Slashdot Mirror
Dumping LinuxPPC For MacOS X?
batobin writes: "In the PowerPC industry, MacOS is the mainstream OS. When a user needs features that the mainstream cannot provide, they seek alternatives. In the past years, many Mac users have sought out Linux for a number of reasons. Whether they were looking for a system that was open source, faster, or more reliable, Linux was a viable alternative. But now Apple is close to releasing MacOS X, and it solves many of the problems that drove Apple customers away from MacOS. Will these LinuxPPC users switch back to Apple's OS when OS X comes out? This article tackles the subject."
just a thought
The main reason a non-Graphics professional would want to buy a Mac or other PPC machine would be because of the hardware. An intense speed boost given to certain kinds of math-intensive work: e.g. Run Photoshop or Premeire on a G4 500 and an Athlon 500. They simply run faster on the Mac. Anyone have experience with non-MM apps on PPC platforms?
I think that it can be sucessfully argued that while Linux in any incarnation is a powerful OS for servers, development and office work, it falls critically short for multimedia creation. If you install LinuxPPC, it's because you want the powers for the first three and not the latter. This is going to be LinuxPPC's chokehold over OSX. I'm not saying that they'll lose it to OSX's *nix parts, I'm just saying that that's what they got right now.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Basically, it sounds like a full-fledged Unix-like OS with the added benefit of a full-fledged Mac-like OS on the same display.
God knows I'd switch if I could afford the @(#%&@)*#$& Mac hardware.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
there isn't even a telnet client.
tell me about it... i do tech support for dsl, and it doesn't help that there's no damned _ping_ that comes with the unit. amazing how a machine built for networking since the beginning has none of the tools you'd expect.
incidentally, for telnet, i'd suggest either bettertelnet or nifty telnet ssh, both of which are available at pure mac. good little freeware apps.
--saint----
Sure, the new MacOSX is based on BSD and everything, and it's already been proven that it's possible to port to it, but does that mean that it's time to dump Linux for it?
Why?
There are two main reasons to use Linux, depending on your personal beliefs. Either you feel that the Open Source way of doing things is better and should be supported or you feel that Linux has a better kernel.
This question is rather equivalent to asking if you should dump Linux just because Cygwin is available for Windows. Sure, you *could* dump Linux for MacOSX, but people aren't using Linux PPC just because they want a UNIX-like OS on their G4 - the reasons usually go deeper than that.
Nathan Ladd
--
--
Welcome to the land of the easily amused...
I think issue only effects a small subset of Mac users, mainly hackers (in the right sense of the word). For everyday users, like my mom, who I believe make up the bulk of the non-business market for Apple OS9 does everything they need it to do, and does it fairly well. She checks her e-mail, types a letter or two, updates Quicken, and surfs (oh... and watches the odd DVD here and there). The system is never really taxed and AFAIK has yet to crash on her. Now, on the business user end of things, beyond the multimedia market (who probably run OS9 for creation type stuff... maybe Linux/*BSD for rendering) If people are using Linux/*BSD on Mac boxes the stability/support/*nix nature of OSX may bring 'em back.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
For most Mac users, the last thing they want to use is the "tech-savvy" requirements of a Linux desktop
they wouldn't have used linuxppc in the first place, and the question is, after all, would they switch back. personally, the mac is my favored platform -- and i'm also running netbsd and getting together a linux box.
and no, i don't like graphics work either. see? we're not all poncy art students, just like linux users aren't all socially maladjusted virgins.
--saint----
1. backwards capability (classic layer)
2. large developers porting up to the BSD core (Alias/Wavefront porting Maya for example).
3. Possibility of payed tech support with Applecare
[This assumes that most LinuxPPC users use the mac because they like(d) the mac, it's applications, and it's hardware, but wanted to either outfit an older machine to serve as part of their network (OS X won't run without a g3/g4 chip) or have an iMac or something that they have linux on because, well, it's that good :)]
I don't think people will Leave linuxppc outright, but they might slowly migrate to OS X over the course of the next 2 years or so as the system develops further.
// john athayde
# x@boboroshi.com
# http://www.boboroshi.com/
// john athayde
# x@boboroshi.com
# http://www.boboroshi.com/
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
As a regular user of Mac OS X I can say that it has staved off any desire for me to jump ship to LinuxPPC. I'm aware of some limitations and quirks with Mac OS X, however it satisfies enough of my need for more power to settle my restlessness. Before Mac OS X I almost always had my mac set to dual boot into some other OS, but these days I live in comfort with one OS on my mac. Of course, I admin a bunch of other boxen so my fingers don't get rusty to other systems, but I think it is a good workstation OS for my purposes.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
But for what it's worth, I think the MacOS's lead in usability has shrunk drastically in the last couple of years -- Steve Jobs seems far more interested in marketing flash than actually aiding the user these days. I haven't used the OSX betas, but I don't have high hopes for them. That might be a reason for me to switch to Linux at some point. Usability is far more important to me that serious stability & scalability: Not every user wants to host a server in their home.
Do domain names matter?
How many people are running Linux/PPC fulltime on their fancy new G4s anyway? My guess is pretty few, and most of it's installed base is "Lets turn this old 7300 into an Apache server and a mail forwarder, and I know the cheap Unix to do it with."
With OS X, you get the "cheap Unix" in the box, so yes, there will be less temptation to blow the OS away and install something else. You can have Apache and procmail and Photoshop.
None of this really has much to do with "Mac users", btw. It's more "Unix users who also use Macs".
Point of the story. I wanted Linux to work. I wanted to try it. I'm not uneducated. I work on IRIX 6.5 all day at work (3 years now). I just don't want to think about my home computer. Linux made me think significantly more than MacOS X (which by the way, the ONLY thing I set up was PPP, the rest "just worked").
So, I would expect MacOS users to choose MacOS X over Linux any day. I will buy a G4 to get the most out of MacOS X, even if it is more expensive than a PC. At least with a Mac I wont have to struggle to work with my computer, the computer will work for me.
Burn Hollywood Burn
AFAIK it's impossible to buy a Mac without also buying MacOS... right? I'm not a Mac guy... is Apple still mercilessly crushing any and all attempt at cloning?
Mr. Wray, are you trolling? Your comment is based on complete ignorance. We are talking about OS X here, which not only has a telnet client built in, it also has ssh, apache, perl, ftp, etc, etc, etc. 8.5 is ancient history. Windows 3.1 didn't come with TCP/IP. This millenium we're a bit further a long, thank god.
Excuse me, but since years there are just a few reasons why people buy Apple Macintoshes and not other software: 1) some markets are mainly Apple: print, DTP etc 2) people like the ease of use of an apple and the logic and design of the OS.
Since when is Linux then an alternative? it's not, it cannot offer the same functionality just because it's a total different OS. So I find it very hard to believe 'many mac users' were looking for an alternative to MacOS.
Sure, the few die-hard macfans who ran their servers using MacOS server were perhaps changing to LinuxPPC, but than again... is LinuxPPC able to produce the same AppleTalk performance as MacOS server can? Dunno, but I think the ONLY people who ran LinuxPPC on a Mac were those who were liking the PPC hardware more than the x86 and didn't have the money to buy an alpha or sparc powered machine. I mean.. if you want to run linux, what hardware do you get? 1) an expensive G4 2) an x86 based PC (and very cheap compared to 1)) 3) an alpha workstation/server and 4) a sun workstation. I bet a lot will say: 2), because I get the most hardware for the least amount of money. I also bet not a lot will say: 1), because I think Apple makes the best hardware there is.
So LinuxPPC is not an OS variant with millions of possible users. If you think about the reasons why most macusers bought a mac in the first place, you'll also know that MacOSX is the nail on LinuxPPC's coffin, except for those (all 3 of them) who keep the G4 AND linuxPPC.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
They'd get more developer attention like Linux.
However, Steve is not big open source fan.
I'm one of those people whose interest in LinuxPPC has waned somewhat since Mac OS X has hit the spotlight.
Before, my plan was to continue using my Mac for workstation and graphics type stuff, as well as coding (mostly PHP, Perl, etc).
I would then set up an old Mac clone with LinuxPPC and use it as a test server, which I did for a while. Worked pretty well.
Since I've been using Mac OS X (DP3, DP4, and PB) my plans have changed somewhat. Being a typical geek I'll probably play with each release of LinuxPPC, but I really can't get the same kind of productivity with Linux that I can get with OSX. Before, it was a choice between an OS with great user interface and lousy stability versus an OS with great stability and lousy user interface. Now, OSX appears to be on track to giving me both. Why stick with Linux?
Do I think LinuxPPC will die? Not really. By virtue of being open-source it doesn't suffer from some of the same uncertainty that 100% commercial products do, but I'm not sure it's going to get too far. Even now the media fascination with Linux has waned a bit.
So, I'll probably wipe my server's drive and use OSX once I give the final release a clear evaluation. But I'll check in from time to time, especially with Helix Code and Eazel in the mix.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
Probably the best site for Mac tools/utlities is versiontracker.com. Try Nifty Telnet, I found this to be the "best" for the Mac. There's also a Nifty SSH client as well. If you want to do tracerouters, PINGs, etc... try What Router
-- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
well as i've already commented here, i have a lot of trouble finding a good reason to use LinuxPPC over MacOS X
i've used many incarnations of Linux on Apple computers, including LinuxPPC and Yellow Dog. i found that in both cases they were akward and buggy compared to similar Linux installations on my x86 box. i run linux regularly on this x86 machine but after years of trying LinuxPPC, i have given up on it completely except when i absolutely need it.
i found that just about every software program that i use on x86, including relatively "critical" software, like my window managers and GUI (WindowMaker, KDE, Gnome) were completely unusable due to the number of bugs i encountered. Linux PPC was outright useless on my Powerbook G3, as i would experience at a kernel panic every couple of days. and despite getting help from the Usenet, mailing lists and web boards, i just couldn't find a suitible fix for the problem. i've been a linux user since 1994, and i have never had as many problems running linux x86 in all those years as i've had running LinuxPPC in the last two years.
with regards to MacOS X, i've been running it since DP3, and i've been very happy with it. it's been very stable, i'm quite fond of Aqua (though it did take some getting used to) especially with the recent changes in the latest developer builds. it runs all my old MacOS 9 programs, it's got all the command-line utilities i could ever want, and Project Builder is a joy to develop in.
MacOS X isn't perfect of course: it's quite sluggish and requires a lot of RAM, but this is getting better with each new build, and isn't a problem at all if you don't need to run classic (and with any luck, the applications i'll need will be carbonized soon, and i can do away with classic all together). actually the speed of MacOS X without running classic is completely reasonable, even on my old G3.
what it comes down to is that Linux is really meant for x86. all major development is done for Intel first, and porting to PPC is an afterthought at best. this is certainly true for any third-party applications. i can't see using LinuxPPC as a server, as that seems like a job that would be more cost-effective done on an x86 box. and as a desktop machine, MacOS X beats it hands down. i will glady throw away LinuxPPC as soon as a reliable X-Server can be run on MacOS X.
so remind me again why i should be running LinuxPPC? maybe it sounds like i've been drinking the Apple Kool-Aid, but i'm completely sold on MacOS X.
- j
The point of the article was not whether people would switch from LinuxPPC to Mac OS in general but whether they'd switch to Mac OS X. You are correct that Mac OS 9 and previous versions are inadequate for the kind of person who would be in a position to consider the switch -- namely, people who are running LinuxPPC now, the power user folks -- but OS X ameliorates (get it? HAW!) many of those deficiencies. With the Darwin panties under its Aqua skirt, OS X provides a platform that combines the interface friendliness of the historical Mac with the ability to install the vast quantity of free|opensource software that we have come to expect...oh, and it also gives you stuff like a modern QuickTime for viewing those sweet movie trailers, like the full-screen one for "Cast Away"...where was I?
(What I found most interesting about the article was the lack of a prominent mention of the fact that at present, you don't get Mac OS X without getting Aqua, and that alone is sufficient to keep me from switching back.)
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
But, there's more to this than the quality and vender of the OS. You can't forget those who want to run Linux on their boxen in large part because it is open source and they want to support free software. Although Darwin is open, many parts (the most obvious being Quartz) of OS X are not free and are very proprietary. You can replace it (Quartz) with X, but then what would be the point of running OS X (other than to say you run BSD instead of Linux)? It's a highly commercial operating system and in a few ways, defeats a number of interests of the free software proponent.
Bear in mind that other than pretty windows with shadows, fading menus, and stretchy...uhm, things... what can MacOS X do that Linux can't? (And if you're looking for eye candy, count on the fact that X and wm hackers are going to get jealous of Quartz real quick and build something similar. Hell, the hooks for it are already in Qt.)
Consider this comparison: would a Linux user switch to Xenix (the Unix varient Microsoft created a while back) if it were suddenly updated and released?
Well, the thing to remember is those of us who have supported LinuxPPC may not be quite the same group of people who are seen in the mainstream Linux community.
:>
From my (admittedly limited) observations and experience, LinuxPPC users tend to be pretty pragmatic when it comes to the technology they use. Many or most of us have had Macs for years, and are unencumbered by the ideological biases that seems a bit more common in the main Linux community. While there are certainly some open-source and/or free software advocates out there, most of us simply want to get the job done with the best tools available.
As I'm sure most of you know, the current Mac OS isn't exactly a high end server platform. Linux allows you to take your older Mac hardware and put it to use in such an environment. As it is, there's a whole lot of stuff I can do running PHP/Perl and MySQL on LinuxPPC that I wouldn't even bother thinking about using Mac OS. The latter is only of interest to me for workstation stuff (which is important too).
Mac OS X changes that. All of the practical benefits of Linux are pretty much there, but wrapped into an interface we can actually enjoy using and feel productive with. Rather than being forced to learn two user interfaces, we can focus on one that bears a strong resemblence with what we're used to (note that I have some reservations with the OSX UI, but it appears to be getting a bit better with each release).
Just remember, LinuxPPC users may not be exactly like the mainstream Linux community. These are people who at some point in the past have bought Apple's proprietary hardware and software, and didn't consider it blasphemy. We just needed something that Apple until now could not provide.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
LinuxPPC will not die. Period. Don't just sweep LinuxPPC under the carpet and says it's going to die. As the article mentions not all user of LinuxPPC will rush out out to use OS X.
I own a PMac 7500 which was one of Apple's better desgins. I am on my 3rd processor in this computer. Not the number upgrades, but the number of processors (601, 604e, G3) and if I felt like spending the money I could upgrade to a G4. This computer has a decent amount of life left in it, but Apple doesn't plan to support OS X on this computer. There is a whole range of PPC hardware out there from Apple that they don't plan to have OS X run on. My read on OS X from Apple is: You should buy some of our new plastic with G4 processors to run OS X. LinuxPPC will continue to run on the hardware that Apple is leaving behind.
Now how will LinuxPPC development perist going forward? Support for newer hardware might not be as good as the abandoned hardware. User on the new hardware may stay in the Apple fold with OS X and reduce the number of users to test LinuxPPC. But as users upgrade, they may make these computers available for use with LinuxPPC.
Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
I think the author has got the comparison between the NT users who
switched and the Mac users wrong. I think he is about right with the
Mac users, but I think very few organisations who ran MS-only shops
switched to Linux. In my experience, the people who switched to Linux
were people who were running heterogenous computer systems, were
promised interoperability by Microsoft, and were delivered something
rather different. Win2k changes very little from that point of view,
and the advantages of Linux are: UNIX offers a better network glue for
a heterogenous network, and open source means you don't get the
`bait-and-switch' promises and double-speak of a proprietary vendor.
Not true at all. I have the PB and Terminal is in there. Apple wouldn't pull it from the final version if they left it in the Beta.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Just so you know, Mac OS X is binary-compatible with LinuxPPC (i.e. you can run LinuxPPC binaries on MOSX, but not the other way around). This ability comes from BSD's heritage of Linux binary compatibility, and may make MOSX the most compatible OS in the world (it runs Linux, BSD, MOSX, Mac 8/9, and Windows* apps) One more reason for people to switch back...
*With the MOSX version of VirtualPC that I think is on the way.
There is no way I would switch back to MacOS with OS X.
1) Support - I have a UMAX SuperMac Clone. Apple no longer supports these, and they never will again. MacOS has not been officially supported on it for a while, and I am sure they will take steps to make sure that future OS's, such as OS X, will not run either. Linux will always be supported - the kernel doesn't care who made your hardware, and even if it did, we could change it so that it didn't.
2) Features Linux Lacks- I realize that I do not need most of the features that a MacOS-type OS provides. I don't care about the multimedia industry - digital video, video editing, composition, etc... Everything I want and need, Linux can do, and do it well.
3) Features Linux Has - With the 2.4 kernel, my system is running better than ever before. It's got efficient memory/virtual memory management, SMP support, etc. In the userland side, I have Gimp if I need to work with graphics, xmms for listening to music, mozilla for browsing the web, gaim for chatting, abiword for word processing, gcc, perl, python, php, apache, on and on...
4) Price - LinuxPPC is free. Why the HECK would I want to pay for an OS ever again? Support? If I do need support, and I rarely do, I can get support from the Linux community faster than I can get it from Apple's tech support. Documentation? All the Linux documentation I need is online. Media? I can just download the software and burn to a cd.
I used the MacOS from August 1991 through June 1999. Then I switched to LinuxPPC. In the end, I guess I have come to the conclusion that I never truly was a "Mac" user, as I have no idea to go back to the flaky, over-simplified, eye candy MacOS.
I'm thinking about never going back to any of the PPC Linux distros. And no, it's not because I'm a gloss-loving CLI-inept sheep -- it's because I'm a gloss-liking CLI-phile who likes easy installs and system administration. The less a system requires of you to do what you want to do, the better.
/etc. It's that I really hate having to do it when what I really want to be doing is creating the web app I've got in my head. Especially since I've been a contractor in the last several months. Time spent doing sysadmin stuff -- which I don't do well -- is money lost.
:)
I've done web app development for the last 4 years, primarily on Linux. I'm quite fond of Linux. I'd rather develop on a *nix system than anything else -- especially server stuff. I also like the MacOS better than windows for the various non-programmer stuff I do. It gets in my way less than Linux or Windows do.
I am not, however, a system administrator.
It's not that I don't like occasionally firing up vi and tweaking various files under
LinuxPPC has been decent on my desktop over the last 6 months or so. There've been some configuration problems (some that still haven't worked out), but I managed to find the right combo of stuff to get PPP working, and compile Apache with everything I wanted.
However, on the laptops, I haven't been able to even get the kernel to boot. This despite weeks of effort, lots of reading, and lots of support from comp.os.linux.ppc.
MacOS X, on the other hand, installed nicely in under an hour. So far, everything has just worked.
I've still got an open partition on my hard drive. I'm just not sure I want to spend the time on installing LinuxPPC, when really, I've got everything I need. I'm sure the performance of OS X is a little bit slower, but frankly, that's the only downside I can see, and I'm making up for any of that by actually spending time getting development done.
Oh yeah, it really does look cool.
--
Tweet, tweet.
Linux was arguably not originally intended for production use. To my understanding it was originally only a more useful version of MINUX. Of course today we've advanced to default RAID support, but I still read articles from places like IBM where replacing the scheduler greatly enhances performance (Solaris still has a superior scheduler to my understanding).
Though Linux can be tuned because of it's open-ness, I'm sure that compatibility still plays an important role in thwarting advancement. And more importantly, generic IT's that purchase Red Hat or SuSe out of the box don't have that many options for tweaking. If an initial design goal wasn't performance, multi-media or what-ever then the addition of those things later on are most likely only bolt-ons (much like OOP in Perl).
I hear that FreeBSD and it's bretheren are superior to Linux and I've been meaning to give it a spin to see if the environment is to my likeing. OS-X, likewise has a lot going for it: It has the potential for being as open source and powerful as Linux / FreeBSD, yet it's user-friendly out of the box (at least I assume). A hard core UNIX programmer should probably feel at home with it (assuming that compilers are provided by default), yet the 8 year old daughter should be able to work it as she would an iMac.
The only draw backs that I see are the fact that the entire system is still pricey.. And.. well, it's being worked by Apple who've managed to shoot themselves in the foot too too many times. Anybody need references?
The big push that I hear Linux users say is: Just put a pretty face and make it easy-to-use-out-of-the-box(tm), and the people will flock to it. Course I hear others say "stay away from my OS evil marketers; I like it how it is". The seriousness of this comes into the corporate world that pushes NT. They want garunteed, single vendor suppliers (like SUN / MS / (Apple?) ), with rigorous certification policies. They want feature bloat and a pretty screen for configuration (usually). With that, Apple stands a chance of being a compromise between MS and SUN which might be able to achieve the best of both worlds.
Linux isn't going to go away since it completely fullfills it's mission statement - which just happens to not use the words multi-media, prettyness or Corporate America. Hell, the words learning and easy-to-use seem like opposites.
-Michael
-Michael
OS X makes some pretty steep demands of the hardware. It won't be supported on the older hardware and there's a LOT of it out there.
If the LinuxPPC crowd, and a certain Quebequer in particular, can take a page from Apple and design (and f*ckin' DOCUMENT,[1]) LinuxConf better it could make LinuxPPC a powerful alternative.
As it is, I'm probably going to trash my old hardware and get OS X capable boxes because Linux and Linux app configuration is an absolute f*ckin' nightmare. The configs are as fragile as Linux isn't once you finally get it running. The frustration factor isn't worth it.
1] when you have a field, its a good idea to give the format of what it's supposed to contain and to pop up something (like a URL) to some more information about the possible values, and where to find them, that go into that field. The field labels are uninformative and about as cryptic as you can get.
That's the difference between professional software (too damn much of it, even when its sold is of the other kind:) and rinky-dink amateur kludges.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
GIMP is not a pro-quality graphics editor. Anyone who has worked with Photoshop professionally will be VERY unhappy if they are told they have to use GIMP.
Personally, I plan on buying OS X and installing it the very day it comes out, 1.0 bugs and all!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Without the restrictions of the PC hard disk partitionning scheme, Macs can easily host two, three or more OSes on one disk. On my Powerbook G3 Pismo, I currently run Debian GNU/Linux, MacOS 9.0.4 and MacOS X Public Beta. All three co-exist peacefully on my machine.
/debian/pool/main/x/xfree86 directory) and you're set.
As a long-time Debian fanatic, I decided that this was the way to go on the PowerPC as well. I haven't tried LinuxPPC, mainly for the reason that their disk images are in Mac self-mounting-image format, and the only burners I have access to are running on Windows boxes, but mostly, I'm just really impressed with Debian. It runs absolutely smoothly once you install XFree86 4.0.2 (if you use 3.3.6, you're stuck with framebuffer graphics).
For those interested in trying it out on their own Powerbooks, here's a link to the instructions you need, in French. You can use BabelFish to translate if you don't speak French, though I have no idea how good the translation will be. If you want X, upgrade to Woody then get the XFree86 4.0.2 debs (they're on the FTP sites in the
Once I recompiled the kernel to my liking, the system has been the best Linux box I've ever had. The only thing that could be better is if the Helix guys would release PowerPC debs of Helix Gnome...
Anyway, as I say, what's to stop anyone from using both Linux and MacOS X? When I want down-to-earth Linuxy Goodness, I use Debian, when I want snazzy graphics, Mac Apps, and a really funky IDE for some Objective-C Goodness, I use MacOS X. Both environments have their advantages and disadvantages.
I like being able to fine-tune and fiddle with my system, as Darwin evolves, and as more and more software becomes Darwin compatible (a LOT already is) I admit I will probably use Linux less, but it'll always have a place on my drive.
As far as the PPC portions go, I'd heartily agree with you. I've yet to get SuSE to work quite right (I've not tried YDL or LinuxPPC2k yet- just DLed YDL last night and all attempts to burn a LinuxPPC2k CD have went down in flames...). Right now, I'd love to find something that works similar to the Intel distributions so that they're not getting in the way of my Utah-GLX, etc. driver development work for the RagePRO and Rage128.
Your Intel woes? Well, I've not had any problems. Literally. Of course, Mandrake's been quite good and if you're not trying to do fancy things ('fancy' is building a firewall with an on-demand PPP dialout to an ISP...) it simply plugs in so long as you're not using goofy hardware. I don't know what you ran into on impasse with on Mandrake- I'd like to know (and I'm SURE the good people at Mandrake would too) so that people can improve upon things.
As for MacOS X...
The machine I'm using right now for PPC driver development is a Beige G3 with 128Mb of RAM and a Wide SCSI HD as the drive. Should be pretty fast right? The install of MacOS X that was previously on this loaner seemed to be slow on this box. SuSE is more responsive. If KDE 2.X were on the machine, it'd have 80-90% of what's needed to make it happen on PPC. Go figure.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Tell, me - do you complain about the texture of a cake when you've pulled it from the oven 1/2-baked?
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
And it still seemed slow and resource hungry compared to SuSE 6.4 for PPC. Explain that one.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The numbers correspond to Mandrake version numbers- which I think he said he'd tried as well.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You can have Apache and procmail and Photoshop.
That sentence alone strikes straight at the heart of this matter.
You've got BSD, and I've got shiny happy app support.
And, of course, a nice looking box to keep it all in.
I don't believe Apple will keep everything "under the hood". I do believe they will have a graphical front end for pratically everything, but if you want to pop into a command line and configure things with preciseness, I doubt that will be removed.
I get claustrophobic on Macs. It's my main issue with them: "How do I get at my config files?" "Wait, there's no SHELL? NO SHELL?"
Just the thought of having a nice looking box with a sweet, polished, stable GUI (in which I can actually *gasp* copy and paste between different apps and still be able to drop to a bash shell....
Most people who want to run Linux, buys x86-hardware because of the price and availability.
This roughly means the LinuxPPC caters for two groups of people:
1. The ones that had a PowerPC, and got tired of MacOS.
2. People who really like PowerPC-hardware and wants to run Linux.
Of the two, I suspect 1. is the largest, because LinuxPPC from what I've heard is a lot less mature than x86-Linux.
I don't think most people in group 2. will switch, because they actually got a Mac to run Linux on it in the first place.
Most of group 1 will switch I think, because of the much increased power behind MacOSX.
However a lot of people really dislike Aqua, and for them there probably isn't _any_ big reasons to switch.
I've found that using MacOS is faster than using Windows. Windows always seems to have an extra "Please confirm" click before it will do what I want. It always buries things one level deeper than I want, like putting the drives inside "My Computer" rather than on the desktop, and almost requiring that all my personal files go in "My Documents". The stupid file browser keeps forgetting where I was the last time I used it which forces me to navigate it all over again. I better stop before I start flaming Windows too badly. I haven't used *n*x as a desktop OS much, so I can't compare with that. I do like virtual desktops...IMO it's a killer feature.
As far as scripting goes, check out Applescript. It's there, even if most people don't use it.
Constitutionally Correct
I have installed Mandrake 7.1, Mandrake 7.2, RedHat 6.2, and RedHat 7.0 (there is no 7.1) on many different kinds of machines. On most hardware, they install without a problem, without any complicated questions during the install process, without much user interaction at all actually, and result in fully functional KDE and Gnome desktop environments. IMO, Linux installations are now considerably simpler than Windows installations. Linux PPC, of course, may be a different matter.
I lost a lot of faith in the Slashdot community when I saw this had been moded up!
I am a Mac user, and in my third year studying Computer Science. A contradiction? No!
As a Mac CS Major I have constantly been exposed to this elitism of the other geeks. It always amazes me when Linux users bash macs on things like software availability and quality.
Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy Linux. On my Powerbook G3 I currently run Mac OS 9, OS X, LinuxPPC, and (under emulation)Windows 98, Windows 2000, and QNX . I use each of these various OSes when appropriate.
I am just trying to point out that for many, Linux is an ideology, and not another tool. As history has taught, ideologies can be contradictory and still justified in the minds of their followers. That is why in the same paragraph Linux is being described as requiring tech-savvy skills and the ability to remember obscure command, and then seeing it described as the only choice for being able to get real work done.
It is that kind of elitism that makes people think that an OS is somehow superior for requiring one to edit a file instead of clicking a button.
---Lane
What's the point of moderating?!
Whether it makes more sense for you to run Mac OS X or Linux probably depends on the kind of software you want to run. Currently, Linux has most of the software I want to run while Mac OS X doesn't. Your situation may be the reverse.
Of course they'll rush back to Mac OS X.
:-)
There are 3 kinds of Linux users here.
1) Use GNU/Linux because they think its trendy/hip/geeky/some social reason
2) Wanting the power of Unix and didn't know that NetBSD or OpenBSD will work on the Mac
3) Want to squeeze performance out of the Mac
Users type 1 *MIGHT* decide Rhapsody^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMac OS X is hip enough. Effect: some movement to X
User type 2 has no reason to stay with GNU/Linux, given Mac OS X is a full-blown Unix.
Effect: most will move to X
User type 3 has machines with 680x0, or pre g3 machines. No way they can move.
So, there still will be a place for a PPC based Linux release. There are alot of old macs out there.
I think LinuxPPC is in serious risk of dying here.
If Linux is some magically portable kernel, so long as the effort exists on X86 and other processors, Linux on a PPC will do fine. A GNU/LinuxPPC company was never on the path to an IPO or mega-corporate profitability. So, if your metric of 'GNU/LinuxPPC success' was going to be a $250 share price...that ain't gonna happen. It is more likely that Apple will stop making PPC machines before there stops being a few people who want to hack Linux kernels on PPC chips.
Besides, if you get desperate for PPC based Unix boxes....go talk to IBM. I hear IBM has money, and likes linux.
It is more likely that Darwin will overtake LinuxPPC in number of units running on Macs but so what? Isn't the 'richness' of the 'linux distro world' its strength? If one Linux disro fails, 5 seem to pop up, feeding on the corpse of the fallen.
But why is it the 'linux camp' thinks the game is a 'total markshare and nothing else'? Smacks of the egotisim of Microsoft. If Apple is able to make and sell a better unix on thier own box, more power to them!
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
How many times have you done this? I hear this argument all the time (and I've even argued it myself) but I've met almost nobody who has ever done it. It sounds great, but the truth is that it takes a lot of time and a lot of expertise to add new features to an operating system. I've got plenty of work to do on my own - I don't have time to rewrite my OS. What I want is an operating system that works well and stays out of my way. With the exception of some stability issues, OS 9 has been that for me, and from what I've seen OS X will be even better. Linux is a great server platform - I code on it all day long, but all the editing happens over the network from my mac, because it just works, and I don't need to write my own features.
Besides, OS X is NeXTStep dumbed-down to the need of the average person who buys his machine at the supermarket and does AOL pr0n with it. Linux is for people who know what they're doing. The two groups don't overlap to such a great degree.
From what I've seen OS X is a lot more than a "dumbed-down" NeXTStep. It has been updated to use BSD 4.4 rather than 4.3. It has gone from Mach 2.5 to 3.0. It has a brand new object-oriented modern driver API. It has a brand-new display server based on pdf, with built in transparency, anti-aliasing, and warping capabilities. Some of NeXTStep's UI elements are gone, but there are a lot of new ones as well. I like most of them, but of course others may not. For the most part, it is a huge upgrade from NeXTStep/OpenStep.
As far as the intellegence of mac users goes, I think you would be suprised at just what mac users know. Most of the Mac users I know are very intelligent, and know how to use linux and windows just fine. The difference is that we looked at the alternatives and made an informed decision based on what works for us, rather that spitting out the typical platform BS and blindly choosing which OS has our favorite propaganda. Most mac users I know don't use macs because they don't know any better, they use macs because they do.
Check out DRM-free movies at http://www.bside.com
If I only had money to buy that beautifull Mac cube with large flat screen, i would do it at once. Add a lila imac to make my wife happy.
Next moment, all the Mac software would immediately make palace for a GNU/Linux system, simply because I'm used to GNU/Linux, like it very much and have no reason for changing my OS.
I don't say that MANY people would do the same, but here you have at least one potential Mac buyer who simply doesn't care about Mac OS. Let's face it, Apple makes good AND good looking hardware, why wouldn't a GNU/Linux user buy it IF he has enough money?
It (GCC) should be on the Mandrake CD, if it did not install by default. cd to /mnt/cdrom/Mandrake/RPMS
and rpm -ivh gcc-[whatever].rpm
you'll probably have to install the c libraries, too.
Macworld magazine has said that OS X Server is "noticeably slower" than OS X Server. That's pretty firm documentation to me.
It also seems significantly faster than the beta. Yes, it's a beta. But how much faster could they really make it?
We'll still be here, OS X or not.
Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
-- haaz.
LinuxPPC is a great way to breath life into those old boxes, by turning them into servers.
this is true, but if MacOS X becomes as popular as everybody says it will be, then in the very near future it may actually be more sensible to "breath life those old boxes" by using Darwin instead of LinuxPPC. why use Linux for this? if it's just going to be a server, probably with no X-Windows, why not use the opensource OS that's got the development dollars of Apple behind it?
see here's the thing: this year it'll make the most sense to run MacOS X as your Macintosh desktop OS, and in the near future, it'll also make more sense to run Darwin on your servers (many 3rd party developers have already put support for older machines in the Darwin kernel). where does LinuxPPC fit in this equation? answer: it doesn't. there is very little reason to run LinuxPPC.
if you want to run Linux, get an x86 box: that's what it's designed for first. if you have a Mac, MacOS X & Darwin are the best tools for that hardware.
- j
Let's see here..
:)
1. The new kernel runs much better on newer machines. Have you tried that?
2. The new kernel is part of our new release.
3. The new CD boots fine on all the new machines. The old one didn't work well at all.
4. Video should be better.
5. USB mass storage support has apparently just recently started working.
6. Try the current release before commenting.
Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
-- haaz.
While everyone's talking about Mac users who switched to Linux, you all seem to be forgetting Linux users who want to use Macs. Put me in the latter category.
Fact is, Macs are some nice hardware. If you studiously avoid the cube, they're not even that much more expensive than equivalent x86 machines. They run cool, some run silent, they're zippy on those big glibc compiles, the towers come in great cases, and they look pretty swank sitting on my desk.
But until OS X, I've been prevented from appreciating Macs by their horrible operating (sic) system. And to be frank, OS X doesn't quite do it for me, either, though I'll readily grant that it's a major leap forward for MacOS. I like my whole system free... I know and am comfortable with my linux OS of choice (guess), and have no overriding desire to use another. I'll dual-boot MacOS to play the occasional DVD (for the time being), but that's about it.
I have the GUI I want under Linux, I have all of the tools I want under Linux, I can accomplish all of my tasks (and waste my time effectively with the occasional game) under Linux, and with Linux my OS is consistent across my x86 and ppc platforms. (And if I want to pick up a SPARC or Alpha system, well, it's pretty much the same OS there, too.)
Now, other than perhaps some better hardware support (my only current problem is AWACS sound, and I haven't tried 2.4.x yet...), why would I want to take a step backward and use MacOS (X or otherwise)?
The article covers a lot of good points, but forgets that most geek houses (the typical den of PPC Linux) have MANY machines, each serving thier purpose, and configured accordingly. My PowerMac 6500 has a small hard drive and is too slow to run MacOS X. But it's certainly fast enough to be a router/IP Filtering firewall between my LAN and DSL line. I won't even need to hook a monitor up to it....so no need for a gui even. On the other hand, I've been using MacOS X PB for a couple months, and I'll be damned if I'll give it up. I've put it in my resume as a requirement. I dig it that much.
So I don't think we'll be seeing a mass exodus. Mac sers who've also been using Linux foa a while are going to dig both.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Unfortunately, I don't find OS X to be all that useable as a desktop yet, in terms of its pathetic clone of the Finder, which throws away all the subtle aspects of useability.
Somewhere, recently, there were some articles on how to make the OS X Finder more like OS 9's. Start here if you're interested.
But I rather like the new Finder. Which subtle aspects of the UI do you find degraded?
Plus that stupid dock, which takes up precious vertical screen space
In the Finder/Desktop App, go over to the "Desktop" menu, and choose "Dock & Desktop Preferences". You can shrink the Dock to just about nothing, and then if that isn't enough, set it to auto show/hide, much like the Windows or KDE toolbars...
and prevents you from using the both lower corners of the screen when it is short
Huh? Things work fine for me in the lower corners of the screen below the top of the dock.
(An option for a vertical dock dangling from the menu bar would be a small improvement.)
The Apple Menu hack would probably get you what you need. But you're right, I'm very surprised they didn't include the option to make the dock vertical -- after all, you could do that under NeXTStep, OS X's grandaddy.
--
Tweet, tweet.
I tried out LinuxPPC on and off on my old 7200 a few years back. I ditched the whole project altogether when OS X came out.
:-)
:-)
there are two reasons at the time why I dropped Linux PPC that are inherently its fault:
1. HFS+
I could not store any of my files on the secondary disk as LinuxPPC couldn't read it. Not their fault, but Apple protecting themselves in their weak times.
2. Installer didn't work.
At the time, Linux PPC just started their Live install, where it would install from a perl based GUI. didn't work. Tried doing a RedHat Install. didn't work. I didn't even know what perl was at the time, so I couldn't tinker with it. ended up installing the previous version, which installed pretty well. tried updating. it told me to use the perl installer. didn't work.
Give me a break, I'm an art student with some experience in java, and was trying to use it as a media server.
Now, for the two reasons that are entirely my fault: 1. no net connection for support
I had one modem, and i decided to put it on my spankin' new G3. (I played a lot of Myth at the time)
2. I turned 21
It seems to me that you've got two potential audiences here: Linux users that use Apple hardware, and Apple users that use the Linux OS.
I would be an example of someone who is a longtime Linux user that is just looking for some interesting non-x86 hardware to run it on (Alphas are pretty pointless for the desktop, as I discovered a few years back). My girlfriend, on the other hand, is an Apple user who is just tired of an unstable operating system.
Either way, we are both looking forward to Mac OS X. If Apple can create a stable, powerful operating system running on fast, reasonably priced hardware that is also easy to use - well that's something that has never before been achieved in the world of desktop computing.
Adobe is already ticked at Apple, for two products.
iMovie and Final Cut Pro. These two dig into Adobe's Premiere product.
Otherwise, Apple and Adobe have a healthy relationship. This could change, depending on the Next Big Thing Jobs introduces. If it's *another* product that will ship bundled and eat into Adobe's marketspace, watch out.
It seems to me that Jobs is borrowing a page from the browser wars by pre-installing Appleworks and iMovie... you don't have to buy MSOffice or Premiere...
Now, if GIMP is brought over to osX (this has been done, by the way... a guy with the nic of proclus (?) has Darwin running Xfree and GnuStep with Gimp up and running.) Then the only thing making it less attractive than Photoshop is, what's the stability/speed of the X layer. (Xfree versus Tenon's X implementation?)
(Okay, I know that people who live and die by Photoshop will not switch to Gimp, claiming something about Human Factors and testing.)
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
or PPC systems, LinuxPPC and Be seem to be the only options. Without a G4, you are basically hosed.
That's garbage. Mac OS X public beta should run fine on any G3 with 128MB of RAM. That number is scheduled to be cut in half to 64MB by the final release. Honestly, without the Classic environment, you could probably get away with less, but that thing is a serious resource hog.
I'm currently running OSXPB on my Blue G3/400 with 256MB, and it runs like a dream.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
as far as usability, speed and general usefulness goes, Aqua is a disaster
How much have you actually used Mac OS X? Because I've found that once people drop the preconception that a UI can't be both pretty and functional, they quite frequently find that Aqua has some ingenious new concepts.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Who'd they lose?
Me.
To understand this, you need to know why Mac users want to use LinuxPPC. It's really quite simple, when I got my machine (the last of the Beige G3's) there was no reason anyone sane would buy Apple hardware to run Linux. x86 machines were faster and cheaper. Today, some Linux users on these boards think the hardware looks real damn cool, but thats still about the extent of it.
Mac users wanted to use Linux because they had grown beyond the Classic MacOS. I was in this situation last september. The mac did everything I really wanted it to do, I wasn't interested in serving anything over the net, but I wanted to get some more experience that would be useful in non-mac dominated world. Some experience with Linux/*nix was the key, so I installed LinuxPPC.
For about 2 weeks, I was in heaven. I didn't know anything about how to use it, but the nerd inside of me was freaking out with glee. The included documentation was excellent, and I was quickly learning my way around. Then the MacOS X public came out. I bought it the first day, and when it arrived a week later.
I booted into LinuxPPC a few more times, but by that time, the novelty had worn off. I was by no means a sysadmin, but I could find my way around a shell. It really came down to the fact that if I wanted to get any real work done, I had to reboot back into the MacOS. I didn't have any reason to be using linux except for my own education.
OS X quickly filled both of those goals, I could sit there reading through the grep man page, with Photoshop running in the background. Needless to say, I stopped using LinuxPPC very very quickly, and by now, I haven't booted into it in 3 months. Within the next few weeks I'll be reformatting my drive to reclaim those 4 gigs of partitions.
When OS X Final comes out, and the OS X X-Windows implementations get a little more solid, I'll be installing one of them, and Linux will really have lost everything it had for me.
But thats my story. Those mac users who switched to Linux and were able to stay there and be productive may have a very different story. OS X is still not nearly as customizable as Linux, and despite Darwin, not nearly as open. You can't turn off the Genie effect or anything like that (doesn't bother me though, I actually like it). When some X-Windows implemtation gets fixed up a little bit more, maybe this will help OS X a bit, but then your just going from X Windows to X Windows. Most mac users don't have the same feelings against Apple that x86 linux users have against M$, so coming 'back to the mainstream' probablly isn't a moral curse.
There really is no single reason for using LinuxPPC. Some will find OS X fills their linux needs, some wont. In my case, and in the case of many Mac users who are just use Linux as a hobby, instead of a productive tool, OS X is the greatest thing that ever happened to my computer.
I have a very simple reason for saying this.
I used LinuxPPC 2000 (and two earlier revisions from 1999) on my Powerbook G3. I needed to develop software for a variety of Unix platforms, and Linux was the only option that allowed me not to have to invest in x86 hardware.
At no time did I ever even THINK about installing LinuxPPC over Mac OS 9 on my wife's iMac. She is not an IT professional and she uses her computer for schoolwork, i.e. writing papers, drawing diagrams and using Internet applications.
Let me be clear about this: I asked her to evaluate the idea by using my Powerbook running Linux, and she ultimately rejected Linux for all the traditional reasons. Mac OS 9 really doesn't suck as much as Slashdot would like to believe.
That being said, Mac OS X is a whole different subject. I switched my Powerbook in November and never went back. My wife has tried it, and her reaction was decidedly more positive.
It's still too early to run the Public Beta on her iMac, because some of the ancillary applications won't run (e.g. the DVD player). Still, I can PLAN her transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. That was simply not in the cards with Linux.
It is this experience which tells me that for Linux (as a desktop OS) to survive on PowerPC, someone other than Apple will have to start selling PPC hardware-- hardware that will NOT run Mac OS, without doubt.
So tell me-- just WHO is lining up right now to build PowerPC workstations that will run Linux, Darwin and NetBSD, but NOT Mac OS? Because without that happening, PPC-Linux has about as much future as ARM-Linux.
jhw
"drop to a bash" just sounds.... incomplete.
:]
maybe you shouldn't have skipped today's lithium
and often i do say ATM machine. and pin number.
I don't however, say "with au jus sauce" because nothing comes with with juice sauce.
Jesus H. Christ, you must be a fucking idiot, to post something like this without first looking into it. Let's see why you're wrong.
Of course, the first reason, is that "free" as applied to so-called "Free Software" has nothing to do with monetary cost, but the freedom to modify and redistribute code. Read the GPL if you like. It is perfectly acceptable to charge for Free Software, you simply need to provide source code on demand, and not restrict redistribution of modified source and binaries. If I'm not mistaken, I could even download the entire Redhat distribution, burn my own discs, and sell them on the street corner for $20 a piece.
Second, I've been through 3 linux distributions, and not paid a penny for any of them. Save for mathematica, a leftover from my Windows days, there is not a program on my machine that I've paid for, and everything is perfectly legal. On a cable modem, I downloaded the Redhat and Slackware current ISO images in just about 6 hours each. This was not wasted time, though, since I left my computer downloading the images while I attended classes, and came back to find them waiting for me.
Debian, on the other hand, did not even require an ISO image. I downloaded six floppy images (about ten minutes), rebooted, started the installation, and let it download basic packages necessary. The installation probably cost me an extra hour over what it would have taken with a premade CD, but that is hardly 10, as you suggest.
Furthermore, not once have I had to restart a download, and none of the servers have choked. Everything was limited only by the speed of my cable modem.
As far as TCO, a term I'm sure Microsoft has perverted far beyond comprehension, your statements are simply not true. You must consider the TCO when you are running Linux (or some other Free UNIX) in the hands of an experienced administrator. Microsoft, and you, expect to calculate TCO from a vantage point of a skilled Windows administrator. They include training and general "figuring-out-time" in the cost of setting up a Linux system. What about training and "figuring-out-time" for Microsoft systems? If you insist that the Linux admin knows nothing about Linux from the start, you must assume the same about the Microsoft admin. But if you assume your admins are skilled in UNIX, installing Linux is trivial. (I should hope any company would be cautious switching operating systems when their administrators don't know about the new OS.) No matter what UNIX-like operating system an admin comes from, it is trivial to become acquainted with another one.
Furthermore, in the hands of a skilled admin, installing software in Linux is trivial. Of course, most Free software is also free monetarily, which cuts the initial cost to 0. I never need to memorize manuals when installing software under Linux. I don't know why you expect this is necessary. The vast majority of software installation breaks down to little more than "./configure; make; make install", and often, the ./configure part is not necessary. Don't forget about package systems, either. RPMs and debs make software installation trivial, especially with a package management utility like apt. Software installation with apt is no more difficult than "apt-get install <pkgname>", which automatically downloads packages, satisfies dependencies, sets up a default configuration, and drops you back at a shell.
Except for select few programs, installing software under Linux is easy enough for a monkey like you to figure out. This is also the case with Windows software.
I will admit I have had to hack some makefiles in my day, but any experienced UNIX admin will have no trouble doing that. Plus, the advantage of being able to modify code far outweighs any benefit (I consider it a drawback) of a nice, "keep-clicking-next" install interface. There is real control in UNIX software installation, and little added difficulty.
We haven't even considered support costs. Microsoft Windows, a closed system, often has problems which are unsolvable by anybody but Microsoft. This means you must call them, and wait on the phone, to talk to somebody who probably doesn't know what he's doing anyway. Often times, you must repeatedly call, talking to a differnt person each time. To top it off, Microsoft charges for support calls after you've exceeded a certain number of calls. This gets expensive.
An open system, like Linux, is much cheaper to troubleshoot. First, any good code warrior should be able to debug and fix problems that crop up. And if you're not a code warrior? Just get an IRC client, find some Linux-related channel, and look for someone who is. It's a system that doesn't work perfectly, but I've found it to be more effective than calling some so-called corporate help desk.
Attitudes are important in troubleshooting, too. Linux, being an open system, harbors a community phenomenon that Microsoft Windows just can't sustain. People who use linux feel like part of a tightly-nit, minority group, and are therefore much more willing to help, without expecting something in return.
I'd be willing to guess that your Linux experience stems from the single Redhat or Mandrake Linux CD you bought at Best Buy, tried to install, and failed. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, since all your complaints are invalid. From the looks of it, you got frustrated with your inability to figure out Linux, and so turned to the Microsoft website to backup your intuition that Linux is some impossible-to-use operating system that takes a genius of 180+ IQ to figure out.
You were right about it not being about money, though. Still, Linux can be totally monetarily free, and cheaper in man-hours than any Microsoft or Apple product.
A new year calls for a new signature.
This screenshot shows a vertical dock. The grab is supposedly of a newer build of OSX than the Public Beta, one with a more customizable interface--most notably a movable dock (duh--Steve takes out the vertical option to make the weenies all shout in unison--Give us choices!! And Steve obliges--Sheesh) and notice the resurrection of the sacred Apple menu, which when confirmed will be great news for old school Mac faithful. This screenshot shows Terminal app with the dock moving commands (which don't work in PB btw) and this screenshot shows a configuration of the finder (file browser) with what looks like windowshade widget and a what is being called a "shelf" The links came from a Danish MacOSX site and I found them on this thread at MacNN where the guy who posted them goes by the name JLL.
The Mac isn't dying at all. This is a typical comment from some mindless Windows or Linux user. And anyway, why do you *care*? You people act like this is a holy war. Who cares? If you don't want a Mac, don't buy one. I, on the other hand, happily placed an order for 25 iMacs, 2 G4 towers and 4 iBooks for a computer lab a couple of months ago. I'm loving the technology, Mac OS X, Airport, and the stability.
Why don't you just not worry about the Mac, since you obviously don't know enough about it to see how far its come and how much it has ahead of it.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Look, sorry about all the flames, I just got a little heated in defending my choice of operating systems.
I've not used UNIX systems all my life. In fact, most of my computing life has been spent in the Windows95 and earlier Microsoft world. It's not that I "realize there is a better way," but that the better way, in terms of stability and configurability, happens to be Linux.
I had no trouble downloading slackware from ftp.slackware.com. I got Redhat from the biggest mirror I saw, valinux.com. Debian came from ftp.debian.org. I had no troubles.
Paying a UNIX administrator does not count as software cost, because you'd be paying a Windows admin just the same. This common cost can be eliminated in the comparison.
The vast majority of the linux community is helpful. It is those assholes who spit at you, that you remember, and hold against the entire group. They are NOT the majority.
I'm not a professional programmer, nor am I a good programmer. I wouldn't dream of modifying anything big or important. And yet, the openness of software is still convenient for me.
If software is meant to interact with other software, the maintainer has most likely tested it with that other software. But, of course, my window manager isn't tested to work with BIND 9, because the two programs don't interact. Open software is tested in the environment it was meant to behave in. Furthermore, it is tested by everybody who downloads it. Word does get around about bad software.
I'm not going to argue that putting UNIX on the average user's desktop won't make support more expensive. UNIX isn't for the average computer user, since the average computer user is an idiot, and his IQ goes down the more computers are sold. But UNIX in an office, serving files, printers, and the like, makes a better, cheaper alternative to Windows. Particularly a Free UNIX, like linux.
You don't think install difficulties arise in commercial platforms? The term "DLL Hell" wasn't invented for nothing, you know. Many programs interact poorly with others who use different versions of the same libraries. Don't forget the "System Requirements" on the sides of commercial software packages, which list other software that must be present for the application to run. At least open software gives the skilled a chance to fix things. And editing makefiles is a good thing; it allows me to move libraries and such where I want them. I have seen far too many windows apps that won't install because libraries or other programs aren't in a default location.
The rest of your arguments are gui-vs.-command-line arguments. This is only a matter of preference. As you left the UNIX world for Windows, you are undoubtedly biased against the old command-line setups that UNIX offers. As I have left the Windows world for Linux, I am obviously biased in the opposite direction. We can't win, because it's all an opinion from this point on. But I will say this: I prefer a bash shell because touch-typing is more efficient than hunting and clicking on little buttons. You can type faster than you can place a little black arrow on a tiny gray button using a pointing device.
A new year calls for a new signature.
You need to use yaboot, and not BootX on your machine (I assume it's a new world machine). Finding documentation for yaboot is a bit challenging, mainly because the New World PowerMacs in the hands of people who document (like me and many others ;) or design distros (like LinuxPPC) don't have them. So we have to guess, and go on what the man pages say, and what other users report.
Of course once you get it installed, please, please feel free to write up stuff on yaboot.
Linux??? Although I use linux daily, I find that it has almost the most unintuitive, steep-learning-curve interface of anything. (and believe me, I've used 'em all!)
It ain't great. It ain't even good. Pity on a fairly robust OS, but Win98SE with Active Directory turned off is so far ahead of Linux that the latter is strictly a pretender in the Desktop OS race.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
So now, we have virtual machines for pretty much all mainstream consumer platforms on Linux.
So, I say again, "Bear in mind that other than pretty windows with shadows, fading menus, and stretchy...uhm, things... what can MacOS X do that Linux can't?"