http://www.osnews.com/story/2280/EXCLUSIVE_Terra_Soft_Presents_Full_YDL_Hardware_Solution_for_PPC Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:26:57 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The motherboard has PCI, but does that mean i can take drivers for my PCI soundcard that's currently in my x86 box and use them on this motherboard? Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? No. You will need PPC drivers, the x86 drivers are compiled for a different CPU. You might be able to recompile them though. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I dunno about you guys but im wetting my pants here. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the AmigaOne beat them to the punch? Terra Soft's claim is loaded with qualifiers however, and I don't know if the AmigaOne has full Linux support. However, the AmigaOne boards were announced several months ago, and are slated to be shipping before Christmas. Terra Soft is just announcing these boards... god knows how long until they're actually shipping. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the AmigaOne beat them to the punch

Terra Soft is talking about a 100% Linux-compliant board. AmigaONE is talking about AmigaONE 100% compliant, not Linux. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing.

Sure PPC boards are nice, but what good do they do? Who should buy it? a few thousand geeks? Sorry, Be proved you can't live of that.

As much as I like the idea of an open platform, I can't see any reason to leave my intel machine.

Michael Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If the AmigaOne can run OSX within MacOnLinux. Then I am sure this will as well. I had to sell my old Blue&White G3 Mac and I can't buy another one because they are too expensive. In the meantime I have been having to use a crappy 1Ghz x86. This could be, for me, a cheap solution. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Aren't the current PPC all less powerfull that their x86 counterpart ? Why is it so important to have a PPC in a PC box ? Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You can be sure that Apple will make sure that OSX won't run on these machines. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If you want to run AmigaOS4 as well, it would be better to get an official licensed AmigaOne board instead. (However you may be able to upgrade the BIOS ROM of this board to make it AmigaOS4 compatible, but obviously that would cost significantly more.)

These boards are very similar to the AmigaOneG3-SE boards, but the G3/G4 AmigaOne-XE boards are more advanced. Of course as AmigaOS4 isn't finished yet, the AmigaOne boards will only be available in combination with SuSE Linux and UAE.

More info http://www.eyetech.co.uk/amigaone/oct252002a.php Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You're looking at the AmigaOne without the infamous SW "dongle" that let's you run AmigaOS 4.0. Noticed the PPCBoot FirmWare? It's been developed by Hyperion Entertainment - the samy guys behind OS4.0 (they were contracted by MAI). What they've done is to squeesh a x86 emulator into the BIOS so the Teron is likely to at least be able to run the initialization code found on many expansion boards these days.

The A1 comes with YDL so it'd be a bit silly to say that this is the first 100% Linux compliant board (not that it bothers me *THAT' much so I'll drop it. Words, words, words as dear ol'Shakespeare said/wrote).

Basically, if you only want to run Linux - get a board from Terrasoft. If you want to be able to run AmigaOS too get a board from Eyetech (www.eyetech.co.uk) or other Amniga retailers.

Really, without Eyetech contacting MAI there wouldn't have been any consumer mobos for quite some time. Do note that Eyetech et al (MAI really) already got a socketed G3@700 MHz and a socketed G4@800 MHz in the pipelines so Terra Soft should be able to announce the "Wrold's first Linux G4 mobo"...isn't it neat when others do the work for you?


Now all you Linux-geeks can you say Thank you Amiga for making this happen in the first place?

:-D

Cheers all!

/Lennart - Only Amiga makes it possible Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Like Mike said, The A1 comes with SuSE and not YDL. The Pegasos from BPlan comes with YDL but (obviously) I won't be able to run AmigaOS. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I won't be able to run AmigaOS." should be "it won't be able to run AmigaOS." Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I found my Blue&White 400Mhz G3 (upgraded) with 320MB RAM to be more fluid than my erratic WindowsXP 1Ghz PIII 256MB RAM. Sometimes the P3 will fly around everything then I will right click on the desktop and have to wait about 20 seconds for the menu to come up. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I am sure YDL will be available for AmigaOne boards pretty soon as well. The main reason why SuSE is supported first is because developers/consumers have showed their preferences towards this distribution.

With regard to AmigaO4 another important thing to think about is hardware support, as you will probably understand it is almost impossible for a new OS to support all hardware component available on the market today. The developers will need to write such drivers for themselves.

Currently the best choise for Amiga users is to get a SB Live! audio card in ccombination with an ATi Radeon 7x00/8x00 video card. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? He said it's not been tested with MorphOS.

Thats not entirely true, bplan have tested MorphOS on that board and I'm one of the very few who have seen it running :-)

The Pegasos from BPlan comes with YDL.
Not true, that was the original plan, I belive the current plan it to ship with Debian. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Currently the best choise for Amiga users is to get a SB Live! audio card in ccombination with an ATi Radeon 7x00/8x00 video card."

Which means that if you've got these cards and are thinking about getting yourself a Teron CX, you might as well buy an A1 and get AmigaOS running when you're at it.

@Dave: Some more RAM in the PC might help a little, a reinstall might help you for a while, but sure, Wintels can be a real pain in the ass when it comes to being "responsive".

When it comes to running Mac On Linux, well here's from the MOL FAQ:

"Q: Does MOL run on non-Apple hardware?

A: It does. MOL runs for instance on the Pegasos board, the Teron board and on AmigaOne hardware. In short, MOL should run on any PowerPC hardware (with the except of 601-based systems). However, the EULA of MacOS prohibits its usage on non-Apple hardware (it is of course perfectly legal to use MOL to boot a second Linux though)."

So, technically, yes, legally, no. This makes the AmigaOne/Teron CX a cheap, but sadly illegal, Mac. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If you build a firwall, non x86 hardware is important, because rootkit for non x86 OS are harder to find, harder to code because there is less hardware in the wild. Remember when linuxppc did the contest it took over 4 month to crack a proftd problem that was craked in 4 days on x86, shell code is harder to write on on x86.

For that reason at least having a cheap PPC solution is great.

--
http://islande.hirlimann.net Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @ Nicholas

Wasn't MorphOS only tested with Mai's evaluation boards using a Softex BIOS ROM instead? As Mai hired the Hyperion team to develop a new PPCBoot based BIOS ROM it is likely that MorphOS still doesn't run with these boards yet.

I don't think these boards use all old (buggy) Softex ROM anymore. Next to SuSE, also YDL, TurboLinux, Debian, etc already worked with earlier (Softex) AmigaOne boards.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1356 Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Not true, that was the original plan, I belive the current plan it to ship with Debian."

Ah, interesting. I haven't seen or heard anything about it, though. Do you know why they switched/will switch? Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If that Palladium/DRM crap becomes a reality ( which it sounds like it will if MS has a say about it ) and every PC hardware vendor bends over backwards to please MS, RIAA, and the MPAA then I see a very big market here ! Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? (I'm aware that this is a bit off-topic)

I have yet to see an even somewhat-convincing argument that "that Palladium/DRM crap" isn't a good thing. Would you be willing to provide one? Then, after that, could you please supply the marketing that this company would use (slogans, etc.) to appeal to this so-called "very big market". Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have yet to see an even somewhat-convincing argument that "that Palladium/DRM crap" isn't a good thing. Would you be willing to provide one?

Alas I don't want to go to far off topic here and this is probably just a troll but.. yeah. Mod me down if you must Eugenia. Oh, this system is cool btw.

DRM/Palladium means that trusted code has to verified by the OS. This places sole and complete control of what code your computer can run in the hands of intel/microsoft. It also strips away fair use rights.

DRM/palladium isn't neccassary. Decent code and some simple changes on the OS side would fix 99% of the problems in the wintel world. How many viruses do you see for *nix systems? As for DRM management.. it's not my fault the record/movie companies still haven't developed a decent online purchasing system or adopted to the times. Sorry, touch luck RIAA/mpAA

You are trusting your computer to a company with a huge record for security holes in its products. Microsoft's security track record isn't exactly sterling and you want to trust them to develop a method for implemnting secure code services?

Advertising slogan? Rip.Mix.Burn. Not on your pc you won't be able to. Simple enough for you? Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @bkakes:

Slighlty biased, by anyone with an opnion is biased.

-> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

And yes, I'm fully against TCPA/Palladium. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Obviously Palladium will only result in crackers digging a bit deeper to remove the "copy protection". Nothing has ever stopped a pirate that really wants to copy something. Freeware and OSS programs could get a boost from Palladium simply because it forces people to look for alternatives.

Copy protection is one thing, infringing on people's rights is another and quite frankly Palladium is way over the line already.

Enough OT though. This thread is about Terra Soft announcing a PPC mobo from MAI. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The first AmigaOneG3SE's sent out to betatesters before the summer came with YellowDog. And they run Debian and SuSe too afaik.. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "However, the EULA of MacOS prohibits its usage on non-Apple hardware
(it is of course perfectly legal to use MOL to boot a second Linux
though)." So, technically, yes, legally, no. This makes the
AmigaOne/Teron CX a cheap, but sadly illegal, Mac. "

That is, if Apple have any right to limit what hardware you run their
programs on. I doubt if that EULA would stand up in court.

They can of course refuse any support if the software is not running
on approved hardware. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @Don Cox

If you get MOL and Linux running I doubt youäll need Apple's much of support so I consider that a non-issue to me...;-)

It's funny how EULAs in general tend to be rendered invalid due to various laws. Maybe the companies should try to make EULAs that confomr to the laws instead, eh? :-) Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Hey!,I am downloading Gentoo PPC linux for my upcoming AmigaOne XE G4,
and while i wait the Final OS4 Version,i prepare myself Gentoo
kernel to work with my New G4 system.(surely at same time i am betatesting OS4) Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Don'yt bother DL:ing Gentoo until you got the A1 in your hands - improved versions of Gentoo is bound to be released a few times before that happens. Of course, if you got another PPC system that can run Gentoo - go right ahead with the DL. :-) Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I am currently running Debian 3.0 on AmigaOne (PPCBoot revision 1.1.6) Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >I am currently running Debian 3.0 on AmigaOne (PPCBoot
>revision 1.1.6)

Which Amiga One? CPU Mhz?

Whats it like?

Details man Details. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? David McPaul: if you would like to see an AmigaOne, you should surf the net a little more widely, my A1G3SE board can be seen at the local (Sydney Amiga User Group) SAUG meeting, and was first shown in October. The meeting is in Epping, NSW. http://welcome.to/SAUG. You just missed the meeting this month, next meeting is next year. The board is running Debian 3.0. We also have MOL running on it.

Eugenia: Please familiarise yourself with what an AmigaOne IS. http://www.eyetch.co.uk/amigaone. It is basically a TeronCX, the AmigaOne/TeronCX specific ppcboot firmware was written by Hyperion - well known Amiga developers. (If you read web sites/listen to MP3s you will find this). The difference is that an AmigaOne can run OS4, but the TeronCX cannot, since it is not licenced to run OS4. A licenced board contains special additional ROM code.

Consumer PPC boards with Linux is not exactly an exclusive, nor a world first, both AmigaOne/Teron CX and the Pegasos boards are consumer boards that can run PowerPC Linux, and news of them has been out for a _very_ long time now. They have also been dislayed numerous times. The AmigaOne is available for order from the Eyetech web site.

MorphOS is intended for the Pegasos which has OpenFirmware. The AmigaOne/Teron CX ppcboot firmware is not OpenFirmware, so that means MorphOS would not run on the AmigaOne/TeronCX at present.

All this information is freely available on the internet.

Ross.. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Don Cox wrote:

> "However, the EULA of MacOS prohibits its usage on non-Apple
> hardware (it is of course perfectly legal to use MOL to boot
> a second Linux though)."

But until 2002, nearly all PPC hardware except some IBMs are Apple hardware or Apple licensed, so that wasn't a problem at all. You can get your i/PowerSomething, put Linux on it, install MOL and run MacOS X from that. After all, it's Apple hardware.

Now you can get a PPC mobo with Linux, install MOL and run MacOS X. Or even running directly MacOS X (hm, maybe only Darwin, not MacOS X) from that.

We can only wonder what will be Apple's reaction if those mobos become popular and people start to run MacOS X on non-Apple hardware. I personally believe that they will mobilize their cease-and-desist army on MOL developers if that starts to hurt Apple's hardware sales. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Very exciting news! Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You can now justify Linux to the boss as these boards are IBM compatible! You can't go wrong for buying IBM even more so than buying MS.
Let's hope IBM and their Linux people capitalize on this fact! Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > DRM/Palladium means that trusted code has to verified by the OS. This places sole
> and complete control of what code your computer can run in the hands of
> intel/microsoft.

No, it places control in the hands of the software vendors and content providers.

> DRM/palladium isn't neccassary.

What about renting movies online, or a bunch of other new services that Palladium will enable? Vendors need to have secure storage on your computer fo this to work; otherwise, people would just copy the media and give it to all their friends. How does one make money that way?

I see absolutely no problem with DRM/Palladium; it's voluntary, and if you do not like it, then you do not need to buy software that uses it.

> Decent code and some simple changes on the OS side would fix 99% of the problems
> in the wintel world.

Uh, sure.

> How many viruses do you see for *nix systems?

None, but then again I do not know of any script kiddies with grudges against SGI, HP, or IBM.

> As for DRM management.. it's not my fault the record/movie companies still haven't
> developed a decent online purchasing system or adopted to the times. Sorry, touch
> luck RIAA/mpAA

I think that you are shooting yourself in the foot here. Palladium would enable a huge range of new pricing structures that digital media producers might actually consider adopting. They are not total idiots, after all. With the current DRM media, circumvention is fairly easy because it can be done in software; Palladium would prevent software from ever being able to use the media in a way that you did not agree on at the time of purchase.

> You are trusting your computer to a company with a huge record for security holes in
> its products.

The same could be said for anyone who runs Windows XP - or 95 for that matter - and I do not see how Palladium changes any of that.

> Microsoft's security track record isn't exactly sterling and you want to trust them
> to develop a method for implemnting secure code services?

(You are contradicting yourself here. First you fear the complete control that you claim Microsoft would have, and then you are saying that they could never have complete control. Which is it?)

It was my understanding that Palladium was being constructed by many different companies with Microsoft leading the initiative. Furthermore, most of the work would obviously have to be done in hardware (read: on the CPU) for it to have even reasonable speed, and the only thing that Microsoft would actually be doing at the OS level is providing an API for the hardware functions.

For example, a game would use the API to mark its movie files as readable only by the game itself; the hardware would handle the encryption/decryption and protection, and Windows would just provide the C functions that allow applications to easily communicate with the protection hardware. Whether those files are on disk or in memory, only the game itself could actually access them.

Game developers could provide media in standard formats and just use the Palladium hardware to protect; currently, they all have their own formats and they have to worry about the content getting ripped.

MMORPGs would be much better because the data could be stored locally instead of on the company's servers. You could have as many characters as you have disk space, instead of being limited to a fixed amount (to save server space). Why? Game developers could freely store your game data locally and mark it as inaccessible by the end user. This would make it impossible to modify your data outside the game (read: cheating) without actually buying hardware to circumvent Palladium. No more map hacks, no more trainers, no more cheat utilities. Of course, there would still be the transmission of game data over public networks (such as the Internet), but even then you would have to have some kind of computer sitting between the client and server to intercept and modify the packets.

> Advertising slogan? Rip.Mix.Burn. Not on your pc you won't be able to. Simple enough
> for you?

Only if you buy DRM media. And frankly, with the proliferation of MP3 players and media hubs, I do not see limiting CD burning as a way of eliminating freedom. My CD burner sits idle most of the time because burning CD's just to make music collections is too much of a hassle; I would much rather have a central repository for the house and store only the playlists on the individual computers.

> Obviously Palladium will only result in crackers digging a bit deeper to remove the
> "copy protection". Nothing has ever stopped a pirate that really wants to copy something.

Except that they cannot even run software to examine the encrypted content, much less figure out how to decode it? I am sure that someone will build a hardware solution that will provide a way of accessing the encrypted content, but that is far out of Average Joe Hacker's league.

> Freeware and OSS programs could get a boost from Palladium simply because it
> forces people to look for alternatives.

Given the media's ludicrous, sensationalistic overreaction against WPA - the cataclysm that wasn't - I would say that you are probably right.

> Copy protection is one thing, infringing on people's rights is another and quite
> frankly Palladium is way over the line already.

Whoa! Well, the next time I agree to rent a movie online, I will remember to chew the site out for only letting me play the movie I rented for three days for three days. ( Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Oreilly has a presentation on hand about running OsX on generic ppc hardware. Check it out here : http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/macosx2002/view/e_sess/3159 . Don't know if it would be possible with this particular board. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Really, is there much appeal for geeks compared to faster cheaper x86 stuff? This is a motherboard. I could find a Linux-compatible motherboard anyday. This may be a good alternative to Apple, but I don't think there is much profit here. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I personally could care less about Palladium, provided that Motherboards that support it will continue to boot non-Palladium aware operating systems. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 14:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? but I want to run NetBSD on it. Does anyone know if it will work with this board? Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If that Palladium/DRM crap becomes a reality ( which it sounds like it will if MS has a say about it ) and every PC hardware vendor bends over backwards to please MS, RIAA, and the MPAA then I see a very big market here !

Of course, most people wouldn't care. And probably wouldn't know about it if Microsoft doesn't advertise it. And would think it as the greatest innovation in history if Microsoft advertise it.

This places sole and complete control of what code your computer can run in the hands of intel/microsoft.

No, not actually. Unless you are using Paladium-only apps, you can easily switch off Palladium, just like you are able to switch off TCPA in current IBM PCs.

How many viruses do you see for *nix systems?

Contrary to popular belief, Palladium isn't made to deter viruses, nor would it deter viruses. Viruses normally manipulate someone ignorance or a security hole. The latter for sure would be present, no doubt about that. Fact: Humans can never build a full-proof system, there is always a defect we didn't know.

Besides, how much market share does UNIX have on the desktop? On the enterprise, what is the biggest player, and how much market share? Is each UNIX version different? Yeap. That in all becomes a good reason why UNIX isn't a huge target for viruses. Another would be the fact that nobody in their right minds using Linux or FreeBSD or AIX would open "britney_spears_nude.jpg.bin".

You are trusting your computer to a company with a huge record for security holes in its products.

However, most of these security holes came from design mistakes made when that company couldn't care less about security. Now, the company is really trying hard to change its ways.

Advertising slogan? Rip.Mix.Burn. Not on your pc you won't be able to. Simple enough for you?

Actually, most legal online music venues allow a certain number of times you can burn on a CD. Plus, ripping from a CD is possible with Palladium, and burning it is easy too. What's stopping it is copyright protection that doesn't use Palladium (there isn't any plans to make a copyright protection that requires Palladium, think of all the Red Book players that can't play it?).

Copy protection is one thing, infringing on people's rights is another and quite frankly Palladium is way over the line already.

Copyright protection, in its current form, is already way over the line on consumer rights. Palladium just makes is potentially better.

-----

Don Cox: That is, if Apple have any right to limit what hardware you run their
programs on. I doubt if that EULA would stand up in court.

There's a high chance it would, actually. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I will buy 20 of those machines, I like YDL and I use it as my sole OS on my Macs. Terrasoft may be a small company but they understand quality, which is a rare thing these days, Im not saying people will come in droves to buy these machines but thoseof us who know Terrasoft and who love terrasoft will snatch em up. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think this is pretty incommon. My P3-m 1.2Ghz with the same amount of RAM never had that problem. Unless of course I was running Cakewalk and Photoshop at the same time. Using the Task Manager, it takes little time to pin-point the problem on the capacity of the RAM, or the lack of it. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First one question:
is it legal for Apple to say, you bought OSX but may only run it on this and that hardware?? Sounds crap to me.

I think there are a lot of advantages of having a PPC, not an Athlon: the hardware is inherently more elegant, so it doesn't have to emulate sucky x86 ops, which means less power, less latency, less heat. Also PPC programs should be nicer to compile. Anyone who has ever looked at gcc output on x86 knows what I mean. Talk about much less memory accesses here, which also should be good to heat/energy. Also the clean design of the PPC means context switches much faster than on x86. Some MorphOS guy I think, said they could do the microkernel thing on PPC because context switches don't slow the system down like they would on intel.

BTW, does anyone know if this board/CPU will allow passive, fanless cooling?? I'm already wetting my mouth... Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The damn thing is still 500 clams just for the MB/cpu. bleh. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? From looking at the pictures there appears to be one small fan on the mobo. Could this be ripped off and replaced with a large heatsink (patience and thermal conductive glue!)? I've been looking at the VIA Eden as a basis for a silent entertainment PC (The fanless models run @ about 500Mhz and only cost $120 w/ integrated VGA, Sound, & network), but if the PPC architechure is more efficent than x86 it may be a better choice when faced with large or complex media streams. Just some ramblings. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? pat wrote:
> I dunno about you guys but im wetting my pants here.

I'm with you brother, this is awesome news. I'm starting putting money aside for this *today*. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ...I'd buy one as soon as my income tax refund comes in. Other than that, I don't see any point. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Nice idea to have ATX versions of something other than x86.

Even nicer for $500, I can get a dual MP Tyan mobo & 2 AthlonMP 2G for same dosh, says so right on PriceGrabber. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In my opinion, there is only 1 reason to run a Mac rather than a PC... for the Mac OS. So, if you compare this machine to Apple's prices, it doesn't seem that you are getting a deal. It's $800-900 for a 600Mhz G3. You can get an authentic Mac (so that you don't have to use Mac-on-Linux) for very close to this price running at a higher clock (and with monitor included). If MacOS is to be your primary OS, then it makes more sense to buy a Mac. This machine really only makes sense if you have your heart set on Linux (rather than MacOS X), but need to run MacOS apps... a kind of migration strategy. But with MacOS X being just another flavor of UNIX, why not just stick with OSX and get better app support?

As an x86 user, I would only start to seriously look at this machine if it was technically superior in some way OR if it offered a cheap way to run MacOS apps. Running Linux is a moot point since I can get much cheaper x86 hardware for this. This company could have picked a much more powerful PowerPC processor. Alternatively, they could have priced the hardware much lower.

Whether you're a Mac fan or a PC fan, it doesn't really make much sense to buy this machine. Who's it really for... maybe those people who hate Apple, hate Windows, hate x86, love MacOS, and are willing to give up some speed to run their preferred OS? Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This is a great scoop and good news! However, don't expect YDL to be anywhere approaching fast on this MB/computer. YDL is really a mixed bag. Geeks will like tinkering with it, but it will be sluggish and some things will proabably not work right. It does have apt-get from the command line, which is easy. I had it on an 800 MHz iMac with 1 GB RAM and it was pretty sluggish on that. I do like this though and hope they can make progress and continue in this endeavor. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? first off, i think i need to change my pants

second 2.cents, this isn't a Mac. it's a PowerPC. there's a difference. Mac is a powerpc system, but this isn't Mac. It's not sold or supported by apple, therefore, not mac.

C, i want one, now! to those who think powerpc is slower cause it doesn't have a 3ghz rating, ur not very smart technologiclly are you? it takes less time to boot YDL 2.1 on my 233mhz G3 PowerMac than Mandrake, Slackware, Windows2k, or WinME on my dual processor P3. G3 has 192megs ram, Dual P3 has 512megs. the P3 should by all sense be faster with 600mhz chips. but it's not. maybe it helps that PPC Linux and MacOS are written for PPC chips? and not the x86 emulation that Pentiums and Athlons use? Risc is good, when coded for.

IV, I WANT ONE@!!!!@!@!@#@#
ok, i'm done. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? All the Mac On Linux & Palladium comments are out of place, I think. If you want a Mac, buy a Mac. And any x86 board you buy today doesn't have Palladium.

What I'm excited about is a cool-running, efficient system that will be excellent for a programmer's workstation. Three cheers for x86 alternatives!!

Oh and BTW, all Terrasoft's stuff is excellent - I'm sure this board will perform well. If you want to peel off that fan and stick a passive heatsink on there, go right ahead - no G3 Mac I've ever used had a fan. The HSF that is on these G3s is smaller than the Northbridge fan on my Athlon board Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Kai Staats:Mobo + CPU: $495.00

OUCH OW OW OW OW ( Especially since it doesn't support any Linux app for which only x86 binaries are available unless you want to compile the code yourself.... )

I'm sorry but this is not a bargain and apart from as a MOL box it would seem to make very little sense to buy a 600mhz G3 at somewhat more expense than a 1200Mhz Duron Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Unless it's priced below comparable x86 hardware I do not see any use for this. Can somebody enlighten me why somebody would buy such a thing? What kind of business model do they have unless their real target are machines capable to run MacOSX? Another company doomed for failure if you ask me... Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Kinda lame if you can never upgrade the processor on the mobo, don't you think? Even macs have zif sockets... Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Hi guys;

I'm with everyone else out there who wants to see quality PPC hardware targeted towards linux. In fact I was very hopefull when I first saw the announcements of this PPC Linux system.

Now that I've taken some time to reflect I'm not sure what to think. YDL seems to be after the server market with this hardware, yet the board itself implemnets a bare minimum of ports associated with server implementations. A video implementation is a minimal requirement, especially if an 1U implementation is in order.

On the positive side, if TSS should take advantage of it, is the potential for low power usage. To those of us who have systems powered up all the time that may be a selling point. But it doesn't look like a lot of effort was put into low cost operation either.

So at this time I'm not sure whom they are targeting market wise. It does seem to be grossly overpriced for what is now a low end board and processor combination. Maybe TSS will remake the board into a true low power platform with built in video and market it as such. That might sell.

the reality is for the money being asked a rather impressive system can be purchased using generic PC hardware. Might even be able to manage a raid implementation.

Thanks
dave Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'd rather buy an AmigaOne or Pegasos instead. Costing only a bit more, they offer higher clocked G3 or G4 in a socket.

They can really stand the comparison to Macs. Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Okay, then I will ask:

Can we hack something to run BeOS on these??

;) Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Can we hack something to run BeOS on these?? "
You can run Beos with Mac On Linux, I don't know how usefull it whould be though. Wed, 04 Dec 2002 02:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've always liked alternative architectures (mips, sparc, m68k, ppc, hppa, arm), but I've always hated Macs (because every Mac I've used crashed constantly).I've never tried OS X, but the Macs at school run OS 9 (these are dual 1GHz G4s, too), so I wish they would put OS X on it. Anyway, I'd love a PowerPC workstation. 99.9% of all my Linux programs on x86 will compile just fine. PowerPC is a stable platform (not the hell that is x86), and it may not run as fast as my x86, but it has the efficiency of PowerPC. Its a fun platform to toy with, and I could easily see myself using it as my primary workstation. I want one. Wed, 04 Dec 2002 04:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...

;-) Wed, 04 Dec 2002 07:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? BeOS PPC was supposedly PREP compliant. I wonder if that will have any leverage? Isn't CHRP a fairly similar standard. IIRC there was even talk of BeOS being compatible with the (then) draft CHRP spec. Basically, if you could get BeOS to boot (you'd need a boot loader, or at least a way to execute the BeOS bootrom code) it might work. Hardware wise, the devices that are present are more or less supported either from the Mac or the BeBox perspective (I/O, PS/2, PCI etc.) Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ulrich Hobelmann: I think there are a lot of advantages of having a PPC, not an Athlon: the hardware is inherently more elegant, so it doesn't have to emulate sucky x86 ops, which means less power, less latency, less heat.

As for architecture beauty, I would only see this if I was making a OS, and especially if I was programming in assembler. I do neither. And if I any of the two, I would pick x86 mainly because of the market share.

As for lest heat, less power, blah blah blah, if I was to degrade myself to that performance, I would save some money and buy a VIA C3.

Ulrich Hobelmann: Also PPC programs should be nicer to compile.

GCC 3.2 have better optimization of Pentium 4 and Athlon XP than G4. And, I don't know about GCC 3.2, but GCC 3.1 on Linux on a G4 as old as my old ill-faithed Duron 800MHz, I find the Duron tonnes faster.

Ulrich Hobelmann: Anyone who has ever looked at gcc output on x86 knows what I mean. Talk about much less memory accesses here, which also should be good to heat/energy.

Heat isn't a problem for me, I spend a little more on quality heat control (heatsink and fans). Energy - heck, it isn't a laptop, if power is a big concern, I think switching off that light bulb would save more energy.

Ulrich Hobelmann: Also the clean design of the PPC means context switches much faster than on x86. Some MorphOS guy I think, said they could do the microkernel thing on PPC because context switches don't slow the system down like they would on intel.

There, so this may suit a small bunch of geeks. I'm a Linux user, I DON'T CARE about microkernels. Same with every other Windows, Linux and Free/Open/NetBSD user out there.

Ulrich Hobelmann: BTW, does anyone know if this board/CPU will allow passive, fanless cooling?? I'm already wetting my mouth...

Want something at that perfomance, the C3 from VIA allows passive fanless operation. Same with the Transmeta, although I haven't seen it around that much. (Besides, I couldn't careless about fanless, it is the CD-RW that is making the most noise, second to the old creaking HDD

My Duron have a good fan. Hardly hears any noise. Never had a heating problem (have tonnes of surge problems...)

Christopher Park: but if the PPC architechure is more efficent than x86 it may be a better choice when faced with large or complex media streams. Just some ramblings.

You won't see any difference. From what I understand, you don't need all the performance you can get (you want a entertainment centre). Watching movies/ TV, listening to MP3s/Oggs/CDs on a PPC isn't any faster than on a VIA.

it takes less time to boot YDL 2.1 on my 233mhz G3 PowerMac than Mandrake, Slackware, Windows2k, or WinME on my dual processor P3.

I never ran Slackware before, but for Mandrake and WinME, yeah it is slower (the fault of the OS, not the arhictecture). Windows 2k, on the other hand, can beat YDL 2.0 on a dual 500MHz G4 (I doubt 2.1 has any difference), I would detest that.

And with Windows XP..... *waves YDL's boot speed goodbye*. YDL boot speed doesn't come from PPC, but rather the amount of services it initiates during boot time. Mandrake (and Mac OS X) open up just about everything, hence the difference. Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments