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
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.
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.
Good point, however the argument really only applies to open-source applications, which tend to get ported to anything with a compiler anyway. Binary applications in Linux tend to be even shorter lived than other platforms (i.e. running a libc5/kernel 1.2.x binary application on modern equipment?)
As far as Apple goes, I would dare say they dragged on the m68k support as long as it was feasible, beyond a certain point the market has shrunk too much. Of Desktop/Workstation systems, I would say that Mac has either the longest or second longest lifespan of m68k products. (Sun ditched them way early after Sun3 hardware, and depending on how you count Amiga, Amiga might be considered longer support for m68k, since 3.9 was released in 2k, but then again, Amiga's support over the last few years has been rather tenuous at best.
Mac hardware tends to enjoy a much longer period of being up-to-date than, say, the PC market..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
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?
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?