R5: It's been two weeks...
Russ
You know it was bound to come... but it's been exactly 14 days (2 weeks)
since you said to expect an announcement about R5. Should wee wait a few
more days? Another two weeks?
I screwed up my R4 (cant even boot) and need to reinstall... patiently
waiting for R5.
Russ
Jason Haas
>
> Hey, you absolutely wonderful LinuxPPC guys:
uh-huh.
> You know it was bound to come... but it's been exactly 14 days (2 weeks)
> since you said to expect an announcement about R5. Should wee wait a few
> more days? Another two weeks?
It's 99.8% done. We're testing Java and a new version of Netscape.
> I screwed up my R4 (cant even boot) and need to reinstall... patiently
> waiting for R5.
If it's critical, reinstall. You'll have to reinstall the packages for
R5 anyway.
-- h.
Matthew Pritzker
>
> Russ wrote:
> > I screwed up my R4 (cant even boot) and need to reinstall... patiently
> > waiting for R5.
>
> If it's critical, reinstall. You'll have to reinstall the packages for
> R5 anyway.
I think that was his point; since he'd have to reinstall for R5 anyway,
he'd prefer to wait and then do only one reinstall.
--
--------------------
Matthew Pritzker Graduate Research Assistant
mpri...@iucf.indiana.edu IU Physics Dept.
Jason Haas
>
> Jason Haas wrote:
> >
> > Russ wrote:
>
> > > I screwed up my R4 (cant even boot) and need to reinstall... patiently
> > > waiting for R5.
> >
> > If it's critical, reinstall. You'll have to reinstall the packages for
> > R5 anyway.
>
> I think that was his point; since he'd have to reinstall for R5 anyway,
> he'd prefer to wait and then do only one reinstall.
Ah, good point.
Russ: If it can't wait 2+ weeks (manufacturing takes time!), reinstall
R4 now.
-- Jason
Danny Lutz
>
>
> Russ: If it can't wait 2+ weeks (manufacturing takes time!), reinstall
> R4 now.
>
> -- Jason
Manufacturing?!? Does that mean that CDs are being burned?!? If so, is the
final version posted on the ftp's?!?
Janpeter Wolff
For some reason at J.F. Lehmanns (German Book Store) a CD-Version of PPC 5.0
seems to be ready for buying. The site is in German (I think) but still:
www.jfl.de and the look for distributions.
I don't really know, if that is realllllyu 5.0, even though it says so. So I
would assume ...
JP
Martin Costabel
>
> Danny Lutz wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Russ: If it can't wait 2+ weeks (manufacturing takes time!), reinstall
> > > R4 now.
> > >
> > > -- Jason
> >
> > Manufacturing?!? Does that mean that CDs are being burned?!? If so, is the
> > final version posted on the ftp's?!?
>
> For some reason at J.F. Lehmanns (German Book Store) a CD-Version of PPC 5.0
> seems to be ready for buying. The site is in German (I think) but still:
>
> www.jfl.de and the look for distributions.
From their web page:
Based on Red Hat Linux release 5.0 (Hurricane) Kernel 2.2.0-pre1
Looks like old news (mid-February or so)...
Rich Hall
>
> Hey, you absolutely wonderful LinuxPPC guys:
> since you said to expect an announcement about R5. Should wee wait a few
> more days? Another two weeks?
>
> waiting for R5.
>
'Course two weeks from infinity is still infinity. Remember your
calculus? We can keep cutting the expected time to release in half and
NEVER get there. A few weeks ago someone commented on R5 being vaporware
and was promptly dumped on by readers of this group. However I would
have to agree. I'm now in my third month of waiting for this release
which was due anytime when I pre-purchased it. (yeah I know preR5 is out
there, but I didn't pay to get it on CD only to waste my online time on
massive downloads) At this point I doubt it will ever ship. I realize
linuxppc.com isn't making any money on this, but if you're going to
charge for a product you should honor your obligations in a reasonable
time frame. If you can't deliver R5 why not refund our money? I was
waiting patiently, now sign me...
-Impatient (contemplating intel... yeeech!)
PS With all the news going on throughout the Linux world, nothing new on
www.linuxppc.com since April 20?????
Simon 'tufty' Stapleton
> Russ wrote:
> >
> > Hey, you absolutely wonderful LinuxPPC guys:
> > You know it was bound to come... but it's been exactly 14 days (2 weeks)
> > since you said to expect an announcement about R5. Should wee wait a few
> > more days? Another two weeks?
> >
> > I screwed up my R4 (cant even boot) and need to reinstall... patiently
> > waiting for R5.
> >
> > Russ
Happened to me, too. I reinstalled R4 for the meanwhile, as I have paid
work to do that I need Linux for. It's not ideal, but at least I'm
working.
>
> 'Course two weeks from infinity is still infinity. Remember your
> calculus? We can keep cutting the expected time to release in half and
> NEVER get there. A few weeks ago someone commented on R5 being vaporware
> and was promptly dumped on by readers of this group. However I would
> have to agree. I'm now in my third month of waiting for this release
> which was due anytime when I pre-purchased it. (yeah I know preR5 is out
> there, but I didn't pay to get it on CD only to waste my online time on
> massive downloads)
Hmm. You have a point here. I pre-ordered R5 at the point it was
announced, near enough. That's - erm - Probably some time back in
1998, best as I can recall. I can't download R5 off the net as I have
a dialup 33.6 modem connection - even assuming a good consistent
download rate, just grabbing the binaries would take round about 48
hours. 48 hours of phone bill. 48 hours of not being able to make a
phonecall. I think you see my point.
> At this point I doubt it will ever ship. I realize
> linuxppc.com isn't making any money on this, but if you're going to
> charge for a product you should honor your obligations in a reasonable
> time frame. If you can't deliver R5 why not refund our money? I was
> waiting patiently, now sign me...
I'm sure that R5 will ship. I hope it will be soon. But I wish some
announcements were being made, either on this group or on the Linuxppc.com
website, as to what's going on, what's holding things up, etc. I check
the website daily, hoping for some news.
Gosh, I tried not to make this a gripe. I'm not after a refund, or an
intel box, or anything. I don't want to badmouth linuxppc inc, who have
treated me pretty damn well in the past. But I would like a copy of
R5 at some time in the (near) future.
So, c'mon Jason. Let us know what's going on, and regularly. Please?
simon
--
_______ _______
| ----- | Biased output from the demented brain of | ----- |
||MacOS|| Simon Stapleton. ||Linux||
|| 8.5 || || PPC ||
| ----- | s.stapleton atS1gn easynet dOT co pO1nt uk | ----- |
| -+-.| (if you can't figure it out...) | -+-.|
|洵洵洵洱 |洵洵洵洱
------- -------
Jason Haas
> But I would like a copy of
> R5 at some time in the (near) future.
>
> So, c'mon Jason. Let us know what's going on, and regularly. Please?
I belive I have been. And if the good graces of the U.S. Postal Service
are kind to us, you will be getting R5 CDs before the end of the month.
:)
Re: no new news since April whenever, I would suggest looking at the
plethora of other news sites; our priority has been finishing the new
release, and having completed that, we'll start looking after the news
again.
I'll see if I can make a more official announcement on the site, and
here, and everywhere else.
-- Jason, warming up the great machines.
"D'you hear me, Dan?"
Simon 'tufty' Stapleton
> Simon 'tufty' Stapleton wrote:
>
> > But I would like a copy of
> > R5 at some time in the (near) future.
> >
> > So, c'mon Jason. Let us know what's going on, and regularly. Please?
>
> I belive I have been.
Yeah, you have. I didn't mean to sound snarky. Really. Badly
worded and not proofread. My bad.
> And if the good graces of the U.S. Postal Service
> are kind to us, you will be getting R5 CDs before the end of the month.
> :)
Woo-Hoo! Woo-Hoo! Woo-Hoo! Thanks very much.
(as you may have guessed, this is the answer I've been looking for)
Simon
--
_______ _______
| ----- | Biased output from the demented brain of | ----- |
||MacOS|| Simon Stapleton. ||Linux||
|| 8.5 || || PPC ||
| ----- | sstaple AT liffe DoT com | ----- |
johnd...@hotmail.com
( and mirrors). Jason has already said it would take in the region of 2
weeks to get the cd's made so con we expect R5 to be released in mid
June. ( I have pre-ordered R5 )
John Moore
In article <37553305...@madison-web.com>,
Jason Haas <jh...@madison-web.com> wrote:
> Simon 'tufty' Stapleton wrote:
>
> > But I would like a copy of
> > R5 at some time in the (near) future.
> >
> > So, c'mon Jason. Let us know what's going on, and regularly. Please?
>
> I belive I have been. And if the good graces of the U.S. Postal Service
> are kind to us, you will be getting R5 CDs before the end of the month.
> :)
>
> Re: no new news since April whenever, I would suggest looking at the
> plethora of other news sites; our priority has been finishing the new
> release, and having completed that, we'll start looking after the news
> again.
>
> I'll see if I can make a more official announcement on the site, and
> here, and everywhere else.
>
> -- Jason, warming up the great machines.
> "D'you hear me, Dan?"
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Rich Hall
> I belive I have been. And if the good graces of the U.S. Postal Service
> are kind to us, you will be getting R5 CDs before the end of the month.
And since this is the 2nd, that means nearly another full month. Even
the Postal Service isn't that near (hoping no armed members are near :>)
> Re: no new news since April whenever, I would suggest looking at the
> plethora of other news sites; our priority has been finishing the new
> release, and having completed that, we'll start looking after the news
> again.
I meant specific news about progress on the release. General Linux news
I can find all over. In fact it's the abundance of that news and the
lack of info from linuxppc.com that got me so frustrated. I have friends
raving about RedHat 6.0 and all I can say is "Yeah, I think it (kernel
2.2 and glibc2) will be nice on PPC if I ever get it". So R5 which was
supposed to put us bastard ppc users on par with the intel/alpha/sparc
crowd. Now the best we can hope for is 6 months behind them.
Sorry for the gripes. I have been a dedicated Mac user since '90, even
fighting the losing Mac wars in industry when I was a Network Admin, but
I'm wearing down. It is very tiring using what I believe is clearly the
better platform, yet always being second class.
-Rich
John W. Baxter
> Sorry for the gripes. I have been a dedicated Mac user since '90, even
> fighting the losing Mac wars in industry when I was a Network Admin, but
> I'm wearing down. It is very tiring using what I believe is clearly the
> better platform, yet always being second class.
The--opinion--superiority of MacOS over Windows xx doesn't imply that Mac
hardware is better for running Linux than Intel-based (or Alpha-based)
hardware.
In fact, the number of queries about "has xxx been ported to PPC linux"
suggest it isn't. [There--for some reason ;-(--are far fewer queries
about whether yyy has been ported from PPC Linux to Intel/Alpha.]
I run MkLinux much of the time because I have an otherwise pretty much
unused Mac 8100. I may well buy an Intel-based laptop to run Linux on
(and to be my laptop)...unfortunately, I may be 'forced' to keep Win98 on
the machine if/when I do.
John (Apple ][ serial 537, Disk ][ serial 35, first 100 days Mac, etc)
--
If nothing is pressing, putter about with this or that.
(Fortune cookie)
John W. Baxter Port Ludlow, WA USA j...@olympus.net
Jason Haas
>
> In fact, the number of queries about "has xxx been ported to PPC linux"
> suggest it isn't. [There--for some reason ;-(--are far fewer queries
> about whether yyy has been ported from PPC Linux to Intel/Alpha.]
I attribute that to the smaller size of the Mac/PowerPC market, and that
there's less developers and less companies working on PPC stuff.
Scarily, the Mac OS market share probably dwarfs whatever the
Linux/PPC/MkLinux "market share" is.
That's why a significant part of my job is simply making noise and
getting PPC recognized as a great platform for Linux. R5 coming out
will definately help that.
-- h.
Sergio Brandano
Jason Haas wrote:
>I attribute that to the smaller size of the Mac/PowerPC market, and that
>there's less developers and less companies working on PPC stuff.
>Scarily, the Mac OS market share probably dwarfs whatever the
>Linux/PPC/MkLinux "market share" is.
>
>That's why a significant part of my job is simply making noise and
>getting PPC recognized as a great platform for Linux. R5 coming out
>will definately help that.
There is a lot of work on PPC within the GNU/Linux project. GNU is a
cross platform OS, and it does not really matter on which processor
you are developing (until there is kernel and c support for it).
When you manage to boot the GNU system and use the devices, all the
rest comes on top of it. The difficulty in joining PPC depends on the
difficulty of running already existent applications. A platform that
require to boot on MacOS, click on some system settings, then
reboot on Linux until you need to reboot on Mac to make some other
changes, are pretty far from being popular. The GNU system does not
depend on MacOS, as well as Windows98, NT, etc. It works by itself
(and it must firstly boot by itself, of course).
If LinuxPPC will gain freedom from MacOS, then the developers will
have no problems in buying a PPC-based PC.
Sergio
Andrew J. Brehm
> John W. Baxter wrote:
>
> >
> > In fact, the number of queries about "has xxx been ported to PPC linux"
> > suggest it isn't. [There--for some reason ;-(--are far fewer queries
> > about whether yyy has been ported from PPC Linux to Intel/Alpha.]
>
> I attribute that to the smaller size of the Mac/PowerPC market, and that
> there's less developers and less companies working on PPC stuff.
> Scarily, the Mac OS market share probably dwarfs whatever the
> Linux/PPC/MkLinux "market share" is.
>
> That's why a significant part of my job is simply making noise and
> getting PPC recognized as a great platform for Linux. R5 coming out
> will definately help that.
Yeah, and some people are already beliving you.
I for one, will stay with the PPC, even if BeOS might be lost for it.
MacOS and Linux are fine choices. And I don't know what benefits Intel
would give me, now that OS/2 is dying. :-(
--
"Doubt Everything!"
Fan of Woody Allen
User of LinuxPPC, BeOS, MacOS
Chris Nandor
<s...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
# There is a lot of work on PPC within the GNU/Linux project. GNU is a
# cross platform OS, and it does not really matter on which processor
# you are developing (until there is kernel and c support for it).
GNU is not an OS. GNU is a project that provides various software. Some
of it is tools, some of it is kernels, etc. There is no such thing as the
GNU OS, and it is debatable as to whether or not there is such a thing as
GNU/Linux. Of course, you may prefer to call it GNU/Linux, whereas most
people don't. But even if you do, GNU/Linux and GNU are not at all
synonymous.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pu...@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
R Shapiro
> If LinuxPPC will gain freedom from MacOS, then the developers will
> have no problems in buying a PPC-based PC.
Given a working OF, linuxppc is completely "free" of MacOS. No MacOS
installation is required on either of the machines where I run linux
(beige G3, 7500).
Sergio Brandano
>Given a working OF, linuxppc is completely "free" of MacOS. No MacOS
>installation is required on either of the machines where I run linux
>(beige G3, 7500).
There are additional problems with the audio and a few keys for the
PowerBook G3. About OF, it is not clear to me wether it could be
updated, like the flash BIOS on Pentium machines.
However, OF was born just to *solve* the booting problems with
different architectures, not really to constrain a certain
architecture to boot only with a certain OS. Apple must be blamed for
making things difficult in that sense; if they understand that Linux
users are customers of their hardware, and MacOS is a goodie only if
it does not affect the usability of the PC, then they may help us.
The advantage, for them, would consist not only on major hardware
sells, but also in more developers, The MacOsX would benefit from
that as well, I believe. The key issue is that an IEEE-OF that works
as it is expected, Apple gains new customers and developers, and we
finally solve this annoying matter.
Sergio
Sergio Brandano
... the ideal situation would be to have an easy installation,
like for IBM's ThinkPads.
1. Insert the cd for LinuX PPC 5.0,
2. boot from it,
3. have the whole installed in a snap,
4. reboot,
5. enjoy.
No MacOS involved.
Is that a dream?
Sergio
Chris Nandor
<s...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
# ... the ideal situation would be to have an easy installation,
# like for IBM's ThinkPads.
#
# 1. Insert the cd for LinuX PPC 5.0,
# 2. boot from it,
# 3. have the whole installed in a snap,
# 4. reboot,
# 5. enjoy.
#
# No MacOS involved.
# Is that a dream?
For some people, I suppose. :) Not for me. I have Darwin, MkLinux,
LinuxPPC, and, most importantly, Mac OS installed on my machine (well,
Darwin, of course, is on an external drive).
Patiently waiting for LinuxPPC 5.0,
Steven G. Johnson
> GNU is not an OS. GNU is a project that provides various software. Some
Whatever you might think of the "GNU/Linux" moniker, GNU from the start was
a project specifically to create or assemble a complete free operating
system, not just "various software." In contrast, Linux is a kernel,
whose name happens to have caught on for the whole OS sitting on top of it
(which, at its core, consists of software collected or created by the GNU
people). (At least, a kernel is not what most people think of as an
operating system, although that may be Linus' definition.)
Don't want to start a flamewar...sigh; I just wanted to get the facts straight.
Steven
Chris Nandor
ste...@alum.mit.edu (Steven G. Johnson) wrote:
# pu...@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) wrote:
# > GNU is not an OS. GNU is a project that provides various software. Some
#
# Whatever you might think of the "GNU/Linux" moniker, GNU from the start was
# a project specifically to create or assemble a complete free operating
# system, not just "various software."
Right, but it is not an OS.
The original author was actually apparently talking about the Hurd-based
OS, which is not GNU OS, but GNU/Hurd.
Steven G. Johnson
> In article <stevenj-0306...@wetelectron.mit.edu>,
> ste...@alum.mit.edu (Steven G. Johnson) wrote:
>
> # pu...@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) wrote:
> # > GNU is not an OS. GNU is a project that provides various software. Some
> #
> # Whatever you might think of the "GNU/Linux" moniker, GNU from the start was
> # a project specifically to create or assemble a complete free operating
> # system, not just "various software."
>
> Right, but it is not an OS.
>
> The original author was actually apparently talking about the Hurd-based
> OS, which is not GNU OS, but GNU/Hurd.
You're right in that normally one does not say "GNU OS" (these days,
anyway). But, sometimes the FSF uses "GNU System" generically to refer to
any free operating system based upon the GNU project to create a free
operating system, and the system components they created/assembled (i.e.
libc + POSIX command-line tools + compilers + ..., everything except the
kernel). That is, they use "GNU System" as an umbrella term to include
GNU/Linux, GNU/HURD, etcetera. (For example, see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html)
But I'm not sure that this is what the poster meant; I think he was just
referring to GNU/Linux in a funny way.
Steven
PS. When he started the GNU project, Richard Stallman originally imagined
that the operating system would be called simply "GNU." "GNU, which
stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible
software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to
everyone who can use it." (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html)
Chris Nandor
# But I'm not sure that this is what the poster meant; I think he was just
# referring to GNU/Linux in a funny way.
And that's why I posted. Saying "GNU" in reference to an OS is completely
unclear. Saying "GNU" in reference to a suite of tools has some meaning.
Saying it in reference to a software project has some meaning. But there
are two distinct OSes that GNU claims as its own (for right or wrong), and
neither one is called "GNU".
Of course, this is all very boring and off-topic, so I'll shut up now. :)
Rich Hall
>
> In article <3755E5...@theramp.net>, rh...@theramp.net wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the gripes. I have been a dedicated Mac user since '90, even
> > fighting the losing Mac wars in industry when I was a Network Admin, but
> > I'm wearing down. It is very tiring using what I believe is clearly the
> > better platform, yet always being second class.
>
> The--opinion--superiority of MacOS over Windows xx doesn't imply that Mac
> hardware is better for running Linux than Intel-based (or Alpha-based)
> hardware.
In my opinion there is no question of the superiority of MacOS over
Windows (no flamewars please), but I also feel that Mac hardware is
superior as well. That superiority should apply to Linux OS systems as
well. At least 3 flavors of UNIX used to run on 68K chips (SunOS, HPUX,
A/UX, oh and let's not forget NeXT) and IBM AIX screams on PPCs.
>
> In fact, the number of queries about "has xxx been ported to PPC linux"
> suggest it isn't.
Market share and installed base do not mean superior hardware (usually
just cheaper :> ).
-Rich
Samuel Knapp
Rich Hall wrote:
> In my opinion there is no question of the superiority of MacOS over
> Windows (no flamewars please), but I also feel that Mac hardware is
> superior as well. That superiority should apply to Linux OS systems as
> well. At least 3 flavors of UNIX used to run on 68K chips (SunOS, HPUX,
> A/UX, oh and let's not forget NeXT) and IBM AIX screams on PPCs.
Warning: Rant ensues...
The superiority of Macintosh is severely in question. My first computer
was the Lisa before MacWorks, and my first mac was a Mac 128k. We've
come a long way, and we're more than proud to boast of almost 15 years
of some of the best hardware on the market. However, during those 15
years, we were only blessed with the best proprietary hardware. ADB is
no more superior to PS/2 than USB is. USB is a mixed blessing, in and
of itself. We get hot-swappable devices for the cost of another
all-but-proprietary interface.
And remember that even though we have some of the fastest general
processors on the planet, the switch from the 604e to the G3 was a
trade-off: integer for floating-point. The speed difference is
noticeable in the system software, yes, but I recognize the change in MATLAB.
Then we have Firewire replacing SCSI? You can't seriously talk about
Apple as a proponent of good hardware when they dump their most
compatible interface. Firewire doesn't even offer a great speed
increase (what that megabits/megabytes game). Sure, you can run 50 odd
devices on the line, if you have 50 devices to run. I have three
computers and a network I share with another fellow--7 machines in all,
and if I took all the devices we run on them, I may be able to run three
SCSI lines full. But that would simply be silly (And I'm still talking
SCSI-2, here).
I'm not going to bring up the replacement of internal SCSI hardisks with
IDE. For shame.
It is true that any individual macintosh is a quality machine. Any jerk
from Bozo to Beelzebub can get an iMac and do incredible things right
out of the box--there's a lot of power in the little suckers. However,
I have had the chance to stack up the macs against intel and sparc
first-hand on a single network (1 Win98, 1Win95/RedHat5.2, 2 Slink
Intel, 1 Slink Sparc, 1 G3/300 Wall Street at 8.6 with OpenGL, and 1
8500/466dual604e). The verdict? The macos can't even properly set up
it's own hostname, the Open Firmware is harder to set up than the
Sparc's (Apple playing games with IEEE standards), and the
multiprocessing support (in linux and in MacOS) is so inadequate that
it's not worth cross-compiling for the intel machines because it's not
worth the hassle of moving the files around the network.
The problem with PPC is that we have an attractive architecture, and a
very attractive processor set caged in these boxes that were put
together to insure Apple's market share. Don't get me wrong, I love my
macs (ever since I was 6 playing Amazing!), but my first Intel machine
was bought because Apple has changed from a maker of the bleeding edge
in quality machines to another market-hungry profiteer.
After all, the m68k macs were supported straight up to System 8.1.
MAYBE the 60x gets to 8.7 or 8.8 (don't hold your breath), and that's
it? The 60x and the 80x (G3) architectures aren't very different at
all, and for some reason OSX can't be ported to it? I don't think so.
The loss of support for the 60x series in favor of the blue and white
jack-in-the-box generation was a marketing decision designed to move the
PowerPC users into G3 users as well as to be an attractive move for new users.
I've watched the mac grow from just a dream in a Lisa to the Quadras. I
saw the golden age of Quicktime. I remember when the SCSI in my IIx was
the envy of the PC world. I remember when the AV and 10baseT in the
840AV filled a room with gawkers. I remember the days when I could
crunch 5000 x 5000 matrices into meaningful analysis while playing in
Photoshop left people's jaws hanging. And I remember the days of
downloading MacOS, or should I say System 6, for free.
I've watched the mac grow. I watched the m68k's come and go; the
quadras, performas, and LCs that lived with me through high school.
Then the PowerPC's, it seems like yesterday. And after the Plus was
keeping up with system software for ten years, I watched the PowerPCs
abandoned after 5. At that rate, we'll kiss the G3's goodbye the year
after next, if that. Dump the G4's for multiproc quads, etc... because
Apple can simply dump ADB support and kill off a generation. Why not
Firewire? SCSI went for IDE to lower price. The cases keep getting
stylized when the ATX standard makes such nice boxes. We're just moving
to 100MHz buses when the PCs have been there and are looking forward to 133's.
We're lagging behind, and that's the bottom line. iMac is cute. It's
sortof nice to have a Powerbook that runs Quake better than most
desktops, true.
But my 604e is a powerhouse for 3D rendering, raster editing, sound
processing, and numerical analysis. And after that, the Powerbook was
just a toy--little improvement but a lot of style.
I don't mean to start a flame war. I just get sick to watch all this
gawking over Apple while Jobs is dragging the whole thing down a hole.
In all things,
Samuel Knapp
-----
Georgia Institute of Technology, Chemical Engineering
Marius Vollmer
> Warning: Rant ensues...
Very interesting read, indeed. And, I fear I might have to agree more
and more when I learn more about macs.
I have started my computing career with a Commodore 128D, then came
two Amigas, but I then finally bought a PC, to run GNU/Linux. The
switch to the Wintel platform was purely so that I could run Linux, I
have never done any serious DOS or Windows stuff, thank god. I always
despised the Wintel architecture, especially compared to the Amiga. I
knew everything about the Amiga, but the PC never enthused me. I
don't own a single book about it.
But now I got hold of a iMac and that old enthusiasm came back.
PowerPC! USB! OpenFirmware! And, to make it useful, Linux! Wow, I
thought, I'm going to turn this sucker inside out and my next work
horse will be a Power Macintosh G3. Finally, I would be freed from
the Wintel mafia.
But. Right now, I'm knee deep into the OpenFirmware and I like it
less and less. It might have been a good idea, but for all I know,
it's way too complicated because it wants to do too many things, and
at the same time too limited and doesn't really achieve its goal,
because its hard to implement completely and correctly. Apples
implementation looks more and more bogus to me. I think the iMacs
can't even load a boot block. You need to have a HFS, HFS+, FAT or
ISO file system on yer system. Hopefully, I'm wrong about this, but
there sure don't make it easy to figure this stuff out. A mere
curiosity, but still: you can't type "\" into your OpenFirmware prompt
from a German iMac keyboard. Phffrr.
So, I think there are a lot of good ideas, but I wouldn't be surprised
if there were done so incompetely as to be not at all better as that
Wintel mess. I really hope I'm wrong about this.
- Marius
boydedoy
issue, no?
Motorola manufactures the processors, and could build motherboards based
on some standard (CHRP?) with open firmware or whatever. The biggest problem
with
powerpc as a platform is that you have to buy your hardware from apple. (not that
it's bad hardware, but there's no choice in the matter)
I can't call a pc parts store and buy a motherboard, case etc and set up a killer
powerpc
machine.
Hopefully this will change with the advent of linuxppc v5+ (having glibc2
libraries should make it a much more viable linux platform, and companies may be
less hesitant to port
their software over as it becomes easier.)
Selling powerpc motherboards, processors, etc would allow niche companies to
make say-- powerpc linux boxes with g3 processors etc.
I'd bet an SMP g3 (if such a beast existed at an affordable price) would make a
kick ass linux server, and probably beat Intel IA-32 hardware in many areas
without costing what really high end machinery would cost.
Matt
Samuel Knapp
> I have started my computing career with a Commodore 128D, then came
> two Amigas, but I then finally bought a PC, to run GNU/Linux. The
> switch to the Wintel platform was purely so that I could run Linux, I
> have never done any serious DOS or Windows stuff, thank god. I always
> despised the Wintel architecture, especially compared to the Amiga. I
> knew everything about the Amiga, but the PC never enthused me. I
> don't own a single book about it.
I started using x86 platform to run linux as well. I'm incredibly
frustrated with LinuxPPC's inability to keep the distribution up. I
understand the kind of work they do, and the standards they maintain; as
well as the trouble of getting Netscape to function. But what really
disturbs me is their relative absence from the newsgroups, mail lists,
and their own website. I've had to hack so much on my R4 system to do
the things I've wanted to in this glibc2 world, and it's all but
impossible to upgrade to glibc2 from glibc1.99 without a cross-compiler,
so it was even more pressing for them to get R5 out. I've been waiting
6 months.
I gave up and got a Lintel box specifically to run Debian 2.1, and get
things working without all the headache.
> But now I got hold of a iMac and that old enthusiasm came back.
> PowerPC! USB! OpenFirmware! And, to make it useful, Linux! Wow, I
> thought, I'm going to turn this sucker inside out and my next work
> horse will be a Power Macintosh G3. Finally, I would be freed from
> the Wintel mafia.
The iMac is a fun toy, but I consider it nothing more than a toy for my
purposes (scientific, engineering, graphics, and server applications).
I don't advise looking at the G3 towers. If you've a hold on that iMac,
then sit back and be patient. Look for the next processor series (or
architecture). Apple is going to have to figure out where they're
going, and I'm going to abandon the macintosh (that I was raised on) if
they choose to go Firewire over SCSI and if they manage to keep up these
games in OF. After all, if they can't compete on pure and utter quality
for price, then they can't have my business. I can build a better linux
server in an x86 box than I can from a G3, even with OS X.
> But. Right now, I'm knee deep into the OpenFirmware and I like it
> less and less. It might have been a good idea, but for all I know,
> it's way too complicated because it wants to do too many things, and
> at the same time too limited and doesn't really achieve its goal,
> because its hard to implement completely and correctly.
As I said, the IEEE made a nice standard in Open Firmware, but the
implementation by Apple has been perverted to suit their Apple's (Jobs')
ends. I wonder day by day whether the changes in OF from the PowerMac
(60x line) to the G3 (80x line) were intended to actually make it harder
to implement linux (other than the bastard OS X Server, for what its
worth) on the platform. I'm pretty sure the only reason Apple even uses
OF is so that they can get OS X working, and I'm thinking that they're
desperately trying to avoid letting anyone else play in there. Sad for us.
Samuel Knapp
PPC chip would exist well on an open market against x86 at all. No
better than alpha has, yes? The PPC chip would exist as a niche
processor for people with performance in mind. After all, if all you
want to do is play quake, I can see little real performance difference
between competent x86 boxes and PPC's. Unless you compare frame rates,
there's not much to tell. But when I run a program that takes a lot of
HARD mathematical computation (matrix stuff in MATLAB, etc/ othe data
manipulation, simulation and modelling), the PPC's smoke the x86's. But
this is not a difference you can build a market upon. Sure the PPC or
alpha architecture is attractive to those of us in the linux community
because of the obvious power of the processor without the overhead of
the x86 arch.
So the place of the PPC is best left in the hands of Apple because
people will buy Macs because they are Mac-people, and that is a
significant market. So those of us who actually need that kind of
performance can have it without having to act in a competitive market
that would easily snuff us out.
However, the Apple I envision in the last paragraph is not the Apple we
now have, led by Steve Jobs and interested in marketing over computing.
The PPC architecture would be best controlled by the Apple Computer of
the earlier half of the 1990s, the Apple that took the daring move to
the PPC RISC architecture, and made multiprocessor desktops BECAUSE they
gave superior performance.
After all, Apple's present vision for the Mac is a competitor in the
game market, and as a machine for the masses that want to get on the
internet. That's exactly what I need, sure; I can play quake at the
speed set by the server, but it still takes me two weeks of crunching
numbers to finish a model. The last thing I need is the company that
thinks I want to get on the internet and play games. What I want is the
quad (oct, hexadec) processor machine with the MP support necessary to
handle that. Fact of the matter, the best architecture I can afford is
PPC and the best operating system for running multiproc is linux,
without a doubt.
Otherwise, I have to look at a dedicated system on a dedicated machine,
and I can't afford that.
Russell K. Stuever
that the imminent release of R5 is causing some conversation. Now if we
could only get Jason to tell us the exact hour we will receive it..... or
maybe mail us one early.... I really don't have to have the penguin on mine
:)
I'll be patient.... I waited 9 mo. for my cable modem...whats a few more
weeks for R5
--
Russell Stuever
rus...@swaknnit.com
http://home.mmcable.com/russkle
----------
In article <7ijs25$vck$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Russ"
Ronald Bruck
:Hey, you absolutely wonderful LinuxPPC guys:
:You know it was bound to come... but it's been exactly 14 days (2 weeks)
:since you said to expect an announcement about R5. Should wee wait a few
:more days? Another two weeks?
Maybe we should rename this thread? "R5: It's been four weeks..." ;o)
--Ron Bruck
J. Haas
> Um, what was this thread about? I forget. :-) Just kidding. I'm glad to see
> that the imminent release of R5 is causing some conversation. Now if we
> could only get Jason to tell us the exact hour we will receive it.....
'fraid not.
Sorry I haven't been around, but my PowerBook died. (Not related to
Linux causing problems: the thing's just stone dead. Bad when you are
on a trip, need to give a presentation...)
I'll be mostly unavailable for most of this week. Happily, I have a
7500 back home that I'd installed Linux on last year, and will be able
to use that, test R5, and write docs for it (and for you!).
-- Jason.. annoyed at the Mac OS on this borrowed iMac.. :>
Steve Wall
>Simon 'tufty' Stapleton wrote:
>
>> But I would like a copy of
>> R5 at some time in the (near) future.
>>
>> So, c'mon Jason. Let us know what's going on, and regularly. Please?
>
>are kind to us, you will be getting R5 CDs before the end of the month.
>
>Re: no new news since April whenever, I would suggest looking at the
>plethora of other news sites; our priority has been finishing the new
>release, and having completed that, we'll start looking after the news
>again.
I think the community would've appreciated some sort of progress
report once in a while. I'm subscribed to the linuxppc-user mailing
list, I browse the linuxppc-dev list and I check Usenet every now
and then. But I first heard about the CD shipping on macosrumors.com.
No where that I've seen has there been any traffic providing any insight
into progress with Netscape Communicator, which is thought to be the
major hangup that's prevented shipping all these months. Now that
you're planning to ship CDs I guess it must be fixed but damn if I
know where the developer to developer traffic takes place that we
users could lurk to keep abreast of things. If there is such a
place, do let us in on the secret.
Steve Wall
Rich Hall
Or "four months..." or pretty soon "a year". Although Jason has
responded to several of the posts in this thread, he hasn't had anything
substantive to say. My guess is that means there isn't anything to say!
IMHO when you are in business (even if it's not profitable) one of the
worse sins you can commit is to promise what you can't deliver. I
ordered R5 in early March when its release was described as 'soon'. Had
I known 3 months later the official word would be the same, I never
would have ordered. Certainly I will take with a huge grain of salt, if
I take them at all, any claims linuxppc.com makes in the future.
-Rich
Brian Kendig
>IMHO when you are in business (even if it's not profitable) one of the
>worse sins you can commit is to promise what you can't deliver. I
>ordered R5 in early March when its release was described as 'soon'. Had
>I known 3 months later the official word would be the same, I never
>would have ordered. Certainly I will take with a huge grain of salt, if
>I take them at all, any claims linuxppc.com makes in the future.
Good! Then you've learned something.
I believe it's always a mistake to talk about ship dates, even estimated
ones, until after the golden master is on its way to the duplicators.
Until then, you never know what unforseen complications can knock your
schedule off by days, weeks, or even months. The only thing worse than
promising a ship date and missing it, it stubbornly sticking to it --
I'll wager that no one here *really* wanted an unstable or nonfunctional
R5 back at the end of February, and having to do damage control after a
shoddy release can sap resources from further development.
Meanwhile, for all those of you complaining that R5 isn't out yet: get a
hobby! You're not doing anyone a favor by griping at the people who are
working on getting the release ready. Yes, I know you're as eager for
R5 as a kid at Christmas, and so am I, but the software won't be ready
'til it's ready, and I'll take issue with anyone who says that the
LinuxPPC team are intentionally holding things back or wasting time.
Get a grip on yourself. If you had known back in March that the
software would be delayed for three months, why wouldn't you have
ordered? Is the software somehow useless to you at this point in time?
Go ahead, I dare you to cancel your order and pass on the upgrade;
somehow I don't think you will.
I think it's great that the developers are putting their time into
working on the software rather than updating the web site or posting on
the newsgroup. Those can come later, after the software's in our
hands. Meanwhile, if you're so gung-ho about getting the software ASAP,
why arent you volunteering to help work on it?
--
____ |\/| Brian Kendig
\ /\ / ..__. brian at enchanter net You are in a maze of twisty
\/ \__\ _/ http://www.enchanter.net/ little passages, all alike.
\__ __ \_ Be insatiably curious.
\____\___\ Ask "why" a lot.
beelers
Amen!
I'm willing to wait for quality rather get a broken product weeks or
months ago...
--
Want your LinuxPPC news?
<http://beelers.home.mindspring.com>
Samuel Knapp
I got into LinuxPPC because I had a mac, and I wanted linux. Period.
At the time I didn't think it would be the better decision to run it on
the mac, and I have only been strengthened in that resolve. If I had
known this release was going to be months late, I would have gone ahead
and bought an intel box (which I have), and run a distribution that can
keep up to date (which I have done). I'm still waiting for R5 eagerly,
but if I can't rely on the distribution keeping current, then I cannot
rely on the distribution for those things which are critical. Fact is,
the glibc libraries have changed the entire schema of linux, and it's
about time we had a distribution that could use them. We have been
waiting for Netscape, yes, and that's worth the time. But I don't care
about an X-based installer, but I have been forced to wait for that as
well. There is plenty of room to be unhappy with the development team.
The new installer should have gone right out the window when delays
came. I would be happy with just a system based on libraries that I
could upgrade to 2.1 myself. What has been holding back my use of
LinuxPPC has been poor multiprocessing support (still unable to get the
SMP working on a PowerMac), and a system that doesn't allow for much of
the modern software to compile because the glibc1.99 libraries were a
terrible choice for the basis of a distribution. And I think that's the
bottom line.
I understand the development team has been doing a lot of work, and I
appreciate that. But I'm not sure you can seriously defend the delay in
the face of the problem it was supposed to fix. Why couldn't R5 have
come out in Febuary based on RedHat 5.2 (after all, R4 was based on
5.0)? R5 is presently coming out right on schedule--just when every
other distribution is managing to put out glibc2.1. I would forgive
them the delay if there had been an R4.2 (based on glibc2.07)
James Yang
wrote:
>I got into LinuxPPC because I had a mac, and I wanted linux. Period.
Then go install Debian! It really isn't that hard.
Martin Costabel
>
> Guys,
> I got into LinuxPPC because I had a mac, and I wanted linux. Period.
> the mac, and I have only been strengthened in that resolve. If I had
> known this release was going to be months late, I would have gone ahead
> and bought an intel box (which I have), and run a distribution that can
> keep up to date (which I have done). I'm still waiting for R5 eagerly,
I don't understand why you don't download and install what is there
(pre-R5 or dev-RR-1.0), has been there and stable for many months, and
is up to date with the latest redhat stuff. I have been running this for
months without problems. IIRC, glibc-2.1 was available on the net for
LinuxPPC the very first day it was released anywhere. Same goes for
RedHat-6.0.
> but if I can't rely on the distribution keeping current, then I cannot
> rely on the distribution for those things which are critical. Fact is,
> the glibc libraries have changed the entire schema of linux, and it's
> about time we had a distribution that could use them. We have been
> waiting for Netscape, yes, and that's worth the time. But I don't care
> about an X-based installer, but I have been forced to wait for that as
> well. There is plenty of room to be unhappy with the development team.
> The new installer should have gone right out the window when delays
> came. I would be happy with just a system based on libraries that I
You are right about the installer which they had but didn't put on the
net. But this is ancient history from more than 2 months ago.
> could upgrade to 2.1 myself. What has been holding back my use of
> LinuxPPC has been poor multiprocessing support (still unable to get the
This has not much to do with the R4/R5 issue. It is a kernel problem.
> SMP working on a PowerMac), and a system that doesn't allow for much of
> the modern software to compile because the glibc1.99 libraries were a
> terrible choice for the basis of a distribution. And I think that's the
> bottom line.
I think it is a little easy to blame poor old glibc-1.99 for all the
problems with compiling "modern software" on the ppc. There were (and
are) issues with the kernel and with the compilers, too. And many
glibc-1.99 problems could be solved by applying some trivial patches or
by using glibc-2 headers. The latter can be found on the R4 CD. Most
people didn't notice, but there is a glibc-2.0* on the R4 CD.
> I understand the development team has been doing a lot of work, and I
> appreciate that. But I'm not sure you can seriously defend the delay in
> the face of the problem it was supposed to fix. Why couldn't R5 have
> come out in Febuary based on RedHat 5.2 (after all, R4 was based on
It has been around since at least February. The only thing missing was a
distribution on CD, but you could buy YDL's CD since 2 months.
> 5.0)? R5 is presently coming out right on schedule--just when every
> other distribution is managing to put out glibc2.1. I would forgive
> them the delay if there had been an R4.2 (based on glibc2.07).
Since a long time, pre-R5 has been based on the latest glibc-2.*. Many
people installed it in the days of 2.08 (January, I think).
> In all things,
> Samuel Knapp
> -----
> Georgia Institute of Technology, Chemical Engineering
--
Martin
Martin Costabel
Samuel Knapp
> Then go install Debian! It really isn't that hard.
isn't hard. I've been staying away from Debian PPC because I was under
the impression that it wasn't entirely stable, and because downloading a
distribution is really not a very viable option for me.
Samuel Knapp
> I don't understand why you don't download and install what is there
> (pre-R5 or dev-RR-1.0), has been there and stable for many months, and
> is up to date with the latest redhat stuff.
I have a modem that I share with two other people available for
downloading stuff for one reason. For another, I never saw a point in
downloading something I would have "soon" on CD. I've expected R5 'any
day now' for going on five months. That's why I didn't go through the
outrageous pain of downloading 600 megs of mess.
> You are right about the installer which they had but didn't put on the
> net. But this is ancient history from more than 2 months ago.
So is R5, except it's ancient history from 4 months ago. Fact of the
matter, development time that I think would have been better spent
elsewhere (sorry to all the folk that want an X based installer).
> I think it is a little easy to blame poor old glibc-1.99 for all the
> problems with compiling "modern software" on the ppc. There were (and
> are) issues with the kernel and with the compilers, too. And many
> glibc-1.99 problems could be solved by applying some trivial patches or
> by using glibc-2 headers. The latter can be found on the R4 CD. Most
> people didn't notice, but there is a glibc-2.0* on the R4 CD.
I have been. The system's so whacked now that I have to check bits and
pieces every time I want to compile anything. The libraries themselves
do not compile correctly--they fail their self test (and I'm not sure
how accurate those tests are, so I'm not risking my system over it.
Some programs are broken with some of the fixes, and some work with
them, so I get this headache mess of trying to figure out which part of
which header is causing the problems and hacking by it. glibc fixes
break kernel fixes--on and on, ad nauseum. I have attempted upgrading
to glibc-2.*, but to no avail; mostly because I don't have the time to
compile the entire system from scratch (full time student, two jobs,
with linux as a desperate hobby). That's what the distro is supposed to
keep you from having to do, yes? The header game is an interesting way
to waste time, and can, in the end, provide results--I grant you that.
But is this really your idea of the way to fix these problems?
We do have a need for this upgrade, despite the points you make. Not
everyone is willing (or competent, for that matter) to mess around with
header files or to rewrite code--no matter what anyone might think. It
is not a viable option, even for advanced users to upgrade from
glibc1.99 to glibc2.* (that's why there's a developer classification and
a user classification).
> It has been around since at least February. The only thing missing was a
> distribution on CD, but you could buy YDL's CD since 2 months.
I don't approve of YDL's structure (the company, not the distribution),
and I do not wish to support them. That aside, I bought R5 four months
ago. Again, I thought the distro would be out "soon." That's why I,
and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, have been hesitant to find an
alternative for linuxPPC.
> Since a long time, pre-R5 has been based on the latest glibc-2.*. Many
> people installed it in the days of 2.08 (January, I think).
Yes, if I would be happy to download a distribution that would be out
"soon," that lacked a browser and that I had already paid for. You have
to understand that most of us cannot make a living out of these boxes,
so this amounts to a hobby (albeit the focus of our free time). As
such, we don't have the time to babysit a download over modem and then
install unless it is truly desperate. If I had been aware in Febuary
that linuxppc wouldn't put out R5 until July (August?, September?), then
I would have had some reason to do it, and find some browser to use
(lynx work ok?). But I didn't because the CD has been coming out "soon"
for months. Like it or not, this is something I can be upset with the
good folks at linuxppc about--I do not mean to impinge on their skill or
talent. The need is great, and the wait is long. When I saw people
defending this development team, I felt the point needed to be made: if
the distribution isn't going to be put out soon, that should be said.
It's not that hard to update a web page.
J. Haas
> Good! Then you've learned something.
We've also learned not to make announce dates, and it's spoiling the
thought of future public betas.
> I believe it's always a mistake to talk about ship dates, even estimated
> ones, until after the golden master is on its way to the duplicators.
> Until then, you never know what unforseen complications can knock your
> schedule off by days, weeks, or even months. The only thing worse than
> promising a ship date and missing it, it stubbornly sticking to it --
> I'll wager that no one here *really* wanted an unstable or nonfunctional
> R5 back at the end of February, and having to do damage control after a
> shoddy release can sap resources from further development.
The backlash would have been immense.
Some people have compared us to Microsoft. I counter that if we were
like MS, we would have charged you three times for insignificant
upgrades, and then shipped the final product three years late.
> Meanwhile, for all those of you complaining that R5 isn't out yet:
get a
> hobby! You're not doing anyone a favor by griping at the people who are
> working on getting the release ready. Yes, I know you're as eager for
> R5 as a kid at Christmas, and so am I, but the software won't be ready
> 'til it's ready, and I'll take issue with anyone who says that the
> LinuxPPC team are intentionally holding things back or wasting time.
There are many things that I can't tell you about that have held the
release up. They have nothing to do with glibc2, gnome, or even linux
itself. I've been doing the best I can with the limited information I
can distribute.
If we could have gotten this thing done when we wanted to (and had set a
more realistic timeline), we could have avoided this. But R5 wouldn't
have glibc2, the new installers, or GNOME. We definantely won't make
any announcements about R6.
That said, I'll say again: manufacturing takes time.
Israel Alvarez
<madr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I don't approve of YDL's structure (the company, not the distribution),
> and I do not wish to support them. That aside, I bought R5 four months
> ago. Again, I thought the distro would be out "soon." That's why I,
> and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, have been hesitant to find an
> alternative for linuxPPC.
Why don't you approve of YDL's Structure? I ordered R5 back in January and
long ago ran out of steam messing with MySQL, PHP, and netatalk. I bought,
installed, and have been running several Dell boxes with FreeBSD, and have
been very happy with the results. Especially with MySQL, netatalk, and
PHP. But I want to run Linux on several PowerPC machines I have, and have
been considering getting YDL since it's out, they (and their distribution)
seems solid, and they seem to have resolved whatever issues are holding up
LinuxPPC long ago. Am I missing something with YDL? Should I stick with
FreeBSD? I don't really feel comfortable putting LinuxPPC on production
machines, given the current state of affairs.
--
Israel Alvarez
Propellerhead Without Portfolio : iMarc
is at imarc dot net - The amazingly heavy lifeless dog
"The crimes of eBay are a disgrace to its Pig Latin heritage."
- TheOnion.com
Martin Costabel
>
> In article <375EA603...@mindspring.com>, Samuel Knapp
> <madr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > and I do not wish to support them. That aside, I bought R5 four months
> > ago. Again, I thought the distro would be out "soon." That's why I,
> > and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, have been hesitant to find an
> > alternative for linuxPPC.
>
> long ago ran out of steam messing with MySQL, PHP, and netatalk. I bought,
> installed, and have been running several Dell boxes with FreeBSD, and have
> been very happy with the results. Especially with MySQL, netatalk, and
> PHP. But I want to run Linux on several PowerPC machines I have, and have
> been considering getting YDL since it's out, they (and their distribution)
> seems solid, and they seem to have resolved whatever issues are holding up
> LinuxPPC long ago. Am I missing something with YDL?
They resolved the issues by ignoring them. Apple's idea: If it doesn't
quite run and is incomplete, call it "server". YDL "champion server 1.0"
was the same as a linuxppc-pre-R5 snapshot from April.
> Should I stick with
> FreeBSD? I don't really feel comfortable putting LinuxPPC on production
> machines, given the current state of affairs.
The current state of affairs is that LinuxPPC R5 is finished (I am using
the new netscape to write this), and you don't need to be a big prophet
to predict that a new version of YDL is also imminent.
--
Martin