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."
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
security through obscurity = modding down anti-linux posts so maybe noone will see them
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.
I think the man pages for here(1) and here(2) are broken.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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.
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.
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.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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).
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
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 :)
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.
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!
The Free desktop that Just Works
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.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
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.
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.
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."
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Apache and mod_perl already run on the iMac with the factory installation of OS X.
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.
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
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?
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.
Rhapsody in Numbers
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
ipv6 is my vpn
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
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).
.conf files if I ever need to tamper. But PHP and Perl and MySQL are there already.
I can start and stop Apache by checking the checkbox. It's very easy to do, with the power of
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
You guys just slashdotted my friend's website. Amazingly, it is still up.
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.
TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.
Some people like Linux, some people like Macs, apparently the two groups intersect, at least a little.
sic transit gloria mundi
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?
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.
So?
Is it "completely totally absurd" if your preferences don't coincide with Apple's?
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.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
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
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.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement