Slashdot Mirror

being a bit more Maclike and locking Linux out of the desktop market.

Ummm... Someone should tell these guys:

http://www.linuxppc.org

and these guys ...

http://www.yellowdoglinux.com

and these guys ...

http://fink.sourceforge.net

and these guys ...

http://www.debian.org

and these guys ...

http://www.gentoo.org

and these guys ...

http://www.linux-mandrake.com

Each of them either produces a PowerPC-based Linux distribution that runs on iBooks (as well as iMacs, Powerbooks and other PowerPC systems), or in the case of fink, ports common Linux apps to the OS X platform.

Uhm you know, Linux is available for 64-bit processors, at least for the pSeries boxes (PPC - PowerPC proc). http://www.penguinppc.org/ && (http://www.linuxppc.org/ || http://www.linuxppc.com/). SuSE has a distro for this, I believe. Not so sure about RedHat - although I think their 7.1 release did have a port for PPC.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

The one problem i personally can see and have experienced is that you cant find that much information concerning Linux on PPC online. Sure, there are some devoted sites line LinuxPPC.org and others, and groups.google.com is always a nice thing, but if you run into *specific* problems (like me, see further down that post) youre in for some serious pain.
I tried several times to put a usable linux distro on my old powermac 4400 (upgraded w/ a G3 procesor card, a voodoo3 2000 and a realtek-chip-based ethernet card).
Xfree will crash at startup, which can be only solved by going online, grabbing some drivers and compiling them into the kernel, which kind of sucks for a newbie - but thats not the point because I can't get online because the ethernet card is not recocnized even if I choose the realtek drivers.
So I did some google research, came up with the mentioned solution for XFree, but not for the ethernet problem.
Another point is that noone in your neighborhood can help because LinuxPPC is not as common as Linux for i386.

I'll try darwin next, but since my machine isn`t officially supported I`m not exactly optimistic about that.

I was going to ask if anyone has Linux running on the new dual G4's, but then I found this cool link

http://linuxppc.org/hardware/dualg4/

Anyone have benchmarks (under Linux) for the dual G4's and corresponding PCs for:
- compiling the kernal
- GIMP
- Quake1/2 benchmarks

I'd love to get the "other endian machine" and compile some game code on it. Anyone have any recommendations? How did id do the Quake3 port to Macs ?

"PC Expert - Mac newbie"

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Mac OS X (currently at version 10.1.2) is a fine UNIX-like operating system, which uses a customized Mach mikrokernel and BSD libraries and userland utilities, as well as Apple APIs Carbon and Cocoa, to provide a replacement for Mac OS 9 as a next-generation operating system on Mac hardware. Give it RAM.

NetBSD also runs on Macs, and the suppor is very good. AFAIK, the port is in the main tree and development is at the typical moderate rate. I've never used it but of course it's BSD so it could make a good server OS choice, and it's another OS to throw into the mix.

Linux comes in many flavors for the Mac; as I recall most of the major players have PPC or Mac versions and a few minor ones do as well. SuSe, YDL, LinuxPPC, and a lot more are available. Since you read /. I don't think I have to go in to what Linux is or can do, so just point your browser to the LinuxPPC.org site for info down that avenue.

But it's not worth the price if you're a regular Linux user/hacker. Macs shine for video/music/image editing and a bit for desktop publishing. If your needs don't fall in that (or the "digital hub" concept), then you're better off with a good x86. You don't really need the G4, Gigawire and Firewire stuff. And that "easy to use" stuff... ;-)

And it's a "Mac fan" talking here, so I know what I'm talking about. OK, time to download iPhoto...

- Benad

This is (as the subject says) another example of the Microsoft FUD War. Only this one is far more directly targeted than MS's previous shots.

I was covering the FUD War for a while.. check out "Anti-American Communist Cancer/Virus: Microsoft vs. the GPL", which is over on linuxppc.org. Previously, they were targeting the GPL specifically, Linux by extension (and sometimes directly). This time, though, they've far outdone themselves. Bravo, Steve, Bill. Bravo.

Sorensen codec (as pointed out by many other posters) is not owned or controlled by Apple. The QuickTime client cannot be ported to Linux because it includes the Sorenson codec which isn't available for Linux. Apple is making the move to MPEG-4 and it will only be at this point that a Linux client is even plausible - but then again, there's already xanim which plays QuickTime movies so why would you need a closed-source Apple client?

As for all parts of MacOS X that aren't in Darwin, some of this is because it includes code which is covered by patents owned by other companies (eg: the airport drivers) and some because Apple is in the business of making money. If they gave away their most significant marketing edge, the look and feel and superiour ease of use of their operating system they would have no marketing advantage.

Finally, the boot rom, one poster below replied that this does not exist anymore, and I would tend to agree with that as the new world macintoshes have Open Firmware but I should note that this is a hardware area that I am not familiar with. However, it is entirely possible to run other operating systems on a Macintosh, you may want to check out LinuxPPC.org as proof. That's right, Linux and FreeBSD both are available for Macintosh.

This isn't meant to bash Apple, but you seem to be claiming that they're almost completely "open source" and that's just not the case.

Noone is claiming that Apple is completely opensource, I was merely refuting the point that Apple is a proprietary company because it is simply not true any more - Apple is in fact one of the most standards complient and non-proprietary software companies out there today which isn't just selling another free software distribution. (before people point out companies like IBM who have been adopting opensource, I said one of...)

"MkLinux is the only linux which supports booting on NuBus"
Nope, sorry.

PPCLinux for Nubus systems has been going since last year and has a very active mailing list.

For the record, you do not need to put mklinux on that 7100 of yours. The standard linuxppc kernel now supports NuBus macs. (link found on linuxppc.org) It may be a bit more work to get the NuBus version of the kernel to work with a known distribution (or maybe not, i wouldn't know how mainstream this is.. either way if you wait a couple months i'm sure one of the mainstream distributions will pick up the nubus support) but in the end i'm sure it would be worth it to be able to run an actively-being-updated kernel tree instead of the old, poorly-supported mklinux kernel. ( Plus you can run apt-get still ;) )

Just to let you know. Good luck!

However It can't read hfs+... that I know of.

I don't know what the ipod it though hfs or hfs+.. hfs+ is sort of the window equivalent of fat32..

I assumed the writer was referring to Yellow Dog, SuSE, Mandrake, and Debian. Adding LinuxPPC and MkLinux brings the tally up to six, and Linux-m68k makes seven. Linux on the Mac is flourishing.

Prepare to loose all Karma

The PowerBook G4, and iBook are still impressive offerings.

Even if you don't accept a little Apple FUD there is still one thing that can't be beat: These things are amazingly light, fast, and have a great screen. Besides that, they run many Open Source OSes (Linux, Darwin).

Keep in mind, I am not posting this from a "Mac zealot" perspective. I am posting this as someone who admires the aesthetics of a computer, and who realizes that one of the powers of Open Source is that you can compile anything to your hardware. What ever it is.


All I ask, is that you don't mod me down simply because you dislike macs, just keep it as an option for some people to consider

I have been covering Microsoft's FUD War against the GPL, Linux, and open source software. Currently, it's a collection of links to articles about their efforts, although one news story that I wrote does contain a minor (and hopefully funny) editorial. The FUD War coverage is at: linuxppc.org/fudwar/. Cheers,

Have you tried Debian GNU/Linux? Potato was released for PPC and despite all the complaints I've head about installing Debian, it was the easiest install I have ever done.

Is your firmware Old World or New World? If it's New World You shouldn't have too many problems if you've set your boot arguments correctly in lilo.conf (for SUSE) or yaboot.conf (Debian). ybin/yaboot work fine for me on a MacOSless rev-A iMac running Debian Woody.

I don't have a Voodoo 3, so I don't know if any of your problems are caused by it. In general, kernel.org kernels won't compile or boot on PPC because Linus' tree doesn't incorporate the latest PPC changes. For PPC specific kernel source and binaries, check here. Right now I'm running 2.4.3 from the bitkeeper tree plus the ReiserFS Endian-safe patch and there haven't been any problems.

...is that someone in here has found a way to squish their computers into a 8 inch by 8 inch by 8 inch cube!

Speaking for the Mac users...we all thought that it wasn't a real need to have a computer run silent? No, sorry let me rephrase that..

We had it jammed down our pieholes that when Apple started making fanless computers, that it "was no big fucking deal, bitches" and why don't you worry about getting 3-fucking button mice instead and you Mac users give a shit about the stupidest things...blah blah blah

Jessis - get your stories straight... i mean, if the poster wants a silent computer so that he doesnt have to hear the fan blowing all the time.. they call them iMacs and fucking Jobsian G4 Cubes... there's no need to bother with some weird ass hydro-powered case like it was a fucking Russian sub with James Bond at the tiller.

And yes, it can run linux

--

...can be found here.

Okay, here goes my precious karma..

The only thing i can see that Ximian has produced to date this year are press releases and the two "big" projects started way last year - namely Red Carpet and Evolution.

Is anyone besides yourself actively involved in this project anymore? And if so, why is KDE kicking our asses in the progress department?!

Not only is GNOME falling impossibly far behind KDE in terms of in the scope and variety of apps, but we are not even updating our existing applications anymore.

And what about platforms other then i386? As a PPC-based user i cant even get Red Carpet (see it in the FTP directory anywhere?), in addition, i have not seen a single (and i'm dead serious about this) update in the Helix GNOME Updater since last year.

I have recently installed and begun using KDE 2 and i am donwright shocked as to how far they have come in the past year while we, the GNOME community, are still sitting here using GNOME 1.2.

On behalf of the hundreds of users i have encountered both on and offline, Why have the updates to Ximian GNOME stopped? And, if Ximian has chosen to abondon all PPC distros, then i would like to see the Ximian site updated to reflect this, so that we can all move to KDE (of which there are plenty of current packages available)and keep enjoying our Linux experience. And lastly, if Ximan/GNOME needs some help - why are we not asking for it?

I'm not trying to bitch too much (although i dopubt you can tell :-), but i especially feel the pain due to the fact that i am one of your application developers! I have a GNOME project on sourceforge with thousands of users, and it pains me to see them all leaving for KDE!

At this point i have no choice but to begin using kdevelop to port my GNOME app over before all my users leave me.

I recently got a new machine. It might be better t say "new" machine, as it's not a Power Mac G4. But it still is under warranty, and had not been taken out of the shrinkwrap. My "new" machine was a Blue & White Power Mac G3 (Blue G3), and it has been perfect for me. It's got USB and ADB (Apple Desktop Bus, for keyboards, mice, etc.) ports, plus FireWire (no SCSI, alas), three PCI slots, a relatively fast processor (which I'll make faster once it's out of warranty), decent video card, etc.

The great thing about it for me is that it can use almost all of my existing peripherals (USB 3-btn mouse, ADB Kinesis keyboard) without requiring special PCI cards or funky adapters. It seems blazing fast to me (says the man who still loves the 200 MHz PowerPC) 604e that it does everything I need to do perfectly. SSH, web, e-mail, an occasional game. It's great! Server functions never slow it down. Honestly, I don't need a G4.

I am not the only person using "old" hardware. Look at the winning responses to our Mac OS X Celebration Essay Contest, and you will see people that could take LinuxPPC and install it on a Power Mac 7200 (75 MHz PowerPC 601), and turn it from something that took up closet space into an effective AppleShare (netatalk), Samba, web server, or firewall.

That said, a lot of people are installing it on their dual processor G4s and PowerBook G4s. A lot of people. The responses that mentioned these machines said "I want to unleash my machine, so I'm installing LinuxPPC." So, Linux actually has driven new hardware sales. It also helps old hardware that's in the closet at the moment, as it can run on machines that Mac OS X never will run on.

You can definitely say that it is a benefit to everyone, regardless of how new or how old their hardware is.

Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.

You may get a better response if you pose this question on
xlr8yourmac
macslash or
Linux on PPC FAQ-O-matic
other sites to look at may be:
www.linuxppc.com
www.linuxppc.org
I did a search on Google some time ago on the same topic and found some links on OpeneFirmware hacks to give a CLI style bootloader similar to the Lilo, BSD or NT bootloaders. I used keywords like openfirmware, linux, and bootloader, or something. I'll be in a similar situation soon, if I had more time right now I'd do the searching myself and report my results.

You are delusional.

Windows has existed in its present forms for about five years.

I presume you are judging the OS by the GUI. Windows NT version 3.1 was released on July 17, 1993. The GUI was different, but the architecure was there, care of David Cutler.

That was the release date. Microsoft recruited David Cutler in 1988, well before Linus started.

Superior UI? Look at the quality of window managers. I'm sorry, but Sawfish, Window Maker and Enlightenment all kick Windows' butt when it comes to utility and control. And themability makes them look good too.

OO Architecture? Um, I think you'll find Gnome and KDE are riddled with OO.

Greater variety of hardware? NT had x86, Alpha, MIPS, even PowerPC, but they're all unsupported now. The free OS's easily wipe microsoft's peachy behind with their portability and the number of actual ports. All of those above plus loads more.

They've had the desktop market since the PC clone became popular. There wasn't a real desktop market before this. They didn't take that from anyone.

Yes, NT is taking share from Unix. But the free OS's, chiefly Linux, along with the rise of the Internet, is challenging this.

MSFT has perhaps produced a greater volume of useful code in five years than anyone else ever has
No, they just keep re-releasing the same code with new bells and whistles. The bulk of the code has been made by other companies, later bought up by MS.

Perhaps you can tell I do not like MS. I grew up with MS and I used to love their products. I still like the style of their early manuals (when you got them). But maturity and familiarity have given me perspective. I think you need some too.

The comment from an anonymous user called "My two cents, or the story of how I met my wife" is actually from me, Jason Haas, of Linux PPC and Slashdot fame.

My comment, because of a browser fuckup, wasn't recorded as being from me. (I guess Konquerer doesn't like Slashdot's cookies!)

If you're wondering, the AC who posted that is me. The article I tried to link to in the comment was the Slashdot coverage of what happened to me back in March 2000. (I'm much better now!)

And all I wanted to do was tell the story of how I met my wife, which was due to the net! :)

So, please, look for my story. It's a good one. :-)

Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.

Have you tried the mailing lists? They're quite good.
You don't even have to be subscribed to post.

For cheap, you might root around in used hardware or school surplus areas for old Macs; just be sure to check that the hardware you are buying is supported by Linux PPC first:

http://linuxppc.org/hardware/supported/

P.S. anything with 'Performa' in it's name is bad.

No mention of Apple PowerBooks on that site. LinuxPPC runs fantastic on many of them!

While I don't disagree with your logic, I think that Apple may be afraid of losing sales on the PowerPC side of things. With LinuxPPC available, Apple may fear that they will lose future OS sales to one of these Unix variants. Currently, LinuxPPC runs faster than OS-X, and if LinuxPPC looks and acts like OS-X, then they could lose *lots* of OS upgrade sales

If you have a newer (read: iMac or G4 series) PowerPC Mac, you can run OpenBSD/powerpc. For any other PPC system, try NetBSD/macppc. If you're running a 680x0 version Mac, see OpenBSD/mac68k or NetBSD/Mac68k. To compare with a linux distro for mac, try Yellow Dog Linux, Linuxppc.org, mlinux, or Linux/m68k. I believe Debian runs on macs, too.

Personally, my experience with linux was not so great (I used redhate 5.2 and 6.0 neither of which was very stable or powerful) so I would recommend BSD which is both (not to mention secure as all hell if your machine supports OpenBSD). Perhaps I will give Linux another go when I get another box to put it on. Honestly, it doesn't really matter, as long as you are committed to using a free Unix-like OS and are willing to put in the time to learn the OS, pretty much any BSD or linux will do. Just find what agrees with you most and what is best for your tasks.

-----

Comparisons to a sports car are interesting - the batmobile is more like it (you see, it must be shot undercranked for it is very slow). Sgt. Pepper... given initial reports, OSX reminds me more of Daikitanna

You can also get to it at http://www.linuxppc.org/news/jhaas/, which does work.

I wonder not so much about Apple's hardware versus their software. They make some great pieces of hardware and bring it to the masses before a lot of other companies. Look at Apple's 22" Cinema display or Airport networking.

I've been using LinuxPPC for a while now on my PowerBook 2000. I can dual-boot with the MacOS (9) if I want to or even better use MacOnLinux. Why should I load MacOSX? I have a great, well supported, stable version of Linux and can still run my MacOS applications (ok, there are some exceptions, Diablo2 won't run because of copy protection). OSX still isn't here and developers are only slowly announcing support.

I'll continue to buy Apple hardware because they make good things, but will I continue to run Apple's OS (and therefore support MacOS software vendors)? Only time will tell.

Apple should have split up their hardware and software divisions long ago. Even if one goes out of business the other has a better chance of surviving.

Cable wrote:

MacOS, this is going away once OSX comes out. The problem here is that it only runs on the Macintosh Platform, the most recent PowerPC Macs that is. The old 68K Macs can't run it, and there are no plans to port it to the WINTEL platform like BeOS was ported. All I see OSX as is just yet another BSD Unix hack. Might as well use BSD on PC systems then, you may not have that Aqua interface, but at least you can have multiple platforms BSD can run on and have the scalability that Mac hardware lacks.

With all due respect, you don't know what the fsck you're talking about.

Darwin (the BSD hack underlying Mac OSX) has already been ported to intel hardware.

New OSX-capable Macs can be bought for as little as $800 and there is a large base of fanatically loyal Mac users who will purchase new hardware, if they haven't already, to make the upgrade.

The issue of interface is not a trivial one to the people who use Macs, and the quartz layer is a powerful technology that will be highly useful to the graphic artists who have always been a core Mac constituency.

MacOS isn't "going away" anytime soon.

The stuff about "the scalability that Mac hardware lacks" is just bizarre. Do you mean that the OS lacks scalability, or the hardware?
You can cluster Macs...
And you can run linux on Mac hardware (LinuxPPC, Yellow Dog Linux, Debian, SuSE Linux)-- are you saying Linux isn't scalable?
Umm, whatever.

It's probably a good idea to do a little research on this stuff before you spread misinformation, unless you want to look dumb and piss off Mac users.

I don't see why loadlin, beos, etc need DOS mode anyway. An executable is an executable...it can still kick out windows and start clean. Mac people never had a DOS to work with and we still have BootX which works just fine to load Linux. It's not a big deal.

Here is a good, organized selection of PPC stuff. Even EveryBuddy is there. :-)

"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)

Try www.rpmfind.net or ftp.wesmo.com for LinuxPPC precompiled RPMs. Note that these should work fine with LinuxPPC 2000, YDL CS 1.2, and MkLinux R1, but not necessarily with SuSE. If you use Debian/PPC, you should be able to use alien to install them.

For other such questions, I suggest the new LinuxPPC.org site or the LinuxPPC mailing list archives.

cya

Ethelred
(who knows that he's risking an Offtopic mod but is begging and pleading for clemency)

Second, we're talking about commercial applications aren't we? OS X is potentially a massive new market for such.

at my old job, we had a ton of macs that were useless because they did not have the software on them that was needed...I could see putting Unix on it and then having use for them again and saving a little money.

Then you ought to check out:

• MacBSD for the 68K Macs
• MkLinux for NuBus PowerMacs
• LinuxPPC or NetBSD for the newer systems.

-- Dirt Road

Yes

there is Yellow Dog Linux here. and my fave, Linux PPC, which can be downloaded here.
personally, I have Mandrake 6.1 installed on Virtual PC-- I find that easier to manage-- but whatever works.

dj sw

PowerPC with a PCI bus? Go with Yellow Dog Linux or LinuxPPC.

PowerPC with a NuBus bus? Go with MkLinux. That's what I use.

Old mac like the one that you mention? Try out Linux m68k.

The m68k is the processor of pre-PowerPCs. Supposedly, Red Hat, Debian, and Whiteline have distributions with the Linux m68k processor. I'm anxious to try these out because I have a old Mac beast that has three 68k processors. This thing will fly!!!! I doubt that you'll get any window manager to run. It may only be useful as a terminal. My triprocessor will be useful as three terminals ;-)

• Linux/PPC runs quite well on Macs and is my primary OS.
• I've got a dual-boot setup so I can run Mac OS when I need to run certain applications such as Finale that don't run on Linux/PPC.
• Not only that, but using the excellent open-source product Mac On Linux, I can boot Mac OS from within Linux.
• I'll be able to run Mac OS X when it is available. I might switch to OS X as my primary OS since it may offer advantages over Linux and will definitely offer advantages over Mac OS 9.
• The hardware is very fast, a pleasure to take apart, and it looks great. All of which are important to me.

So even though it costs a little more (although not too much more for me since I got a student discount), for me, Mac hardware was clearly the way to go.

Sure, it's butt-ugly (white with your choice of blue or orange), big (11.6" x 13.5" x 2.1"), and weighs a lot (6.6 pounds with the battery), but it's...

fairly cheap ($1599, last time I checked),
fairly fast (G3 chip w/ full cache... much faster than most PIII notebooks, which are crippled to reduce heat),
has a really nice-looking LCD screen,
has the cheapest wireless networking option of anybody out there,
and has a battery that lasts 5-6 hours (ymmv).

Best of all, thanks to LinuxPPC, they are great Linux portables.

No PCMCIA, but most of the stuff that you would use cards for (Ethernet, wireless networking, modem, USB) are already built in, so that's no great loss for most users.

Of course, if you can't get past how goofy it looks, maybe the Transmetta laptops are worth the wait.

Either way, I would hate to pay much for a Pentium-based laptop. They are slow, hot, and suck power too quickly.

The only reason they seem to have for comparing the two OSes is that they're both not Microsoft spawn. What the hey? They begin by saying they're aimed at completely distinct markets, and end saying the same thing.

Then in the 'hardware compatibility' section they start mixing compatibility issues with issues about actual hardware. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare two OSs that actually run on the same hardware, anyway? LinuxPPC, anyone?

Years ago (Like 1997), when monolithic Linux for the PowerPC was first starting to stablilize, LinuxPPC.org approached RedHat asking about making a RedHat distro. They said at the time, they weren't really interested, but that LinuxPPC would be free to do what they wanted with a RedHat-based distro, assuming it didn't stomp on their own trademarks.

At any rate this is basically paraphrased from the Linux/PowerPC RedHat Installation Addum, as used to be found at http://kernel.crashing.org/. I don't have an updated url, although I know you can get the RPM with these docs at ftp.linuxppc.org.

My opinion (if you should care :) is that LinuxPPC, Inc. would benifet greatly if bought by RedHat, they could get some better management people (instead of using hackers to run it), better quality control (LinuxPPC isn't known for it's exceptional quality, at least in my book), and more people (it seems that more developers/people are looking away from LinuxPPC when it comes to distro of choice for using/developing).

we are still new to the ways of the linux rebels, and have to wonder, "how much of a problem would it be to take what we want and install to our system?"

how much of a difference does it truly make? linuxppc seems to be *almost* redhat, and redhat runs on a number or architectures. could we download the packages, or would we need to download the source and compile, or should we wait till it appears on linuxppc.org?

WWOD?

Personally I can't wait for SlackPPC or Slackintosh to be usable. I installed the beta of SuSE and found it more intuitive and easier to use than LinuxPPC (which can be messy), but both are RPM based and I almost always screw up the RPM database after a few weeks of use (sigh - yeah I know, this is my fault, but it isn't a problem with slackware). I haven't messed with Debian yet but that might be a good interim alternative.

DrBen