Slashdot Mirror

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.

yeah, Linux'll never run on an iBook...

Yellow Dog Linux is an awesome Linux distribution for the Mac and works quite well. I have my laptop set up with dual-boot into YDL and OS X. You get the best of both worlds. Boot into Linux all the time and then into OS X when you just want the dang thing to work. ;)

Also, the people at TerraSoft (makers of YDL) are also Apple resellers, but get this: They are preinstalled with YDL! I would definitely check this out. If they are selling the 12in PowerBook, order it from them. Then you will get a brand new MiniPowerBook with Linux preinstalled. Snazzy!

You can get a new Apple with Yellow Dog Linux preinstalled.

I have Yellow Dog running on my 15" Powerbook, and it runs quite well. Bottom line is that I rarely use it, because OS X is a capable Unix and with Fink I don't really need to keep a second Unix around (even though I do). BTW the Powerbooks have a nifty graphical boot loader built in (I believe it's built in, could be a YD feature), so I just choose between the disk with the big X on it or the disk with the big penguin on it.

Lightweight xNIX-like OS for Macs over here: http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/. Moof!

Like other posters have noted before, Darwin/Mac OS X is actually based on BSD-licensed software, not GPL-licensed software. If you want Linux on PPC, there are other alternatives.

However, that kind of problems only points at a much greater problem. Namely, the fact that a commercial entity (Apple) is heavily using open source in their latest software offering, even though their behaviour clearly indicates they are not interested in the philosophy of open source.

Finally, honestly, what's the point of Darwin only on x86? If I want BSD-style operating system on Intel x86, I'll use FreeBSD, or one of the other two, not some sort of bastardized version, which does not offer the reliability, security, or portability for which the other versions are well-known.

I wouldn't recommend Windows on any platform if you can get away with it, but Yellow Dog Linux is a perfectly decent linux operating system for the Mac. If you don't want to sacrafice your Apple-branded OS, Mac On Linux allows you to run Mac OS X inside Linux. For added variety, VirtualPC will allow you to run Windows under Mac OS X under Linux.

>I'd like to see this program offer a choice. Do you want a MacOS, M$, or some flavor of unix on your free laptop?

Yes. That's what they did.

They gave them a machine that does MacOS, M$, or some flavor of unix on your free laptop.

doofus.

/me drools...

And no I don't work in anyway for TerraSoft.

uhhh... Yellow Dog Linux or SUSE???

The Yellow Dog Linux installation has a graphical installer (using the Blackbox WM) and it requires you to click through about 10 screens. If you live in the USA, most of the default settings are accaptable.

After installing both Mac OS X and Windows 2000 many times, I can honestly say that the YDL installer is the most directly functional and the least obtrusive.

http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ydl_home.shtml

Now, the Linux I love is Yellow Dog. It's RPM-based, but with apt-get updating, doesn't have dozens of dependencies for every package, and while it's updated regularly, the overall system layout is reminscent of "classic" Linux installations. Think Red Hat 5.2, or something like that.

So, I've got this Athlon/NVIDIA box, that's been through Red Hat 7.2, Mandrake and SuSE. (Debian wouldn't install, for some reason.) If Yellow Dog won't run on it, what's the closest x86 distro to it?

I don't know, but YellowDog's installation guide is pretty darn long too.

I don't know. How hard is it to set up linux on a mac?

Yeah, no one important installs GNOME as the default. And there are not really any desktop agnostic distros. Red Hat is basically the only thing keeping GNOME alive.

Erik

That's no 'Mac' software, that is Apple-controlled, Steve Jobs maintained UNIXware. If you really want Mac software that is based on Unix and none of the Apple source shackles, you should look for Yellow Dog Linux.

/me starts handing out copies of Yellow Dog Linux.

Here, this'll ease the pain.

uh..not to be the bearer of bad news or anything:

YDL

oh, and that's not the only distro...

Why am I telling it? I think Mac OS (including Mac OS X) users should use the same formula as was driving users from PC to Mac - "Think different, think Apple!", but now with a small change: "Think different, think Linux/PPC". Mac/PPC world should not be and is not limited by the dictated choice of the sector monopolist (Apple). And Linux is doing the same great job is it's doing on the PC sector - it's giving the choice for people. The choice of OS.

Seriosly, think about it. What kind of choice Mac gives to people? To spend another $1K for more expensive hardware and then to stick with Mac OS after discovering lots of Mac OS (even OS X) problems? With Linux/PPC people can buy Mac/PPC and use same skills as they have with Linux/x86.

I think that Apple, instead of porting of Mac OS X into PC/x86, should officially support (and contribute!) Linux/PPC. Eventually Apple should either port Aqua to Linux/X11 or to give up Mac OS at all.

Funny, when I saw their campaign, I sent apple an email about our switch story. We had moved from a Sun machine running Solaris to an Apple G4 running YDL. There were a number of advantages for us (including a good rep with our Apple dealer). The letter is still here. No response from Apple yet.

I also think that Tim O'Reilly is pretty crazy if he thinks that 15 people on a mailing list is statistically valid in any way. When he gets results like 1500, then we could start looking at the numbers.

And to those folks that say that MacOS X 'just works' as a desktop machine... well, I'm sorry, I have to disagree. For *work* I much prefer Linux . I can actually load and render www pages without the 'click-and-wait' that my colleagues using MacOS X have to suffer, I can compile all the apps I need easily, and can configure the machine the way *I* really want to (plus no NetInfo Manager!).

and why only Windows and RedHat, why not lump in MacOS 10.2, to get a broader picture?

The test specified identical computers. Red Hat does not make an OS Product for Macintosh hardware. You want Yellow Dog Linux.

TerraSoft would never choose Mandrake over YellowDog... here's why. (Just read the title as to who makes YellowDog Linux.)

MacOSRumors predicted dual G4 laptops in 1999, and it ain't happened yet, and it probably won't. Funny that it's been actual YEARS that Mac users have been complaining about the speed difference with PCs and nothing's improved yet - what a faithful bunch.

But you're right, Apple is getting draconian recently. Very scary. I bought a Mac last year (a TiBook complete with grinding DVD and peeling paint special effects) specifically because Apple claimed they weren't like Microsoft, only to find that they may be long-lost twins, and the other Mac users I know are completely oblivious to it. Luckily I'm running a stripped down YellowDog 80% of the time. :-)

Apple needs to leave this 20th Century old school corporate BS behind and embrace the new way of business - listen to customers, create quality products, give freedom with your product, don't treat the customer like a criminal. They should elect Doc Searls to the Board of Directors. It honestly seems that most executives at most companies don't have a sweet clue. They really suffer from "us vs. them" syndrome when it comes to customer support.

Positive change like this just makes sense, but Apple was the creator of the modern tech bubble, and they will have a very hard time leaving it behind. The lure of easy money has a very strong appeal.

BlackBolt

Well you can certainly run Linux on Apple hardware. There are several PPC-specific distros; LinuxPPC running the 2.4.9 kernel, Debian, Yellow Dog, running a RedHat distro, and my personal favorite, the SuSE port running the SuSE 7.3 distro.

Darwin will compile and run on x86 hardware. It is basically the core OS of Mac OS X without the Aqua interface and the Quartz 2D rendering system. One uses X11 instead. As the OpenOffice article states, they have succeeded in producing a stable build (albeit without printer support, etc.) for Darwin.

Personally, I find OS X to be a "pretty darn good" Unix implementation. Notice I don't say great. From a pure performance standpoint the hardware still lags behind Linux running on a high-end x86 box. Aqua/Quartz is quite a CPU/Memory hog, which is a problem on the hardware architecture Apple is stuck with. But, I find the combination of *nix and commercial software availability, e.g. Photoshop, Illustrator and MS Office compelling. And hey, if you ever really need pure processing power, you can always boot into CLI only.

Yes, a Powerbook G4 will run Linux, but not VMWare. Yellow Dog Linux, Mandrake PPC, and Debian just to name a few.

With Appleworks? It's okay, but it's not as good as Abiword. StarOffice doesn't do Mac, and OpenOffice for OSX is (AFAIK) still beta. So, to adequately import .docs you need to fink or else install xdarwin and a window manager, but there are issues with drivers etc.,and you're giving up pretty Aqua, so you may as well be using Yellowdog or Debian, because if all you want is a nice looking desktop that doesn't tie you to Microsoft and gives you some great free apps, Linux is still the best way to go.

Or were you thinking that one could Switch® to OSX and then pay US $499 for Microsoft Office: Mac. Hmm. They say "Switch" but I hear "Bait and Switch."

p.s. Mozilla works great on OSX, and Chimera's just been updated so you all can drag that Explorer into the trash any time now.

I gave up on them because a year went by and there wasn't anything new.

Gee, I can't think of any other godawful redhat derivatives like that...

Thank heavens for other options, huh?

--saint

I have a recient iBook that dual boots Debain and OS X. There are a bunch of distros that I can think of off the top of my head that work on it: LinuxPPC [defunct?], Debian, Yellow Dog Linux [Red Hat based], and SuSE. The dual boot setup is pretty easy for those with linux experience, a guid is available here. I have to give Apple props for the case design, among other things. My only complaints are the 8meg ATI Rage 128 Mobility [it lags a bit] and a soft modem which is unusable under Linux. I got the AirPort card to work {kernel compile), but the lack of a modem irks me because in having a laptop portability is a must and that includes having a working modem. Overall I am happy with my purchase, BUT a PowerBook G4 would be nice... Oh yeah, when you buy an Apple you avoid the Microsoft Tax completely (and it comes with a nice *NIX preinstaled too!) =)

Apparently, you haven't used a recent Linux distribution

Actually I have. I'm a far cry from a Linux expert but I have enough familiarity with Linux to warrant the above opinion. I've installed and configured YDL 2.2 and Red Hat 7.2 several times (on the same two boxes). I'm using RH as my web server at the moment, actually, after having initially set it up in Mac OS X. So, no I'm not a Linux expert but I think I know enough to venture an opinion on it's usability.

I do believe Linux users are at the "promised land."

I'm skeptical. Mainly because I've been hearing that for ages and each time I give the new version/distro a try I'm appalled at the ...how shall I say this?... rudimentary nature of the whole experience. The entire product is geared towards open source developers and super-geeks! A graphical installer is a step in the right direction, yes, but if you're telling me RH 7.3 is ready for sale on $900 compaqs in CompUSA then I don't think all your dogs are barkin' on this one. The increased support calls alone will erode the ~ $50 profit margin OEMs are getting nowadays. No way. And they all know it, too, else they would be doing it!

I have yet to use OS X; however, I have used Mac OS 7.x and 8.x within the past year and a half and really wanted to believe it was something great.

Why? It wasn't. Exept in some hippy / bauhaus UI sense, maybe. But otherwise Mac OS 8 and even 9 really isn't anything anyone would switch platforms over. You probably realize, however, that Mac OS X bears very little relation to Mac OS 9 and lower. It's a little like buying "Windows 2003" only to realize it's actually Linux with a few Microsoft branded widgets on it. It's that different. Give it a try.

Really? I could never get it to work, and that was not from lack of trying. My advice to anyone trying to get linux running on a nubus machine is to give up and save yourself hours of trouble. I would be pleased to be refuted, but my opinion is that mklinux is mostly a dead project and there is not really much else out there for nubus. For me mklinux was nothing like YDL on non-nubus apple hardware.

I thought that was a typical /. editor's gaffe, but it's actually YDL's fault:

YDL 2.3 surpasses YDL 2.2 with an array of timely updates, improvements: kernel 2.4.19, the 'Liquid' theme, CUPS print system, apt-get, OpenOffice 1.0, Mozilla 0.9.9, Galeon 1.2, Evolution 1.0.5, AbiWord 1.0.2, netatalk 1.5.3.1, and support for the Radeon 7500 (excluding 'Mobility') video card.

The funny thing is, already they're a step ahead on the kernel, they are one behind on mozilla...

Stupid thing is, I run Apple hardware, but not their OS.

My only solution for playing Quicktime movies is MacOnLinux, which is cool and everything, but the reason why I run Linux is so that I don't have to run MacOS.

Apple should learn from www.joelonsoftware.com's recent article, and comoditize the player (or a free 'non-pro' version of it) to increase revenues on the encoders.

Heck, I would even *pay* for Quicktime Pro for Linux PPC.

• Yellow Dog
• Linux PPC
• Mac On Linux
• 68k Linux
• MkLinux -the original Mac distro

"Mac, on the otherhand, I am thinking is a seperate purchase."

yep, it's the difference between X86 and PPC, unfortunately that is the hardware tax my fellow PPC'ers pay, though unreasonably so since as well.. maybe they will include Linux d/ls for free with the Mac purchase, making you Linux freaks the common bond.

Forget point-and-click. =] Real geeks use the command line.

up2date -u or up2date packagename works beautifully, manages dependencies, and you don't have to deal with a gui. =]

The one-per-email addr is a bit of a pain, but don't most people have more than one email address? (No, I don't speak from experience. All mine are on one account.)

Doesn't work for other distros, but aren't there similar mechanisms in place for some of the other distros? I know Yellowdog Linux (ppc) has(had?) something called yup. Automated, managed dependencies, etc.

Personally I've never had any problems with rpm, but that's usually because I only use rpm's for "more distributed" packages, prefering to download and compile the source for anything that might cause problems. Dependencies don't take THAT long to figure out... Unless you're installing something like gnome.

-Sara

Where I work I have my IBook and a Tibook... We have a Linksys Wap 11, hacked which is used for an occasional HP or Sony notebook with addon cards, and basically all time access for our Mac's... The signal strength between the Tibook and Ibook is more than negligible.. This is measure in Yellow Dog linux using the WaveMon program on freshmeat Generally speaking, on a scale of from the restraunt next door(a four or five on the WaveMon program on the ibook, which translates to a 0 on the Tibook> to within 2 feet of the wireless access point the difference between the ibook and the tibook is always at least 10 points, with the tibook on the low end.... If this isn't empirical evidence I don't know what is...

"...eventually bring them over to a completely free system on their own time."

That implies running a "free" operating system, probably Linux.

"...your parents/friends..."

In my world this group would include people who aren't computer professionals and who's machines aren't otherwise professionally managed.

Having established all that... You're kidding me, right?

The last time I had run linux was ...gosh, had to be at least 3 years ago. I installed it...went "hmm" for a few weeks.. and then wiped it. A couple of weeks ago I thought it was high time to give it another look. Why not? I had listened to Linux users in these forums proclaiming how good this-or-that distribution has gotten that I kind of assumed that the operating system really was ready for prime time.

Uh...no.

I managed to get Yellow Dog 2.2 installed on my Titanium PowerBook, sure. But after having done it I was stunned at how...well, rudimentary the installer was. In spite of endless "the installer really has gotten good now" comments. Well, if by "good" you mean "nowhere near the usability of commercial desktop operating systems" then yeah I'll agree with that.

I managed to get my wireless networking going. I found out how to do a few other things. But the main thing I discovered is that Linux hasn't really gotten usable enough for novices. Somehow I expected more.

Frankly I don't care if some Linux zealot mods me down or lables my comment "troll" or "flamebait." While you're doing it, bear this in mind - I'm doing this for you. The Linux community really needs to take seriously the idea that a novice needs to be able to install, configure, troubleshoot, and maintain the thing without endless arcane documentation or professional help. If your fellow Linux users/developers won't tell you, I will.

Linux will never be more than a server OS and a geek toy until / unless the usability radically changes.

I'm not sure why you're thinking that Linux users need a CLI to wordprocess, email or web browse

I'm not thinking that at all. I'm just listing stuff that a CLI shouldn't be needed for.

Anyhow, I don't think we're in disagreement really. One thing I'd like to try is putting a dozen Linux machines in front of a dozen of my users. Then I'd really know what was working for them and what wasn't. An even better test would be to send them home with them.

Come to think of it I think I'm going to bring home a machine from work and install Linux on it. Give it to my kids maybe. See what they think of it. Unfortunately I don't think I can come up with suitable PC hardware...It may have to be a 120 MHz Macintosh 7200. I could put the new release of Yellow Dog on it.

I received my YDL 2.2 CDs the same day this was last referenced on Slashdot and posted a rant about the problems I had installing it on a brand new Power Mac G4. The next day, one of their support guys e-mailed me. After a couple of e-mails, I was up and running.

I was really impressed with Terra Soft's support for scanning Slashdot for comments by little whiners like myself and actually giving me a hand. I had mad no effort to understand the problem when I posted my rant but yet this guy went out of his way to help me. I'm certainly not that forgiving to my customers, even though they've paid for my help.

After resolving my install problem, I've been very happy with the distro. I'm planning on using this for the basis for future development at my company.

Kudos to Terra Soft!

Too bad anyone with $2000 (back in 1997) worth of powerbook 1400 rubble liing around are STILL screwed. Check out the hw-support

Oh well...there's always other options:
Apokalypse linux
MachTen

Did you try YellowDog or Mandrake for the PPC? I gave up on a couple of distros before I found YellowDog. If the hard drive hadn't failed I'd still be running a server with Yellowdog on it. It's one of the best distros I've seen for the PPC and ran *quite* fast on an old 7500/100. It was serving files much faster than the PowerMac G3 that we had as another server (Webstar & OS 9), though not quite as fast as the PC servers. Still, a 7500/100 beating a G3 in a race is not anything to scoff at.

-Sara

Because. They're interesting, even if they're inaccurate. It's the same thing with being interested in how different clothing impacts the speed of skaters. Different skaters will perform better with different suits, and it's wildly inaccurate but you still get some sort of an idea.

I suppose it would be more interesting to take a day or two and try out three competing OSes. Yellowdog, OS X and Redhat and see how they compare with eachother for a variety of different tasks.

I guess I'm interested in it for the same reason I'm interested in trying out different OSes in the first place. Because I'm curious.

-S

3. SSH into the box and use niutil, etc. You then have to walk through the netinfo tree to see exactly how a user environment is supposed to be set up. The first time you do this, it will take a half hour.

Well a half hour now to write a script beats five minutes every time you wish to do a very common task, doesn't it? And anyway, not all unices are quite exactly the same. If you'd spent a little more time investigating and a little less time being frustrated (or perhaps even asked nicely about this issue on one of Apple's mailing lists) you'd have come across a couple of handy tools called "nidump" and "niload". They dump and load files formatted like /etc/passwd and /etc/printcap (and quite a few other common Unix file formats give it a whirl) out of and into the NetInfo databases and make your life considerably easier.

If you already have a useradd script that is written in perl or something, modifying it to use nidump and niload as a part of the user adding process ought to be trivial.

Deleting users would be a little bit tougher. You would indeed have to use niutil for that, but niutil doesn't have to be run in interactive mode, so it can still be used from scripts.

Barring all that you could even...

4. Download some perl script that works like "useradd."

But truth be told, the regular version of OS X is not being sold to be used as a server OS with all the usual Unix fixin's although it certainly can be used in that fashion. Apple is selling OS X Server for that, and I would assume that they include most of these basic command-line utilities many of us take for granted.

The normal version of OS X, however, is catered to people who are used to using GUIs and nice little graphical apps to add users and do other administration tasks should they happen to have such a need. (I'd go so far as to say that 90% of MacOS X users never bother to add an account beyond that which is automatically created the first time you run OS X anyway.) And while it can be argued that, even given that circumstance, there's no reason Apple shouldn't include such niceties as "useradd", Apple is probably also considering at what point do they stop including what people consider to be 'standard' utilities. It's a headache to keep up with the joneses, and if you keep it up, soon enough you have an OS that comes distributed on two, three, and more CDs like many Linux distributions do. Ordinary people hate that.

If you really, really, really just want a more standard linux-like or BSD-like Unix that runs on a Mac, might I suggest you pick up a copy of the GNU-Darwin distribution? It even has X. Of course, Debian or YDL are options too.

Otherwise, I'm sure Apple would be more than happy to sell you a copy of OS X Server for $500 or so. :-)

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.

Chimera should try to become the Galeon of Macosx !
It also is a browser that uses Gecko, but with native widgets (GTK+) for Linux

It pioneered ( i think ) tabbed browsing for Linux, and has lots of nice features not found in any other browser. Nice search toolbars, autobookmark folders, nice fullscreen mode and lots more...

I really miss it on my Powerbook when I run OSX ( I also run YellowDog Linux ), and I consider it to be the best browser on earth. It has Gecko's rendering speed with speedy native widgets and alot of features !

If chimera could follow that design it's bound to be a success ( no mean feat though )

I really love Mozilla because of the speedy rendering and whatever platform I use, I always know there's at least one browser that fits all !! But on MacosX it hogs alot of memory and isn't up to speed with the Windows/Linux versions.

For what it's worth, if you currently use Yellow Dog, they have a how-to on getting the Airport card going, and it didn't seem too bad. Yellow Dog website.

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.