Terra Soft Solutions sells 260 Xserve servers running Yellow...

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by 3G4N, Aug 6, 2003.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Location:
    3rd star to the right
  2. macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #2
    Oh, boy -- that is just *sweet*!

    (Of course, everyone knows that those sub dudes are all a bit off-center...;) :D )
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    mrjamin

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    Strongbadia
    #3
    d'oh - just found that story myself. Thought i'd do a quick search to see if anyone had posted it already and you beat me - by 20mins.

    Still, that is cool though. Atleast they didn't invest in a load of Xeons + Windows server 2003!
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    #4
    I would think that anyone buying an Xserve would want Mac OS X Server. The hardware is nice, but the OS seems to be the main reason for buying a Mac in the first place. Maybe the navy has some special software that is native to linux? seems like it wouldn't be hard to port.

    hmm... :confused:
     
  5. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #5
    I'm surprised linux runs on the Xserve.

    I guess with Darwin, it's hard to keep the inner workings "secret".

    Edit: I see Terra Soft has Apple's permission for all this.

    arn
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    benixau

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #6
    no - XEONS and win server 2003 makes too much noise.

    can you imagine the ruskies or chinesse:

    found em - ha ha ha ha - we use linux - we is smart - have a listen - <windows login sound> - happens every two minutes - lets party - NO, they will hear us - oh no, they use windows on their torpedo system: they cant even get past the tube opening.
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    MoparShaha

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    LOL....I love it!
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    #8
    excellent news

    I can see why are they choosing Linux distro over OSX. They probably don't need all that aqua/quartz overhead for their application. Also read somewhere that linux is still tad faster for server tasks (e.g transaction speed) than Darwin core of OSX.
     
  9. mvc
    macrumors 6502a

    mvc

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Outer-Roa
    #9
    yeah, that would give a whole new meaning to the phrases "blue screen of death" & "my pc went down"

    :p
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #10
    thats gotta be good for apple, they just earned a massive 1.9million dollars :)
     
  11. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #11
    Reason to choose Linux on Apple: they must be G5s

    Surely Apple didn't hide the G5 from Terra Soft OR the Navy. So they knew the G5 was coming. And the articles says WILL buy--this is a future sale, and we all know G5 Xserves are on the way.

    The G5's power would explain why they'd choose an Apple Xserve, when there are other boxes that have nice redundant hardware too, and can run Linux.

    So, say the software already exists and is proven on Linux and the Navy was not considering other OS's. They just wanted the fastest Linux box for the price or space or whatever. Maybe they even had a preference for something with AltiVec, after determining that their app could take advantage of that well.

    Along comes Terra Soft with a proposal to offer Linux running on a G5 Xserve, and the deal is done!

    That's my theory.
     
  12. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    #12
    I would think that anyone buying an Xserve would want Mac OS X Server. The hardware is nice, but the OS seems to be the main reason for buying a Mac in the first place. Maybe the navy has some special software that is native to linux? seems like it wouldn't be hard to port.

    Like the Navy/Marine Corps NALCOMIS system fielded in the mid to late 90's (unix based Aviation Maintenance/Logistics application), it's likely this system is designed for a very specific task in mind and doesn't need most of the features found in a server or client OS.

    Even if it's running YDL, the Xserve's 1U size makes it desirable for use aboard a submarine. And with it's computational power, the PPC is a good choice for processing sonar images.

    All in all.... good news for Apple. Hopefully, this move by the Navy will help to open some doors (and minds) within the DOD for Apple.
     
  13. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #13
    WOW. Gr8 news!

    It's nice to know that you don't HAVE to use Mac OS X, if you want professional use and support of the Xserve.
    This could be an eye-opener for many others!
     
  14. mvc
    macrumors 6502a

    mvc

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Outer-Roa
    #14
    Excellent Nagromme - a conspiracy theory involving the U.S Military and undisclosed advanced computing technology. I've heard Echelon/Skynet/The Matrix/Elvis could be using Xserve G5's in a secret bunker at the south pole! :D
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    #15
    Surely Apple didn't hide the G5 from Terra Soft OR the Navy. So they knew the G5 was coming. And the articles says WILL buy--this is a future sale, and we all know G5 Xserves are on the way.
    .
    This brings to fruition two years of effort with an intense recent six months of research, coordination, prototype development and testing -- a great deal of hands-on collaboration with the Lockheed Martin engineering team.
    .
    While anything is possible, with a 2 year development cycle and October 2003 delivery date, I'd say the Xserve was going to be used whether it had a G5 or not.
     
  16. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #16


    Thing about it, the retailer doesn't get paied that much only the consumer gets to buy at that Price.

    I think apple pulled in somewhere near 1.5 Mill for this and Terra Soft got .4

    Could be wrong, unless I have the sales prices to terra soft... who knows, but it is less then what the deal was worth.
     
  17. mvc
    macrumors 6502a

    mvc

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Outer-Roa
    #17
    No No, there has to be a mistake, isn't this the same military that used to pay $1500 for a toilet seat.

    I'm sure the Xserves were sold at a discount price, but Apple probably made $257 million on the mounting screws to hold them in the racks:D
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #18
    The Xserves are for submarines. I imagine that they were chosen because they are compact, fast for their size, quiet, low power, and certainly cheaper that Xeons. Microsoft and Intel were probably scratching their heads on this one.
     
  19. mvc
    macrumors 6502a

    mvc

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Outer-Roa
    #19
    Re: the politics of Macs

    DELL is also where Satan and very bad people go when they die. As in "Dude, You're going to DELL!":)
     
  20. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    #20
    If there's anything an Xserve is, it's EXTREMELY LOUD. They have the loudest fans I've ever heard on anything, unless you're counting jet engines. Whoever wrote that comment is obviously under the impression that Xserves are designed like other macs. They're most definitely not. I would think this would actually make them a bad choice for subs, where it's very important that everything be as quiet as possible. I can just imagine an enemy sub tracking the fan noise of an Xserve.
     
  21. macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #21

    OSX is lame, Unix is long way more professional, I may assume that some Linux version can be too.

    Remember OSX is a mix of a simple interface to catching new users mixed with some not-so revolutionary functions.

    I still, OSX is not that advance, it is difference for sure and it comes with some good things but compared to OS 9.2.2 I will keep my OS 9.2.2 buecause just the file managment that I use 99% of the time is more efficient in its simple way than OSX. That and that OSX doesn't make any application run faster.
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    #22
    I've been reading Terra Soft's documents on Yellow Dog Linux, has anyone here used it?

    As the ability to dual boot between YDL and X a viable option or just having YDL and using MOL, is YDL any good?

    I guess what I'm trying to ask is, is YDL any good?
     
  23. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    #23
    Certainly cheaper than XEONs?

    You can have a dell 1750 in a 1U case with dual 2.8 Xeons, 512 meg of ram, dual gig ethernet, and no OS for 2500. This should be quite a bit faster than either dual config apple currently offers and will run linux.

    Of course when the G5 comes out I think Apple will have a big advantage because of the improved speed and memory bus.
     
  24. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    #24
    OK. You have no idea what you are talking about. I have been a UNIX manager/OS-level developer for the last 8 years. I deal daily with about 200 machines which are mostly Solaris, HP-UX, and Linux. Throw in some Digital UNIX Alphas in there, and some OS X machines on the desktop. I can say overall that OS X is not very far behind commercial UNIX implementations. There is nothing revolutionary in Solaris or HP-UX that OS X does not have. There are some OS level features which definitely need to be implemented (ACLs as one example) in OS X, but these are not issues for most people.

    However, we don't have any servers (production or development) running OS X. But let me tell you why--and it has absolutely nothing to do with OS X. Our applications are not designed to run on clusters--we can't just rip them apart in 6 months and port them to MPI. We don't own the rights to all of the components--and some are only available on other Operating Systems, that's another issue. But the biggest issue is our applications are designed to run on "bigger" hardware-- 4-32 processor machines. Apple doesn't sell them. However, if they did, I'd take a look.

    I can say Apple is also making a lot of strides in OS X Panther. I have played with builds...they will make a lot of UNIX admins happy. In my opinion, it is obvious they want to be a player in the UNIX market. I tossed my Sun Ultra from my desk a long time ago in favor of OS X. I'm not saying it's the right choice for everyone or every application. But don't make uneducated comments about your subjective perception about OS X's inferiority. I'm sorry, use OS 9 if you want, but that OS is a joke with respect to Operating System technology. That's what kept macs out of my shop for years.
     
  25. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    #25
    Re: Certainly cheaper than XEONs?

    In the articles you can see that they plan to leverage Altivec. If they really do have an application that benefits from it, this may make even the G4's a better choice than the Xeons, and the G5's probably even a better choice. We shall see when the G5's ship (I'm not convinced on the G5's altivec performance, yet).
     

Share This Page