Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||||
Yellow Dog Linux sticks with PowerPC
Yellow Dog Linux Enthusiasts,
I apologize for the delay in responding to the news concerning Apple's switch
to Intel. I am in Barcelona, Spain for the IBM power.org conference, and was
just settling into my hotel when I received calls from my associates back
home. I have required a few hours to review email and websites before
offering this brief communication.
Three main points:
1) We remain a Linux development company with 100% focus on the Power
Architecture (IBM, Freescale). We will not transition to support an x86/ia64
architecture.
2) Terra Soft remains in good standing with Apple. Their announcement does not
immediately affect our ability to sell nor support Apple PowerPC hardware.
Nor does it affect our ability to support non-Apple Power Architecture
offerings. Things are already in motion to enable a world of greater Power
Architecture diversity.
3) Based upon feeback to today's news, we expect Y-HPC to gain an even greater
userbase with existing Apple Xserve users. Y-HPC offers a Linux OS to help
bridge x86/ia64 and PowerPC clusters, reducing effort in code migration and
administration.
--------------------
I and my team appreciate the email we received today. I ask only that you
grant us the time to work with our industry associates both here at the
conference and in the States before responding in full.
Thank you for your patience and support.
Sincerely,
Kai Staats, CEO
Terra Soft Solutions, Inc.
_______________________________________________
media-relations mailing list
media-relations@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com
http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/medi...
(Log in to post comments)
If you build it... Posted Jun 7, 2005 2:19 UTC (Tue) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] ...the XboX360 will come? (-:A grunty PPC platform looking forward to having for half the cost of a Mac Mini am I. Providing it, Apple will be not thinking am I. Apple are their own worst enemies. Not only is this an essentially pointless change, they would have been better off with AMD if they wanted to go x86.
If you build it... Posted Jun 7, 2005 2:58 UTC (Tue) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] Apple are their own worst enemies. Not only is this an essentially pointless change, they would have been better off with AMD if they wanted to go x86.I admit being a bit behind on reading up fully on the Apple >> x86 move but it seems silly to limit themselves to Intel's hardware alone. AMD seems to have slightly better chips at the moment and I would wager they would be more cost effective. It just seems silly to take one vendor alone when you could swap between them. Who knows... maybe Intel made a very competitive offer.
If you build it... Posted Jun 7, 2005 3:02 UTC (Tue) by mark (guest, #1921) [Link] For once quite wrong Leon you are I think.
The transition to x86 will be painful, but - with unaffected products (iPod) providing 50% of their
This is definitely not a pointless change. x86 is now faster, thermally cooler, and has a better
So if you're going to announce a huge change like this - and for long-time Apple users this is
And finally, I for one won't be running any of my customer's businesses on an XBox 360.
Cheers
* I don't imagine anyone expects the iPod to dominate forever. Even if Apple maintains 76%
The older XboXes have been quite reliable... Posted Jun 7, 2005 7:16 UTC (Tue) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] ...what with only two constantly-moving parts (a big fan and the hard drive). Pending confirmation of enough resources, I'd expect the XboX-360 to be similar. Linux on PPC is still unusual enough to help it dodge the majority of security bullets, as well.However, with laptops occasionally retailing for less than AUD$800 (which of course includes a screen, touchpad, keyboard, and built-in brownout protection), the value-for-money proposition is looking less and less attractive. Even as a server, a laptop has the added attraction of being self-contained (mine fits easily into a 1RU gap, as would one of the cheap Acers being retailed) and low-power.
The older XboXes have been quite reliable... Posted Jun 9, 2005 14:40 UTC (Thu) by mchristensen (guest, #4955) [Link] But the MBTF for laptop hard drives is not good, especially when they are run constantly, which makes them less than ideal for most server configurations.
However, if you keep up-to date backups and can handle regular (say anual) bare metal restores this this may not be a problem for you.
If you build it... Posted Jun 7, 2005 3:36 UTC (Tue) by yokem_55 (guest, #10498) [Link] Who says that Apple can't use AMD chips later on? I think that AMD'spresence in the x86 market is a big factor for Apple moving to x86 period. If ever Intel's current line of chips don't cut Apple's mustard, there is perfectly viable and independent alternative available to turn to without having to do another architecture shift.
If you build it... Posted Jun 8, 2005 22:51 UTC (Wed) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] The Xbox360, just like the Playstation 3, can hardly be described as a "PPC platform". It is explicitly designed not to run programs where the license fee to Microsoft (or Sony) hasn't been paid. Even if the DRM can be circumvented, the platform is of hacking interest only and not something anyone could use for generic computing tasks.
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 7, 2005 4:32 UTC (Tue) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] Linux on the PlayStation 3, anyone?
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 7, 2005 8:18 UTC (Tue) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link] About Linux on the cell... it has already been demoed to a very selected audience. A public talk on it will be held soon. So, in the end, it seems doable if/when the inevitable DRM on the BIOS boot loader will be circumvented. Or probably Sony will release an appropriate Linux kit (like for the PS2 IIRC).
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 7, 2005 17:00 UTC (Tue) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] While I understand Apple's decision from their business perspective (they're now a company that focus's on ipods and similar stuff with a small sideline in alternative computer systems) - customers don't care what's in the box, just what the box looks like.
Anyway, it's put me off buying Apple hardware. I only own a Powerbook to run Linux and now that they have stated that they want to produce cheap white box trash, I'm not so inclined to want to buy it. I will probably buy another Powerbook (and conntribute to a very small rise in sales) at around the time that they stop making PowerPC laptops and switch to that Intel crap.
Oh well. Any good laptop makers left now? (don't say Sony anyone).
Jon.
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 7, 2005 17:06 UTC (Tue) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] Jon Masters spake thusly:
> Oh well. Any good laptop makers left now?
It's not worth considering Tadpole so much these days either (I own a SPARCbook 1 laptop) because they seem desperate to pander to Intel too with their latest line of low-end kit.
Jon.
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 7, 2005 18:17 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] > Any good laptop makers left now? (don't say Sony anyone).Quanta and Asus.
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 7, 2005 21:01 UTC (Tue) by HoserHead (subscriber, #828) [Link] > I only own a Powerbook to run Linux and now that they have stated that they want to produce cheap white box trash
Whoa! What makes you think they want to produce cheap white box trash? If Apple switched the Motorola PowerPC currently in your laptop with an Intel, and switched all your software transparently, *would you notice*? An Apple is an Apple, regardless of the processor at its heart.
Lower power consumption Posted Jun 7, 2005 22:49 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Of course I would notice. For one, the fans would start spinning (on iBooks that's almost as rare as a solar eclipse) and drive you mad. Then, the thing would get hotter and hotter, up to the point where it stops being a *laptop*. Finally, your battery would last about half the time -- all for a marginal gain in speed. Suspend and sleep would probably stop working too, although that can be solved given some time.The performance gain would completely be offset in Mac OS X by the emulation layer whenever I had to use a legacy application compiled for PowerPC. It's true that when running e.g. Debian the only noticeable effect for software would be less problems, partly because of stronger vendor support in i386 than in PowerPC and partly due to a bigger number of hackers.
Lower power consumption Posted Jun 7, 2005 23:01 UTC (Tue) by HoserHead (subscriber, #828) [Link] I've got an iBook too.
I think you wildly underestimate a) Apple's commitment to the full experience - there's no way they're going to drop a processor into a laptop that'll make it behave as bad Windows laptops do - and b) Intel's quality. Apple isn't going to put desktop CPUs into their laptops, they'll put the Pentium M, which from all accounts is a pretty damned good chip, and getting better all the time.
Yes, the PowerPC emulation will mean a hit in performance, but if, as you say, you run mainly Linux, it won't matter: Debian is native on x86 and PowerPC.
Basically, I can't fathom how people think the prescence of an Intel chip will mean Apple suddenly forgets everything they've dedicated the business to the past 20 years.
Lower power consumption Posted Jun 8, 2005 0:06 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Intel have publicly said that the move to 65 nm will solve all of their current leakage problems (which, by the way, are similar to those that have plagued IBM in the G5 at their current 90 nm process). Jobs has said that Intel chips will be better in a year: as reported by The Register, that"By mid-2006, Intel will have about five times the performance per watt of IBM".So all we have are promises and roadmaps, and not very credible ones. But if Intel comes up with a Pentium M that runs as cool as a G4 and with twice the power, then of course it will be welcome. Then again, with a variety of suppliers, who cares about Apple. Basically, I can't fathom how people think the prescence of an Intel chip will mean Apple suddenly forgets everything they've dedicated the business to the past 20 years.Many people think that Apple's biggest asset is their operating system. But since I switched to GNU/Linux, I think it's a liability. What I like is their hardware, and it's getting better all the time: I love my mac mini. If Apple gets to do an Intel-inside mac mini, then more power to them. It's only that their new friend Intel may still beat them to it.
Lower power consumption Posted Jun 9, 2005 3:06 UTC (Thu) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] man_ls, my fellow Linux on Mac brother. I whole-heartedly agree that Mac *hardware* is what's relevant. I do feel that PPC or not, if Apple can show the same care with x86/x86-64 hardware that they show PPC you and I have nothing to worry about.A little off-topic, I can't see any reason Mac on x86 could hurt Linux. We run on PPC and we run on x86. One less platform that another OS doesn't run on matters none to us, except possibly in terms of cheap hardware availability. The only casualty I can see would be consumer-targetted PPC. I bought a Mac Mini *only* to run Linux. My first night of having the thing I put Debian on it. I think people need to realize Apple is more than OSX.
Lower power consumption Posted Jun 9, 2005 13:32 UTC (Thu) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] I've decided I will eventually get a Mac Mini to replace my desktop, but only because it is a PowerPC system. I have no interest in buying a cheap Apple x86 box when there are a million other ones on the market.
If anything, this will benefit Linux users because they'll be less tempted to run OS X on Apple kit as a consequence of this announcement. Overall, I expect it will increase sales and be beneficial to the company - but they'll lose a few percent of customers who used to be die hard fans.
That said, deep down, I somehow want this to fail and for Steve to exit stage left again - it won't happen, but it's just so hard to understand how he can get away with such a radical change yet again.
Jon.
Lower power consumption Posted Jun 9, 2005 13:50 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] A little off-topic, I can't see any reason Mac on x86 could hurt Linux.Probably the most on-topic comment in the whole thread :) I would say you are right, for Linux as an operating system. Some distribution may suffer (like YDL), but Linux can take on Mac OS X at any time. Still, it's a pity that we move a step closer to processor monoculture. In the end, the worst architecture wins all; right when the underlying processor is becoming more and more irrelevant thanks to free software. Indirectly, this hurts Linux.
Pentium M does well... Posted Jun 8, 2005 0:54 UTC (Wed) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] ...mostly 'coz it's a P3 at heart, not a P4.However, AMD are dancing some pretty fancy steps these days as well. Besides, if Apple built some of their boxes with AMDs, particularly multi-CPU servers since HyperTransport makes that so easy, it would help to keep Intel in line.
Pentium M does well... Posted Jun 8, 2005 3:52 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Absolutely. In fact, according to Tom's hardware, P4 is one of the most power hungry monstrosities ever created. Especially when you "step on it". So, this "5 times more performance per watt than PPC" thing surely must be some new thing, not P4.
The only advantage P4 has over other chips is marketing. Your average mums and dads are more likely to buy something that is "3 GHz" than something that's _only_ "2 GHz". That's why Intel crippled the chip in order to achieve high clock rates.
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 7, 2005 23:34 UTC (Tue) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] On Jun 7, 2005 21:01 UTC (Tue) HoserHead spaketh thusly:
>> I only own a Powerbook to run Linux and now that they have stated that they want to produce cheap white box trash
> Whoa! What makes you think they want to produce cheap white box trash?
They've decided to switch to using Pentium 4s - aka "processors for whitebox PCs" - I dislike the whole Netburst (and later) architecture and don't want a laptop based on a regular Pentium. Maybe if Intel were making something different, I'd understand, but as it is, Apple want to be a Dell.
> If Apple switched the Motorola PowerPC currently in your laptop with an
Yup. I bought a Powerbook to do a microkernel project before I graudated from college. I specifically want PowerPC and I spend large amounts of time hacking on ppc assembly, so really it's more useful to me to have my Debian running Apple Powerbook than a cheap whitebox POS. I reserve the right to be proven wrong by Apple not doing a Sony, but we'll see.
> An Apple is an Apple, regardless of the processor at its heart.
Not in my (Power)book.
Jon.
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 8, 2005 22:46 UTC (Wed) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] Good laptop makers? IBM, which has stated that the Thinkpad line of products will continue under Lenovo. We can just hope that they continue to stick to good quality.
I had the opportuniy recently to choose between IBM X40 and Apple Powerbook and because the wifi chip on the Apple was unsupported in Linux the IBM was chosen. So far the experience has been very good with perfect Linux support.
There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. Posted Jun 8, 2005 23:12 UTC (Wed) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] My issue is more of not wanting an Intel (and by that I mean x86 for all intents and purposes) processor in my laptop - where do I go for a non-Intel laptop in future? There's Tadpole (which I've seriously considered - though I'm not so happy to hand over so much for their current line of kit) but - as we have established in this thread - there are few good alternatives left.
The hope is that Intel have something good up their sleve - like a superPowerPC (and Steve was just having a laugh or was replaced by aliens for his keynote - about as likely as one of us successfully mail ordering Bush some tasty after dinner pretzels to choke on) - but I have a nasty feeling that the cold face of reality is that Apple are going to use plain old (badly designed) x86.
I genuinely think that PowerPC is a better fundamental design. It's clean (64bit clean but also just plain clean as a design), the assembly is easy to learn in a day (and it actually makes some sense compared to Intel's) and it was clearly designed with scalability in mind from the get go.
Jon.
Yellow Dog Linux sticks with PowerPC Posted Jun 7, 2005 6:17 UTC (Tue) by chbarts (guest, #28896) [Link] Perhaps I'm being dense, but did anyone expect Yellow Dog to ever move away from PPC? Its whole thing is to provide Linux on the PPC architecture, as opposed to the great masses of x86-centric distros in the world and their ports to every other architecture under the sun. Yellow Dog is what you run when you get sick of MacOS and want to keep using the (admittedly well-built) hardware. Of course, it won't be that way for long. The world, she is changing.
I'd stick with Debian Posted Jun 7, 2005 6:45 UTC (Tue) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] Debian runs on x86, PPC, and a bunch of other stuff. For that matter, Ubuntu exists for x86 and PPC... I've never really understood the appeal of a one-off distribution that's limited to one architecture. All my Debian installations are virtually the same, modulo a few boot loader and kernel details. That means that I know exactly how things work, where they are, and so on, without having to deal with different distributions for different hardware.
I'd stick with Debian Posted Jun 7, 2005 8:29 UTC (Tue) by micampe (guest, #4384) [Link]
Same for Red Hat and Fedora, on which YDL is and has always been based, so the appeal is the same for you and for people that don't know Debian. You can s/Debian/Fedora/g in your whole post and still get something meaningful with the exact same sense.
I'd stick with Debian Posted Jun 7, 2005 11:46 UTC (Tue) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] Well, seems readers never really compared YellowDog with other distros. And never tried Apple's hardware.
Beaty (or bogosity) of Apple's hardware in its limited number of configurations. Fedora, Debian, Ununtu all have the inherited hardware configuration mess from ix86. Apple's hardware do not - I repeat do not - need all those mess.
You can easily read model number from OpenFirmware and tell precisely what kind of hardware you have.
YellowDog - just as Mac OS itself - does not need any configuration. I repeat again: does not need any configuration. Because it is static. I think only top of the line PowerMacs do have additional PCI/PCI-X slots and video card is replaceable too. But again: Apple sells only nVidia & ATI. But as much variety goes - that's it.
Compare to e.g. Dell. My company have had shipment of 6 Dells: 3 different hard drives models were found inside (one model had repeatedly failed, so complete shipment was inspected - that's why I know details), two different kinds of motherboards, 3 different kind of Pentium IV fans. The same shipment! My colleage Dell is louder than my loudspeakers - mine is completely quiet. Go figure.
Gosh, Apple is so nicely predictable. Thou slow. But it has this primitive beauty: it just works.
Fedora's support for PPC is something new - I haven't heard about it before. I know that later RHLs (8 & 9) dropped PPC support. Didn't tried Ubuntu. Debian as of 2.2/3.0 shipped outdated XFree which had huge problems recognizing my video card - I have had problems even with frame buffer initialization. Going to try 3.1 soon ;-)))
I'd stick with Debian Posted Jun 9, 2005 23:06 UTC (Thu) by cdmiller (subscriber, #2813) [Link] "All my Debian installations are virtually the same, modulo a few boot loader and kernel details."
Heh, till you move that berkeley db from one to the other and find your endians out of order...
IBM releasing a PowerPC laptop soon? Posted Jun 7, 2005 17:03 UTC (Tue) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] My suspicion is that IBM (or someone) are looking at releasing a Linux based PowerPC laptop in the near to medium term. IBM have already committed huge resources to developing Linux on POWER and with their recent decision to sell off their PC line and focus on their higher end kit, now would be a good time to come forth with an offering.
Jon.
IBM releasing a PowerPC laptop soon? Posted Jun 7, 2005 18:21 UTC (Tue) by Zenith (subscriber, #24899) [Link] Most likely not IBM themselves, surely, as they have just handed off their PC business to Lenovo?
IBM releasing a PowerPC laptop soon? Posted Jun 7, 2005 20:52 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] IBM tried PowerPC laptops in 1995-1997, before their Linux plunge.
IBM releasing a PowerPC laptop soon? Posted Jun 7, 2005 23:42 UTC (Tue) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] Don writes:
> IBM tried PowerPC laptops in 1995-1997, before their Linux plunge.
They didn't hire a load of Power/PowerPC hackers over the last 18 months for no reason. Whether they will actually decide to take the plunge remains to be seen but with Apple out of the way, it might create an opportunity. In any case, this unfortunate state of affairs will now end the AIM alliance[0].
I'm just venting steam. I got serious annoyed with Apple yesterday (although their decision makes great business sense) and am trying to calm down. It's difficult though, since as a die-hard Apple hardware fan, I'm now having to seriously consider what options I'll have left :-)
Jon.
[0] The work down on PowerPC between the three companies at Summerset house - take a look at archive.org for some great video footage. This was around the 1995 timeframe back when even Microsoft were working on a Windows NT port to PowerPC (which they ultimately dropped after the only good NT died - 3.51), although the PowerPC IEEE1275 binding was specially modifed for Microsoft's NT (allowing for 2/2GB split). Proving even at that stage that they weren't happy to just go along with a standard.
IBM releasing a PowerPC laptop soon? Posted Jun 7, 2005 22:51 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I think IBM kept the PowerPC business; but the possibility would depend on the small details of their agreement.
Yes, please! Posted Jun 8, 2005 1:01 UTC (Wed) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] I'd also like to see a stackable laptop. As thin and light as possible for day-to-day stuff, then strap on another centimetre or two of thickness for an extra CPU and much bigger batteries (and maybe an extra hard drive) when you either want the extra horsepower ("laptop conkers") or are going on a long trip.
Please explain Posted Jun 7, 2005 22:42 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] YDL notwithstanding, how is Apple going to explain this to their customers:
http://www.apple.com/imac/processor.html
Have they been telling fibs before or after the switch to Intel?
Please explain Posted Jun 8, 2005 23:17 UTC (Wed) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] > YDL notwithstanding, how is Apple going to explain this to their> customers:
> http://www.apple.com/imac/processor.html
Lots of handwaving and gesturing.
> Have they been telling fibs before or after the switch to Intel?
That's the wonderful thing about statistics, they're 99% guaranteed to say whatever you want them to say[0].
Jon.
[0] According to a specially selected survey of respondants, drawn from a pool of 1 potential candidates! Not a guarantee. Statistics may go down as well us up, your home my be at risk if you fail to keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured upon it. 99% of statisticians can't be wrong. If you're still reading this, please consult a doctor.
|
|||||||||||||