Domain: maconlinux.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to maconlinux.com.
Comments · 26
-
Re:RISC vs CISC?
I stopped running linux on my macs at work for one simple reason. Make a list of the activities you plan to do under linux, that you couldn't do under OS X. Now, make a list of things you can do under OS X and can't do under linux. Chances are, you'll end up sacrificing a bunch of features so you can simply say "I'm running linux". There's no motive.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess that linux/X11 would run faster on a mac than OSX/Aqua, for some that is important enough.... For many people linux does whats needed, for the rest there is always Mac on Linux -
Why not do this?
Here's a Screenshot of Mac-On-Linux which allows users of PPC enabled Linux Distros Yellow Dog Linux to run Mac OS on their computers. This ss shows a PPC Linux user with Mac OS open and Virtual PC running on it, and DOS running on Windows. Just add a few emus and you're all set.
-
Why not do this?
Here's a Screenshot of Mac-On-Linux which allows users of PPC enabled Linux Distros Yellow Dog Linux to run Mac OS on their computers. This ss shows a PPC Linux user with Mac OS open and Virtual PC running on it, and DOS running on Windows. Just add a few emus and you're all set.
-
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions ClubYou can still run Win98 on basically any new machine, but drivers are a bit of a pain. Win98 will not support some of the hardware, but the basic machine will still run. Problems come when you start depending on a piece of proprietary hardware, bleck, just don't do that.
If you need to use a piece of software that will not run under Classic, you can always use Basilisk II if the program is 68K compatable. I haven't checked it out yet, but Sheep Shaver has been ported to Darwin, so you should be able to now have a complete virtual PowerPC macintosh running old versions of MacOS. There is also MOL, which currently only runs under Linux/PPC, but may someday get ported over to OSX, that would allow you to boot multiple coppies of OSX on the same machine.
Moof!
-
OS X
I avoid OS 9 like the plague, but OS X (NeXt-based) has much better winshit interaction support. Thanks to Class, OS X can run OS 9 software. Linux can do a similar thing with MacOnLinux. Both use the native process rather than emulator, they are fast enough to run Bryce on my G3 iBook.
My school is concidering a Linux server, but they'd have to draft me to configure it. They are also having trouble affording the low end pentium I told them would be necessary. -
Re:Problem.. no workstation box.
Mac On Linux all you need is a PPC Processor.
-
simple
Start up MoL on any PowerPC, dump sound to a WAV while playing the proprietary files, compress and distribute.
An easier way would be to burn it to disc and rip that disc. It won't sound as good, but figuring out the compression part of the iTunes format and overlaying that onto another format could fix such problems. Then again, we can always distribute a ~50mb WAV for each song if we're desperate enough.
As soon as someone cares enough to make the tools, high quality rips of iTunes music will be available on filesharing networks. -
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
All Apple is doing is preventing you from selling hardware to run their OS. No one says that you -have- to run Apple software, so you -have- to buy Apple hardware
Actually, they're not even doing that.
They're preventing you from buying replacement parts from a repair centre to build your own Mac.
If you want to run Mac OS X, without a Mac, then go right ahead.
Mark -
coolest screenshot
here is a screenshot of virtual PC on Mac-on-Linux on KDE. Very cool.
-
mac on linux
Mac-on-Linux makes it possible to run Mac OS (including OS X) under Linux/ppc.
The Mac-On-Linux capabilities of this system with debian would make it a perfect solution for an avid linux user to access Mac new media software without having to purchase two systems. I bet if it was tested with the G4 dual processor systems they discussed, performace would be much enhanced in OS X, and even more enhanced in OS 9.I would definitely love to be able to run adobe products on my linux box.
-
Re:Why would I want this?
How much 'zippier' or more responsive is Linux on Mac that OS9?
Linux is and feels much faster than Mac OS 9 on the same hardware. Don't forget that there is still a large part of OS 9 that is based on 680x0 legacy code being run through the built-in emulator. All of the PPC Linux distros are using 100% native PPC code. I would say that Linux feels at least 50% faster on the same machine - ie. you have an extra 50% MHz.
Is the multi-tasking any better?
There is simply no comparison. Mac OS 9 doesn't even have real multitasking. Don't forget that you can bring Mac OS 9 to a halt by simply holding down the mouse button. It took me a while to get used to the fact that I could hold down the mouse button in Linux and still have the OS continue along. I routinely have multiple processes running on my lowly 400 MHz G3 machine (compiling, downloading, decoding, playing MP3s, serving web and ftp) all while still surfing the web and having the interface still be responsive.
There are equivalent applications for nearly everything under Linux and for what there isn't you can still run OS 9 as a process under Linux via Mac-On-Linux.
And don't forget stability! Mac OS 9's stability is a joke compared to Linux's. As an OS 9 user one gets used to freezes and hitting reset. As a Linux user you begin to forget what freezes are like. You get used to uptimes of weeks and months unless you need to make changes to your system that require a reboot. -
Re:Why would I want this?the only thing i miss is having easy access to ms office.
Two solutions:
Mac-On-Linux (If you really want to run MS Office.)
-
Re:Mac Office on Linux?
If you are running LinuxPPC, you could check out MacOnLinux.
Writing the equivalent of WINE for OS X would be a very very large undertaking. -
Re:Just what I wanna see....
-
MacOS beige, not turquoise...Mac OS X vs. Linux: Could Apple Take a Bite Out of the Penguin?
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.
Comparing Apples with PenguinsAside 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.
-
How about the other way aroundIf I had money to burn I would buy a g4 powerbook and install debian on it. OSX is slower according to all the benchmarks I have seen comparing it with linux. WIth Linux, I can run MS Word, Excell, IE, quake3, and even java through mol at %100 native speeds. No emulation. Infact I can probably run macos9 apps faster in linux then MacOSX. It seems the powerpc is the ultimate linux platform because of this. Besides, all the good apps these days are written for X. I don't believe X is even supported under OSX. It is under darwin but that is a seperate distro and not is the bundled OSX that comes default with all macs. The only Unix things I can run in OSX is stuff like sed, awk, etc.
-
Macintosh cluster-fuck-ing...Mac OS X vs. Linux: Could Apple Take a Bite Out of the Penguin?
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.
Comparing Apples with PenguinsAside 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.
-
LinuxWorld rundown on MacOS...Mac OS X vs. Linux: Could Apple Take a Bite Out of the Penguin?
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.
Comparing Apples with PenguinsAside 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.
-
Tracking down MacOSMac OS X vs. Linux: Could Apple Take a Bite Out of the Penguin?
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.
Comparing Apples with PenguinsAside 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.
-
Whats holding Mac Os X from Linux's marketshare...Mac OS X vs. Linux: Could Apple Take a Bite Out of the Penguin?
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.
Comparing Apples with PenguinsAside 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.
-
Re:[ot] Tripod has serious problemsIt takes you to the same url, but this time, it shows you the picture instead of that message.
Not for anyone running IE5 for MacOS (often described as the best browser yet). And before anyone accuses me of being a Mac weenie, I run the MacOS on my SuSE Linux box using Mac-on-Linux, so I can use things like IE5, Adobe Photoshop and BBEdit.
Not that it really matters; it's probably the same picture that I have here.
-- -
Re:Why does anyone like Apple?Many people have talked about why Apple's OS is good, but I'd like to emphasize that there are many reasons that Apple's hardware is better. You don't have to use it to run Mac OS! Six months ago I was ready to buy a new computer (the Sparc 5 was getting a bit slow), and I carefully weighed the options. Here are some of the many reasons I chose to buy a G4:
- 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.
-
Re:What about MacOS?
Here's what I'd like to see - one of these in an Intel box running Linux with mac-on-linux running... Then those of us who want to can run the MacOS off of the G3/4s from within Intel Linux. It's my understanding that mac-on-linux can run on any PPC chip, whether or not the chip actually supports the MacOS. Anyone know if this would work?
-
GoodIt's great that they got this working. Now I won't have to switch back to MacOS to watch movies I download (I can sometimes do it using MOL, but not if the movie contains a sound track.) However I'm still waiting for Apple to get on the ball and release a QuickTime player for Linux.
Fuck karma. Post anonymously.
-
Re:Apple: As Closed Source As They Come
Please refer to Mac-on-Linux. It's a virtual machine that runs MacOS hosted inside Linux running on some PPC machine. It does not have to be a Mac, although it helps. It does require the MacOS ROM file in order to boot, but that file ships with every copy of MacOS. Obviously it's copyrighted and so forth, but so is the OS, and you get both. The user can supply it easily.
Clearly this could be used to build a Mac-compatible machine. At worst, just make it run a PPC linux and then get this program working, although that would fairly suck. The problems are that there would be no guarantee of compatibility with future OS releases, and Apple handles the current demand for Macintosh computers plenty well. -
Mac-on-Linux
One point everyone seems to be forgetting in the "my OS is bigger.. oops, better.. than your OS" debate is that PowerPC Linux has what may be the killer app.. the MacOS itself.
Check out The Mac on Linux Page for more info.
I run it when I need to open that stray Word or PowerPoint document under Linux, and quite frankly, it rocks. Not everything is there yet (like sound support, and multiple serial line support), but what is there is impressive.
(Aside: the Sheepshaver developers were supposed to have a similar app for Power PC Linux, but nothing ever materialized. Pity..)
I'll soon try out additional Web resources for using MacOS Open Transport, MoL, and Linux ethertap support to create a "virtual" firewall. (Almost no configuration except for IP masquerading, no need to buy another box, and I get my MacOS-based VPN client when I need it. Life is good.)
-----