Why Install Linux on Your Mac?
by Giles Turnbull11/30/2004
Yeah, why? Your typical modern Mac comes with all the Unixy goodness you could ever need, right? But there are a bunch of Linux PPC distributions that you can, if you feel the need, install on your Apple hardware.
In my efforts to answer the big "Why?" question, I contacted Kai Staats, cofounder and CEO of TerraSoft Solutions. I asked him questions he's been asked a thousand times before about why anyone should install Linux on their Mac. I'm sure the last thing he wanted to do was go over the same old ground with some ignorant journalist. But he did anyway. I owe him my thanks upfront for putting up with my irritating intrusions into his schedule.
My intention was to get inside the heads of the small-but-contented Linux-on-Mac community. I wanted to know what made them want to do the things they do to their computers.
Just Look Around You
If you've attended any of the major geek get-togethers of the last couple of years, you can't have failed to notice the surge in use of Apple hardware and Mac OS X. Since it is based so solidly on Unix, yet with an attractive GUI on top, OS X has appealed to a broad range of programmers and technical writers; especially the kind who have no affection for the Wintel way of doing things.
Many of them stuck with Mac OS X because it worked. Lots wanted to explore alternatives, and install their own choice of OS. Our very own Edd Dumbill was leading the pack back in 2002, when he installed an earlier release of Debian on his iBook, simply because he found that the iBook had as good a spec as he wanted, for a price favorably comparable to typical PC hardware. As Dumbill said in his article at the time, "My interest was piqued."
These days there are even more people who've had their interest piqued in the same way, and I wanted to discover how. Here's what I found out along the way.
Assumptions, Myths, and Realities
Here's a widely quoted assumption: Mac OS X is essentially desktop Linux. In some respects this is true, but the differences between Mac OS X and true Linux distributions are important ones.
OS X costs money. Linux is free. Mac OS X can only be customized within the constraints placed upon it by Apple. Linux can be customized to an extraordinary degree, with the right knowledge. Mac OS X requires Apple hardware (most of the time). Linux is the same whether its running on a PowerBook, a PC, or yeah, even an Xbox.
Mac OS X has made great strides in bringing a Unix-based environment to a consumer user-base, and has influenced Linux developers in the process, but it should not be treated in the same way. It remains a commercial, proprietary system. Just one that happens to rest upon several free, open source technologies.
But no matter how familiar you are with Linux, if you run Mac OS X you are not in a position to delve into its heart and meddle with its innermost workings. Want to mess around with your Linux kernel? Go right ahead, and good luck to you. But Mac OS X remains closed to everyone outside Apple.
It follows, then, that if having the freedom to mess with your operating system matters to you, running Linux on your Apple hardware is going to be a better choice than running Mac OS X, no matter how Unix-like it is. And that's a good first answer to our opening question.
Another assumption: Mac OS X is easy to use; Linux is hard to use, especially for newbies. Well, I put this to the test recently. I showed a friend a Linux desktop (it was Lycoris running on an old PC, in case you're wondering), and then my Mac OS X desktop. My friend had only ever used Windows computers before. Guess which one she found easier to use? That's right, Lycoris.
Because so many Linux distros and window environments have made such an effort to make former Windows users feel comfortable, some of them look so much like Windows as to be almost indistinguishable. Windows users see them and they do feel comfortable. Everything is where they expect it to be, everything behaves the way they are used to it behaving. They feel relaxed about using something that feels familiar.
My friend was not at all relaxed when faced with Mac OS X. Why couldn't she right-click on things? Why couldn't she copy-and-paste? (Using the Control key is something wired into her fingers -- when I pointed out the Command key, she just laughed and said it was ridiculous to have another modifier key to learn). There were other confusions, but all of it boiled down to the fact that, as a lifelong Windows user, Mac OS X was completely alien, but consumer-level Linux felt almost the same.
So you could argue that there are two compelling reasons (although by no means the only ones) for running Linux on Mac hardware: (1) It is far more customizable for those who care and know how, and (2) it feels more like Windows than Mac OS X does, for those who care and have no wish to know how.
What is Linux on Mac Actually Like?
I had to find out the answer to this question, so I installed Yellow Dog Linux 3.0 (YDL) on a spare PowerBook G4, just to see what would happen.
Almost everything went according to plan. The installer is simple to follow and understand, and makes very few technical demands on even the newbiest of users.
Soon after my test run, Terra Soft released Yellow Dog version 4.0, based on Fedora Core 2.2. It includes KDE 3.3 and GNOME 2.6.0, OpenOffice.org 1.1.1, Mozilla 1.7, glibc 2.3.3, and gcc 3.3.3. Important note: This new release fixes many of the problems I encountered while testing with version 3.0. Keep that in mind if you try out Yellow Dog after reading this; your experience may well be quite different from mine.
My installation on a Mac laptop was pretty straightforward, especially since I had no need to keep any Mac OS X partitions and data. The boxed product came as six disks -- three install, three source -- so all I had to do is stick Disk 1 into the optical drive, and reboot holding down C.
My install was only marred by a problem with OS X recognizing the display. Running Xautoconfig didn't seem to help, and for awhile the machine only worked in text mode. After another look it turned out that by running Xautoconfig in safe mode, then with the -fbdev switch, forced it to write a new XF86Config file. After that, the GUI zipped into life.
Sadly, Apple has not released source for its software modem, and, as Staats puts it, "Reverse engineering is a bit hit'n'miss." As a result, there's no support for the built-in modem. If you want connectivity, you need to supply an external USB modem or have a network. That said, there are some soft-modem drivers available, but these are not guaranteed to work on all machines.
These little problems aside, I was up and running in Yellow Dog in a remarkably short time. Then I had to deal with the question -- now what?

Here's what my screen looked like shortly after the first boot.

Here's what it looked like some time later.
The essentials of any new operating system are self-explanatory to anyone with a passing knowledge of computers. Somewhere there will be some kind of file manager; somewhere, a CD player; somewhere, a text editor and a shell or terminal. There will almost certainly be an application management system, like a dock (note lowercase 'd' there) or bar with icons on it. All of these things are present in YDL/KDE and make perfect sense, even to a newbie. I was able to get up-to-speed, exploring applications and writing notes, in no time at all.
OpenOffice.org is included too, so if I'd wanted to start creating proper business-style documents for sharing on a network, I could have done that too.
A Personal Perspective
I found Linux a delightful change, but sometimes frustrating. Every now and again, something would Just Not Work, and I found it almost impossible to diagnose the problem. Examples include music CDs that I couldn't play, applications that wouldn't start, and mysterious slowdowns (30 seconds to launch a terminal window?). The frustration came when I suspected the solution to a problem might involve a small tweak of a text file somewhere, but that it might take hours of Googling or browsing discussion groups, to find which tweak to make to which file.
The delightful things included the very extensive Control Center, enabling me to manage pretty much every aspect of the system setup and appearance. Also, the perfect integration of hardware tools, such as the PowerBook's function-key volume and brightness controls, which worked without fuss, and the clever use of the F11 key as a second mouse button, something that took a little getting used to but was easy to cope with.
System maintenance was something that bothered me. A task I might do everyday on OS X, like downloading and installing a new app, seemed time-consuming and difficult. Even using YDL's built-in software update program yum to fetch and install new software automatically didn't work as smoothly as I had hoped.
Overall, for someone who has spent years growing accustomed to the Mac way of doing things, the system presented a number of challenges. Even using YDL for a short time showed me that there would be a learning curve if I ever chose to run it full-time. Stuff does Just Work in Linux; but it Just Works in a different way.
Which brings us back to the original starting point for this article. What motivation would a happy Mac user have for switching to a Linux distribution like YDL? Why face that learning curve?
The best person to answer the question is Staats himself. But as I pointed out right at the start of this article, he has been asked this a thousand times. Every day. For years.
The Best Answer Is Usually the Simplest
Staats insists that Yellow Dog Linux is not aimed at any one particular type of user. YDL is designed to be a system that Just Works, the same way that OS X Just Works. You don't need to take his word for it, either. A glance through some of the user-submitted stories received by Terra Soft shows just how much some ordinary people, many of them newbies who have never encountered Linux before, have adapted to, and adopted, YDL with a passion.
He says of Yellow Dog, "CDs, CD-RWs, USB cameras and memory sticks, FireWire drives, USB and networked printers, for the most part, just work.
"The installer is, in my opinion, superior to that of Mac OS X with more room for interaction, choice, and an intelligent layer of user-defined setup that enables a truly custom install.
"While Mac OS X offers a lot of eye candy, Linux too offers translucent menus, swimming images, and colorful interfaces -- if the user desires them. Linux offers a great deal more options, more levels of customization."
And how does Staats himself use the OS?
"I have a 15" aluminum PowerBook. Never thought I could give up a full desktop with multiple drives and more room for expansion ... but now I can't see how I would ever go back. Love it.
"I use Yellow Dog Linux 99.9 percent of the time. I use OS X (under Mac-on-Linux) for audio editing (I am recording the life stories of my grandparents) and as a temp backup of my YDL side (mounted from YDL). That's about it. And while high-quality audio-editing software is available for Linux on x86, I have not had a chance to explore what is available for PowerPC Linux or what it would take to recompile. A good weekend project."
Then we come to the crux of making the decision:
"Honestly, it comes down to 1) how the OS is being used, and 2) personal preference. To the first: Apple has tied a great deal of relatively inflexible GUI around their UNIX core, rendering it less capable of scaling down to a very small footprint nor up to a very large cluster without a good deal of effort.
"Yes, OS X will run on 1,000 nodes, but the performance is going to be less than that of a Linux-based system with no GUI and a bare-minimum node image.
"As our web pages state, Linux is 100 percent open source. The end-user has control of everything, not just the bottom 15 percent.
"Linux is Linux is Linux on all architectures. Learn it once, use it everywhere. This enables end-users of both the geek and non-geek nature to sit down at a machine and not care what the CPU is. Just get to work. This also enables relatively simple code development which can be migrated across any system. This means developing on a Mac for a PowerPC embedded device without having to recompile ... or running Linux on your PDA just because it is there. I believe end-users will find a sense of empowerment in this, even if they are not programmers, because they at least have a sense of what is under the hood."
Just How Much Control do You Want?
There you have it. If you want some element of Linux -- access to certain tools and development environment capabilities, for example -- what you require is already built into Mac OS X.
But if you wish to go further, to take maximum control of your computer, and do so on some of the best quality hardware around, Linux makes a lot of sense on a Mac. It offers the kind of low-cost, easy-to-use, properly scalable system that Apple's commercial offering just can't match. It offers a new lease on life to older hardware that struggles to cope with the endless round of OS upgrades.
And let's not forget that Yellow Dog is by no means the only option for people wishing to run Linux on their Mac. You can also choose from Mandrake, Debian, newcomer Ubuntu, and many others.
Tempted?
Giles Turnbull is a freelance writer and editor. He has been writing on and about the Internet since 1997. He has a web site at http://gilest.org.
Return to MacDevCenter.com.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 61 of 61.
-
just cuase
2008-04-24 16:01:10 ihatemacos&ihatewindows [Reply | View]
cause I have hostility towards Steve Ballmar microsoft "microcunt" & Mac OS... both operating systems are the most pussy whipped companies I have ment. additionally my Ibook[s] is a notebook on dubs!!! linux has tactical capabilities, security capabilities and to conclude Mac hardware has excellent graphic capabilities. I own three Ibooks one distro has SUSE Linux, Ubuntu & YDL. why would you wanna have a fucked up operating system ran by fucking pussies, or pay more for a rig str8 from a computer preloaded with cheap ass windows? you pay more for the windows tax. so inspite I would purchase pc's, ipods, macs, samsung phones and, load up linux on them....
-
Best of Both worlds!
2006-09-09 21:56:49 snuffles01 [Reply | View]
why not have both? It's not very hard and i found a way to resize a stubbern HFS+ partitiona and install linux on a 10 GB partition. Eveything worked out and now i can boot up on both. If you can't choose, go my way and have the best of both worlds
-
Linux on Macs - Hang On!!!!
2005-12-07 20:10:24 Badger_Man [Reply | View]
I had a school system contact me today - seems they're interested in getting linux running on their Macs, as in ALL of them.
I am going to do everything I can to help them.
Back when I thought LInux was a fad, I tried it out and ended up using it everyday.
Whether I want to edit audio files, create a project plan, write email, surf the web, make a web page, or write some C++ code for grins and giggles - Linux has it all.
Schools will transition at first because of the price, essentially free or nearly so. Some compnaies will charge $30 for a distro maybe, and when you multiply that by hundreds of computers, the savings can be significant and extremenly important to school systems. (compared to maybe a $300 OS)
Provide fledgling scientists, engineers, hackers, composers, artists, authors, and linguists with the tools they need and you will
be witness to something more powerful then you could ever dream of. Fad? No I don't think so. Linux has all the tools, right there under the hood.
Linux on MAC is not a fad, as evidenced by school systems turning to Linux any way they can to escape the high costs of procurement and maintenance for commercial operating systems.
Even the US Navy is embracing Linux (look around the net, there are many articles on this).
The people have spoken. -
Linux on Macs - Hang On!!!!
2008-04-24 16:05:06 ihatemacos&ihatewindows [Reply | View]
I completely aggree linux is deployed by defense agencies, law enforcement agencies and, intelligence agencies world wide.... to include I work in executive protection 99 percent of logistical work and collection from my work is on LINUX!!!
-
Linux on Mac a new life
2005-08-22 20:44:31 Scheidel21 [Reply | View]
This might be posted a little late, however, I have a good reason for running linux on a Mac. Breathing new life into old hardware. I have an old powermac clone running a 180mhz 603ev processor, not the fastest around. It did well running MacOS 8.6 but I didn't really use it anymore. So what did I do, turn it into a test bed for my network running Linux, I have had Mandrake, LinuxPPC (an old distro no longer around), and finally Debian/GNU linux on this box, I found that MacOS as a graphical OS is better for this machine as it lags with KDE or GNOME, however, I have become quite content to run it in command line and it consumes so few resources. By adding VNCSERVER I have allowed myself to VNC to it when I need to do sme administration I feel qeuasy about in command line. Currently I am using this linux machine, and my Windows XP box, along with colinux running in WinXP to teach aquaint myself with IPv6. Try getting IPv6 for Mac classic OS..haha I doubt it! I recently purchased an old performa which I am going to run for my sons as they are 3 and I feel Mac classic OS is a great place for them to start. But for the adults in my house linux on an oldworld powermac can't be beat! Of course I feel that Linux can breath life into not just old mac hardware but old PC hardware too, it's the command line baby so little resource hogging. I would like to get a G3 Mac to install linux on too just so can run one with graphical interface. Without the need to pay for OSX. If I were to purchase a new MAC I would stay with OSX as long as I could, but when it comes to old hardware nothing beats linux.
Alex
-
binutils and other fancy stuff
2005-01-22 14:21:37 fitchmicah [Reply | View]
So, the reason why I'm installing linux is because the program I want uses GNU binutils to compile, and that doesn't work on Mac OS X. Specifically, I want objcopy so that I can compile Cinelerra. Someone has patched up some source for cinelerra to use a home made version objcopy, but that just wasn't working. The only thing I hate is getting X11 to work on this old G4/450 AGP. It just doesn't happen. I got Debian Woody to work fine, but when I updated to Sarge a few days later, X stopped working and no one on the internet seems to know why. I have an installation of Gentoo that I put on my firewire drive a while back (and I couldn't get X to work on it, even though I tried for like 5 months) that I am trying to update right now, hoping to get X to work. The thing I hate (and like) about Gentoo is that it compiles everything from source, and that is boring. Peace out brother.
-
Between the kernel and the GUI
2004-12-02 19:48:15 MichelHV [Reply | View]
I don't like when most people make an argument for/against Mac OS X/Linux against the other OS when they are basing themselves solely on the question of the GUI (is it like Windows?) or just on the kernel (does it run elsewhere than on Apple hardware). Problem is that neither place is where you have the biggest payoff.
If you look at Mac OS X and forget the pretty/annoying GUI, depending on your opinion, you might start to notice a few things:
- So-called "10 000$" worth of professional fonts, with an ultra-modern ligature engine, that is available across all applications, full UTF-8 support evverywher, even in the Terminal (ever tried deleting a file written in Chinese characters? I almost got a hard-on doing that)
- ColorSync: a professional-grade color system that allows you to keep your colors consistent between your input, display and output devices.
- CoreAudion: an extremely low-latency sound subsystem, with guaranteed access times
- Frameworks: the final solution to dll hell: a versioned and sound architecture for maintaining different versions of a given library. Couple that with dynamic shared object discovery, and you can say goodbye to LD_PATH and other horrors.
- The fastest JRE on personal computing plateforms.
etc. etc. Now that is really what you get when you buy OS X. That is (part of) what will help you publish a national magazine, produce a feature film, or mix an album. Yes the kernel is very important, yes the GUI will help you, but it's those layers between the two that give to Mac OS X its biggest advantages. You do get professional quality components with OS X, and that is why people use it.
Linux has a different set of advantages: you need to create an embedded OS for a new project? You want to have low-cost, high-throughput clusters? You just need a web/mail/something server now? You want to use your older hardware? You want to keep a consistent plateform into a highly mixed hardware environment? You want something that's customizable to death? You want to write a new graphics subsystem and you need a plateform to develop/test it? You want to save the world? Want to maintain some hugely fat database for little trouble? Damn it, Linux is, and will always be your friend.
People should start to realise that Linux does not have the professional components of Mac OS X, and that those componenents are the reason why some people will never use anything else, because those components are not available elsewhere in a single package, and that well integrated. Putting Linux on a Mac is not a heresy if you don't need those components, and don't need them so much that even buying an updated copy of OS X would be ludicrous in such case.
-
Bootable Linux PPC Distro with Live Filesystem
2004-12-02 18:02:03 williamverna [Reply | View]
Great article by the way Turnbull. It got me thinking about when I first began using Red Hat Linux almost ten years ago. Do you, or anyone else who runs Linux-on-Mac, know if there is a bootable Linux PPC distro with a live filesystem on the cdrom that I can run on my PowerBook to test drive? Also, does anyone know if it is be possible to dual boot the PowerBook into Linux if I install Linux on an external firewire drive, which I could install an EXT3 or ReiserFS partition? Or would I have to split my HFS+ slices to make room for an EXT3 primary partition on the Mac's internal disk? Also, would I need to install GRUB to bootstrap whatever disk in order to run Linux? Time for me to really see if the hype really is as good as what the Linux-on-Mac advocates say! Thanks in advance ;) -
Bootable Linux PPC Distro with Live Filesystem
2004-12-03 03:57:19 Maethor [Reply | View]
Do you, or anyone else who runs Linux-on-Mac, know if there is a bootable Linux PPC distro with a live filesystem on the cdrom that I can run on my PowerBook to test drive?
There's some info on the various live ditros for ppc here:
http://homepage.mac.com/bner/iblog/B1570693677/C1271976503/E1995539341/
According to the blog entry, only Gentoo's worked.
-
Separation point
2004-12-02 14:55:17 trantorvega [Reply | View]
In the previous posts I've seen people talking of speed, freedom, simplicity, reliability, hardware compatibility, even laziness as strong points of oe system or the other. Personally, I'm a x86 Linux user and I've only occasionally seen or used Apple computers or OS X, but I am, as many of you are, fascinated by the style and the quality of the hardware. Quality obtained at the price of proprietary hardware made mostly by Apple, coming often with equally proprietary drivers. OS X is undoubtedly a great operating system that fused a solid kernel with the stylish and simple look&feel that has always characterized Mac computers, but the GUI is almost completely - again - proprietary, even if X11 can be installed and used, though in the end I think that most non-geek users ( or at least the part with little knowledge of the *nix world ) rely on this proprietary - and more old-Mac-style-like - section of the User Interface. Nowadays GUIs are important and in many cases necessary, but I also think that a system relying deeply on GUIs deprives users of a good knowledge of how the machine works. Then again if you don't care and prefer that someone (or something) else do the job in your place learning and gaining nothing, it's your choice. If you want Linux to become a sort of point&click system, I certainly hope that day never comes. The fact that Linux requires (not always) to manually adjust some configuration files or whatever is fine for me. A little bit of chaos or disorder can only means the system is alive and growing. Complete order is often a symptom of death. Many people also don't seem care if the system or the software they are using is free (as in freedom) or not. My opinion is that life and society put enough restraints and ties on us to add some more thanks to the software we use and moreover I don't like much the idea of someone more telling me what I must or must not do with my computer.
In the very end, if you want to learn something using your computer, if you want to use a modern os with thousands of developers and users working on it with passion, if you want to do almost anything you can imagine and mess up from the GUI down to the kernel without restraints of any sort and feel free, or if you want great performances, use Linux or many other open source system, like OpenDarwin (that, as someone pointed out, is like using MacOS X without Aqua, Cocoa and many others closed components), FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.; if you don't care about the inner working of your system, if you are too lazy or too busy, if you want a powerful and solid system that is also extremely easy to use, with also a great style, than OS X is a very good choice.
Still, as the Hacker Culture claims, Knowledge is Power.
-
iBook vs Desktop
2004-12-02 14:49:55 llanitedave [Reply | View]
I dual-booted Mandrake 8.0 on my 2001 iBook. I removed it when it became clear that the old 10g hard drive simply didn't have room for both systems. I have an old x86 desktop that I'm running Fedora Core 2 on -- I like it a lot. I have a newer G4 iBook with 10.3 on it. While I appreciate the arguments on both sides here, I really think OSX is unbeatable as a *general-purpose* user system. Combined with the hardware quality in the iBook, it's an indispensible tool for me. I'm a field geologist, and part of my work takes me into the desert, working drill rigs in very dusty conditions. My iBook has taken incredible physical abuse and survived with flying colors.
Here's the bottom line: for generic hardware, Linux is clearly superior. For raw performance, I'm convinced that Linux is superior. For a laptop, for the money I can spend, I simply can't beat an iBook running OSX and its standard included applications.
If I wanted to hack, I'd use Linux. If I want to save money with inexpensive hardware, I use Linux. My next desktop machine will run Linux. My next laptop, though, will be a Mac. I'm just lazy that way.
-
Check your facts
2004-12-02 12:21:41 pml105 [Reply | View]
Before writing an article like this, it might be a good idea to check your facts.
OS X costs money. Linux is free.
Darwin is also free. OpenDarwin is an open source operating system upon which all of Mac OS X is built.
Mac OS X can only be customized within the constraints placed upon it by Apple. Linux can be customized to an extraordinary degree, with the right knowledge.
Give an example of this? The only example you give (not being able to share individual folders) is patently false. The GUI has no interface for sharing individual folders, that's true. But the configuration files are there to edit, just as they are in Linux. There are plenty of third-party GUI programs to edit these settings in Mac OS X.
Mac OS X requires Apple hardware (most of the time). Linux is the same whether its running on a PowerBook, a PC, or yeah, even an Xbox.
This is partly true. Emulators aside, Apple only supports the proprietary parts of Mac OS X on Apple hardware. But Adobe only supports its Acrobat Reader for Linux on x86. WindowServer, Aqua, Cocoa, and all the other, non-open parts of Mac OS X, are all applications. The operating system runs fine without them.
[Mac OS X] remains a commercial, proprietary system. Just one that happens to rest upon several free, open source technologies.
Mac OS X remains an open source operating system with proprietary management and GUI applications layered on top of it. If you don't like one of the applications that isn't open source (the WindowServer or the Finder, for example) then feel free to use an alternative. X11 runs quite nicely on Mac OS X, and can be used exclusively with a base Darwin installation for an experience very similar to FreeBSD or Linux.
But no matter how familiar you are with Linux, if you run Mac OS X you are not in a position to delve into its heart and meddle with its innermost workings. Want to mess around with your Linux kernel? Go right ahead, and good luck to you. But Mac OS X remains closed to everyone outside Apple.
Clearly, you could have performed a little more research before writing this. Want to mess around with your Mac OS X kernel? Download the source. Was any fact-checking done before this article was published?
I showed a friend a Linux desktop ... and then my Mac OS X desktop. My friend had only ever used Windows computers before. Guess which one she found easier to use? That's right, Lycoris.
As others have pointed out, a person with experience using a particular tool is going to be more comfortable with that tool. Ask someone who has never used a computer what the difference is between the left mouse button and the right mouse button.
Or, attach a two- or three-button mouse to your Mac OS X system. And right-click a file in the Finder. A right-click is, by default, mapped to the contextual menu action, which is also accessible by clicking the left button while holding the control key down. But Apple's human interface guidelines make it clear that contextual menus should only contain actions and information which are also available through the normal means of menus and visual cues.
when I pointed out the Command key, she just laughed and said it was ridiculous to have another modifier key to learn
Does her keyboard not have a Windows key? I haven't seen any Windows-based computers ship in a long time without a Windows key.
The control key has always been for typing control characters. Microsoft overloaded that function with the keyboard shortcuts for menu items. So ask your friend this question: if she opens a terminal window, and types control-C, should it select the copy command from the edit menu? Or should it send the character "control-C"? Then ask her, if copy was _always_ command-C, if that might not be an easier question to answer?
as a lifelong Windows user, Mac OS X was completely alien, but consumer-level Linux felt almost the same.
Ask your friend how, on a Linux box, to turn off all filesharing.
Don't tell her which distribution of Linux, or which GUI environment is installed, or what kinds of file sharing are enabled. Just ask her how to make sure that ftp, Windows file sharing, web-based sharing, etc, are all turned off.
How useful is her Windows experience on a Linux box, really? Ask her to use it exclusively for a week before you even consider drawing judgements.
My install was only marred by a problem with OS X recognizing the display. Running Xautoconfig didn't seem to help, and for awhile the machine only worked in text mode.
You didn't have Mac OS X installed, so Mac OS X was not involved in recognizing your display. That was an X11 issue. The X11 server included with Mac OS X has no problems recognizing displays, but the X11 servers used most commonly with Linux are not always so well polished.
This is largely because Apple's X11 server can rely on Apple's existing display drivers, while the Linux X11 servers can make no assumptions about what hardware may be available.
It would serve your readers well to research your assertions, because they are depending upon you to report factual information. Please make an effort to update this article with these errors corrected, including those places where they affect your conclusions.
A simple Darwin installation can run most of the same software as Linux, including the same X11 servers, KDE or Gnome, etc. It just takes, as you say, a little knowledge. But most people choose to use the GUI, as compiling code and rewriting configuration files is, to many, a distraction from their real goals. Mac OS X does provide a great middle ground, with flexibility for a wide variety of uses, and an ease of use and deployment that has been unmatched in the history of mass market computing.
-
Check your facts
2004-12-02 16:16:10 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
Before writing an article like this, it might be a good idea to check your facts.
And boy, don't I know it. :)
I need to be honest here: I am no Linux expert, in fact, I'm a newbie. That's why I write about Mac stuff, from a Mac user perspective.
I agonised long and hard while writing this article, and went to some lengths to make sure I was getting things correct. I showed a draft version to a very knowledgeable Linux-on-Mac expert, because I wanted to keep the number of goofs to a minimum. Please forgive my major goofs - they are down to my misunderstanding things. As for minor goofs...
You didn't have Mac OS X installed, so Mac OS X was not involved in recognizing your display.
... oh man; that was just a typo. Now my cheeks are getting red. ;)
One of the main purposes of writing an article like this was to get some response from people, and I am delighted that, at least in that respect, it seems to have been a success. Even if many of them are pointing out my mistakes.
But the central issue, to me, is not the (right or wrong) answers I found in my article; it's the true-to-life, real-world answers given by other people posting comments here. As a long time Mac user with a genuine interest in, if not a full knowledge of, the workings of Linux, I remain full of curiosity as to why people do things the way they do.
That's why I wrote "What's on your Dock?" Because I'm interested, I'm nosy, I like to know.
The same goes for this question. I wouldn't want to run Linux on my Mac - as you can plainly see, I'd probably get stuck pretty quickly - but I remain extremely curious about the people who do, and I wanted to know why they do.
-
Why I'd like to install Linux on a mac
2004-12-02 11:13:22 MacMusicGuy [Reply | View]
I have an old PowerMac 8600 which I hardly use. Meaningful OS X support would require a processor upgrade, and OS 9 apps are dying left and right from neglect. Linux or perhaps BSD would give the machine new life by giving it a GUI its older processor might be able to handle.
The problem is I can't find anything that will work on it. I'd really like to use Gentoo and compile myself, but there doesn't seem to be kernel support for less than a G3. I've tried Knoppix-PPC to experiment with a LiveCD, but I get a kernrl panic after the hardware detection. I think I have something missing in my kernel arguments.
I know this isn't a support forum, but I am at a loss as to where to look next. -
Why I'd like to install Linux on a mac
2004-12-03 04:11:34 gryp [Reply | View]
You can try to run debian/ppc from http://www.debian.org if NetBSD is not what you want. -
Why I'd like to install Linux on a mac
2004-12-09 09:57:42 Chris Adamson |
[Reply | View]
Do you know if Debian can run on a G5? The G5 hardware expects its fans to be operated by the operating system, and the only distro I know of that advertises G5 compatibility is Yellow Dog. There's no info about this on debian.org or its mailing lists. Much as I like Debian - it's on my old Performa and an emulated Virtual PC box - I don't want to melt my G5 for it.
--Chris (invalidname)
-
Why I'd like to install Linux on a mac
2004-12-11 05:00:10 ColinL [Reply | View]
The fan driver is in the kernel. All distributions including a recent kernel (All current PPC distributions, in fact) do handle it. Fan drivers for G4 desktop and G4 laptops (iBook G4, alBooks) are also included.
Also, Apple made the right design about cooling in their G5: if nothing drives the fans, they go on full throttle (which makes for a quite noisy workstation ;-) -
Why I'd like to install Linux on a mac
2004-12-03 03:40:11 Maethor [Reply | View]
I've got debian sarge running a 4400. I also use the Quik bootloader so I don't even need a MacOS partition (well, I used BootX and an external SCSI drive to get it installed, but after that I used Quik).
If you choose to install debian sarge and want to use Quik instead of BootX, I've found it's best to install the 2.4 kernel and build your own 2.6 kernal, as the kernel that ships with sarge doesn't seem to work right with quik (it uses initrd which Quik doesn't seem to support, so it constantly kernel panics). -
Why I'd like to install Linux on a mac
2004-12-03 02:19:47 virus1984 [Reply | View]
Have you tried using Yellow Dog Linux ?
I installed the 3.0.1 "Sirius" version on my PowerMac 7300/200 (equipped with a 2 GB HD and 96 MB RAM, pretty much the original configuration). Had to install a small MacOS though, as these are "OldWorld" machines that cannot boot directly into Linux; you need to boot into MacOS then, using BootX, boot into Linux. This is an added step to the installation and booting process but once you're done it works like a charm (BootX boots Linux by default, so you can press the power-on key, walk away, and when you get back you're into Linux).
I chose WindowMaker as my window manager as it's very light on the machine (disk space and CPU usage-wise) and it's basically a copy of NeXTStep, so it's much more appealing to a Mac user than KDE or GNOME (which are horribly Windows-looking). Xfce may also be a solution if you're looking for a lightweight window manager.
As for the app side, everything I need is available, Yellow Dog Linux comes with a tool called YUM (the YellowDog Updater, Modified) which makes installing and upgrading applications a breeze. When a particular package I need is not available through yum (that is: not available on YDL's servers as a compiled app) I compile and install it by hand, which is not a hassle as it's usually done using the standard "./configure; make; make install" process.
Go to http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ for more info. They are Mac-people working on a Linux distribution especially crafted for Apple hardware, so they really are the perfect solution for you. -
Why I'd like to install Linux on a mac
2004-12-02 12:20:59 williamverna [Reply | View]
Go to http://netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/ you should find what you're looking for. This is not Linux but rather a BSD.
"NetBSD/macppc is a relatively new NetBSD port. The first binary release for macppc was NetBSD 1.4. It supports most Apple Power Macintosh computers with PowerPC processors and Open Firmware. For older (680x0-based) Macintosh computers, see NetBSD/mac68k. There is also an experimental NetBSD/bebox port for Be, Inc's PowerPC-based BeBox.
Almost all PPC Macs introduced after August 7, 1995 are supported."
-
Does Security Matter?
2004-12-02 09:16:46 Nirsus [Reply | View]
Back on Nov 1st. http://www.mi2g.com/ published a report that linux was the most insecure OS and Mac OS X and BSD Unix the most secure. So maybe there is something else to consider when putting linux on your computer? -
Does Security Matter?
2004-12-02 12:57:53 williamverna [Reply | View]
I read this article by the United Kingdom mi2g Intelligence Unit that reveals after a 12 months study the world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment... BSD (Berkley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X.
"... most breached Operating System for online systems has now become Windows (57.74%) followed by Linux (31.76%)... BSD and Mac OS X together (1.74%)."
http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/021104.php
Alarming to say the least. No OS is 100% secure, but some are better then others. This is what Mac addicts have then saying for years. -
Does Security Matter?
2004-12-02 13:36:29 CrimsonScythe [Reply | View]
"Intelligence Unit" mi2g? Their studies are more like wild guesses, lies and hyping. For more on mi2g:
http://www.attrition.org/errata/charlatan/mi2g-history.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/cmp/20041106/tc_cmp/52200183
http://vmyths.com/resource.cfm?id=64&page=1
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/why_is_mi2g_so_unpopular/
Don't believe everything that self-proclaimed experts say, unless they can actually back up their claims. BTW, I use and love both OS X and Linux. -
Does Security Matter?
2004-12-02 12:29:51 revdiablo [Reply | View]
I do not know the details of the report you cited, but I have a gut feeling it would probably turn out to be sketchy. I would hesitate to cite any report that states "X is the most Y, QED." That is just not useful. There are so many variables involved, it's nearly impossible to make this determination with any amount of certainty. Anyone that claims to is usually displaying either ignorance, or deceptiveness.
Now, on the issue of security. I have seen these type of reports before. Often, they simply count the number of vulnerabilities reported for each product, and compare the raw numbers. This is an invalid comparison for a number of reasons:
- Some products have more features than others. A standard Linux distro will come with many, many, many more applications than most commercial operating systems. More code means more bugs, means more security problems. That is an undeniable fact, and causes products with more features to have higher bug counts.
- Some security problems are more severe than others. A security bug that compromises one user's files is a big problem, but a security bug that compromises the entire system is something altogether different. Simply counting problems does not take this into account.
- Some products are not as homogeneous as others. A bug in Red Hat Linux may not also be a bug in Debian Linux, but a bug in Windows 2000 is very often also a bug in Windows XP. This problem is compounded by the fact that when there are common problems, they are often reported for more than one Linux distro. Grouping all bugs for any Linux distro into one count does not reflect much about the true security of a specific Linux install.
Now, let's say the report you cited doesn't suffer from these problems. There is still a lot of room for questions. What was done to secure the systems in question? What can be done to secure the systems in question? How competent were the administrators? How competent do the administrators have to be? What is better, a system that is less secure by default and can be made more secure, or a system that is more secure by default and can be made less secure? A simple "Mac OS X is more secure than Linux" does not adequately answer these questions.
So, to cap off a long winded reply, and answer the question you asked, yes. Security does matter. But I am not so sure the issue has been adequately discussed and answered by your post.
-
Linux on 37 G5s & 2 G4 iBooks
2004-12-02 03:10:59 MatthewCT [Reply | View]
I'm running Gentoo GNU/Linux on a 34-node cluster, 3 desktop systems, and 2 iBooks. I'm running MacOS X on 2 other G5s and 2 other iBooks. All the G5s have dual-CPUs and 4Gigs of RAM.
Two factors influenced the decision to use Linux:
(1) GNU/Linux is just dramatically faster.. and particularly noticeable on the Desktop systems. You don't need benchmarks to see it, even without a pre-emptive kernel compiled or any special optimizations.
(2) Control and the ability to do more and solve problems easier. MacOS X is just far too dumbed down to twist into practical solutions... It is literally not possible to do a lot of things typically necessary in integrating with a larger computing infrustructure... I cannot even limit access to a printer share--all it provides is a checkbox to share or not share.
GNU/Linux with KDE also provides a lot of capabilities unequalled in OS X or Windows GUI systems that make for increased productivity, once you get to know them. For example, network transpearancy in file browsing.... multiple copy/paste... and the Krusader's numerous features such as directory cross-synchronization--very handy for ensuring your notebook files are synchronized with your desktop.
And again.. It's all there... Software you need is usually free..
The only detracting factors are that the Free Software PDF viewers do not always render properly and Adobe Acrobat reader for Linux is only available for x86. And that hardware support for 3D exceleration and sound is lacking on the G5s.
That said, I can plug in any x86 PCI cards and get GNU/Linux support on a Mac where MacOS X often does not. Thus solving the video and sound issues through a little added expense.
Matthew
-
The best combination
2004-12-02 02:03:01 ophis [Reply | View]
In my opinion this boils down to two different questions -
1.) Why buy a Mac rather than an x86 box?
Apple hardware is just great. I have a 17" iMac, and the display is superior to any other LCD screen I have ever seen (at ANY price). At 1 GHz, the G4 processor outruns a Pentium-III with twice the clock speed. And it´s a perfectly silent system, very much unlike the clattering and hollering of normal x86 boxes -- not to mention the fact that it takes away very little desk space. I guess you might get x86 systems with similar specs, but they are pretty expensive.
As an afterthought, there are also very few viruses using the PPC instruction set.
2.) Why run Linux on it rather than OS-X?
Both KDE and GNOME are superior to the Mac environment. Whether they look better is a matter of taste, but you can make them look just the way you want. Besides, they come bundled with lots of applications. For me as a LaTeX addict, Kile is the thing to be keen about. What kind of LaTeX support is there in OS-X? TeXshop (downloadable from 3rd party sites, not included)? Forget about that.
When you try to port genuine Unix software, OS-X is really nasty. E.g. EMBOSS, the open-source tool suite for molecular biology: That one compiles right out of the box on Solarix, Irix, AIX and Linux but requires lots of tinkerings and additional downloads on OS-X.
Apple´s X11 compatibility is, at best, poor. It is slow and not properly integrated into the system. You can´t just run X11 programs from the Finder, it needs some ugly AppleScripting (as with OpenOffice). I did not manage to get Xfig set up on OS-X -- and it´s still the f***g best tool for drawing illustrations for scientific LaTeX documents.
In general, KDE´s integration of applications and "managers" is much better than that of OS-X. How do you set up icons and programs to be started under OS-X? In KDE and GNOME, you just select them. Ever worked with the OS-X version of Emacs?
-
The best combination
2007-09-01 19:59:41 dfklein [Reply | View]
As to using emacs on OS X, I've had a lot of success with Aquamacs Emacs (www.aquamacs.org). I was exposed to emacs in a second semester computer science class, and despite the learning curve really liked it. I installed Aquamacs on my own computer and, despite having very little experience with emacs was up and running with it very quickly. It's real emacs, with all the customizability and other benefits that entails, and it's documented well enough to allow an interested newbie (like myself) to get their hands dirty.
Also, Aquamacs functions as a LaTeX environment, even though this isn't a feature I've used yet.
-
article does not answer the question
2004-12-01 14:26:22 kwidholm [Reply | View]
the question the article asked was not "why run linux," but "why run linux on Mac hardware?" There is not a single statement in this article that would encourage users to run linux specifically on Mac hardware. If anything, the lack of ports and hardware support for Mac hardware vis a vis PC hardware would be a disincentive.
In short, this is an article about why you might want to run Linux, but it completely omits the question of why you'd want to run Linux on a Mac.
If I wanted to tweak Linux, I'd put it on a $200 PC laptop rather than my iBook. -
article does not answer the question
2004-12-01 15:09:26 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
I'd echo nathanh's response. All the people I spoke to about it said that they simply preferred Apple hardware, and found it to be of better quality. I should have made that clearer in the article, though, so thanks for pointing it out. -
article does not answer the question
2004-12-01 14:48:16 nathanh [Reply | View]
<BLOCKQUOTE>
In short, this is an article about why you might want to run Linux, but it completely omits the question of why you'd want to run Linux on a Mac.
If I wanted to tweak Linux, I'd put it on a $200 PC laptop rather than my iBook.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I can answer that. Apple hardware is awesome. It looks sexy. It's fully featured. It's a good price. I'm talking about the laptops, of course. PC laptops are ugly plasticky junk. Often with sticky out knobs and levers that snap off. Also the price was a pleasant surprise because I had expected the Apple hardware to cost more. But I compared Sony, Toshiba, IBM and Apple and Apple was significantly cheaper (~15%) for equivalent spec'ed hardware.
If I was to purchase a desktop I would buy an Apple again because my experience with LinuxPPC on this PowerBook has been so positive. The new G5 looks brilliant. I could happily stick that in my lounge without feeling that I had compromised the feng shui. I've yet to find a PC that didn't look like an ugly beige box, or a beige box with fins and flashing lights. Yuk!
Basically I'm willing to spend a little more for quality hardware. $200 PC? Why would I want to save a few $100s to get an inferior product? I would rather have the Apple hardware, thank you.
-
article does not answer the question
2004-12-02 13:52:56 metaman [Reply | View]
I know people seem to like apple hardware better, for for the price of my PowerBook G4 (1.5 GHz) I have at work I could have got an x86 laptop with far better performance, and a builtin linux compatible wireless card.
I expected much better performance based on all the "PPC has more bang per gigahertz" hype, but the bogomips rating is less than 1/7 of my 2.66 GHz desktop (which you could get in a x86 laptop).
I run gentoo on my work machine, home machine and powerbook. It takes FOREVER to compile things like mozilla on the powerbook.
Also, xpdf isn't able to handle several of the documents I have to read and Adobe Acrobat isn't available for linux PPC.
Other corporate tools are equally problematic. MeetingMaker doesn't have a PPC linux client and Wine doesn't work on linux PPC so I cannot even run the windows version either.
I also don't see how the powerbook mousepad is easy to use with linux either. The single mouse button is just NOT easier to use in linux.
I love linux and its what I primarily use, but I would never buy non x86 HW again for a laptop if I was using it primarily for linux.
To each their own. -
article does not answer the question
2004-12-03 04:21:58 Maethor [Reply | View]
Other corporate tools are equally problematic. MeetingMaker doesn't have a PPC linux client and Wine doesn't work on linux PPC so I cannot even run the windows version either.
One of the reasons for the existence of QEMU (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/) is to run x86 Linux and with Wine, Windows, applications on PPC (and various other processors).
-
Same reason I installed Linux on x86
2004-12-01 13:55:17 nathanh [Reply | View]
I exclusively run LinuxPPC (a Debian and Ubuntu hybrid) on my PowerBook G4 1GHz. No dual boot. I deleted MacOS X 10.3 the same day I received the PowerBook. I did so for the same reasons I ran Linux on a 386 back in 1992. Freedom.
Before Linux I was using various prorietary UNIX. Several times I'd been burnt by vendors going bankrupt or purposefully dropping support for their software to force an upgrade. I was unable to share software with my friends due to copyright law. I had lost my patience dealing with license daemons, license keys, copy prevention schemes, etc. Often I would run up against a trivial bug in the software that the vendor refused to fix, even though I knew I could easily fix the bug myself. Inbetween fighting with the software and fighting with the stubborn vendors, computing simply wasn't any fun.
So when Linux came along I jumped ship almost immediately. In 1992 it was fairly inferior to what I already had from the proprietary UNIX. The networking was poor. There was no GUI with the first versions of Linux I used. There were bugs everywhere. But I knew then as I know now that those problems are trivial compared to the non-technical problems with proprietary software.
MacOS X might be all-singing and all-dancing. It might have the world's greatest GUI and the best UNIX underneath. But am I tempted to switch? No! Because I know from experience that the sweet exterior hides the bitter core of proprietary software. I have no desire to return to those horrible days of licensing and forced upgrades. I would rather do without the features than be hobbled by my software and beholden to a company.
Fortunately Linux does everything I want. I can surf the web. I can watch movies. I can listen to songs. I can write email. I can use a word processor. It might do all those things with only 80% of the slick technical efficiency of MacOS X. It might be only 50%. Or only 10%. The exact percentage doesn't matter because whatever amount it is, it's sufficient for my needs. The important feature of Linux is that it isn't proprietary, In my experience that makes Linux infinitely more valuable than MacOS X. -
Same reason I installed Linux on x86
2005-01-04 21:52:53 SeaFORTH_for_OSX [Reply | View]
Many posts here state in summary what I believe, and that is to get off the nipple of the recurring revenue companies. Being hooked into something like you do with OSX or Windows, or whatever is simply shameful. Not because the companies try for the easy buck, but because people lack the knowledge, time, inclination to find out what is available as an alternative. Its about the human spirit, about people being more (with possibly less?).
I use Linux and OSX on Apple/PPC hardware. I use both because they both offer me income. I enjoy them both, Linux for its power and speed, and OSX for its ease of use, and MacPPC hardware solutions so I can run both. Major revisions or strippings of the GUI on either system is meaningless to me and thus discountable, although I can see the value for others. I like to use and make tools for both systems, and then share and sell my services of support if others. In all, it comes down to one thing for me with hardware and software of any type...
"The right tool for the right job, for the right price"
Sometimes that price is freedom, sometimes that price is a check, and sometimes that price is a good feeling about doing the right thing (tm)... :)
I have worked for IBM, Apple, NeXT and Be, working at all levels of code, and sometimes with hardware. In 1997 I became disinfranchised with business and computers, left the industry and retired. With OSX where it is today I've reentered the programming field using mostly OSX because it has matured to the point again of usability. The inexpensive 'dog' eMac offering online, a few contract jobs to pay for it, and the fun of coding has pulled me back to the Mac a place I SWORE I would never come back. PPC Linux makes it all that much more exciting, and justifiable. Bit twiddling has been so much fun since the 6502s, with all the emulators I have on OSX and Linux, the PPC processor to play with in porting FORTH and making my SeaFORTH. I can't imagine why anyone would sit for 10-14 hours a day porting, coding new, or documenting any functionality on any machine of any type for those hours if s/he didn't enjoy it immensely. Quality coding is art, and the art of coding should be fun. Doh! -
Same reason I installed Linux on x86
2004-12-01 15:11:22 Giles Turnbull |
[Reply | View]
Thanks for that, nathanh. That's just the kind of plain-spoken answer to the original question that I was hoping to hear! -
Same reason I installed Linux on x86
2004-12-02 05:24:26 bitjockey [Reply | View]
Hmph. Sometimes a car is just a car, and in this case the Mac for me is just a Mac. I feel fine running BSD with a Mach Kernel on my G3 and dual G4s.
I'm not hard to please. I like the Mac's personality. It gets what I need to have done, and when my PowerBook was stolen it was able to tell me where it was with what I wrote for it.
You folks are welcome to worship at the temple of Linux, but I am sick and tired of paying attention to product cycles! I hear this tone in these replies of arrogance, as if we are playing a giant game of "MY STUFF'S BETTER THAN YOUR-RS!"
We're not. Maybe you need to rebel, but I just need to pay my bills and taxes, talk to my friends around the world and stuff like that. OS X works, and I'm using it. After all, I DID pay for it!
Do you want me to put my business on hold and try out a product that's STILL not ready for prime time? Shoot, the hardware model for the Mac is sooo much simpler than the PC, why aren't all the pieces there yet?
In other words, throwing away my investment in hardware and software is ridiculous, like buying new furniture, then buying a house to put it in and throwing the new furniture away. Maybe you can find drivers for the iSight & other periphs, but that's EXACTLY why I started using a Mac in the first place: to get away from the driver wars.
My Mac is an appliance. I bought it to be an appliance. I'm not gonna put any form of Linux on it unless vendors of the stuff I use are supporting it. Even then, OS X would have to old and senile, leaving it's teeth everywhere it goes and wandering off in the night!
I'm so happy with my Mac the way it is, I'll probably skip the next two X releases! Shoot, I could really go back to Jaguar and be happy, but only if my Book needs open heart surgery... -
Same reason I installed Linux on x86
2004-12-02 08:48:50 bairdcarr1 [Reply | View]
I agree, OSX works! Mostly, anyway. Unfortunately, I have had to upgrade it 3 times already. That's fine at work, I'm not spending my own money, and there really isn't an alternative in Linux. Without insulting your favorite OS, let me explain why I use Linux.
It's free, I can install it on as many computers as I like with no thought given to licenses or restrictions. No product keys to keep track of!
It's incredibly easy and fast to install.
It installs with all the software I need to do my work already included. No keeping track of extra software cd's and their respective licenses and product keys.
Unlimited free upgrades to the OS and ALL the programs installed on it.
VERY easy to install and update software (Synaptic frontend to apt). Over the internet! Click on the the software name, click install, that's it.
I can't tell a difference in performance between my old Pentium 3 laptop and my new Pentium 4 laptop, they are both fast!
The major open source programs are updated frequently, with vast improvements in a short amount of time.
KDE (my choice of Window manager) has immense networking capabilities, unrivalled in any other OS (still trying not to be insulting here).
Software to do everything I want to do already installed. CD/DVD burning, scanning, digital camera interfacing, graphics, MS compatible office suites, remote access to work via ssh, control of remote Windows and Mac systems using VNC and Remote Desktop. Financial software. Tons more.
I don't use Linux just because it's better, I use it because I'm lazy! I hate to read that I'm a thief because I install my one copy of <some Commercial software> on a few hundred of my friends computers. I don't have to worry about some company going out of business and not supporting their product anymore. Or losing the install cd's to my favorite software and having to buy a new copy.
I can buy $100 used no-OS systems and put a fully legal, fully functional OS on them for free. I'm outside the normal upgrade cycle, yet can benefit from everyone elses upgrades.
Linux is just simple and easy. I don't really care if you use it or not, I just do not understand people dismissing it offhand. It's not like it costs you anything to try.
-
Same reason I installed Linux on x86
2007-01-30 00:13:20 JayTee [Reply | View]
Pardon me for asking, buy since when did you need a "product key" to install OS X? I'm up to 10.4.8, and have never needed one. -
Facing the facts of upgrades
2005-01-25 08:28:26 lvirden [Reply | View]
>I agree, OSX works! Mostly, anyway. Unfortunately, I have had to upgrade it 3 times already.
The basic problem is that the only software which isn't being upgrades is abandoned software. Otherwise, people are fixing problems and making improvments.
So, I suspect the real problem for you isn't that you had to upgrade, but that you had to pay for upgrades. Am I right?
That's probably the primary argument that would sway me to run a BSD or Linux instead of MacOS - to be able to afford to keep up to date.
I'm not even able to afford the Mac hardware - the macs I have are all ancient hand-me-downs. None of them right now are even PowerPCs (I don't think). About the only PPC hand-me-down I would expect to get is something so old, and so slow, that even Linux would crawl.
Given that things are so bad, the issue then becomes this - on what platform do I expect that, if I were able to run it, I could afford to keep the applications on it up to date, or to fix them.
Certainly a good portion of MacOS X apps are available in source form, so I could keep those up to date. However, when it comes to management software, the cost of buying upgrades would be prohibitive to me. -
Same reason I installed Linux on x86
2004-12-03 01:00:04 bitjockey [Reply | View]
This isn't about X being my favorite OS. Unix version 7 is my favorite OS.
It's about I spent my money, and I'm satisfied with my investment. If the day comes when I need what Linux has, I'll get it and use it. Now, could I make that decision by dismissing Linux out-of-hand?
As for being free: don't you value your labor? Have you nothing better to do than install a new OS on your computer(s)? I do, so the time I'd spend playing with Linux is worth more than nothing.
Listen, we'll never persuade each other to change, so I'm outa here, okay?
Peace
-
Don't forget Gentoo
2004-12-01 09:16:32 zeekec [Reply | View]
I'm running Gentoo on my iMac because I like the idea of compiling all the code, I get access to the latest (or nearly latest) versions of programs direct form the vendor, the price (It came with OS X 10.1, but who wants to buy expensive software when Linux works.), and to support Linux.
The more Macs that switch to Linux the better support there will be for them.
-
OpenOffice
2004-12-01 08:41:33 boud [Reply | View]
A bit weak, this article. It managed to miss a lot of points.
One reason to use Linux on a Mac for me was to use OpenOffice: the Debian version of OpenOffice is a lot more stable than the OS X version. I'll never, never again put megabytes of text in a proprietary format.
I've also known developers at the company I work for who use Linux for their development work, and OS X when they're home for things like iPhoto.
I personally need a Mac with Linux to test that the KOffice paint application I maintain, Krita, doesn't have endianness issues.
A recent KDE with freetype-rendered fonts just has better font rendering than OS X, too. OS X blurs its fonts something horrible.
Finally, KDE is just a better, more consistent and more capable GUI than OS X. Just take Konqueror and compare it with the finder? No contest at all.
-
Forgot One Point
2004-12-01 06:02:41 MacDork [Reply | View]
One of the important reasons I've never made the jump to Linux myself, is that having the *ability* to meddle around w/ and tweak every piece of my OS meant that I likely would.
Wait? Isn't that the point?
Yes. It is. It's exactly the point.
Tweaking my OS, while fun, isn't my job. I don't get paid to do that stuff. Guess what? Not many people do. Linux is this decade's WWW -- legitimate uses, but ultimately a huge time vacuum.
-
speed
2004-12-01 05:14:59 wapentake [Reply | View]
Linux's primary benefit is speed.
If you run some benchmarks on kernel primitives, to compare Linux and Mac OS X, you'll find that Linux is substantially faster in most cases (and faster in probably all cases). When you try Linux, you'll notice that it is snappier.
If you don't believe me, try benchmarking yourself. Use the PowerPC cycle counters, and count how long it takes to execute a system call, a thread switch, a floating point fault, a page fault, etc. Mac OS X is so slow. It is easy to see when compiling. A complicated build really stresses a Unix system, and it will show the difference between Linux and OS X.
But I'd never run Linux just for its speed. OS X is the nicest OS I've ever used, for many reasons. I can live with its dopey performance. And unfortunately, faster processors won't really help. From the performance perspective, OS X's kernel internals are horrible: they cause massive cache usage. Simple OS X system calls result int cache and TLB misses, when the same system calls on Linux would not. Once you start missing in the processor's caches, your system must use the memory bus. Processor speed doesn't help with memory access. So as long as OS X uses its current construction principles, faster hardware will not scale its performance with processor speed, but rather with memory and memory bus speeds.
-
speed
2004-12-02 12:38:07 Paraplegic_Racehorse [Reply | View]
I did benchmark it myself. I tried YDL 3.0 on my stock snow iBook when it first came out. While the kernel may or may not work faster, the userland interface - and particularly the GUI (tried KDE, Gnome and Window Maker) - were extremely sluggish compared to Jaguar. In addition, the GUI crashed; a lot. This may have been improved since then, but I will not look back at linux on any of Macs until I retire my current hardware.
That being said, I found NetBSD and Darwin (non-MacOS X) to be significantly snappier than any version of OS X I've used to date. I keep going back to OS X, though. Not for snappy interface or any particular need for a software package or because it Just Works. I keep going back because the interface organization and arrangement is intuitive, elegant and (accounting for its limitations) requires fewer keystrokes or mouse-clicks per task to get any given thing done.
I'm lazy. I bought a computer so it would do some work for me. I want to foist as much of that work off onto the computer as reasonably possible. I do not need eye candy or other customizability; it distracts me from my task. I do need to be able to begin and/or close a task in about half as many user-interactions as Windows, or KDE, or Gnome or whatever wm you'd like to name. That's the true power of OS X, in my opinion.
It allows me to Just Work and stays out of my way. -
speed
2004-12-02 05:33:14 bitjockey [Reply | View]
Will you PLEASE stop talking about benchmarks and processor speed for, like maybe 10 years?!!! That is SO not the point!!
Benchmarks don't help me fulfill my contracts. Supported software that I can trust to do the job does that.
Linux on the Mac is a fad. If you want to work that hard, be my guest. I hope you find ways to overhaul it to make it 90 times faster. But even when you do that, we're gonna need support! -
speed - But Macs Are Slower, Right?
2004-12-01 12:05:54 williamverna [Reply | View]
Quote by Paul Murphy, LinuxInsider
09/30/04
"The Mac runs Unix on RISC. That makes it inherently more secure and more reliable, as well as more attractive, to people whose jobs or interests require them to go beyond the limits of the GUI.
To many people in the sciences and engineering... the PC versus Mac speed issue boils down to hardware running Unix -- an arena in which UNIX BSD on the G5 has a 50 percent advantage over Linux on the (Intel Processor) Xeon."
Simply put BSD Unix on a PPC is faster and more stable then Linux on x86. Darwin has extremely fast I/O and IP stack, so I have serious reservations believing that a Linux kernel and distrobution ported to a PPC would be faster then the FreeBSD Unix subsystem and Mach kernel used in Darwin.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36964.html -
speed - But Macs Are Slower, Right?
2004-12-02 01:28:16 wapentake [Reply | View]
Be quite clear, I'm not comparing Linux+x86 to Darwin+PowerPC. I compare Linux+PowerPC to Darwin+PowerPC. Linux+PowerPC is thoroughly faster than Darwin+PowerPC.
Your serious reservations are naive. As I said, benchmark it yourself. Or go read the conference proceedings from SOSP in the 90's, and see the papers rip Mach apart, and show why Mach gave microkernels a bad reputation. Microkernels can be fast. Mach is the opposite of fast. Just look at the source code of Mach and BSD in Darwin: they are not designed for speed, but for software management (i.e., to keep things well modularlized). Just one example: in Linux, the parameters for a system call are passed directly via the register file. In Darwin, they are packed up in a memory buffer, passed around, and the results are passed back via another memory buffer, and then everything written back to the register file. That just does wonders for the cache and TLB.
By the way, the I/O and IP stack on Darwin is not fast. It is easy to verify by benchmarking; you can convince yourself rather than believe me. And Darwin doesn't even scale beyond a single processor. When you add Apple's second processor (ever wonder why they don't sell more than two processors?), the performance gap between Linux and Darwin will probably become larger (I haven't measured this myself), but it is easily evident, since Darwin uses several big-kernel-locks, while Linux uses fine grained locking. If the IP stack of Darwin runs on one CPU, it can't for the most part run concurrently on another CPU. Likewise for the I/O system. Fast, huh?
I have an idea for an alternative demonstration of Darwin's diminutive performance. There is currently a project to add Darwin compatibility to BSD and Linux. Go find this project, and try it out. You'll see, without a doubt, that Linux is still faster than Darwin when running Darwin applications, all on PowerPC.
-
facts
2004-12-01 02:56:55 macubergeek [Reply | View]
Your article is misleading on a couple of points.
1. The only part of Macos X that is proprietary is Aqua or the Gui. You should try downloading Darwin. That will give you the full unix experience plus you can run Xfree86 and any windows manager you want. The mach microkernel IS hackable. Download the source for Darwin and hack away.
2. Yellow Dog is essentially Redhat. You should experiment with Debian if you want an easier software install experience. Simply run "apt-get install blah-blah" to install app blah-blah.
3. NOTHING -
facts
2004-12-02 12:33:09 fafhrd [Reply | View]
It should be noted that the core components of Darwin are open source, and available via the Apple Source license, however, key drivers to hardware are _not_ available as open, even though a base functioning computer would require them.
The Broadcom chipset is a mess for free software in general, so I'll exempt the Airport Extreme.
However, the freaking KEYBOARD driver for laptops is closed. So is the graphics chipset. So is the MOUSE. (Likely anything that is ADB based).
I'm running Gentoo Linux on my Aluminum Powerbook, and it's (as many have mentioned before) "does eveything I need it to do". I'm mainly a software developer, but I do all those things "normal people" do: movies, music, photos, text editting and word processing, etc.
I did use OS X on a different powerbook from 10.0 though 10.3, dual boot install with an LFS Linux install. OS X always felt, fwiw, slower than the LFS install, however, obviously, I didn't have that Aqua interface on the Linux side. I am quite indiffernt to the Aqua interface in general, as it did some neat flashy things, but to change the blindly white theme to something more gentle on my eyes required closed, 3rd party software, that (again, fwiw) likely violates any sense of a warranty one has (not that any software vendor actually cares about that ;-))
For a mobile user, I'll say one thing that's a plus for Apple Hardware (running any OS worth it's salt): sleep. Compared to PC laptops, sleep on Apple hardware is basically instantaneous. For me, it's a make or break feature, as I travel around for work somewhat. OSX and Linux support sleep in my old powerbook and my new aluminum powerbook (it should be noted to be fair that the for the newest aluminum powerbooks sleep under Linux is somewhat newly supported [well]).
-
Broadcom Drivers
2004-12-01 00:05:14 comfrey [Reply | View]
I am waiting on wireless drivers for my powerbook. Then i will probably make the move and install ubuntu GNU/Linux.
I got my powerbook thinking i would get into video editing, however free software meets my day to day needs. -
Broadcom Drivers
2004-12-01 08:26:43 elanthis [Reply | View]
Indeed, this is pretty much the major blocker for me slapping Ubuntu or Fedora Core on my iBook. I live off my wireless, thank you.
Probably the only other important point is getting good multimedia support in Linux. That's one of the things I use OS X for a lot - trailers and movies like RedVsBlue actually play reliably in Quicktime, unlike in GStreamer/Xine/MPlayer and friends.
I also wonder how long the battery life will be under Linux compared to OS X, and how well DRI supports the ATI video card in the machine.
-
Recompile Darwin kernel?
2004-11-30 19:46:37 aqsalter [Reply | View]
Although not common knowledge, you can recompile the Darwin kernel, as distributed with OS X:-
PPC Nerds - Kernel recompiling in Darwin/MacOS X (Part I)
-
Important differences
2004-11-30 17:37:41 matthewscott [Reply | View]
I like YDL, and I use both OS X and linux on x86 every day.
Having said that, I have to take issue with a couple of things:
Your ease of use example used a long-time windows user. Of course a GUI modeled after windows will be easier for her to use. Then again, anything that gets wintel folks to break the habit is fine by me. Perhaps you should find someone with little or no computer experience to try this experiment on.
Staats says he uses OS X for audio editing because he hasn't had time find equivalents for PPC Linux and what it would take to recompile (a good "weekend project"). Then he goes on to say that "linux is linux is linux" on all architectures. This is misleading at best. There is far less support for linux on PPC, and many packages that are readily available for x86 haven't been ported or work only on specific and limited hardware. This is one of the primary reasons I stick with X on PPC and Linux on x86. Support for ports to OS X is far superior in my experience than support for PPC linux ports.
Lastly, Linux (even PPC linux) has far more upgrades, more rapidly, than OS X. It's one of the things I appreciate about Linux, but hardly an advantage over OS X. And before I get jumped about cost, last I checked YDL 4 was no longer free-as-in-beer. I don't begrudge them that, and I've bought previous versions.
I do applaud Yellow Dog for their work, but I just don't see the advantage. OS X is superior on Apple hardware in my experience. -
Important differences
2004-11-30 18:36:55 msporleder [Reply | View]
I agree. I think there was another blog or article about this a while ago and it's getting more and more difficult to sell linux as a good idea on my mac.
Also, you can do plenty of weird stuff to your mac! I've been waiting for someone to try customizing an opendarwin kernel (XNU) and running it on a standard OSX box. Check out the caches in your home directory to see some of the wild configurations that you can just xml away. Maybe AppleRAID would be fun to use. Many of the UNIX(BSD/Mach) parts of OSX are free, why not take advantage of them?





