Slashdot Mirror
Linux on the iMac G4
Brent Foster writes: "The staff at iMacLinux.net have Linux running on the new flat panel iMac G4s. They have an initial installation guide available here(1). It has several photos of the iMac G4 during the installation as well as cat /proc/cpuinfo. They also have some photos of the unpacking available here(2). The iMac was sponsored by PowerMax, it is nice to see companies sponsoring Linux efforts, especially in the Apple world."
John Buswell adds: "It currently works in novideo mode, but we plan on testing newer kernels and XFree 4.2 with nvidia patches later this week."
Because different form factors mean different installation steps.
/.
Next time Apple comes out with a new form factor I'll have to mirror these install instructions and submit it to
Linux has its applications but why would you drop that kind of cash on that kind of machine to run linux on it? You can run linux on a cheap Athlon and have the same (if not better) performance.
Not only that but linux can't even begin to compare to the impressiveness of MacOS X. I have a G3 running OSX and I would kill to have the G4.
Its impressive, sure, but it begs the question: WHY?
Also, what are the benefits? Fink runs on the BSD compatibility layer, you can compile all your favorite X apps (that aren't packaged on fink) and you can run a rootless X!
Maybe I am just missing the point of the whole thing, and this is not a flame or a troll. This is genuine interest. What would compell someone to run Linux instead of MacOS X on such an elegant (and expensive) machine?
The List of Grievances with Slashdot.
The point is for the politics of the copyleft, spreading free-as-in-speech software everywhere. It doesn't matter that Mac-OSX is better than linux for a bunch of things. Mac-OSX is not GPL'd.
It doesn't stop me from running both.
Who are you to tell anyone what projects they should or should not work on???
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
You want a mac because OSX kicks ass. You also want to run Linux for other reasons. You don't want to buy two machines. So you figure out how to run Linux on your mac in addition to OSX.
Fink is the bid'ness, and it kicks prodigious booty, but it only knows about packages that have been patched, and there are things you still can't do in rootless X (like 3d in a window, important if you want to run GtkRadiant), and there's no Apache/mod_perl build for Fink yet. Hopefully someday all of these gaps will be filled, but in the meanwhile it's very useful to be able to dual-boot.
If you just want Linux, you're obviously wasting your money on a mac. But if you want the smooth, creamy goodness of OSX and Linux to boot, the ability to run Linux on your mac is a godsend.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly, and they use their own hardware. If you don't like it, you are free to buy other products- objectively, there's nothing you can get on a Mac that you can't get an equivalent for on a PC. That is; when you buy a Mac, you buy the whole package, operating system and all, and you get a computer that works out of the box, like it's supposed to. Apple doesn't have enough market share to abuse.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
Unbelievable. Somebody releases an excellent system and the first thing the Slashdot crowd wants to do is run Linux on it. OS X is an outstanding operating system in and of itself, and also happens to run most every 'Linux' app the average hack needs. It even runs X quite comfortably. So, why, why WHY would somebody waste their time installing Linux on such a machine?
I'll venture a guess: Because it isn't about practicality. It isn't about what makes sense. It's all about "Linux as Religion". And that, frankly, makes me sick. Grow up, boys. Move on. Start using computers for something useful instead of using them to stroke your fragile little egos.
I'm running Linux on my Powerbook because:
-The Powerbook was cheaper than x86-based notebooks with built-in LAN the time I bought it (Aug 2000) - The Powerbook has great battery life
MacOS9 sucks badly compared to KDE/Linux and I don't think MacOSX is much better. (I want multiple desktops and 3 mouse-buttons. Everything else is sub-optimal)
If I could run OS X on my x86 box, Linux would never have even entered the running of my considerations.
Now tell me exactly what OSX can do what Linux can't?
KDE/Linux can do a lot OSX can't:
- Multiple desktops - Real 3 mouse button support - A browser (Konqueror) that respawns all windows from the previous session on log-in (no more temporary bookmarks) - Web/News/Mailserver preinstalled. I *DO MIND* spending hours downloading/installing all this. - and more...
In my point of view, there is not much MacOSX can offer for me in comparison to KDE.
I can.
1) Adobe applications 2) Microsoft office 3) iMovie, iPhoto, etc.
So it's all about the apps?
Well, all MacOS9 apps run fine in MOL.
But OK, if you really need one of those (I don't) then MacOSX is probably better fitted, not because of MacOSX' great advantages but because of the apps that happen to support MacOSX.
In responce to the many questions of 'why?', I'd submit some of the following:
I've used Fink. I've built all of the packages in the stable tree. I've read many of the patches. Not to belittle the excellent work that the Fink developers do, it feels hackish at times. Darwin's BSD layer isn't a very good UNIX, and causes many applications to not compile, or compile with bad hackish workarounds. Darwin imposes a lot of limitations that Linux doesn't have, and is buggy or not POSIX compliant in other respects. From a UNIX developers position, Linux is far and away a better UNIX platform.
Running Linux results in a much smoother UI, anyway. The Mac OS X interface lacks proper keyboard window switching, so users have to resort to the mouse more often. Introduce XFree86 into that picture, and you suddenly have separate keys for window switching in each environtment. Cmd+Tab will switch *applications*, including X, but you need a separate key combo for window switching inside X. I used Opt+Tab. So, if I wanted to switch from the Gimp to gnome-terminal, I can Opt+Tab. If I want to switch to Mozilla running in OS X, I Cmd+Tab to it.... Hackish.
The performance of XFree86 on OS X is also really pretty awful. The SysV shared memory implimentation on Darwin is too limited for the MIT-SHM extention to be used, and graphics under Quartz are largely unaccelerated. Things draw *slow*. If you're interested in X apps, Linux will perform much better.
Interested in KDE? Not available from Fink. Apparently KDE does some things assuming that work with ELF binary objects that don't work on Darwin (probalby in Kparts, but I don't know). KDE users are going to want to run Linux.
Personally, I'm not all that interested in OS X. I don't like it much. However, I *do* really like PowerPC hardware. Resume from suspend is much betther than on x86, which is great for laptops. Power use is better, and heat output is lower. Hardware is easier to configure.
Good point, however the argument really only applies to open-source applications, which tend to get ported to anything with a compiler anyway. Binary applications in Linux tend to be even shorter lived than other platforms (i.e. running a libc5/kernel 1.2.x binary application on modern equipment?)
As far as Apple goes, I would dare say they dragged on the m68k support as long as it was feasible, beyond a certain point the market has shrunk too much. Of Desktop/Workstation systems, I would say that Mac has either the longest or second longest lifespan of m68k products. (Sun ditched them way early after Sun3 hardware, and depending on how you count Amiga, Amiga might be considered longer support for m68k, since 3.9 was released in 2k, but then again, Amiga's support over the last few years has been rather tenuous at best.
Mac hardware tends to enjoy a much longer period of being up-to-date than, say, the PC market..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Having choices with hardware always makes it more attractive. Some of us don't really feel that OSX is the best option for every use. For servers, I would prefer Linux over OSX due based on maturity and speed. Does anyone really want Aqua on a server?
I admit it: I crave a Mac. iMac, iBook, PowerBook, whatever. Why?
Because I think it would be cool to have one. I run linux all the time, only booting into Windows when a)my boss requires a word-formatted document or b)to watch a DVD with menu support.
If I got a Mac, I would want to be able to run the OS with which I am most familiar - linux. At the same time, I would want to play with OS X. But the main reason I would buy a Mac is for the variety.
A new platform means new challenges, new problems, new hurdles. New fun. And as a tech junkie, I crave new fun.
Practicality? Who needs it?
Dude, 68 k macs are like 386 machines. What your asking for here is like asking Win 2k to run on a 386. Aint gonna happen.
Newton was dumped because it was too far a head of it's time an dtoo expensive to maintain.
My PowerMac 5400/180 ran mkLinux for a while which is an apple distribution of linux.
It now has a G3 upgrade and can run most of the Apple linux versions
A/UX was dumped because of OS X.
Besides, the reason apple doesn't support any pre G3's is to get people who are still using old Mac SEs to finaly realize their comp needs to get traded in for somethign a bit newer.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The effect is probably the reverse. Someone who owns a Mac might finally get off his (talking about myself) lazy ass and try out linux.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis