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."

Comments

Windows on Linux, not mac.

[IAgreeWithThisPost]

In light of major corporation sponsership of Linux, including companies such as HP and IBM, Microsoft has announced they will be releasing Windows on Linux.

"We have decided the core linux OS is in dire need of a GUI which actually works," says Richard Belzer, Sr. Marketing Representative. "KDE and Gnome do not offer the performance of our products"

But don't look for Windows XP for Linux anytime soon, Microsoft has decided to rollout Windows 95 for Linux.

"Windows 95 both performs better than any GUI Linux offers, and also has more application support," stated Mr. Belzer. "We are assuming that because the average Linux user is used to GUI's such as KDE and GNOME, which are sluggish and problematic, that Windows 95 would actually be a step up for them."

Windows 95 for Linux is expected to be released by Fall 2002.

Vindictive Mods

Re:Windows on Linux, not mac.

[MoneyT]

Once again M$ is a few steps behind. Apple already has a very useable GUI on a *NIX interface (granted, OS X is not free like linux, but I highly doubt Windows/Linux 95 will be free either, unless it's not comming from M$ directly). And I don't know abotu other people, but I've found KDE 2 to be a very useable GUI, as good as 95 in most respects.

Why though?

[1nt3lx]

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?

Re:Why though?

[Silver222]

I think the standard response to this would be the same as George Leigh Mallory's when he was asked why people tried to climb Mount Everest.

"Because It's There"

Re:Why though?

[jlower]

It's not always about the cash involved. Fact is, there are lots of people blessed with sufficient funds to play around and not all of them are idiots or assholes.

FWIW, I agree with you. But if I had the spare change, I might do it.

Re:Why though?

[rseuhs]

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.

Well, maybe because there are other things in life than performance?

I think the new iMac comes in handy for semi-public terminals (like in companies) or something like this.

Re:Why though?

[Skuld-Chan]

I know why I install linux on sparc boxes - for starters they are here. But for the most part its because you get amazing multi-user performance in a machine that is in some cases uses like 1/10th the energy as your average desktop pc.

maybe its the same way with the mac?

Re:Why though?

[starseeker]

Several reasons. One is merely the licensing issues - Darwin is more or less open, but the graphical code very definitely is not. A lot of us like to be able to find out, at least in principle, what is going on at all levels of our system.

Another is the development focus of the linux teams - they will tend to have more cutting edge non-graphical stuff, like multiple journaling filesystems, before apple. Apple sells desktops, and you can bet that's what they will be gearing their operating system for. Some of us want more flexability, and more just plain cool cutting edge unstable cool features.

And finally, I want Blackbox instead of the OSX desktop. Call me crazy (probably true) but I like the mimimalistic, efficient desktop blackbox represents. If I want crazy graphics, I can have the system in dual boot.

Bottom line, OSX is not completely free. And there are plenty of us who will accept nothing less. I agree OSX is impressive, but I don't want to become dependent on it. The world is already paying the price for being dependent on one commercial operating system. I'm not keen on it being replaced with another, even if it is Apple's product. We've learned that lesson - let's remember it.

Re:Why though?

[Packet Fish]

Heck, it could be the Linux motto

"Why Not!"

Re:Why though?

[WiggyWack]

Why? Because you can.

C'mon, this is Slashdot we're talking about here. They also post articles on running MAME on an Xbox and 101 uses for your Dreamcast.

Re:Why though?

[FatRatBastard]

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?

Ok... the normal "this is not a troll" disclaimer...

But, I'm always amazed at the "why do people do..." questions. Its as if they expect the world to think the exact same way they do.

"Why do KDE developers duplicate what Gnome is doing?"

"Why do Gnome developers duplicate what KDE is doing?"

"Why don't Linux users just switch to BSD?"

So on and so forth...

Even worse are those who DEMAND that folks stop doing the things they enjoy and start working on the things that the poster thinks is important:

"All the Gnome developers should stop and help the KDE team..."

Doesn't anyone realize that people work on what they want to work on, regardless of what the f**k others think....
"People who port Linux to the Dreamcast are wasting time that could be better spent doing other things..."

Re:Why though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, your first mistake is that anything free is automaticly better than something that isn't free. Man hours cost alot, and OSX comes with many free program as it is, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, iPhoto.

IMHO $129 is not too expesive for software that merges two worlds (BSD and Mac) and allows you to run both without rebooting. The Mac side actually makes it more marketable to buisnesses because of Microsoft Office.

And, Gaming performance, video card support, hardware support. Blah..I'm tired of doing this.

Re:Why though?

[zulux]

Its impressive, sure, but it begs the question: WHY?

The pairing of Apples inexpensive and yet open hardware with the seamless Gome/KDE/Mofif desktop is unbeatable. To add to it - you have all the fun of simulating a three button mouse with waky key-mouse combos - I think A,B,B,A,Left,Right,Start simulates a middle mouse button press.

Just kidding.

Re:Why though?

[SmittyTheBold]

I think this is explained by the same motto that accounts for 90% of the software on Freshmeat:

Because We Can

Re:Why though?

[MaxVlast]

"And there are plenty of us who will accept nothing less."

Bravo. So why are you buying an iMac?

Re:Why though?

[west]

But, I'm always amazed at the "why do people do..." questions. Its as if they expect the world to think the exact same way they do.

I think you've got it exactly backwards. If a person is taking on a project that to my eyes seems redundant, I would likely assume that they see something that I do not and ask them "why do you..." in order to seek enlightenment.

My first impulse when I see something that seems wrong to me is to try and find out how it seems right to someone else.

However, often enough, a genuine question does seem to be construed as an attack. I guess that a lot of people assume that we've already got our minds made up, therefore a question is really an probe for weakness.

Re:Why though?

[SlamMan]

The liscensing issue here isn't really valid, since they come with OSX on them. You can't buy one without it.

Re:Why though?

[craw]

Of course Mallory disappeared on Everest the following year after making that statement.

Re:Why though?

[iabervon]

For the funky flat-panel-on-stalk screen? OS X isn't really much like Linux, and an Athlon doesn't have Apple's exciting and strange hardware.

Re:Why though?

[rseuhs]

Yes, it would be handy for those uses... but since the iMac already has a very well-developped flavor of *nix, pre-installed, the question stands. Why bother?

It's not about *nix, it's about KDE.

MacOSX does not support multiple desktops, multiple mouse buttons (no that pseudo support does not count, I want to push windows back with the MMB, I want new browser windows to open on MMB, I want to paste with the MMB), menubar applets or respawning browser windows, does it?

Re:Why though?

[starseeker]

Really good hardware for the price.

Re:Why though?

[arthurs_sidekick]

Damn, this blows my "geeks getting taken in the early-adopter Rapture" theory.

They're just getting sucked into their iMacs -- literally.

Re:Why though?

[MoneyT]

Other than the GUI, OS X seems pretyy damn close to Linux (seeing as how Linux and BSD come from the same roots and all)

Re:Why though?

[drsoran]

Oh come on, it's not flamebait, it's funny! Laugh. You guys have no sense of humor.

Re:Why though?

[kilgore_47]

The liscensing issue here isn't really valid, since they come with OSX on them. You can't buy one without it.

OK, so, to new imac buyers it's pretty much free-as-in-beer.

But it's still not entirely free-as-in-speech, and thats what some people demand.

Re:Why though?

[Alan Partridge]

is there ANY purpose in your life? why would anyone spend their time complaining about how expensive computer x isn't EXACTLY the same as inexpensive computer y? KDE is a visual affront and a functional travesty - thank God OSX isn't KDE, and if you want KDE, well JUST USE KDE!

Re:Why though?

[BrookHarty]

Well, For linux on mac vs linux on x86, x86 is cheaper and faster. If you check out pricewatch you can good hardware at very affordable prices. I bought many 350+ dollar 1ghz pc's.

If its not the money, support for linux on x86 is better.

-
Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught. - Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

Re:Why though?

[raju1kabir]

Well, For linux on mac vs linux on x86, x86 is cheaper and faster. If you check out pricewatch [pricewatch.com] you can good hardware at very affordable prices. I bought many 350+ dollar 1ghz pc's.

News flash: There is in fact more to hardware quality, features and performance than the clock speed of the CPU.

Re:Why though?

[Saxifrage]

Incidentally, there's more to this than you realize. Lots of the developments in science in the past, say the 17th through 19th centuries, were done by rich men with spare time to kill and an interest in the sciences as well as the arts. You know, the quintessential Renaissance men.

Why should modern computing be any different? I don't know that it would be. While, yes, we now have paid scientists and IT and CS people (whose salaries probably suck but who have access to this stuff), why shouldn't people with some spare money and some interest contribute?

Re:Why though?

[norwoodites]

Mac OS X supports multiple buttons mice but most apps don't support it; I can use my 4 button optical wheel Logitech mouse in Mac OS X, even in most apps use the wheel, unlike X-Windows.

In Quake 3 I can even use all 4 buttons and the wheel as buttons.

Re:Why though?

[Evro]

I don't know who this Mallory guy is, but that line was spoken by Captain James T. Kirk.

Re:Why though?

[anfloga]

I will answer that. Linux under the PPC has two pieces of software that I need but can't use on Mac OS X, because they are not yet available for Mac OS X. They are: OpenOffice and cdparanoia.

Since these don't exist on Mac OS X but do on Linux, and since Linux is cheap and dual booting is already part of my life what with MacOS 9 and X, might as well add it and use the software I need. There is (apparently, please correct me if I'm wrong) no software in MacOS X to do a !!!reliable!!! rip of a CD to a raw file and of course, no good Office clone which is good at using Microsoft format office files. For example, I have a 14.1 MB spreadsheet file that I use a lot. OpenOffice opens it, and uses it, including every nice feature, perfectly. AppleWorks crashes. If you add MacLink Deluxe to the picture, and translate it to an AppleWorks file, AppleWorks nevertheless can't handle the special features in there such that the file is useful. Also, OpenOffice is MUCH MUCH faster than AppleWorks on long files (under the same hardware but different OS, in this case, SuSE Linux PPC). Microsoft Office of course supports its own formats (for the most part, some older formats don't work correctly) and of course every special feature works fine, so I considered it. But Microsoft Office under X has severe memory leak problems, it opens a security hole up that allows hackers to shut it down remotely (this has been fixed, but people are having a lot of trouble with the fix), and it costs either $350 or $500 depending on the deal!
Forget it!
I will just create a nice new partition to handle the occasional Linux software that I need. Virtual PC is another option, since I need to use this software so rarely, but why not run it natively since it can? In addition to cdparanoia and OpenOffice, every once in a while someone writes a cool piece of software for Linux that I like to play with, for example there's a star chart program for KDE that I have an interest in. I assume that both cdparanoia (or some equivilent) and OpenOffice will both eventually be avaliable for the Mac OS X, at which time I will reclaim that partition for something else. But until then, Linux is one method I can use to get access to the software I need to use on my machine.

My current machine is a G3 500 iMac, my new one will be the new iLamp 800.

Erik

Re:Why though?

[hey!]

Well, convenience. It's the flip side of the question "Why not Linux on the Desktop"?

Setting up a complete Linux based internet or intranet server is cake. Everything you need is either prepackaged as a rpm or deb or at least has an autoconf script that builds it flawlessly on any mainstream linux. With OSX, you have to hunt around to hunt around for all the pieces, and they may not work 100% yet.

I'm setting up an OSX intranet server right now, and it's a bit of a chore, although I anticipate once everything's done it should be easy enough to administer. I like the way they do startup scripts (instead of the linux rc.d) -- takes a bit of getting used to but it seems clean.

By the way, anybody else have trouble getting recent 2.4 kernels to boot out of yaboot? I haven't got anything later than 2.4.10 running, I get the 'DEFAULT CATCH' open firmware error message. I think I need a more recent veriso of yaboot. If I can get a more recent version of the kernel, then I'll probably stop work on the OSX server.

Re:Why though?

[Migx]

just for fun I guess :) Or maybe because sunday afternoon's are damn boring :)

Re:Why though?

[BourbonCowboy]

I think A,B,B,A,Left,Right,Start simulates a middle mouse button press.

No, but Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, B, A, ESC, Enter gives you 27 reboot overrides.

God, sometimes I really miss 80's gaming.

Re:Why though?

[dewhite]

I use MOSX full time as a server operating system (on a G4/450 - 512mb with 10K rpm HDDs) and I can tell you why I also run linux on boxes beside it. The BSD layer in OSX is full of holes. Holes in the documentation and holes in the implementation. Yes, the GUI beats the pants off anything else in the business of being a UNIX. However for someone who's serving needs are less modest than my own, a complete robust *nix layer is MUCH more important to them than a pretty interface. To many guys, an interface is just a means to an end...

Re:Why though?

[kilgore_47]

And the way to "demand" Free Software is to buy the computer with the pre-installed, closed-scorce software rolled into the price, and then pat yourself on the back for not actually using the software you bought?

hey if the price is still low enough that it's a good deal (as in the case of the new imac - try getting that hardware, cdrw+dvdram included, for less money) then why not? Paying for more expensive hardware simply because it doesn't include a software liscense would be sort of stupid.

I wish I was smart like you, so I could understand that reasoning.
Well, we all need something to aspire to. ;-)

man 1 here? man 2 here?

[cperciva]

I think the man pages for here(1) and here(2) are broken.

i don't know why /. keeps linking to these guys

[kochsr]

these guys are hosted on a cable modem. i don't know why slashdot keeps posting stuff on the main page... they know it is going to be slashdotted sooner than later

Re:what's the point of this?

[BlueTT]

I agree.

It's nice to know it could be done, but it's really of no practical use since the iMac runs MacOS X and Darwin...

Re:what's the point of this?

[statusbar]

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

In addition to, not instead of

[TomatoMan]

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.

Re:In addition to, not instead of

[__past__]

and there's no Apache/mod_perl build for Fink yet

OK, I really like the new Macs, but how insane must you be if you want to run a web server on an iMac?

Re:In addition to, not instead of

[keytoe]

there's not Apache/mod_perl build for Fink yet

While you are correct about the absence of apache/mod_perl for Fink, you might like to know that the mod_perl DSO for apache is included with the standard OS X install. Simply edit your apache.conf file to load it (actually, just un-comment the line that calls it).

I spent hours trying to get apache/mod_perl/mod_ssl compiled and installed before I realised it was alread done for me... and Software Update keeps it fresh, even!

Re:In addition to, not instead of

[keytoe]

how insane must you be if you want to run a web server on an iMac

Well, depends. I've seen no instability when it comes to the unix layer (although my iBook has had trouble with sleep/screensaver issues) - but that's not the point. Think development platform.

Think development platform while sitting on the back deck watching the sun go down on the other side of the valley.

While connected to the staging server.

Re:what's the point of this?

[prizzznecious]

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.

How completely totally absurd.

[whjwhj]

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.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[Eldrik]

Wow. What a hostile post. What's wrong with doing something neat just because you can?

Sheesh. Not everything has to be practical.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[JordoCrouse]

So, why, why WHY would somebody waste their time installing Linux on such a machine?

Maybe perhaps because they prefer Linux? Its all about choice - many people would prefer to run Linux on any given processor. You may prefer to run OS X, and that is your choice. Many people prefer to run Windows, and thats their choice. Thats something that most zelots don't understand - the whole fight is about choice.

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"

Yet, you crow on and on about OS X - If you could run OS X on a X86, would you? Would that be pratical? Would that make sense? Or would that be a religious preference?

For me personally, it makes much more sense and it is much more pratical to run Linux than OS X. Hearing that Linux runs on one of these boxes makes me more likely to buy one. But thats my choice (you know, free, as in speech).

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[ChaosDiscordSimple]

So, why, why WHY would somebody waste their time installing Linux on such a machine?

Option 1: The same reason some people "waste" their time rebuilding engines on perfectly functional cars. For some people, tearing things apart and putting them together in new ways is an entertaining, educational experience. At the worst the people in this project have learned more about how their iMacs work and more about how Linux works. They've gain useful experience. And to venture a guess, I bet they had fun.

Option 2: They really like the hardware, but are dissatisfied with the non-free software operating system. Maybe you don't agree with that philosophy, but many people find it very important.

Option 3: They're intending to use the iMac for something where MacOS is perceived as not meeting their needs. Perhaps they're interested in hardening the system for use in a public kiosk. They may feel that they cannot harden MacOS well enough, but feel they can harden Linux enough.

Open your mind. They're working toward their own goals and are presumably happy doing so. As far as I know, their actions aren't interfering with your life, property, or anything else. Why should their actions "sicken" you? If you wish to view them as silly, or wasting their time, so be it. But relax a bit.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[tbien]

Hey, calm down. I have a G4 Cube and a
Titanium Powerbook G4/667 myself. I love Mac OS X
and the last thing I would do, would be installing
Linux on my Macs - while it runs fine on my x86
servers...

But there are people who have their own plans
for those nice maschines... There's no problem
with that. Everybody it allowed to use their
maschine in the way they want.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[ibis]

Guess what! There ARE advantages to running the same OS on all your hardware platforms!

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[tempest303]

So, why, why WHY would somebody waste their time installing Linux on such a machine?

Hrm.. now THAT'S a rather condescending presumption...

If we're going to go that route, how about I insist that you're an idiot for thinking OS X is of any use, when all the real application support out there is with the Win32 side of the industry?

Perhaps it's possible that some people just really LIKE Linux? Maybe we GENUINELY PREFER Linux? It's not just an OS for people that can't afford commercial operating systems, y'know. For one thing, OS X is a BSD-like system, and I personally can't stand BSD. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think "BSD sucks" or something. Rather, I just prefer the GNU way of doing things, both in method and in license. Why is it immature of me or any other Linux user to prefer Linux to any other system? To each their own!

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[iabervon]

OS X isn't really the same thing. Sure, it runs just about all the Linux applications you might want, but it acts very differently. According to my friend who is used to linux/solaris and MacOS, it isn't really like either of these.

That all makes perfect sense: why did Apple bother to write OS X, when Linux already worked fine? Because they wanted something different. But if it's different, it makes sense to run Linux instead, if what you want is a Linux system.

There's another factor, which is not about practicality: if you really want to know what this new machine is made of, there's no better way to find out for yourself than to port Linux to it. You'll quickly find out all of the quirks in the hardware with relatively little time spent working on non-platform-specific code.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[NEW22]

OK, your post is a horrible display of over-generalization and creulty. You were modded up for being a demeaning asshole. First you state ,"... and the first thing the Slashdot crowd wants to do is run Linux on it." which is plainly over-generalizing the people here and what they are interested in. Then you get self-righteous and start declaring the curious intelligent people playing with computers, to see what they can do, as immature, sickening dorks with low self-esteems.

What the fuck is your problem? Everyone has a hobby that can be construed as "wasting time", from watching TV to collecting baseball cards. Here someone is experimenting with computers, they are probably Linux hobbyists doing something a little more creative than picking up Teddy Bear themed cookie jars at auctions (not that there is anything wrong if that's your hobby), and you go off on them. Maybe you are thinking they believe in the ideals that come out of the GPL, so you have a venomous hatred of that??? Maybe you are just a troll, I'm not a frequent enough poster to know the game, but please, I see no reason for your attitude towards people. I make it a habit not to be a jerk to people in general, especially over something as minor as interest in an operating system.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[omega9]

It would be very easy to agree with you, and in large part I do. In fact, knowing what I'm about to say, it would still be incredibly easy to just say "You're right" and move on.

But...

Consider this feat from something other than a practical use standpoint. Yes, OS X is a gorgeous, useable, practical operating system that is tailored to take the best advantage of Apple hardware. With it you can begin being extremely productive right out of the box. But at the same time you are agreeing to take the operating system they built and run it on the hardware they deem appropriate.

What putting Linux on the new iMac does, is show that there are some of us who are willing and want to try things our own way. Many times it may turn up nowhere near as usable as the original product, but "usable" is a very subjective term. It's about pushing limits and trying new things. It also sends a small message to manufacturers saying "Hey, you might have made a nice piece of equipment, but now it's my turn, and I'm going to try some tings my way."

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[the phantom]

I have one of the first Blue and White G3s, 300 MHz. I ran the OSX public beta for a while, but ultimatly went back to a dual booting Linux/OS 8 (now 9) box for several reasons (some that don't really apply to the new iMacs, but I am going to list them anyway. HA!)

• 
  It was slower than mud. I am told that the final version is faster, but I still don't think that OSX was really made to support a low end G3.
  
• 
  I detest Aqua. Perhaps I could learn to love it, but it is far to bright, with to many primary colors, funky visual effects, etc. I like simple greys, dark blues, and green text on a black background. I don't like all of the brightly colored windows and widgets.
  
• 
  Other window managers run poorly (or not at all, ie. KDE) under OSX, thus it is difficult to make Aqua better.
  
• 
  And, most importantly, I am far more comfortable with Linux. Of course, with time I would become comfortable with OSX as well, but like most people, I am resistant to change. Read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution . I'm not saying that this is a good atitude to have, just that it is a common atitude.
  

For me (at least) it has nothing to do with ego. It is more a matter of aesthetics.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[rseuhs]

Simple:

Multiple Desktop support:

KDE/Linux [x] MacOSX [ ] WinXP [~] (with tools)

Browser windows respawn and restore everything like it was on logout:

Konqueror [x] Mozilla [ ] IE [ ]

MMB pastes selection:

KDE/Linux [x] MacOSX [ ] WinXP [ ]

You can have menubar-applets like mixer and syscontrol:

KDE/Linux [x] MacOSX [ ] WinXP [ ]

You can have multiple menubars:

KDE/Linux [x] MacOSX [ ] WinXP [x]

You can have (gasp) a real taskbar than also supports grouping:

KDE/Linux [x] MacOSX [ ] WinXP [x]

MMB opens link in new window:

Konqueror[x] Mozilla [x] IE [ ]

You can have a fast filebrowser in the menubar:

KDE/Linux [x] MacOSX [ ] WinXP [ ]

You can have ALL settings/controls organized in a tree-like structure:

KControl [x] MacOSX [ ] WinXP [ ]

What was your point again?

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[Pope Slackman]

Consistent, fast, attractive desktop layer that doesn't annoy the living fuck out of me like X11 does, PLUS supports UNIX tools AND killer apps like Photoshop...

...PRICELESS.

C-X C-S

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[julianmayer]

You can have menubar-applets like mixer and syscontrol: KDE/Linux [x] MacOSX [ ] WinXP [ ]

MacOSX does have have this tough they are called other...look on versiontracker.com for dozens of menubar additions for macosx

most of the other stuff you list are no real advantages but just questions of preference IMHO

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[grrussel]

Virtual desktops as a dock applet, available on versiontracker.

Multiple menubars - UI disaster, slows menu selection etc. _You_ can still write programs this way, but MacOS has _standards_

Menu bar applets - the volume control applets is an example, as is the battery power meter.

Kcontrol is not, by any stretch of the imagination, all settings. There are settings tweakable in rc files without a UI for the setting. It doesn't handle things like filesharing, remote access, that are outside the scope of KDE. MacOS X has these in the control panel, all organised for you.

MMB for pasting selection - works only for text in Linux. MacOS has support for cut and paste for complex formatted objects - tables, images, and cun and paste are consistent across applications.

Respawning browser windows? Use a browser like opera that supports it.

You don't seem terribly familiar with MacOS X.
I could of course just run X11 on MacOS X as well with GNOME if I wanted.

Third party taskbars are of course available.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[rseuhs]

Kcontrol is not, by any stretch of the imagination, all settings. There are settings tweakable in rc files without a UI for the setting. It doesn't handle things like filesharing, remote access, that are outside the scope of KDE. MacOS X has these in the control panel, all organised for you.

On SuSE, everything can be found in kcontrol as YaST2 is integrated in it.

As a summary, we can agree that MacOSX has some advantages, but KDE/Linux also has some. For people who like those, it's not "copletely totally absurd" to run it instead of MacOSX.

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[rseuhs]

most of the other stuff you list are no real advantages but just questions of preference IMHO

So?

Is it "completely totally absurd" if your preferences don't coincide with Apple's?

Re:How completely totally absurd.

[cduffy]

What's wrong with doing something neat just because you can?

What's right with it?

The fact that most linux geeks prefer to spend their time on dorky shit like this is exactly why the community will never amount to anything, and why anything useful done with Linux will be driven by big corps like IBM.

Linux pays my bills (and the corp I work for is nothing like IBM, thank Jim). That's amounting to something enough for me. :)

Anyhow, doing something neat just because you can is how a great deal of progress takes place. It's like pure versus applied science -- folks who do applied science might look down on the pure scientists for not making anything immediately useful, but it's the folks doing pure science who result in what People Actually Use 50 years down the road, while the applied scientists just determine what folks Actually Do for the next 10 years or so.

See the difference?

IANAC

[ViolatorFP]

SNSJ, as per your request, I got me an account. We will do much battling on the field....

Re:what's the point of this?

[rseuhs]

Seriously, what's the point of running Linux on a Mac. It's not like you can get Macs without the operating system. Isn't the whole point of Linux that it's an x86 alternative to Windows?

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.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if someone could port Linux to my Colecovision Adam, THAT would be impressive and newsworthy.

One more answer as to why

[brennan73]

Some people might really like the new iMac from a physical/enclosure design standpoint, but might not like OSX (see plenty of articles as to why), or might just prefer Linux. So, buy the Mac, run Linux on it, and you get basically what you want.

Also, the whole "because it's there" thing.

-brennan

A view of why.

[clump]

I ran Debian Linux on a 'New World' G4. It took a little tweaking to install to bootloader but once installed, I had no other issues. Why would I put Linux on it? For one, Linux screams on PowerPC. Linux and G4s make an excellent server combo. OpenFirmware is also server-class, adding to the enterprise-nature of the hardware.

Another reason is speed and maturity. Linux has run on PowerPC for years, and is well supported. I was able to run XFree86, Enlightenment, and instant-message apps with ease. These were readily available via apt. Just about every piece of OSS/FS I was accostomed to on x86 was there.

Final reason is cost. OSX isn't free of charge and you must pay for upgrades. Im not really into piracy, so spending hundreds of Dollars on a new software didn't make much sense.

Don't get me wrong. MacOS X was very attractive and neat. However, some features/differences (netinfo or whatever its called management, GUI by default, weird / layout) didn't leave me happy with its ability to serve. OSX is great for a desktop Mac user but needs a little more time to prove its worth as a server OS.

Re:A view of why.

[gowmc]

Upgrades to Mac OS X are free. Unless you call a trip to the Apple store an expense. But the minor releases (10.1.x, 10.0.x, etc) are free and downloadable. Although you will not like using Mac OS X much if you don't have the 10.1 upgrade :)

Re:A view of why.

[bankman]

Oh no, not another "MacOSX is not ready for the server" discussion. Mod this as Flamebait please.

:-)

Why not x86 Linux inside of MacOS X instead?

[toupsie]

Connectix Virtual PC for MacOS X and Redhat Linux running together is a better a choice for linux on Mac. The PowerPC Linux project is best suited for the non-Mac PPC boxen.

Re:Why not x86 Linux inside of MacOS X instead?

[toupsie]

Why go to the bother of running a dual boot on a Mac? With Mac OS X you already have a UNIX system available for you even capable of running X Windows. Most of the time I want some that is Linux-specific, I can't get it to run on Linux PPC. VPC + RH i386 takes care of the problem.

Re:Why not x86 Linux inside of MacOS X instead?

[sweet reason]

With Mac OS X you already have a UNIX system available

unfortunatly it is a rather old and limping unix.

personal choice

[BiggyP]

the idea behind GNU/linux is to produce/provide an opensource and completely free Operating system for whoever wants to use it, the idea of OSX is to sell Macs, i would never consider buying a mac at the ridiculous prices for such hardware but if i did then the OS i would choose would have to be Linux, for no other reason than i happen to like it.
Apple have used opensource for their own gain and the end result is Darwin, giving just enough back to keep people happy, but not enough to produce a usable Desktop OS at this stage, oh, and under a strange license.

Re:what's the point of this?

[BlowCat]

Perhaps there would be even more open source stuff for OS X if people weren't bustling around trying to install Linux on their designer Macs.

But if people can dual-boot, maybe there will be more portable software.

Because they can

[greygent]

I'm not a big Linux fan either, and I use FreeBSD and OS X exclusively. I don't see why more than .09% of the G4 users out there would want to run Linux on their systems. But I don't see how this can possibly hurt OS X or the Macintosh line. If anything, it fosters a greater understanding of the underlying hardware.

While porting Linux to your iMac, toaster, toilet, whatever may not be practical, if anything it fosters a greater understanding of the system in question. It's even good for a moment's chuckle.

I'm sure the people working on this weren't sitting in dark little dens, fueled by Satan, with hopes of crushing OS X.

If anything, Linux and OS X will benefit each other. Mainstream vendors will again see the value in the UNIX operating systems, and be more open to Linux and *BSD. The mainstreamness of OS X will encourage more people to become hackers, and they will possibly work with Linux, or start a project than benefits Linux.

Re:what's the point of this?

[jaoswald]

What OS X can do that Linux can't?

You can't be serious.

1) Adobe applications
2) Microsoft office
3) iMovie, iPhoto, etc.

etc.

Don't bother saying that Linux can do the same thing with open source "substitutes." Margarine ain't butter.

here's why

[geekoid]

Cause you enjoy Linux, and want a piece of kick ass hardware to run it on.
Personally, I wouldn't do it, If I bought an Mac, I'd use osx, but thats ME and my choice.

Re:here's why

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it Unix that you really enjoy or the brain-damaged cloned version known as Linux?

The answer to being slashdotted..

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFL.. these guys are bouncing requests they can't handle back to slashdot rather than having their servers queue and try to respond to them. this is pretty cool.. must say its a unique way to handle a slashdotting :)

Re:The answer to being slashdotted..

[j7953]

It's called The Slash Hole, and has been done before. Though I can currently reach imaclinux.net. They either used something different, or they've already changed their settings back to normal.

Re:what's the point of this?

[rseuhs]

You can't be serious.

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.

Since it's /.ed, is it running Yellow Dog?

[Twister002]

TSIA.

In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[ikekrull]

Since Apple have a propensity to obsolete their hardware, and OSes rather quickly.

Look at 68k macs - no longer supported by any current version of the MacOS.

Look at the Newton - dumped

Look at Pre-G3 Power Macs - unsupported by OS X, or any Apple Unix

Look at A/UX - dumped by Apple

My IIfx, PowerMac 8500, Rev. A iMac, Titanium PowerBook, Duron 750, Celeron 366, dual P-Pro 200, P-133 and Sega Dreamcast will *all* run Linux, and will likely be able to run Linux until their hardware fails.

Apple can't support their products like the Open Source community can, they seem to be of the opinion that if a machine is more than 2 years old, it is useless and you should buy a new one.

I, for one, am extremely glad my Macs can run Linux, because I know that when Apple forget me (and they will), the open Source community are still here to support me (and they encourage me to help support myself).

A huge thank you to the LinuxM68k, LinuxPPC, Linux-SH4 and Linux-x86 coders, you have made such a difference to my computing life.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[Junta]

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..

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[Have Blue]

Remember that Darwin is open-source. It's already been ported to pre-G3 Macs, and with more work could probably be ported to any PowerPC platform.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[artemis67]

Since Apple have a propensity to obsolete their hardware, and OSes rather quickly.

Look at 68k macs - no longer supported by any current version of the MacOS...

Look at Pre-G3 Power Macs - unsupported by OS X, or any Apple Unix...

Apple can't support their products like the Open Source community can, they seem to be of the opinion that if a machine is more than 2 years old, it is useless and you should buy a new one.

Yes, but...

The 68040 Macs became obsolete when Mac OS 8 came out. It was terribly, terribly slow. The 68040 Mac shipped with either System 6 or System 7. System 6, the last Mac system to fit on a floppy, was nice and lean; A full install of System 7 was ~24 MB, and added a bunch of features that slowed it down considerably, and Mac OS 8 added more still that made it virtually unusable on pre-PPC Macs.

Same situation with the pre-G3 PowerMacs running OS X. They can run OS's 7 through 9, but running OS X is going to be unbearably slow, especially because of Aqua. I have a 400 mhz B&W G3 in my office (Apple's last G3 tower), and it's "tolerable" with OS X. OS X really needs a G4 with Altivec.

Apple's doing the right thing; they worry about the future, and let others (like LinuxPPC) address the past.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[MoneyT]

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.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[namespan]

Since Apple have a propensity to obsolete their hardware, and OSes rather quickly.

"Quickly" is relative -- it depends on if you're trying to compare with other proprietary systems or open source.

If you're talking Linux, well, any OSS software beats the hell out of anything else for longevity on HW, of course. Anyone who wants to can port to any HW and maintain it

But at the moment, I'm typing this on a five+ year old PowerMac 9500. Running Mac OS 9.2 on 48 MB ram rather smoothly. Some pages render badly in Netscape, but it's a very serviceable machine that would be MORE serviceable if I threw gobs o' ram in. Try running Windows ME or 2000 on a Pentium II 200 with 48 MB RAM.

(The 9500 will run OS X with some tweaking if I put a G3/G4 upgrade in it, BTW).

Look at 68k macs - no longer supported by any current version of the MacOS.

68030 Macs (last off the line sometime around 93/94) lost OS support in OS 8 (Fall 1998). Again, that's 4-5 years of support. 68040 Macs (dropped about 1995) lost support in OS 9 (2000) -- again about 5 years. And this is only time from when they CEASE manufacturing the old models... if you go from the time they start, it's phenomenal. Take the venerable SE/30... off the line in '89, finally dropped from support in 1998. That's 9 years of support. Not too shabby.

The other angles is that if you use the contemporary software, most Macs run quite well. I have an SE/30 that's still knockout for Word Processing, basic spreadsheet, music sequencing/notation, and checking email. You can argue the same for any hardware, but in terms of utility, beats the hell out of any 1989 intel hardware I've seen.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[The Pi-Guy]

Re Linux/DC: :(. I have a "fake BBA", a LAN adaptor, which is not supported.

Re Linux/Mac-68k (m68k is processor, Mac-68k is arch, remember that folks!): Also :(. My Mac's CD drive doesn't read CD-Rs, so I'm SOL there. However, once I got enough data to transfer so that I could run Penguin and the Debian boot floppy...

--joshua

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[mkelley]

A/UX got dropped way before OSX and even before NeXT was bought. A/UX will only run on 68k Macs. Here is some more info.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[threephaseboy]

Just a few clarifications: OS 7.5.5 was the last to support 68000 series macs, OS 7.6 was the last to support 68030 series, even then you needed a 32-bit clean machine. OS 8.1 was the last to support 68040 machines, and even some 68k that were upgraded to PPC (it was possible to hack 8.5 on them though, but it ran extremely slow on my 540c w/ upgrade.) All the systems since then require at least a PPC.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[Alexander]

And every day I'm thankful that Linux supports that investment I made in my 286 15 years ago.

Seriously, It's time to sell the IIfx on ebay to some idiot who thinks his "Mac Collection" will be worth something someday. Better yet, part the thing out (esp. the RAM and any nubus ethernet cards you might have) and sell them to some moron who wants to use his IIfx to play Pirates! or use it as a a really flaky Linux router.

Better yet, donate it to a third world country or .org. They might actually have a use for it.

And those pre-G3 nubus powermacs that aren't supported by any Apple Unix? You can use Apple-sponsered MkLinux on them.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[resistfascism]

WORD WORD WORD WORD I have an iMac that I spent about $2,000 on a while ago, and it wheezes when running OS/X; however, it runs Ywllow Dog like the Champion Server it's named to be. I think the (hotly debated) question of "Why to run Linux on a platform what already has a *cool looking*?" interface is answered by this fact: Apple Corporation doesn't give a damn about the hardware/software you shelled out for a couple years ago...yet the hardware is such quality. And while I'm at it, does anyone know where I can get a job making Linux run on Macintoshes...I mean if it makes first page on /. ...

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[namespan]

I think you missed the point. Sure, a 1989 Mac has utility. But it won't run anything later than MacOS 8.0.

No... the part about a 1989 Mac having utility was only an afterthought. My main point was that Apple actually has a fair history of longevity when it comes to supporting their hardware. 1989 Mac Hardware was being actively supported by Apple operating systems up until 1998. Nine years is pretty good.

Mind you, I'm aware that the SE/30 was probably the high point there. And I also gave the nod to OSS software -- because the source is available, continued support is always available to any maniac or business who wants to provide it. But my main point was to refute the poster who claimed Apple doesn't give their hardware a decent life cycle of support. It has. It does.

A 386 or 486 box frim 1989 will run Linux 2.4.18

There were 486 boxen in 1989? I'm not even sure 386's were widespread then. Most everyone I knew had a 286, and they were proud of it.

Plus, keep in mind that even if they'll run the kernel, running the desktops (KDE/Gnome) that are now part and parcel with Linux would challenge the limits of 1989 Hardware... something to take into account if you want to keep the contest truly fair. I was running XFree86 and fvwm on Linux on a 486 6 years ago (Some slackware version of 1.2 kernel, I think), and THAT was taxing the hardware.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[Bongo]

I'm typing this on a five+ year old PowerMac 9500. Running Mac OS 9.2 on 48 MB ram rather smoothly.

Hey, it's praise our old hardware day.

I'm reading this on a 8500/604e/144MB/OS8.6 :-)

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

There were 486 boxen in 1989? I'm not even sure 386's were widespread then.

Well there were no 486:es they became widespread around '93 I think, and I don't know about 386:es but the one I have from '89 was hellishly expensive, and you know what, it's still put to good use.

In my case I use it as a firewall/NATing router towards my cable modem (only 512kbit/s -- 128 kbit/s) with two 3c509B cards in it.

Works like a charm and with a variable series resistor in the fan of the PSU i have to have my ear in contact with the case to hear it. (Pulled the old 100MB HD and run floppyfw from the diskette and of course no processor fan or other newfangled junk.) This enables me to have the small micro tower sit quitely in the corner of my livingroom.

Sure, I'm in the process of upgrading, to a P75 because I want to do other things with it, but not because I really have to. The beauty of this machine is that even though there is no way I could have fit anything more modern than MSDOS/WIN 3.11 on it, it still runs Linux, and always have, from vs 0.11 all the way to 2.4.x. Try to do that with a "commercial" OS...

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[jweatherley]

4400/603ev*/64MB/OS 9.1

*To keep things bearable it has an overclocked (240Mhz-->320Mhz) G3 where the L2 cache is meant to be - had to bend the Voodoo2 card to get everything to fit though!

BTW one button mouse trolls - it has a 5 button MS Intellimouse too.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[sahala]

Try running Windows ME or 2000 on a Pentium II 200 with 48 MB RAM.

Don't discount Windows too much. I bought some old thinkpads with Pentium I MMX 233mHz processors and 96 megs of ram and threw win2k on them. They run great. With a few orinoco cards these machines are great for browsing the web and doing word processing while sitting on a couch. I don't find any OS to be too much of a hog on hardware compared to heavy applications like Photoshop 6 or games. In fact I found Win2K to be a better OS for older hardware than 95, 98, or ME, which all seem to flake out randomly.

Re:In 10 years you'll be glad your Mac runs Linux

[wholesomegrits]

Try running Windows ME or 2000 on a Pentium II 200 with 48 MB RAM.

Make outlandish comments, people are likely to call you on them. There is no PII 200. It's a Pentium Pro.

Second, I've done it with win2k and it works just fine...

Answers why:

[MSG]

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.

Everyone must be insane then.

[5Ball]

Apache and mod_perl already run on the iMac with the factory installation of OS X.

Re:what's the point of this?

[rseuhs]

haha yes, go figure.. some people actually want/need real apps. no, open source just dosn't cut it sometimes.

OSS apps *are* real apps.

GIMP have all the colour matching etc of photoshop ? you tell your boss that.

Only a minority of computer users are graphic artists and only a minority of graphic artists really need color matching. (Actually I do some graphics for websites - Gimp is perfect for this.)

BTW, does really every Mac-user shell out several hundred bucks for Photoshop? I don't think so.

Let's break this down...

[Golias]

For one, Linux screams on PowerPC.

I am positive that, with the money it costs to buy a G4, I can build a faster Linux box using AMD gear.

Another reason is speed and maturity. Linux has run on PowerPC for years, and is well supported.

But Linux has run on x86 platforms longer, and is better supported there.

Final reason is cost. OSX isn't free of charge and you must pay for upgrades.

You can not buy a new G4 without getting OS X. And every upgrade to OS X to date has been free. I know this, because I have installed every upgrade on my G4, and have not had to pay a dime for any of them. When 10.1 came out, I was even handed free CD's of the upgrade by the nice folks at the Apple Store, to save me the downloading time.

So all this brings us back to the question: If you want a Linux server, why would you buy a G4 to install it on when a PC is cheaper?

It seems to me like buying a Mercedes and converting the body into a custom pick-up truck... You can do it, but just buying a Toyata Tundra seems to make a whole lot more sense.

Linux vs OS X on Mac

[Cosworth]

I will say that I have NOT been a fan of the Mac over the years. But OSX would convince me to move my Linux box off my desk, not out of my server room though, if I could figure out how to set my "Delete" key to be a proper backspace in vi. I spend a lot of time in vi and this is the only pain that I've had moving one of my desktop machines to OSX.

Re:Linux vs OS X on Mac

[artemis67]

There's always QuicKeys

At $60, you might think it a little pricey to solve a single keystroke issue, but overall it's one of the best utilities available for the Mac.

Re:Linux vs OS X on Mac

[andfarm]

Not that this is exactly OT, but just compile a new version of vim. I admit that the vi shipped with OS X is rather nasty.

Easy download, from www.vim.org. Easy compile, too -- I didn't even have to edit the source to get it to work. YMMV.

Re:Linux vs OS X on Mac

[Spencerian]

All these comments on Linux vs. OS X (I should mention the iMac just to keep things remotely on topic) bring up two key suggestions:

1) For an OS that's not even ONE YEAR OLD, Mac OS X is a gem. A little modernizing and optimizing over the next couple of years, and OS X will be a formidable OS, even vs. the best distros.

2) Linux has been around for, what--11 years? It's come a long way and its a true OS with tons of fans--but consider what one company has done to make a new *nix OS and how relatively good it is at the start.

I love it when I see screenshots of users with Windows, VNC, Virtual PC, XDarwin and more just crankin' along on a PPC Mac. It shows, at the least, the fact that a Mac--even the "lowly, closed-up" iMac--is a very versatile system that you don't have to fight. Sure, you can buy a cheap PC or two--but if everything runs in a single box, why?

Themes

[Anonymous Coward]

I know why they did this, so they can run the KDE Aqua theme and trick everyone.... "Look, it's Linux!".... right?

Re:what's the point of this?

[rseuhs]

If nothing else, the aqua interface is far more pleasant for the eye than KDE or Gnome.

Matter of taste.

Not only that, but OS X boasts actual design decisions that differ from what Microsoft has chosen to do.

Irrelevant. (It's wrong anyway, I frequently try to paste with the middle mouse button in Windows just to notice that nothing happens. I also miss my 16 desktops and Konqueror)

Unfortunately, KDE and Gnome are not in a position to make such a claim.

See above.

So the only relevant pro-MacOSX point you made is 100% subjective (pleasant for the eye...)

Wow.

Agreed

[clump]

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?

Practicality schmacticality

[NovaChild]

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?

Re:Practicality schmacticality

[Golias]

Now *that* was a refreshingly honest answer.

This is just my own opinion, but I suspect if you were to give OS X a chance, you might find that it could simplify your life... You would be able to run the vast majority of apps you have been running on Linux, and would not have to dual-boot to write .doc files or watch DVD's.

On the other hand, to each his own.

A little further

[clump]

Forgive me if I am wrong about the uprades. I thought for sure they were premium, but I stand corrected.

For bang-for-your-buck, I feel Linux on x86 is hard to beat. However, PowerPC (in my opinion) is much better hardware-wise and better for reliability. OpenFirmware is much more flexible than an normal PC BIOS. The hardware holds ties to IBM and the RS line, which has generally been known to be solid.

So for my money, I will buy x86 because I feel I get better value. If I can afford to be a little more picky on hardware, I will buy SPARC. Still, if I work in a shop that only has PowerPC I will throw Linux on it.

I don't think anyone will argue that x86 is better hardware. It just isn't. I think you will find some argument on whether OSX is fit to serve.

Time Travel?

[MoneyT]

Dude, come back to the future. It isn't 1996 any more, and apple's been turning profits since 98, much better profits than some of our other well known manufacturers (i.e. HP, Compaq, Dell)

Re:Time Travel?

[RazzleFrog]

Hey remember me? We seem to always meet over Financial discussions (and I know this will cost me Karma but I have it to burn).

So let's see Net Profit (in $millions):
Apple
1998 - $309
1999 - $601
2000 - $786
2001 - ($25) - How curious, a loss.

Dell
1998 - $1,460
1999 - $1,860
2000 - $2,310
2001 - $790 (9 months only - Fiscal YE is February)

HP
1998 - $2,945
1999 - $3,491
2000 - $3,697
2001 - $408 (yikes)

Now Compaq took two huge charges against income (Q4,00 and Q3,01) so they have been royally f'ed.

So, in summary, yes Apple has been doing well since it huge billion dollar losses of the past but I would hardly say that it is doing better than PC manufacturers. Now we could talk about other Financial indicators such as gross margin, EPS, Debt to Equity but you did mention profits.

Re:Time Travel?

[MoneyT]

Your point is well taken. I was just poiting out that Apple did not appear to be in any danger of filing chap 11 anytime in the near future and that in the current tech slump, apple seems to be holding their own while many other companies seem to be scrambling to stay afloat.

Re:what's the point of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...lets see..comercial games, better hardware support for graphics cards at least, iPod, when was the last time you saw profesional level video editing on Linux? Sorenson, Microsoft Office, Adobe products, The majority of games.

Oh, also, when you install OSX, it just works, no worries about your hardware not being supported, and recompiling drivers and the like. To answer a previouse question, OSX does support three button mice, and how many computers ship with a three button mouse anyway? What a bad excuse.

And last but not Least, remember that OSX is not a finished OS yet. It's only at what is the equivilent of version 1.1.2. OSX 10.2 is suposed to introduce alot of new features and return some of the features that were missing from OSX that were in OS9, such as spring loaded folders.

Why won't nvidia play nice?

[Snowfox]

It's a shame that nvidia doesn't play nice.

nvidia still hasn't shared which registers are used to set up a DVI display, which this iMac requires. This is also the reason you can't use the XFree86 group's nvidia driver if you have a DVI display on your PC Linux box.

If nvidia would just share this one bit of info, nvidia users could avoid loading a nasty closed-source driver.

Re:Why won't nvidia play nice?

[X-Guy]

DVI is supported by the "nv" driver in XFree86 CVS, at least it is on PCs. See recent CVS checkins.

So what's new?

[MoneyT]

I wasn't even aware that the new iMacs couldn't run Linux before this point. I though mkLinux, Yellow Dog linux a Linux PPC were all mac versions of linux and capable of running on a mac. I would have assumed that included the new G4

Re:what's the point of this?

[statusbar]

On my dual-g4, X11 apps run much faster under linux than they do under XonX. Aqua is real purdy but carbon apps like the finder are sometimes frustratingly unresponsive. Plus, a lot of stuff like SourceNavigator just does not compile under Mac-OSX but zips along great under linux ppc.

I run both and like both. Why criticize someone who is doing something that you are unwilling or unable to do?

--jeff

RE: w00t

[cappadocius]

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.

Re:what's the point of this?

[Alan Partridge]

"does really every Mac-user shell out several hundred bucks for Photoshop?" Not every, but a surprising number DO. Ask Adobe how many copies of PS for Windows they sell vs. PS for MacOS... I'll save you the trouble, it's approximately the SAME number. Figure that, with Apple owning 5% of the market.

Re:So what took them so long?

[The Pi-Guy]

I'm not sure which the joke is - iMacx (hmm, that SuperDrive http://www.imaclinux.net/images/imac-g4/install/su perdrive.jpg looks pretty hot) or the time.

Another joke...
--joshua

Old Mac, sure, but why a new iMac G4?!

[dstone]

I can understand why someone with an older Mac (ie, sunk cost) would investigate running Linux. Of course, the end result will be be a more expensive box than an equivalent Intel or AMD Linux box, but with your money sunk into a G3/G4, what else can you do? What I don't understand is why someone would buy a brand new, off the shelf iMac G4 and immediately install Linux. Okay, it's cool looking and unique and those are damn fine 1337 h4x0r characteristics, but think of the coinage! Was Linux their intention before buying the iMac G4? Maybe I'm missing something compelling on the Mac Linux front, but why are there people doing this?!

Re:Old Mac, sure, but why a new iMac G4?!

[glwtta]

Some people like Linux, some people like Macs, apparently the two groups intersect, at least a little.

Re:what's the point of this?

[mr100percent]

Apple is a minority in the computer industry, they do NOT have a monopoly. Just because they own a hardware/software mix doesn't make them a monopoly. Sun fer sure isn't either.

Re:what's the point of this?

[mr100percent]

Apache and sendmail are preinstalled. Even better, they are off by default to prevent hacking (unlike RedHat, which gets hacked in under 5 minutes once you install it).

I can start and stop Apache by checking the checkbox. It's very easy to do, with the power of .conf files if I ever need to tamper. But PHP and Perl and MySQL are there already.

I wasn't gonna reply, but ...

[thedbp]

how about I insist that you're an idiot for thinking OS X is of any use, when all the real application support out there is with the Win32 side of the industry?

Hehehehehe I can run any x86 app I want on my Mac thru VirtualPC. I can even run any variety of Linux or Winblows I want, up to 10 different virtual machines running whatever app i throw at them, all at once. All your apps are belong to us!

But, geez, I'm sorry, you can't run Final Cut Pro on your side of the industry can you? Nor Burning Monkey Solitaire, the true king of all solitaire games. Or the most elegant OS on the planet. In fact, the entire argument of "more apps for x86!" isn't really valid in the least, unless you're talking games. But at this point, if you really wanna play games, consoles are the way to go. And heck, you can even put your precious Linux on those too.

When I bought my first Mac, the only thing I missed was Minesweeper. Then I found a nice copy for MacOS. Now there's even some native X minesweeper games. Haven't looked back since.

This is amusing

[AnimeFreak]

You guys just slashdotted my friend's website. Amazingly, it is still up.

Look at the BogoMips..

[Large Green Mallard]

Look at the bogomips here. A massive 797 of them from their speedy 800mhz iMac.

model name Pentium II (Deschutes)
cpu MHz 451.032
cache size 512 KB
bogomips 897.84

model name Pentium III (Coppermine)
cpu MHz 601.371
cache size 256 KB
bogomips 1199.31

model name AMD Athlon(tm) Processor
cpu MHz 1202.748
cache size 256 KB
bogomips 2398.61

I think you get my point.

I love my macs. In fact, I have three (G4/400, iBook 500, PB1400/G3-333), and plan on getting one of those LCD iMacs one day, but that's some pretty low bogomips there from that G4.

And slightly off topic, I'd like the ability to paste in three or four lines of output from a standard linux command thanks and not get messages telling me to remove junk characters.

Re:Look at the BogoMips..

[Large Green Mallard]

You mean apples and IBMs? :)

Yes, I am aware of the bogosity of them. My issue is that it's like the megahertz myth.. people compare them by their numbers, not performance.

Microsoft Linux - the premier linux distro

[smilinggoat]

Microsoft Linux provides all the power of the Linux Operating System with the ease of use you've come to expect from Microsoft Products. ... In addition to features like My Home Directory and My Configuration, Microsoft Linux contains greatly improved support for Web and Enterprise development.

Linux and MacOS running alongside?

[jeti]

AFAIK MkLinix runs on a Mach32 kernel and MacOS X
runs on a modified Mach32 kernel. One feature of
the kernel is that it can run several OSes at the
same time (as 'personalities').
So theoretically it should be possible to run Linux
and MacOS X at the same time.

Are any efforts being made in that direction?

Re:Linux and MacOS running alongside?

[Matthias Wiesmann]

I remember reading about this is the darwin devellopement list a long time ago.

First MkLinux and Darwin are not based on the same version of Mach. Still, while it would be possible to have linux run over Mach, it would not be very usefull.

• This implies duplicating a lot of the functionality of the BSD layer, like for instance the drivers. Having two different drivers from different kernels address the same hardware would pose some problems.
• The end result would only be a Linux kernel.
• The linux kernel would be slow, because it would run as a Mach process (the BSD layer shares the address space of the Mach kernel).
• Most people are not intersted in kernels, but more by applications.
• Applications can be handled either by recompiling them for Darwin, or by emulating Linux system calls (I think BSD can do this).

OT

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Think development platform while sitting on the back deck watching the sun go down on the other side of the valley.

Yes! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks like this. I don't want to get a laptop so I can work in a different office, or on the way to work. I want it so I can work outside, or at the park, maybe nice cafe if that's your style.

I'm a strong beliver in the mobile office. It would be great to have the entire office fit into a back-pac, and work from where-ever you damn well feel like working from.

Batteries are lasting longer, wireless is getting faster, and transflective LCDs are getting bigger. It won't be long...

No more pasty white skin for me!

Great Idea

[stolly92]

I Think This I Great Because it would boost the sales of apple computers. Linux is a goo compeditor of the windows os. I like the style of the imacs and the new imac but i hate the mac os because of incompatility to most programs i like!

Re:what's the point of this?

[Graymalkin]

While a minority of computer users are graphic artists a large number of Mac users are graphic artists. Thus a large number of Mac users need the features of photoshop to do their job or hobby. Huge numbers of PS copies are sold to Mac users, about as many as Windows copies. A large number of copies sold to a small number of users is pretty good market penetration. GIMP for all it can do is like MSPaint on steroids.

iMac

[mastorial]

How long does the 800 mhz iMac usually take to ship? heh, I ordered mine on Saturday off apple.com and can't wait to use it.

KDE on MacOS X...

[Brand X]

Q:Will KDE be available for MacOS X?

A: As a target for development, I'd guess yes. Or at least, a KDE compatible interface of some kind will. After all, the Qt part of it is...

Q: Will KDE be free on MacOS X?

A: If you're not a student... I doubt it. See Trolltech... This only lists the enterprise/professional and academic license

Trolltech Releases Qt/Mac, OS X ( 15. Oct 2001 ) - Oslo, Norway - With its release of Qt/Mac, Trolltech has added Apple Macintosh to the list of platforms supported by Qt, an emerging industry standard in cross-platform software development. Application developers using Qt can now target Mac OS X with the same ease, as they are currently targeting Windows, Linux, Unix, and embedded Linux systems. Qt allows developers to create a single source tree that will run on all these major platforms.

So KDE as a desktop for Darwin? I'd go with no. KDE apps on MacOS X (and looking like Aqua apps?) That's a distinct possibility. But for free, when the developers face the license fee? With only a month to evaluate Qt free, I'm not about to tackle this one.

A few reasons

[adb]

OS X, by default, lacks some important things (X, (graphical) Emacs, and APT, for starters) that Debian has. In the past few months, there have just started to be fairly usable approximations of these things. Debian still has a better selection of packages.

OS X is excruciatingly slow. Debian is not.