive, keyboard, mouse, etc.

      Other then the color, cosling more and having less features, the briQ and the G4 has more or less the same spcs.

    • errr...sorry, but Terrasoft is only a reseller of the briQ's. other than selling them, and giving them the stylish Yellow Dog look, they don't have much to do with the briQ. if Apple, for whatever reason, decided to invest in a company that competes with them not only on the OS front, but also on the hardware side(the honeypot)...I would hope that they would invest in the actual OEM, rather than one of their retail channels.


      Total Impact [totalimpact.com] is the OEM, BTW.


      Terra Soft Partners page [terrasoftsolutions.com]

  • Look ma (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Another OS on a mac you can't watch dvd's or burn cd-rom's with. You can triple boot now and not watch dvd's in whatever partition you want!
    • Hmmm, curious. I'm running OS 9, OS X and SuSE PPC Linux on my iBook. I can't run DVD's in OS X (yet) nor Linux, but DVD playback in OS 9 works just fine. Please do a little bit of research before making kneejerk cracks like this.
  • Yuo would think after three yeras that Taco wuld learn to spel and how to put togeher a complete sentence it is really pathetic and das.
  • I just helped a freind of mine (Mac user scince age 3)
    setup YDL 2.0, things worked out pretty nice. I was impressed
    Best thing there is... until Slackware makes a PPC version :-)
    • >>Best thing there is... until Slackware makes a PPC version :-)

      yes, that would be a great option....but, considering the SPARC port isn't finished and there isn't even a slackware-current/ right now, I won't be holding my breath.

      YDL is a bit too Red Hat for my tastes...the company would do well to do more than a simple fork, like Mandrake has...even though it's still to Red Hat, for my tastes.
  • Does anyone have any experience with Mandrake's PPC distribution? I'm curious to hear how it compares with Yellow Dog.
  • First there is no support for danish layout for the iMac keyboard. This is a very anoyng factor. I have to swich between danish and ud layout to get all the letters.

    Second: Some programs are not speed optimised for ppc, wich means that some programs are unusable even though they function under ppc-linux.

    And then this distro is RPM based: this isn't all bad except it would really be a great system if the packaging system wouldn't be changed constantly.
  • OK so you take a terrific machine (Ti PB) and a terrific operating system (OS X) and you toss out the OS and put Linux on it? Why??? OS X is a posix system that runs much of the same software as Linux does, plus it has a GUI that, unlike Gnome and KDE, is extremely well designed and doesn't look like Windows. I can think of no decent reason to replace something as incredible as OS X with something as rum-dum as Linux on a machine like this. Doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Not in the least bit practical. One common argument for Linux on Wintel hardware is that Wintel hardware is cheaper. Thus I can see the modivation. But to replace OS X with Linux on expensive Apple hardware defies logic completely. Linux has it's place. But not on a Ti PB. Sorry.
    • Not sure how that got modded up to my viewing level, as it's trolling. OSX is not terrific, it's got many limitations, the ti book is not terrific it has flaws. I just wiped osx off my G4 tower and replaced it with Debian, why you ask, because it's a better desktop OS. More office apps, graphics editing via gimp, eterm, etc.
      OSX still has problems with itself and doesn't run much other software. I spent my last few months with OSX using Fink and installing Xwindows to use on top of osx, finally I decided that was ridiculous and just tossed it. OSX is technically good, etc.

      Personally I found the Ti book slightly unweildy, horribly hot to use and non-ergonomic.

      But hey these are just my opinions. I would imagine that before flaming this guy you at least use both these items, but I'm willing to guess you haven't.
      • Not sure how that got modded up to my viewing level, as it's trolling.

        I assure you, I don't troll. Honest opinions only. I submit that it got modded up because there's plenty of folks who can see through the B.S., that's all. Good to know they're lurking. They should post more though.

        I just wiped osx off my G4 tower and replaced it with Debian

        Power Mac G4's start at $1699.00 For that sum of money you could've bought a LOT of Wintel hardware to run your Debian system on!! See my point? Of you think OS X sucks (even though your reasoning may or may not be flawed) then, by god, don't run out and buy Apple hardware!! Get more bang for your buck and buy Wintel!

        I spent my last few months with OSX using Fink and installing Xwindows to use on top of osx

        Sounds like a phenomenal waste of time to me. Wow. Do you work for a living? I wish I had time like that to tinker. But I have real programming projects to attend to. Even Slashdot is a luxury. My suspicion is that the folks who do this kind of nonsense (installing Linux on Ti PB's, for example) are not doing it for practical real world benefit. They do it only because it is possible. And, perhaps it is fun and entertaining. Practical? Of course not. Cost effective? No.
    • 1) Mach 3.0
      2) Mach 3.0
      3) Mach 3.0
      4) HFS+: read my other post on why this minor update to the 20 year old HFS isn't very good at all.
      5) Aqua: Sure its pretty. Sure its powerful. But it makes X seem snappy!
      6) FreeBSD 3.2: Its a nice system, but all of the cool stuff is being done in the 4.0/5.0 branch. VM, SMP, security, etc.
      7) Environment: OS-X is a mish-mash of OS9 programs running in a (large) compatibility layer, poor Wintel ports (IE 5), and a dearth of Carbonized apps. Meanwhile, Linux seems positively unified: running a KDE program in GNOME doesn't incur nearly as much of a system drain as running an OS9 program in OS-X. Plus, Linux is pure preemptive 32-bit apps all the way through, while many important OS-X apps still run in the cooperative kinda 32bit OS9 environment.

      PS> If I seem down on Mach 3.0 that's because that kernel single handedly have microkernels a bad name...
      • HFS gives me the heebie jeebies. It has it's roots in the days of 20MB hard disks and floppies; back in my Mac days it was a constant source of revenue for me and headaches for my customers. It's comparable, I guess, to FAT in reliability -- which is to say it works fine unless anything unexpected happens to your system ever. It's nothing like ext2, which, while not bulletproof, tends to be OK even when it needs to be fsck'd, and of course it's light years behind the journalled fs that are becoming available on linux.

        For this reason, I would not use OS X to host any kind of server, unless I could get my data onto a better filesystem. Has anybody heard anything about using other filesystems with OS X? There must be kernel support for something better. Would this somehow screw up the higher levels of OS X that sit on top of darwin?

    • First off, Gnome and KDE don't look like windows, second Gnome and KDE aren't your only options.

      The biggest point is probably that Linux is faster, and it doesn't cost anything. Meaning, you can download it, and practically everything made for it is free. OSX costs $129 (which isn't bad compared to windows, but it's still high)
  • I was also at the MacWorld Expo in NYC at the Jacob Javits Center, and personally being a PC guy who got dragged to the convetion by a few Mac friends (under promise of lots of free stuff) I ended up hanging out at the Terra Soft Tent/Booth. Needless to say I was extreamly impressed. Not only was the distrubution great, but they had a G4 450mhz machine with a RAM, hard drive, intergrated 10/100 mbit network card running YDL 2.0 in about the space of a standard CD-ROM Drive. This machine is accually designed to fit in a 5.25" bay. Curent Prices range from $1600 & up. It was perfect for all the little web hosting and NFS stuff I wanted to do but I didn't have the room devote the space to an entire machine. I've got one sititng under my desk, right next to my HUB and DSL Router. These guys are more then just another distro of Linux.
  • It's interesting to hear all the rumor and speculation about the forthcoming Mac OS 10.1. After looking at the developer builds of 10.1, it seems clear that the only choice for a high-performance graphical environment on the Mac will be Linux.

    Even 10.1 has hardly any 2D graphics acceleration. Launch times are faster but the GUI is still slow slow slow.

    As soon as there's a good NVIDIA driver for PowerPC Linux, I'll be switching.
    • I can hold my breath for two minutes. Even OS X isn't that slow!
  • Does anyone know when nubus is going to be supported in a normal distrobution? I'm pretty sure nubus support is in kernel version 2.4.4 native (not mklinux).


    I've got a 6100/60 with a 210 mhz G3 inside that I'd like to run linux on some day :).

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Close