Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple) Software Linux Hardware

Yellow Dog Linux Finds New PPC Hardware Vendor 196

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the less-corporate-means-better-performance? dept.
inditek writes "C|Net's News.com reports that Terrasoft Solutions, the vendor that sells and contributes to the development of Yellow Dog Linux has found, and continues to look for, some hardware alternatives based around the PowerPC now that Apple is moving to Intel chips. They say Apple's move makes for a good opportunity and more open space for a chip they think has a lot of life left in it." team99parody also writes "This is great news for customers like the US Navy who rely on Linux-on-PowerPC for important tasks like sonar imaging systems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yellow Dog Linux Finds New PPC Hardware Vendor More

Yellow Dog Linux Finds New PPC Hardware Vendor

Comments Filter:

  • pegasos (Score:4, Informative)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:14AM (#13386456) Journal
    Pegasos [pegasosppc.com] sells non macintosh, linux-based PPC machines. At least, they would if they weren't currently out of stock.

    • Re:pegasos (Score:3, Interesting)

      by erikharrison ( 633719 )
      Out of stock is a pretty serious issue.

      Besides, legend (okay, Theo De Radt) has it that the firmware is really awful

      Terra Soft would probably be best to team up with another minority vendor, like those produce the Amiga One

      • Re:pegasos (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Besides, legend (okay, Theo De Radt)

        Theo might be abrassive and exhibit some pretty anti-social behaviour at times, going overboard with exagerated responses. But he gets some very cool shit done. Love the guy or hate him, the good stuff he does is really good. They have just found a bug in X source which is 10 years old, because of their proactive stance and active mechanisms.

        They are embarking on a new memory model change which will spotlight even more bugs in their own software and the software of other
        • For what it's worth, I like what Theo is doing, and has done, which is why I mentioned his comment about Pegasos firmware as being likely legitimite

    • Re:pegasos (Score:3, Interesting)

      by anothy ( 83176 )
      there are also some pretty serious questions around Genesi as a company. business practice sorts of questions. i know several people who've tried to order hardware from them and come away thinking the whole thing is basically a scam. at the very least, they bill themselves for much more than they are (although that's true of many companies).

  • Continuing PPC Support (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:15AM (#13386465) Homepage Journal
    It should be interesting to see the effect on Yellow Dog post-x86 macintosh, to see how the PPC Linux platform can compete on its own merits. Of course the comparison will be affected by the existing base of PPC hardware and the potential of stalled development given reduced demand for the platform. IBM have been using PPC in their own products, and its possible that their own demand will continue to drive desktop PPC chip development at the same pace as current.

    • Re:Continuing PPC Support (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PDXNerd ( 654900 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:23AM (#13386503)
      It should be relatively easy to predict - this is a niche market. Always has been, even when Macintosh was PPC. Now that the major marketer for these chips is gone, the remaining market will still be what it was - a niche segment. Add into that the relatively low market share of Linux and I think we are all literate enough to read the writing on the wall.

      AMD/Intel are too cheap, too powerful, and too prevelant.

      • Re:Continuing PPC Support (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Krach42 ( 227798 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:40AM (#13386608) Homepage Journal
        The thing was actually, that Apple was even a niche market within that niche market.

        This is why Apple couldn't pull any leverage against IBM or Motorola or FreeScale to actually make the chips that they wanted.

        Even Apple wasn't that big a market share in the PowerPC world. In fact, there are more PowerPCs out there than there are x86 chips. "Where are they?" you ask? They're in things like your car, and other embedded devices.

        It's like ARM. You just don't realize how pervasive they already are, because the only CPUs you usually ever hear about are desktops.
        • I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt your claim that there are more PowerPC's than x86 chips. x86 has been around since the 8086 days.

          Do you have any proof to back up this claim?

          • Re:Continuing PPC Support (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Krach42 ( 227798 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @01:24AM (#13386763) Homepage Journal
            It's like the fact that more Ikea catalogs get printed every year than Bibles.

            It's damned strange to hear, and you wouldn't believe it, but if you actually bother to do the math, and look at where the things are going, you find out that it's got some darn good proof.

            As for real proof. No, I don't have any concrete proof, but I do know that IBM is the largest chip manufacturer in the world, and a large part of their production is PowerPC. Just like I said, they go into cars and other vehicles, not desktop computers.

            Still, even were there less PowerPCs than x86 chips, the point still stands that Apple was not the major consumer of PowerPC chips... just the most notable to date.
            • Let's not forget consoles. At the very least the GameCube can account for a few million PowerPC chips, and since both the XBOX360 and the Playstation 3 feature PowerPC-based chips, that will put a few hundred million more PowerPC chips into the world.

              It depends how you define PowerPC chip though. Both the 360's processor and the PS3's Cell processor use the PowerPC instruction set, but probably don't have "PowerPC" in the model number. I'd say they count, though, just like you would count x86 processors bas

            • Re:Continuing PPC Support (Score:2, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward
              I couldn't find solid numbers.

              But I went hunting for the types of systems that Power chips are being used in.

              From http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/po /powerpc2.htm [absoluteastronomy.com]

              "Design win summaryPowerPC processors are used in many products, among which are the following: Apple Macintosh post-68k models (called PowerMacs), IBM RS/6000 UNIX workstations, Cisco routers, Pegasos (a Commodore Amiga spin off), Amiga acceleration boards, the Nintendo GameCube video game console, and many embedded systems such as

            • The number I read (Score:2, Informative)

              by brokeninside ( 34168 )
              When the rumor mill first started going about the recent change to x86, I read somewhere that Apple's orders for PPC chips amounted to 5% of the annual capacity for 1 of IBM's PPC factories.
            • Bibles last longer than Ikea catalogs.
            • I believe that TIVOs also use PowerPC processors, e.g. IBM PowerPC 403GCX (see http://www.9thtee.com/insidetivo.htm [9thtee.com] or the picture of the chip at that same page. It also uses an IBM MPEG-2 Decoder chip.
          • I've got no proof to backup the previous poster (taken at face value I'd disagree with it), but if I could modify the argument to say that there are far more risc based (which PowerPC is - a lot of people think the two are interchangable) chips out there than traditional cisc chips (which x86 is - well, vanilla x86 is) then I'd say w/o a doubt that is true.

            There are a metric ass-load of risc chips out there - in cars, buses, airplanes, fancy refrigerators, satellites, CNC routers/mills, PDAs, etc etc etc.

          • Re:Continuing PPC Support (Score:4, Informative)

            by confused one ( 671304 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @03:17PM (#13391714)
            for every one desktop PC made, there are over 10 embedded processors sold. PowerPC (whether it be IBM or Freescale) is a major player in embedded hardware. x86 just doesn't see that much use in embedded applications.

            The company I work for builds instrumentation -- we use PIC or ARM for the low end; and, PowerPC for the high end. It's anecdotal, but representative...

        • It doesn't help much if you want to build a high-end desktop/server/notebook computer. Are you going to use automotive chips in it? Apple's move at least means the 970 and 74xx will get more expensive. The XBox CPU seems to be an exclusive deal, and nobody knows yet how Cell will actually perform for general computing tasks, nor if it will be SMP-able.

      • Re:Continuing PPC Support (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Amiga Trombone ( 592952 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:57AM (#13386671)
        It should be relatively easy to predict - this is a niche market. Always has been, even when Macintosh was PPC. Now that the major marketer for these chips is gone, the remaining market will still be what it was - a niche segment. Add into that the relatively low market share of Linux and I think we are all literate enough to read the writing on the wall.

        You probably have a point there. While Power and PowerPC derivatives will certainly continue to be used in servers and embedded applications, you have to wonder how much R&D IBM will be willing to put into implementations suitable for desktops and notebooks. Even Apple didn't command enough of a market share to make the expense cost-effective for IBM. Somehow I doubt we're going to be seeing any exciting new PPC chips targeted at the consumer PC market.

        Which is a shame, really. It's a great chip.
        • So use some of the ones targeted at the embedded market. The G3-series was a very nice chip, especially in terms of performance per watt - and per dollar. For most uses a 1GHz G3 is more than fast enough.

          Yesterday, Intel announced XScales at 1GHz due for introduction in Q4 and demoed one running at 1.25GHz. I think the line between embedded and consumer in terms of power is blurring. There are a few things I do that I couldn't on a 1.25GHz XScale (or 1GHz G3) system with 4GB of Flash instead of a har

      • Apple is still a PPC vendor and will be for some time.. Don't expect IntelMac to roll out on jan 06 and wipe out the G5...

        I actually think that linux on PPC G5/IBMPower5 will become a more important player in the high end market. Customers will appreciate the amazing technology and thanks to IBM's continued support to OpenSource they will actually be able to benefit rapidly.

        Whether YDL will be at the forefront of this is of course a different matter altogether. In the high end PPC segment I expect RedHat to
      • "AMD/Intel are too cheap, too powerful, and too prevelant."

        You have data to support this? Everything I have heard was that IBM was considerably cheaper than Intel (don't know about AMD) due to the smaller die size for the PPC chips.

        Apple is not your typical razor-thin margins PC manufacturer, and could easily dial up the pricing in concert with a dose of hype to handle a hundred-dollar-per-Mac (or something like that) bump in cpu costs. Please take note: We Macheads prefer the term "boutique market" to "

    • I am a developer/support engineer type person at Terra Soft, and the general opinion here (of both higher ups and engineers) is that Apple leaving the arena will be nothing but good for us.

      Literally 50% of our development time is spent re-supporting machines after Apple changes them. Things like track pads on power books, northbridge chipsets on towers and XServes, video, sound, thermal control.... they change all these things regularly without a rev bump in model number, or a warning, or providing specs.

      W

  • It's Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by under_score ( 65824 ) <mishkin@be[ ]ig.com ['rte' in gap]> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:16AM (#13386475) Homepage

    It's surprising where "odd" hardware/software combo's show up. I would never have suspected Linux/PPC in the Navy. How did it get there? Who knew about Linux, and PPC and had the influence to get it used there? Was it a really good sales job (and the connections that make it possible)? Or was it an insider who went looking for a platform from a clean slate?

    The answers to these questions are extremely important to the further expansion of the use of Linux (or any other product/platform/system).

    • PowerPC was probably the best choice for sonar analysis when they designed the system, and now that it's not the fastest they've still got to support the systems they have in place because it's fast enough.

    • Re:It's Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

      by maetenloch ( 181291 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:33AM (#13386565)
      Also depending on where these systems are deployed and what kind of power/cooling/space constraints they had, the Navy may have been more focused on flops/watt rather than absolute performance.

      • Re:It's Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cmacb ( 547347 )
        It probably doesn't matter that they are PowerPC or Intel processors. If the OSs used are Linux, and the applications are written in any language except the Microsoft lock-in variety, you just change processors, recompile, and you are back in business. Avoiding lock-ins gives you tremendous flexibility, bargaining power, and fallback options. Being locked into an OS, and thus destined to use whatever hardware your OS provider commands you to use is a sad sad thing, and hopefully a thing that won't last t

        • Re:It's Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

          by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @01:50AM (#13386849) Homepage Journal
          Um, that might work for your average PC program, but I wouldn't try doing that on a complex, incredibly expensive real time embedded system where failure can equal lives lost....
          Something tells me the transition isn't nearly as simple as a /. post.

          • It really depends on the specifics of the program. If the inital design wasn't heavily performance bound (and therefore was written for correctness), a unix program should be portable to pretty much any archetecture / unix OS.

            It's true that a major change would require a new testing cycle, but it's definately possible shouldn't be *too* hard. If a program is so embedded that this isn't true, the fact that it's a unix app becomes irrelevent.

        • If the OSs used are Linux, and the applications are written in any language except the Microsoft lock-in variety, you just change processors, recompile, and you are back in business.

          Or unless it uses assembly language.
          Or unless it uses processor specific compiler glue (like gcc's SSE/MMX/Altivec support).
          Or unless it makes byte-order assumptions.
          Or unless they were using a PPC only compiler (like IBM's xlc or metrowerk's mwcc)
          Or unless they were using 3rd party libraries
          Or unless a lot of things.

        • Re:It's Surprising (Score:2, Informative)

          by saider ( 177166 )
          This system may be using a PPC and running Linux, but that does not mean that it is a simple PC. More likely than not, this is a very complex real-time system with many processors. The Linux is probably only used for the user interface area to give the user a somewhat familiar interface to the system. The software that the user commands is probably highly specialized to run on the particular hardware it is built on. Redesigning systems like this is not as trivial as being able to "just change processors, re

      • Re:It's Surprising (Score:4, Informative)

        by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @01:31AM (#13386797) Homepage
        Bingo. A professor of mine (I'm studying marine enginering) once told a tale of designing a navy destroyer. Among other things, the anchor windlass turned out to be bigger than the manufacturer had initally said (due to a communications mishap) so they had to bubble the deck, an ugly and undesirable feature of a multi-million (billion?) dollar vessel.

        In addition, the radar set they ended up using (because of the required output) put out so much waste heat into the radio room that a bigger AC unit had to be installed in that space than initially designed, but there wasn't anywhere to put it so they stole ceiling space and made the room 5 feet tall.

        It could have easilly gone the other way and they could have searched out a better radio from an obscure manufacturer (Transmeta, if they made radios...)

      • Re:It's Surprising (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
        A lot of flight control systems were PPC for this reason, but last I heard, there was a strong resistance to Linux, I think in part due to perception, and the rest due to the cost of validating / certifying it as a flight control operating system.

        I don't know if the perception is warranted or not, I know it's a pretty tough set of shoes to sell. The Aerospace industry is very conservative, not wanting their products to crash and burn (literally of course), so it takes a decade or so to make changes.

    • Re:It's Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wargolem ( 715873 )
      Maybe the Navy realized the security risks involved with a homogeneous network. That's at least one great reason to seek out a non-standard (yet reliable and efficient) platform, such as Linux on PPC.
      • You're just describing security through obscurity...which we all know is bad. Its also not entirely true in this case, its still Linux, and depending on their configuration, a lot of exploits would still be valid.

        Furthermore, PPC Linux has a smaller userbase than x86. There are fewer people working on the code, fewer people testing it, and therefore fewer bugs getting worked out. In other words, one could make a pretty good case for why there is reason to believe it is a LESS secure platform.

        I think

    • Re:It's Surprising (Score:5, Informative)

      by pkb ( 196241 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:50AM (#13386648)
      AltiVec is big in military applications. Sonar, radar and such are imaging problems at heart.
    • I can tell you based on my experiences with similar projects within DoD that they are pretty good about evaluating "conventional wisdom" and then evaluating any "unconventional" options. In a case like this, there would have been a set of requirements to be met. A team of folks would have been assigned to go out and find as many solutions as possible. After the solution set was identified, they would evaluate each one on it's merits and arrived at a final selection group which would then be decided on ba

  • Oh Dear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:26AM (#13386526) Homepage Journal
    I can just see the new troll: "PPC is dying. Anandtech confirms it".

    Heh. I remember getting all excited about PPC back in 1994 when Apple first announced the move. It seemed like it was a natural and logical extension from the 680x0 family (one of the best CPUs ever for desktop systems). It's kind of sad how it didn't wind up being as much of a player as it should have. Even the guy who wrote Minix quipped back then that the future would be everyone running some kind of *nix OS on their PPC desktops. Now that dream is gone because even Apple went with Intel. I sure hope Intel can get it together and make a decent CPU/Mobo combo that dumps all backwards compatibility, BIOS and segmented memory.

    • Re:Oh Dear (Score:2, Funny)

      by eexlebots ( 203658 )
      They did and it is called the Itanium.


      oh.


      Rats.

    • Re:Oh Dear (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mad Merlin ( 837387 )
      Here's the quote you're looking for (circa January 1992 by Andy Tanebaum, "LINUX is obsolete" in comp.os.minix):

      Of course 5 years from now that will be different, but 5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5.

      Part of a huge flamewar between Linus, AST and a number of other people on microkernel vs monolithic kernel design. Here's the entire original thread [anart.no] if you're looking for some good Sunday reading.

    • Re:Oh Dear (Score:3, Informative)

      by KillShill ( 877105 )
      even the macos9/10 still have/had segmented memory.

      the "64bit" osx also is segmented but you won't run into that limit for quite a while. windows 32bit and 64bit face the same limitations.

      there is no such thing as flat addressing, because costs keep it out of the picture. current end-user 64bit cpus use 48bit virtual memory addressing and 40bit physical, including x86-64.

      in a way manufacturers have a point... most cpus won't last more than 5-10 years... i just wonder though how much die space and costs are

  • The battle rages on. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by keilinw ( 663210 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @12:33AM (#13386562) Homepage Journal
    This is such an interesting discussion. Which CPU is better? Better is obviously in the eye of the behold as price, power, Mhz, and apparently performance per watt matter. I was at WWDC and played with the new MacTel boxes. Interestingly the single 3.6 Ghz pentiums appear to run faster than the dual 2.7 Ghz G5's.

    OK... so I'm not going to go there... but Intel is apparently coming out with some interesting new hardware. I don't know everything about it.. but it appears that they will be chainge the x86 architecture altogether. So was Apples move speculative or desperate?

    Another interesting thing as brough up by the author of the post to which I am replying.. liies in the fact that certain companies are inexorably tied to their hardware. Some institutions, for example, running Pro Tools may not be able to upgrade to the new hardware as their software will not be availible. This is speculative... but it is possible.

    So I'd be interested in an arcitcle that clearly lays out the differences between the PowerPC and Intel architectures and maybe even one that examines Inte's new architecture as well.

    The PowerPC is undoubtably an excellent platform....but there are other factors to be considered.

    • Re:The battle rages on. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @01:03AM (#13386685)
      So was Apples move speculative or desperate?

      Probably more on the desperate side. Laptops are now slightly more than 50% of the market. I don't have any numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more for Macs, where you don't get people buying big gaming desktops and the cheapest desktop isn't less than half the price of the cheapest laptop.

      The G5 is power-hungry, hot, and decidedly not suitable for mobile and low-power applications. It probably never will be, given how little pull Apple has with CPU manufacturers. And the G4 is more than ready for retirement.

      Academic arguments on the relative advantages of PPC and x86 just don't play into the issue. If Apple wants to continue to sell computers, they really have no choice but to jump ship on PPC.
    • Another interesting thing as brough up by the author of the post to which I am replying.. liies in the fact that certain companies are inexorably tied to their hardware. Some institutions, for example, running Pro Tools may not be able to upgrade to the new hardware as their software will not be availible. This is speculative... but it is possible.

      Why doesn't apple (or some third party) simply release a hardware compatibility card like they did in the good old days? It can't be that difficult to wack a G5

  • Apple, when the iNTEL road map lead turns out to be mostly a paper lead yet again, would keep both iNTEL and PowerPC lines. And then start porting Darwin to ARM, CELL, and other available CPUs.

    (Yeah, CELL would require a port. That's probably the point that Steve got sidetracked on. My guess is the discussions of re-writing for CELL produced a lot of complaints, and a lot of, "if we're going to have to do that, why not re-write for iNTEL?" Silly middle management.)

    And in the best of all possible worlds, Lin
    • cell = 8 simd vector units (memory starved--256KB?!)
      with an in-order powerpc core.

      tell me why cell is anything remotely like a new instruction set?

      same old tech with bolted on vector processing units... which btw, the xbox360's ppc's also have 3 vector processors (altivec).

      rehashed technology but somehow the fanaticboys cannot piece it together.
      • and it's a headline on /.

        Check the specs. All the vector stuff would have to be re-written for CELL. Without the re-write, all you have is a fast G3 and some hardware doing nothing.

        Now, if you ask me, the re-write would be worth it. OpenGL, for instance, could be re-implemented on the CELL SPUs, and the OS could gain some nice benefits for the visual output. But that would still not be making very good use of the SPUs.

        GarageBand and QuickTime (client) could also eventually get huge gains. But there's so muc
    • (Yeah, CELL would require a port. That's probably the point that Steve got sidetracked on. My guess is the discussions of re-writing for CELL produced a lot of complaints, and a lot of, "if we're going to have to do that, why not re-write for iNTEL?" Silly middle management.)

      Your post is a sea of red herrings for all I know. First of all, Apple *never* ported - as in 'rewriting' - to x86. OpenStep was working perfectly fine on x86 when they got it, and they simply continued to maintain that port but dropp
      • This whole double life business has interested me since the iNTEL announcement. At an application layer, you don't need to know or care whether your writing for x86, PPC or ARM, you write to the framework and APIs provided by the OS / runtime of your choice. If that OS /runtime works on other architectures you simply cross your fingers, say a little prayer and recompile.

        My, admittedly limited, understand of OS writing is that the exact opposite is true. You are dealing with the processor directly and perfor
        • The "boxtop mini" that you're describing sounds like it's part of a bigger strategy with the long rumored Video iPod, and might also go with a similar AirPort Express AV product. What Apple's great at is leveraging technology and building on top of existing products. iTunes is based on QuickTime, iPod is a simplified parallel of iTunes and AirPort Express builds from iTunes in a smart way.

          So I think that if they *do* go all out and make a box set thing, they'll probably do the Video iPod first. And you're r
        • At an application layer, you don't need to know or care whether your writing for x86, PPC or ARM, you write to the framework and APIs provided by the OS / runtime of your choice. If that OS /runtime works on other architectures you simply cross your fingers, say a little prayer and recompile.

          Not exactly. Especially with anything requiring high performance, like using vector features of the host CPU, often requires some customization for the architecture. In Apple's case, they provide APIs for a lot of that

  • Plug plug plug (Score:5, Informative)

    by NekoXP ( 67564 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @01:16AM (#13386730) Homepage
    We finally get on Slashdot and nobody mentions the bloody company name!

    ARGH! :)

    http://www.genesi.lu/ [genesi.lu]

    Neko

    • Re:Plug plug plug (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
      Unless you R'd a different FA to me, the company name was Mercury Computer Systems. Genesi was mentioned only in passing.
  • Uh, how about IBM? They continue, and do doubt will continue, to use PPC in a lot of *their* hardware. And they're big supporters of Linux... No doubt you could get a Linux on PPC setup from them!

    • You can get a PPC Linux system from IBM right now* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @02:39AM (#13387029)
      *if you understand the fact that the difference between POWER and PowerPC is pretty small and IBM uses the term 'Power Platform'. They are API compatable in linux-land. (meaning the system that I use on my PowerPC laptop will work just fine on a Power 5 server without recompiling...)

      Go check out OpenPower for starters.

      These are server stuff specificly to use the Power 5 proccessors with a Linux-specific machine.

      For example the low end of it is a Power 710 'express'. A rack mount system with a 1.65 ghz Power 5 proccessor with 36 meg cache(!), 2 gigs of RAM, and 2 73gig 10k SCSI drives.

      Very fast, huge cache, ok amount of memory, ok fast harddrives. 4,500 USD

      You can get dual proccessors for under 10k, which realy realy realy kicks the ass of anything you can get from Sun for that price range. The Power 5 systems with their 36meg cache and HUGE transistor counts blow the AMD opterons out of the water.

      IBM does not have a OpenPower workstation, and does not have a OpenPower desktop though. These are server/database systems and it shows. They AIX workstations you can order, but have Linux installed on them instead if you wanted to, and those aren't much more expensive.

      IBM's stuff has always been expensive though. I'd rather have a army of 3rd party manufacturers make PowerPC machines.

      However I don't see much of a point, other then platform snobishness.

      Personally I like my PowerPC lappy; a Apple Ibook, but it's the last one I'd buy because it's video card is the ATI 9200 and is the last supported by Open Source drivers.

      There is the R300 project for newer cards, but I don't think that it's paticularly usefull at this point (although I am gratefull for it, don't get me wrong.)

      Having a PowerPC machine realy drive home the values of having free software.

      Free software is stable, it's cross-platform, and it 'just works'. All propriatory software runs like ass on my system, if at all. It's a night and day difference.

      Trouble is, what is the advantage to PowerPC desktops over x86?

      NONE that I see. The newer intel setups are faster, use less power, and are supported well by open source drivers.. much better then the overpriced apple hardware. The ibook when I bought it was vastly superior to all small Pentium 4-m systems aviable and was cheaper.. for the 12 inch long-lasting-battery form factor.

      Since then Intel has surpassed it wholy with it's Centrino/Sonoma stuff.

      (and beleive me, the x86 Apple stuff will be overpriced, too. I'd probably avoid it personally)

      Truth is they are both proccessors, they do both the same thing. Other then price and speed, the differences are purely academic at this point when considuring their use with Linux. Both work fine, x86 allows propriatory applications easily, PPC doesn't.

      To me they are on equal ground. If third parties start suppling powerpc laptops that are well supported by free software, I'd strongly considure it.. but otherwise I realy don't care to much.

      IBM needs to realy get in gear about their Power systems otherwise they will simply lock themselves into a small high-end market with slowly, yet consistantly, shrinking share.

      If the average geek AND the average developer can't have easy access to PPC machines then Linux will stop being cross platform in a few years. It's ineveitable, and there is nothing nobody can do about it. Most people don't have 5000 dollars to burn just to have a extra server in their basement, or feel like spending 1000 dollars for a slow ass machine of lesser quality then what they can by at walmart for 300 dollars.

      The biggest hope for future PPC machine in my future will be the Sony PS3. If they release a Linux distro for it, I'll buy it in a second. At 3ghz with a limited core it will be somewhat faster then my aging AMD desktop and my 1.2ghz Ibook. The SPE's offer interesting possiblities and will be fun to mess around with, especially when it comes to things like ray tracing and whatnot. If Sony gets Nvidia to release drivers for it it can actually have the possibility of being a rather kick-ass Linux box, otherwise it will just end up being a nice toy.
      • If the average geek AND the average developer can't have easy access to PPC machines then Linux will stop being cross platform in a few years.

        here's [amazon.com] a cheap PPC based linux system... you might already have one in your living room...

        here's [amazon.com] an even cheaper one - though I'm not sure if it's PPC based or not...

        i wouldn't worry about availability if i were you.. ;)

        (Yes, those links are amazon associates links... if you really feal like sticking it to me, click here [amazon.com], and here [amazon.com] for the "clean" links)
      • "If the average geek AND the average developer can't have easy access to PPC machines then Linux will stop being cross platform in a few years."

        You are overlooking the veritable army of linux developers being paid by the embedded guys to make linux run on ppc. These guys will still be there long after Apple stops using the architecture.

        There are literally *dozens* of ppc varents supported by linux. The PC-style ppc systems are by far in the minority.

  • a lot of life? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ChipMonk ( 711367 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @01:32AM (#13386800) Journal
    The chip may perform well, but when the memory management requirements result in code that "can be used to scare small children" (L. Torvalds), I have to wonder: What good is an excellent chip if using it is so difficult?

  • Secret life (Score:3, Funny)

    by otter42 ( 190544 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @04:08AM (#13387314) Homepage Journal
    Isn't this the moment when Yellow Dog Linux should declare that Linux has been leading a second, hidden life all this time, where everything has been compiled on both PPC and x86?

    Yeah! And then we can all debate the wiseness of changing Linux from a PPC platform to x86!

    Now, all we need is someone to crack Yellow Dog Linux so it'll run on an x86... I've got a developer's P4 with Linux already installed. I'll put the installation iso on bittorrent as soon as I make sure that there are no "unique identifiers".

  • Power for military use (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slashflood ( 697891 ) <<flow> <at> <howflow.com>> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @04:27AM (#13387377) Homepage Journal
    This is great news for customers like the US Navy who rely on Linux-on-PowerPC for important tasks like sonar imaging systems.

    IBM just teamed up with a company called Mercury [mc.com] to build Cell-based [ibm.com] computers for (military) applications:

    As a result, demanding applications such as radar, sonar, MRI, digital X-Ray, and many others can be taken to new levels of sophistication and performance.

    And as we all know, the Cell is basically a Power processor.
  • Could this in theory mean someone creating PPC machines that could be used to boot PPC MacOSX?

    I know the machine would need some boot code, but there's sure to be someone who could write some.

  • YDL on XBox360 or PS3? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <peter@slashdot . ... t a r o nga.com> on Wednesday August 24, 2005 @09:31AM (#13388526) Homepage Journal
    By the time Apple quits shipping PPC, the XBox360 and PS3 are likely going to be out. How big a deal do people anticipate it to be to run YDL on them?
  • >This is great news for customers like the US Navy who rely on Linux-on-PowerPC for important tasks like sonar imaging systems.

    Is this the way to read this sentence:
    Although they use Linux, it's Linux on PPC so they're screwed and migration to industry standard (Inel/AMD) Linux would cost them a fortune.

    If yes, well that's great publicity for the open and standard Linux OS.

    If no, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close