Slashdot Mirror

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.

Ok so Dell do it, (kinda) Whats the chances of MkLinux ever being preinstalled on a Mac. I know Apple have been partially involved in some of the development, I have no idea what the situation is now though. Thinking about it which companys do sell boxes with linux pre installed? Even if you end up just wiping and installing your favourite distro it saves you the pain of paying for Microsoft products that your never gonna use when you buy a box.
--

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.

Has to have open firmware; so no ydl or linuxppc for your 5300. mklinux works for some older macs but I don't think the 5300 is one of them.

Ok. Sorry. I should have said "mature" macs vs. "elderly" macs..?

For "elderly" Macs that won't run LinuxPPC you might want to try MkLinux www.mklinux.org.

AFAIK, work is being done to bring Darwin to Nubus based machines. At least David Gatwood, the main (only?) developer for MkLinux has said that he would like to move some MkLinux code into Darwin (licensing issues?), which means mainly Nubus support, and some Darwin code into MkLinux, which would mean Darwin's Mach microkernel.

Right now, I don't believe you can run Darwin on x100s, no.

Another interesting project would be to make Darwin run as a server for the Mach microkernel, and then run the Linux server used in MkLinux next to it!

Hrm, I only see the word "Apple". It doesn't say which Unix based Apple OS they are refering to. Remember, Apple has made more than one "Unix". Namely, but not limited to: Mac OSX Server (Rhapsody), Darwin OS, Mac OS X, mkLinux and A/UX

--

That's because Apple did give the necessary info to Linux developers.
Hell, they even made their own port/variant, MKLinux,
which is based on Mach and a userspace Linux.
(Now that Mach is part of their new OS, it's clear why they did, for practice using Mach)
Since that info is GPL'd, Be couldn't use it, so they were still screwed.

Silly troll. You're living way Way WAY in the past, and even then you were still wrong.

• Starting in 1996, MkLinux
• Currently, Darwin, OpenPlay, et al
• And for the future, you can modify the apps that come with OS X

Linus Torvalds wrote Linux.

Apple Tweaked Linux (see http://www.mklinux.org)

Steve Jobs is CEO of Apple

thats 3!

--

Remember the MkLinux project? It was originally sponsored in part by Apple, and the first release of it was available from Apple's own website starting in 1996. Support for G3s was added to the project in late-1997/early-1998 (see here for reference).

Remember the MkLinux project? It was originally sponsored in part by Apple, and the first release of it was available from Apple's own website starting in 1996. Support for G3s was added to the project in late-1997/early-1998 (see here for reference).

I know that MkLinux supports them...but if MkLinux can, then theoretically so could LinuxPPC. Is the problem a technical problem or a resource problem (no one wants to do it...) or something else?

... this makes no rational sence.

Now, I am a Mac user and have been for more than 10 years. I began learning Linux and WinNT/9x about 4 years ago, and even though I've prefered Linux, I always liked the way the Mac looked more than anything windows or X had to offer. Sure, I liked to hack the way that my mac interface looked and felt (woohoo, RedEdit!), but for the most part I've ended up going back to the classic Apple Platinum since the very first Kaleidoscope theme and beta releases of MacOS 8. And now my Macs running Linux PPC all have the Aqua theme with Helix Gnome running on them.

Now... Apple... Steve, baby, talk to me. Why is this wrong? Why can't I and all the other people out there who like both their Macs and their Linux actually have them both? For that matter, why support MKLinux and then not let those of us who use it or another distro make it look and feel as Mac like as we want? We are running it on your machines.

*shrug*

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.

-----

Of course, in a real system you also have other tasks which needs to interact with the OS task. This occurs (almost) exclusively through IPC mechanisms, and IPC mechanisms have therefore been identified as the main performance bottleneck for microkernel systems. The IPC mechanism basically deals with transferring (usually a small) amount of words from one task/thread to another, and performing a context switch between the tasks/threads. There are three sides to the cost associated with this:

1. The added number of processor cycles used to actually perform the context switch.
2. The added number of flushed cache lines due to the microkernel design.
3. The added number of TLB invalidations/flushes.

Perhaps he meant MkLinux? It was originally based off of LinuxPPC and it runs on many Nubus based Macs.

-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"

"It's also really efficiently written, and almost completely modular (as opposed to Linux' monolithic-plus-kitchen-sink approach)."

I don't suppose you've ever used Linux, since lsmod, rmmod, insmod, depmod, modprobe are all parts of the wonderful world of mapping things dynamically into kernele space. With it, I can have hot plug PCMCIA, USB, and other devices without having to have this monolitihic kernel you decry. There's even a Microkernel Linux which adds the features that the HURD and QNX have, that Linux doesn't.

QNX is targetted at embedded devices. That tight focus lets it get away with not having support for 64gb of ram, scaling to 8-way SMP, NUMA, swap space, implementation of device drivers for PC and non-PC hardware of all kinds, and other requirements of being a kernel that can be embedded in devices lacking a memory controller, to massive SMP systems, to computing clusters.

"QNX is much more suitable for PDAs and otehr small systems than is Linux."
Ever heard the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none?" Linux is the swiss-army knife kernel. It may not be as good for skinning as a proper hunting knife, but it also has a saw, a can opener, a magnifying glass, and many other useful tools that you might need some day. Think about it.

--

I've done this with mkLinux. There are instructions on how to do this in the Interactive FAQ (which is probably linked from that page.). Just make sure both kernels have their own root filesystems! Otherwise you can hose everything pretty easily.
--

mkLinux is dead and never ran on very many machines anyway.

Others have mentioned MkLinux, which is a version of Linux which runs on top of the Mach microkernel. By modern standards, Mach isn't so "micro". On my Hurd partition, the gnumach executable weighs in at 726kb compressed, and about 1.6Mb uncompressed. Compare with ntoskrnl.exe, which is 907kb on NT 4.0 enterprise server. Both of these are comparable with the size of an average linux or BSD monolithic kernel, which sit around the megabyte mark uncompressed.

The QNX kernel, on the other hand, is something like 8kb in size, which fits in the cache of a 486. Even the BeOS kernel is only something like 78kb compressed. Not that size is the only concern (so my wife keeps telling me), but in general, the less code that runs in the kernel, the easier it is to say something about how secure it is. Also the easier it is to change things while the system is running.

I hate to sound like Andrew Tanenbaum, but MkLinux and the Hurd are now obsolete too. Mach belongs to the old school of microkernels which were popular 10-15 years ago, but with the benefit of hindsight, we know better. Nowadays, for example, we know that you don't even need to do VM swapping inside the kernel.

There are some projects of note which may result in a product which is cleaner and better designed than Linux. Here are some suggestions:

• chaos, which has a very clean, pragmatic design without sacrificing its microkernel philosophy
• VSTa, which is loosely based on Plan9 and QNX
• There's one out there somewhere which is an Open Source re-implementation of L4. Can anyone provide a link?
• Or you could always roll your own...

there is a version of linux running on a microkennel, but it is for the apple.
mklinux

What's the problem? MkLinux Pre-R1 uses glibc 2.1, and is 100% binary-compatible with the microkernel-based PowerPC Linux distros. In fact, a LinuxPPC installation (and probably Yellowdog, etc., too) plus the MkLinux mach kernel will run NuBus Macs.

John

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

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 ;-)

Seriously OT, but I figure I should help a little here - a Performa 6116CD will not run LinuxPPC, YellowDog, or any of thos other derivatives - you are pretty much stuck with MkLinux as far as I know.

This is because the 6116 is basically a Power Macintosh 6100 with a different software bundle, and the 6100 is a NuBus Mac, not a PCI Mac.

Sorry to say it, but you are out of luck with YDL and most other distros.

-Smitty

---
Note that the reason Be can't make the BeOS run on PowerMac G3 and G4 machines is not because of their processors but because Apple won't give Be the specs for the proprietary chips on the motherboards of the new machines.
---

Ah yes. Apple has been terrible about releasing the information used in order to port alternative operating systems on their hardware, eh?

Darwin
MkLinux
LinuxPPC
NetBSD
Yellow Dog Linux
Debian
SuSE

Think for yourself. No matter what Be's propaganda says, Apple has nothing to lose from Be porting their OS to their hardware, since they still gain sales either way. Perhaps they don't want to subsidize Be's development, but that's besides the point. Be's argument was questionable from the beginning, and is twice as questionable now that Apple has released Darwin.

Don't get me wrong - I love BeOS, but the company behind it doesn't seem to have any trouble hiding reality from their userbase. They got seduced by Wintel and they know it.

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

I'm sick of QuickTime movies I can't view in Linux and RealVideo movies I'd prefer not to download the player for

Apple released the source to their Quicktime Streaming Server as soon as it came out last year as part of the Darwin project. And this year Apple ported Darwin to X86 since no one else would take the source and "do it."

All someone has to do is write the player, I am surprised one is not already there, or at least a mozilla plug-in.

For the interested, the applicable necessary source should be here, and there may be further stuff being worked on with MkLinux or LinuxPPC, where these things were ported to the Mac Linux distros.

I'm not sure about LinuxPPC, but mkLinux does support SMP, apparently very well, on the old MP Power Macs, which included:

• Apple Power Mac 9500/180MP
• Apple Power Mac 9600/200MP
• DayStar Genes is MP600 (Quad 604/150's!)
• ...and some MP upgrade cards.

NuBus was a short-lived bus which left comparatively little documentation. This is what makes supporting it, and its cards, so hard. Most PPC distros decided to exclude NuBus altogether, but MkLinux, which worked under Apple's wing, had access to enough information to support the NuBus.

Despite lack of peripheral support, MkLinux is a good way to breathe new life into old Macs. I get lots of work done on my old 66 MhZ 7200 NuBus mac, now that it has MkLinux.

See www.mklinux.org for more information.

The community pretty much took over development last year, have a web site set up, and a "formal" Release 1 will be coming out soon. Apple's old web site is either outdated or gone, but they continue to provide mailing lists for the community.

There's been some talk lately about porting Darwin's Mach Kernel to MkLinux, which would provide support for new hardware, and then catching up the Linux side of things to 2.4. That will come after Release 1.

Except of course that none of them (except MkLinux) runs on top of Mach though. The day Microsoft creates a Windows running on top of Mach, I'll eat my mousepad.

Now, of course, the problem of running multiple OS personalities on top of a microkernel is one of resource allocation. Deciding on how much the different OS personalities should get of, say memory, is just a minor problem. They probably need to agree upon a protocol for sharing/granting memory to each other. Then there is the problem of device drivers. Who should for instance be be responsible for the disk driver (having multiple disk drivers accessing the same hardware simultaneously simply does not work)? Furthermore, say that Linux is responsible for the disk driver, how can BeOS be allowed to access the disk?

Uhm, come to think of it, this last argument (i.e. device drivers) is not that valid for Mach since it has some in-kernel device drivers. (On the other hand, Mach is not really a modern -kernel, so there you go.) It does however allow user-level device drivers to be implemented, so... Oh well, what do I know. I've never used Mach (except from through Hurd), and much less implemented a device driver. I guess I'll just stop rambling about this and go do something useful.

Yes. MacOS X (pronounced "ten" not "ex") is based on BSD running on top of the Mach microkernel. Apple's first major experiment with Mach was MkLinux, which Apple has since abandoned. The Mach+BSD part is called Darwin. It's free an open source. Darwin is a complete OS in its own right, and can run by itself. It has no GUI, though John Carmack has written a port of XFree to work with it. The rest of MacOS X is closed-source. It includes Quartz, which is a way-cool completely vector-based display engine for the GUI. It has Cocoa, a native Java API, Carbon, really left over from Rhapsody, which allows classic apps to quickly take advantage of OS X features. The classic MacOS 9 environment can boot in a window as a single process, and you can run classic apps side by side with OS X apps (rootless, as it were.) More info about the higher-level stuff is available at Apple's MacOS X site.

If you're talking of licensing (i.e. BSD vs. GPL), they did not have a choice to go with GPL since they based their implementation upon Mach (which has the BSD licence). If you're talking of the layers above the microkernel, that's a whole different matter. They could indeed have based the rest of the system on Linux. How come they did not do this to more extent/some extent I can not tell. Being a major player in the development of MkLinux (Linux on top of the Mach microkernel) they did have experiences with it. I can only guess that they found the FreeBSD base more convenient to use. Oh what the heck, FreeBSD was based on 4.4BSD Lite which is also the base for Lites (the first OS which was built on top of Mach). As such, I would guessed that the Mach implementation is more geared towards supporting BSD than towards supporting Linux.

That said, I can't see the big gripe of going with BSD instead of Linux. What's the big deal here?

Admittedly it is behind other distros for the ppc and x86 machines but it is being worked on and is coming along nicely I think. The current version is DR3. Release 1 should be out within a few months. It is a very needed port in my opinion since its the only one which will work on a nubus powermac.

Check out www.mklinux.org.

I'm beginning to think that the new site (http://linuxppc.apple.com) is a replacement for their old mklinux project page. Mklinux.apple.com currently has no DNS records (according to squid).

The Apple mklinux page was quickly being abandoned anyway - when I was attempting to ressurrect an old NuBus Mac, the really useful page was mklinux.org. It's nice to see them finally move toward the "official" kernel port, even if it doesn't support NuBus ;-)...

Or how about even pointing to their own previous (mach) linux project mklinux.apple.com. Or the active and more up to date mklinux.org.

I'm sure there are several other links they could add as well. But for now I'm pleased that they seem to be starting an informative page about PPC Linux. I'll keep checking back for updates.

Nice to see Ben getting some credit too. BootX is a terrific utility for switching over to LinuxPPC. No dinking around in Open Firmware, even my Dad can figure it out how to boot Linux now.

It sounds like you have fallen under the common misconseption that Apple doesn't care about the MkLinux project and that it was more of an Mach experiment then anything. While MkLinux is an interesting experiment with Mach running a kernel on top of it (such as Linux) on the PowerPC, you will see that MkLinux has had much of a life past Apple.

Apple from the start intended to make MkLinux not it's pet project, but just to get it started and introduced to outside developers who would take it from there. They offically announced it in Febuary 96, and started giving out CD-ROMs at the Apple WWDC '96, the big Apple Developer conference. From the start they didn't want to be the company controlling and running MkLinux, from the start they outsourced MkLinux.

The MkLinux team is working hard at their next version of the MkLinux 1.0, the first non-developer release of MkLinux. The MkLinux project may have lagged a bit behind the rest of the Linux world do a lack of developers, it is quickly catching up with support for newer G3 machines (as well as some really old Nubus Macs), built-in MkLinux support is being added to BootX, an experimental/rough port of Linux 2.2 runs on Mach now, and many more exciting things. MkLinux currently has at least an dozen developers, and by some estimates thousands of users. It's not Linux by any amount (by interest of developers/users), but it's far from a dead project.

Don't jump to say MkLinux dead, just because Apple isn't pushing the development along. For more info on MkLinux, please take a look at MkLinux.org

i can see the console on my pmac 7100/80 on channel 4. it only works if the rabbit ear antenna is at the correct angle, otherwise it just looks like high freq interference. just find an old 7100/80, hook up a monitor running at 60hz 640x480, boot up mklinux, run bitchx or just hit 'a' at the booter to get the bootstrap console. now tune to channel 4 (it might help if you use an old tv) and move the antenna around. you probably won't be able to make out the characters, but you'll at least be able to tell it's the console. btw, i know it's not the monitor or the vga cable leaking the signal cuz i've turned the monitor off and unplugged the video cable and the signal was just as strong. i guess apple didn't ground/shield the case well enough.

MkLinux runs on the 6100-series. http://www.mklinux.org/. We also put it on the LinuxPPC 1999 CD-ROMs. :)

Yes, NetBSD did just release version 1.4 for several more 68k machines as well as PowerPCs, but does not support the Nubus Macs. More info can be found at NetBSD.org/Ports/macppc.

MkLinux was also gave me my first experience with installing and running Linux. I've really enjoyed the effort David Gatwood and others have put into the discussion groups and MkLinux.org.

I almost formatted my MkLinux partition from my Macintosh today. I continue to read the post posted on slashdot and how people love to bash anything about Apple for kicks. I didn't want to be a Linux user. Why? Because I didn't want to be associated with the immature babblings that plague this site. Moreover, I didn't want to be associated with the source of all of the nonsense that flies around this place. Luckily, I checked my e-mail and I found the announcement that MkLinux.org website is up. I had planned on contrinuting to it, but didn't get the chance. Today, I sent in my password so I could become part of the team building the website. I want to help other people who are interested in Linux in general and MkLinux in particular why I like the OS and what it means.

So, if anybody is out there reading these slashdot posts, please don't be discouraged at what you see. Only a poseur would say that the slashdot community represents linux(at least a this time). There are reasonable people out there that like Linux and so they work on it to make it better. Sadly, too many people who post here like Linux and flame to make the image worse.

FWIW, I'm going to buy another drive and put OS X Server on it.

Good day,

Remy