Terra Soft Ships Macs with Linux Preinstalled

dhovis writes "Do you think the Xserve is cool, but you wish it ran Linux? Well, MacCentral is reporting that Terra Soft Solutions, an Apple 'Value Added Reseller,' is now shipping Macs. They are offering several new Macs with Yellow Dog Linux preinstalled now, and are promising the Xserve will be available soon." They are currently shipping Power Mac G4s, iBooks, and iMacs, as well as AirPort cards. See the Terra Soft Store for more information.

Comments

Just out of curiosity

[jormurgandr]

How were they able to get Steve Jobs to OK this? That guy has made every bad business decision he could, I dont understand why he is suddenly changing his game plan. Whats next, open source aqua (that would rock)? I dunno, just my 2 cents

Re:Just out of curiosity

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve didn't do anything. If you buy a Computer you can then resale it

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think the Xserve is cool, but you wish it ran Linux?

No.

No.

However, I wish Linux ran, period.

Yellow Dog?

[death00]

What were they thinking?

Re:Yellow Dog?

[Otter]

Well, they are Yellow Dog.

Re:Yellow Dog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux over Darwin and OSX? Why?

Re:Yellow Dog?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a laptop I want a mac. Apple makes sexy laptops. I run Linux on my computers. If I get a laptop I will probaly get a mac but OS X doesn't smell like my game. I run 90% free software. The other 10% is games which I can run on my PC anyway.

I want my programs to work on standard Unix (X that is) so Aqua doesn't do it for me. And I like Gnome.

Linux distributions these days are also very easy to set up without trying to hide the internals.

Running Darwin with X and GNUtools seems like a big hassle when I can just install a Linux dist.

Linux still is the best performer of the two, and more mature. Not very important for a laptop though.

Thats why, for me anyway.

Re:Yellow Dog?

[MoneyT]

If buy running X you are referring to running the X windows environment, then it does indeed have an OS X version. Check www.macosxapps.com for all your switching and software needs. You may find more and more fo your software is already availible or has a very nice substitute.

Price?

[gerf]

So, now we can put a 'free as in beer' OS on a system where the parts in general cost more? Like a Wookie living on Endor, that does not make sense!

Re:Price?

[guacamolefoo]

Likewise, I see no value proposition in putting GNU/linux on Apple hardware. One of the primary benefits of GNU/linux is that it runs well on generic (i.e. cheap) hardware. The benefits of OS X are primarily in what Apple brings to the table in terms of interface and software.

This has some geek factor to it, but the benefits I see from apple and the benefits I see from GNU/linux are thrown out and turned exactly around. Expensive Apple hardware running a GNU/linux product with a less-polished interface.

Admittedly, the main post addressed Apple's server product, for which the Apple interface issues are much less pronounced, but the expense of the hardware is still an issue. I just don't get it, I guess.

This post made in compliance with the RMSDMCA.

Re:Price?

[b1t r0t]

This has some geek factor to it

Only to the types who have barely progressed beyond Red Hat == Linux. The only "geek factor" distros of x86 Linux are Slackware and Debian, and running BSD on x86 has even higher geek factor. Guess what OS X is based on?

Re:Price?

[guacamolefoo]

The geek factor I was referring to is not the value of the GNU/Linux install but simply the idea of putting GNU/Linux somewhere new, like on a potato-powered clock or something similar. The distro used for the install on Apple hardware was not a relevant point. This was pure and simple "potato clock" geek factor.

Re:Price?

[Fuzzle]

actually, originally, ewoks were supposed to be wookies. They were just changed because lucas wanted a wookie in the first movie. So he cut them in half and called them "ewoks". Now you know...and you know the rest...

Re:Price?

[SScorpio]

Kinda.. Return of the Jedi was supposed to be on Kasshik(sp?). However, Lucas didn't think people would see the Wookies as primate people because of Chubaka running around fixing starships. Since Lucas wanted a store of primatives facing off against the Glactic Empire Ewoks were invented.

Re:Price?

[Golias]

The geek factor I was referring to is not the value of the GNU/Linux install but simply the idea of putting GNU/Linux somewhere new, like on a potato-powered clock or something similar.

Ummm... yeah.

You do know that LinuxPPC has been running on thousands of Apple systems since 1996, right?

Re:Price?

[guacamolefoo]

Yeah, but nobody was putting it on the new Apple server box Apple has been pimping, or at least if so, it was not widely publicized. That was the point of the article referenced by the lead post in this topic, after all.

My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's have great hardware, (yes the motorola is MUCH better than the intel), so it seems natural to couple them with good software. At my work, the sysadmin just bought a bunch of iMAC's, stripped them of their OS and stuck Linux PPC on them. Works for me, now this just saves us some work. More power to them, options are ALWAYS good.
Check this out for an artistic commentary on how this will effect the computer industry

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's have great hardware, (yes the motorola is MUCH better than the intel)

It could be the greatest hardware in the world but I can still get an AMD or Intel chip that is faster and cheaper.

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can get a faster intel or AMD for your $$$, but buisnesses benifit here, along with other companies which don't have personal user budget constraints. I am by no means a fan of apple, but motorola makes kick-ass hardware.

The apple mice suck however, there is a big downside, next up - two button emulation for Linux PPC!

The funniest site you'll ever see!

Re:My two cents

[bellings]

but buisnesses benifit here

I honestly can't think of a single advantage this would give a business. If you don't have a sysadmin who is experienced enough with Linux to slap linux on quickly, then I can't imagine your cost of ownership would go down by using linux. And, laugh all you want, but if you're going to run linux anyhow, I can't see much advantage to the apple hardware.

Why not go pick up some Suns and run linux on those, instead?

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Suns are generally MUCH more expensive, and many managers aren't familiar with them, and so shy away. Apple however is a well known company. In addition a bunch of idiotic managers won't let there sysadmin's swap out an OS because they are afraid of the problems, this seems to fix it.

All your base? Old news, try HALLO! and laugh your ass off!

Re:My two cents

[imperator_mundi]

Motorola is better?

you can maybe appreciate the aesthetic of the powerPC architecture but that's philosophy, when it get in to the Collosseum of brute performance then Intel and AMD play the lions while G3/G4/G5 play the christians.

Re:My two cents

[frunch]

so it seems natural to couple them with good software

You mean like OS X? Honestly, I don't see much point in paying for a switch from a Unix-based machine to a Linux-based machine. (And a Linux-based machine that won't run iTunes, iMovie, or iPhoto)

Re:My two cents

[JPriest]

Suns are generally MUCH more expensive

Actually the Sun Blade 100 workstations start at $995.00.
The new iMacs start at $1,399 and the eMacs start at $1,099.

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that the Sun Blade sucks, that would be a good deal... Really who wants a crappy 500MHz machine, for about $1k? May be nice hardware, but way to expensive for a sloth.

Re:My two cents

[timothy_m_smith]

Is anyone really going to care if the XServe has the ability to run Linux? I really don't see the XServe as having that much value unless you really, really want to run Linux on a PowerPC rack-mounted server. The fact is that the XServe runs a bunch of IDE hard drives which would seem worthless for any real-world applications without any sort of RAID. What kind of business needs 480 Gb of non-fault tolerant disk space? In the end, why not just run on Intel or AMD hardware that will have much better software support.

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel and AMD have fast hardware, (yes, the x86 is MUCH faster than PPC), so it seems natural to favour it. At my work, we use x86, stripped them of Windows and stuck FreeBSD on them. Works for me. Now this just saves us some money. More power to them, options are ALWAYS good.

Re:My two cents

[discstickers]

The XServe has built-in software RAID. Its standard in the OS.

Re:My two cents

[stefanlasiewski]

The fact is that the XServe runs a bunch of IDE hard drives which would seem worthless for any real-world applications without any sort of RAID

I was working with an Xserve yesterday. The drives were SCSI, not IDE. But you are correct, there was no RAID, which was probably the biggest dissapointment about the machine.

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

> (Score:1, Troll)

Since when? What was trollish about that post?!?

Moderators on crack, AGAIN. "Geez, some people's kids."

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

I was an Apple II owner (several) and a mac owner, and a mac buyer until just recently. I switched to Linux on PC when RISC lost its performance headstart (and I had trouble with 3 different Linux distros on my Macs). I all can say on the topis, is that I've never had an Intel processor delamiate on me and I've never had an Intel processor recalled.

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

The same exact thing could be said for the 1,399 700MHz iMac. What is also cool are the Sun Ray clients, you use them with a remote Solaris server rather than have a sun box at every workstation. You can switch between the local (windows) box and the remote Solaris box KVM style.

Re:My two cents

[bsartist]

Seems to me you may want to rethink your analogy. There's a lot more Christians in the world than lions these days...

Re:My two cents

[Strog]

You could run them with Mac in Linux if you have a partition with OS 9 installed. Then you can have Quicktime, iTunes, iPhoto, etc.

Of course the article is talking about some rack servers so why would you really want that?

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

You are totally wrong. A quick check of http://www.apple.com/xserve/ shows they are ATA100 7200rpm drives. Since when are SCSI drives identified like this?

Re:My two cents

[stefanlasiewski]

okok, I'm wrong.

It DOESN'T have a scsi drive (I didn't actually look, I was relying on comments from my coworker).

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

three words - more opensource software

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

its the UI

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhoto is OS X only.

The latest version of iTunes is OS X only.

Like hell you'll be able to run those though your little Mac in Linux OS 9 box.

Re:My two cents

[dadragon]

Would you rather have a 1976 Plymouth Gran Fury or a 2002 ? The '76 certainly gives you more bang for the buck, and depending on the new car of your choice, may even give you more bang, period. But the new car is far more desireable.

Re:My two cents

[DavidRavenMoon]

The fact is that the XServe runs a bunch of IDE hard drives which would seem worthless for any real-world applications without any sort of RAID.

Each IDE drive has it's own controller however, so the performance is better.

Apple Drive Modules use 7200rpm ATA/100 hard disk drives. Each drive has an independent Ultra ATA/100 bus, an arrangement that allows maximum individual drive performance without choking the throughput of the other drives. The ATA drive subsystem has a high-bandwidth I/O bus that minimizes bottlenecks, even when all four drives are engaged at once. That's how Xserve can achieve a theoretical peak performance of up to 266 megabytes per second, compared to a 160MB/s theoretical performance with SCSI Ultra160 disk drives -- at a significantly lower cost, and while generating less heat than SCSI drives.

Apple's point in using IDE drives was the cost. You can get an XServe with more capacity than the other 1U racks, and for a LOT less money.

You can have 480GB of storage per XServe. $7,799.00 for the dual 1GHz version with 480GB and 2.0GB DDR SDRAM @ 266MHz. Price some other system with the same specs.

They do have a RAID coming out, and nothing is stopping you from adding a SCSI RAID PCI card.

The XServe was made because some companies (like Gentec) wanted smaller G4 servers.

Check out some XServe benchmarks: Xinet

Re:My two cents

[DavidRavenMoon]

You could run them with Mac in Linux if you have a partition with OS 9 installed. Then you can have Quicktime, iTunes, iPhoto, etc.

Why run OS 9 when you can install XFree86 on OS X and run X11 apps right along with OS X apps?

And some of the iApps, like iPhoto are OS X only.

Don't expect anything new for OS 9 from Apple.

Re:My two cents

[renderhead]

I'd appreciate some valid documentation on how MUCH faster the x86 is than PPC. Which one is truly faster is an age-old debate, but few people have the guts to say that one is MUCH faster than the other. What are your sources?

Re:My two cents

[imperator_mundi]

In the Colosseum lions were used to win ;)

Re:My two cents

[MoneyT]

When people who are obnoxious and have nothing to say of intelligence generaly post garbage (yes, there are stupid people on slashdot), so it seems natural that they would favour switching the sides of and agument in a copy cut and paste. In the reall world, a person like this would get his lights punched out. Works for me. This just saves me time and aggrivation. More power to them, silenced morons are ALWAYS good.

[I may get moded down for this, but god it felt good]

Re:My two cents

[MoneyT]

And then the christians made guns. Boom, dead lion. Then the christians (occasionaly) worked with other to create sprawling cities and giant corporations which are accused of decimating the homelands of the lions and killing them off quickly.

Boy that's a grim outlook for Intel and AMD

Re:My two cents

[MoneyT]

But it's not just the boxes. The sun workstations i've used (the Sparcs) all have proprietary monitor connectors for proprietary monitors. Now this isn't so bad, those 21 inch monitors we have are great, but when we broke the cable on one and went to order a replacement, we found it was going to cost us nearly $200, and that was just in parts. Sun is generaly more expensive. But they're nice machines, just like Apple. It's all a matter or taste and preference now.

Re:My two cents

[imperator_mundi]

I still thinking that face lions is more terrifying than face christians ;)

Re:My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

There usually isn't much true documentation out there because the software for the test can't be standardized...Like if you run OS X and AdobePhotoshop on a Dual 1GHz Mac it would be incredibly much faster than a P4 2.53GHz running Windows XP and AdobePhotoshop. The reasoning I'm giving is in the basic way that many Mac programs are written...Apple has tight constraints on quality of code before anything is commercially released for their platform. Microsoft can't have this luxury because of the endless configurations of PC's out there...Macs are optimized to run at or close to their full potential. Also what many see as lag in the GUI in OS X is actually built in. Windows likes to draw items for a window as they become available...OS X and Aqua doesn't allow this...it waits until the entire program is ready to be displayed visually and then represents it. This is in large part due to Cocoa. Cocoa sys to Aqua to make a button that says this and that and place it in the best location according to the OS's standards. Windows is much more like the way Carbon used to handle things...by forcing the placement of buttons and therefore almost forcing them to be displayed before the entire window is ready. IMHO Mac's are slightly faster in the fact that they are optimized for certain tasks like imaging or sound...if you wanted to do 3-d medical imaging you'd buy an SGI machine wouldn't you? The MHz or GHz that a processor runs at is not the word of god as to how fast the computer is...infact a Dual 1GHz PPC is almost the equivalent to a (not existent yet) P4 3.1 / 2 GHz processor. The cache sizes are a big factor also...a G4 usually has a 512k L1 a 2mb L2 and a 2 to 5mb L3...most Intel or AMD chips don't even have an L3 cache. To be honest this is just my opinion...I have made no real studies (if you read you would understand why they are subjective) and I don't mean to represent any bad data...if certain points were wrong please correct me in a reply.

How to burn Yellow Dog ISO images?

[jvmatthe]

A while back I tried burning the Yellow Dog ISO images using a Linux x86 machine, but had a real painful time and never did get it to work. The image seemed to burn fine, but they weren't bootable on my Mac (9500/150).

I looked at Mandrake's stuff and they had a special statically built version of cdrecord that dealt with HFS+ support, or something like that. Still couldn't get it to fly. (I suppose I'd have the same problem with Mandrake, but I had really wanted to try Yellow Dog.)

Anyone know what the trick is to get bootable Yellow Dog CDs by burning them on an x86 Linux machine?

Re:How to burn Yellow Dog ISO images?

[Anonymous Coward]

The OldWorld ROM machines cannot "boot" from the ISO ... you need to use BootX. Plz review the Guide to Installation for more details:

http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/support/installati on /guide.shtml

Re:How to burn Yellow Dog ISO images?

[joestar]

Actually, Mandrake 8.2 for PPC is a *great* system, far better than Yellow Dog. The most surprising is it makes no difference with Mdk 8.2 for x86, which is particularly impressing, especially for installation! I think TerraSoft would have been more inspired to ship with Mandrake.

Re:How to burn Yellow Dog ISO images?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you try mount -t iso9960 ydl.iso ydl_direcory and then burnign thd ydl_directory? You might need the -o loop option on there too.

Re:How to burn Yellow Dog ISO images?

[pi radians]

TerraSoft would never choose Mandrake over YellowDog... here's why. (Just read the title as to who makes YellowDog Linux.)

Re:How to burn Yellow Dog ISO images?

[joestar]

Of course, I see... ;-)

pricing.. and option?

[doubtless]

I've noticed the Imac from Terra Soft is priced $1474 while the exact same offering from Apple store is $1399.

The Imac from Terra Soft comes with both OSX and Linux CDs, but do we get to opt out from OSX and get a rebate? OSX is great, but is Apple giving us a choice?

Re:pricing.. and option?

[Anonymous Coward]

TSS increased the RAM to a min of 256 on all models we ship. The prices are identical to the Apple Store if you configure them the same.

Re:pricing.. and option?

[tjsulli]

According to the Terra Soft site, OS X had to be left on in order not to void the warranty

Re:pricing.. and option?

[Ryan Amos]

I imagine they just buy the machines straight from Apple, and you can't buy a machine from Apple without OS X installed. So you're gonna have to buy it anyway, plus OS X is a great OS. It's always nice to have a dualboot machine anyway.

I have to wonder why

[jkujawa]

Three years ago, this would have made sense. Apple has always made good hardware, putting good software on it makes a winning combination.

But now? OS X is a first-rate Unix, which I'm actually much happier using as a Unix than Linux.

Re:I have to wonder why

[mattdm]

You might not care, but to some people, being "good" isn't good enough. They want to have the source code to the programs on which they depend.

You might not agree with this, but it's a pretty decent "why" for many.

Re:I have to wonder why

[jkujawa]

You have the source code for everything that makes OS X a Unix. You don't have source code for the GUI, but that's not needed for running unix apps.
Further, any unix apps that require a GUI need X, and that can be installed independently of Aqua/Cocoa.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Jobe_br]

Incidentally, the original poster didn't say "good" .. the poster wrote "first-rate", which is exactly what it is. Whatever applications you have the source for on a Linux box will likely run, with much the same results, on an OS X box. Put it this way, if it runs in Linux and it runs in FreeBSD, chances are real good that it'll run in OS X.

Why dismiss an OS that contains a portion of closed-source proprietary code? That seems to be overly pedantic.

Re:I have to wonder why

[ichimunki]

Man, are you kidding? That GUI is completely lame, and other than that I don't see a single selling point for Mac OS X as a Unix. I'll stick with Debian, thanks.

And yeah, if you already have a Mac and you want Linux, YellowDog is the way to go-- YDL was my first Linux and I still use it daily... but I'm glad they didn't come out with this announcement sooner, I might have bought one... thankfully Apple's prices are such that I had to bide my time-- and I don't see where this is a value from TerraSoft, since it's not like I'm getting a piece of Apple hardware and then saving money by not having Mac OS installed. It's just the Microsoft tax all over again, only with a much cooler company involved.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

consider that Darwin/OS X is installed on more computers than all other Unices combined, and then rethink your "non-standard GUI" comment.

then eat a bag of shit and shoot yourself in the head.

Re:I have to wonder why

[mattdm]

The original poster did, in fact, say "good software", in addition to saying "first-rate".

As for why one might dismiss an OS for containing a portion of closed-source code: for some people, it's an important moral issue. For others, they want to be able to see what's exactly going on *everywhere* -- having source to some bits isn't much good if you hit a severe bug that seems to be in the closed part. And, if you come to depend on some important closed code, you're always under the threat of having the rug pulled out from under you by new licensing, bankrupt companies, etc.

This can be debated endlessly, because both sides have merit.

PS: Sheesh, I'm not usually one to whine about moderation, but "off-topic" for responding directly to a question posed by a top-moderated post? *sigh*

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any support for that information at all? Maybe in the desktop world but not even close in the server. I know at my company we have dozens of Unix boxes (Solaris and AIX) but not one OSX box - desktop or server.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself, man.. not EVERYONE who buys a Mac buys it for Mac OS X. Many people use them for scientific purposes and the PPC chip being cool and Apple always having quality hardware. now that the official gcc is getting the Altivec instruction set Linux will perform about the same as the gcc from Apple.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because you are antiquated and will loose your job soon you fat, lazy bitch.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

Sluggish performance compared to what? Linux? Maybe, a stripped down distro, but let's see you render the entire Linux GUI as a vector PDF texture layered in 3D OpenGL space...OS X does it pretty darn snappy.

Non-standard GUI? Compared to what? What the hell is a standard GUI? If anything Apple is the only company that enforces a standard, uniform interface for all applications so the user has a consistent interface. Try to say that about Linux/Unix. *laugh* Don't even mention Win32 varients.

Timely updates? Apple releases many updates a month, usually a few days after a vulnerability is found. If that isn't fast enough for you, roll your own and use them. Try that with Win32.

So are you just ignorant or scared because you don't know any better?

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

DOZENS? You have DOZENS of unix boxes there are StupidFucks SoftCorp LLC? Ok thats it, apple has been lying, and you've got the numbers to back it up.

Apple SELLS more unix than all over companies combined. While you're right that his claim that osx has more installations is without grounds, you go on to refute it with anecdotal evidence from your immidiate surroundings, so you, sir, are the ass.

call for proof of claim, make another claim yourself, and then back it up with meaningless evidence. You're sharp.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a flamebait, it is a question from someone who has never used OSX and is seriously thinking of buying a Mac for his next computer (yeah, laptop).

Can you run huge clusters (mosix and such) with OSX?

If you can't this would be a perfect reason to run Linux.

Not that it makes sense from an economical point of view though...

Re:I have to wonder why

[Golias]

As for why one might dismiss an OS for containing a portion of closed-source code: for some people, it's an important moral issue.

Oh, please. Being faithful to your wife, not cheating on your taxes, showing compassion to those less fortunate, dealing honestly and fairly in business; these are important moral issues. Insisting that all the source on your computer be available to read, that's just important if you are trying to be '1337.

For others, they want to be able to see what's exactly going on *everywhere* -- having source to some bits isn't much good...

Have you read anything about Darwin? With OS X, the entire OS (which is a Mach microkernel with a BSD layer) is open. The default GUI (Aqua) is not, because it uses components owned by Adobe & Sorensen that Apple does not have the right to release, but nothing is stopping you from booting a Mac without Aqua. You can even run X on it that way.

And, if you come to depend on some important closed code, you're always under the threat of having the rug pulled out from under you by new licensing, bankrupt companies, etc.

That would never be an issue for anything the parent of your post was talking about. A simple re-compile (and perhaps a few minor tweaks), and any UNIX app you were running in OS X should run fine on a Linux box.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of a server farm, asshole? Maybe your rinky-dink little company only needs one little mac to run their site. As for Apple's claim, they are selling more unix boxes but that says nothing about the existing base. Considering that most companies don't replace all of their machines every year and machines are in service for up to 5 years talking about selling means nothing.

Also, I didn't make the blanket bullshit statement, you did. You are the one who has to come with proof there being more OSX boxes in the world than Unix boxes not me. I am just telling what is like here and I know there are many other companies like mine.

Fucking morons like you are why this site is so painful to participate in.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

sigh...

I guess I should have stated that I'm not the person who originally made the claim that osx has more installations. I was only trying to point out that BOTH OF YOUR ARE FULL OF SHIT AND SPOUTING ON ABOUT THINGS YOU CAN'T BACK UP

you're still gay. and you're dumb cause you don't even know who you're talking two. You're arguing with like 4 people now and you don't even know it.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

both of you are

thats what i meant to say

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

I am supposed to be able to distinquish between one AC and another? And how can I be full of shit? It's not like I am not sitting here working (sorta). I know what we have and if I really wanted to I could invite you to our server room (and promptly get myself escorted out of the building).

The original posted was misinterprating Apple's claim of selling more Unix as meaning that they outnumber the existing Unix base. All I really wanted was support for that.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's that link...

Something about, "Arguing on the internet is like the special olymipcs. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgive the typos since my few posts have been slathered with them. It's funny how you skip the whole "Preview" stage when you get fired up.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Golias]

That GUI is completely lame, and other than that I don't see a single selling point for Mac OS X as a Unix.

Here are a few:

1. If you buy a new Mac, no matter what retailer sells it to you, it's already there.

2. It's BSD (actually, Mach+BSD) instead of UNIX. I know this is slashdot, rah-rah Linux and all that, but you would be surprised how many UNIX geeks strongly prefer BSD over Linux when talking about free *nix platforms.

3. OS X can run a lot of programs that will probably never, ever be ported to Linux. Programs like Photoshop, QuickTime, Quark (in a couple weeks), M$-Office, etc. In fact, with OS X, the Classic environment, the BSD layer, the built-in JVM, and a copy of VPC, you can run damn near every piece of software written in the last 10 years or so, all on the same machine. And don't tell me about open source projects that "do the same thing" as the major comercial OS X & Windows apps... GIMP ain't Photoshop, and Open Office sucks (so far).

4. The IDE and other dev tools for OS X (all available for free) kick ass. Nobody ever took NeXT seriously as a computer company, but the one thing that everybody who used them really liked was their software development tools. OS X's Project Builder picks up where NextStep left off.

5. The OS X community is much bigger than the LinuxPPC community (and may even be bigger than the entire desktop Linux community by now... I haven't seen any recent surveys). I personally know dozens of OS X users, while I know only one person who has even installed YDL, apart from myself. Some parts of LinuxPPC (such as how it boots) are radically different from what the Linux communtity at large is using, so the peer support network for YDL can feel very small sometimes.

Re:I have to wonder why

[prizog]

You also have the source code for WinCE, but it's not Free Software either.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, I'm sick of these OS X lamers.

You retards act like Steve Jobs wouldn't be doing exactly what Bill is doing if Mac had a monopoly.

You think Steve would give a shit about Open Source if he didn't think it would gain him some market share.

Why should I run Linux on a Mac? Well maybe I just like Gnome? Is that so fucking hard to believe? You like Aqua, good for you! I'm comfortable with Gnome, and it's Open Source so I know that when Mac decides to dump OS X/Aqua for something else that only runs on new Mac hardware, I won't give a rats ass.

Please for the love of God all you OS X fanatics are giving the GNU fanatics a good name.

Give it up, I like choice.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Wdomburg]

> consider that Darwin/OS X is installed on more
> computers than all other Unices combined, and
> then rethink your "non-standard GUI" comment.

Do you have figures to back this up? I've heard this claim bandied around a lot by Mac enthusiasts a lot. Or the less extreme, "larger installed base than any other single Unix". Or the even less extreme, "positioned to have a larger installed base than any other single Unix".

But I have never seen figures to back up this claim.

Matt

Re:I have to wonder why

[ichimunki]

1. What a relief! :)
2. Tried BSD. Was too used to default settings (BASH, basic fs structure, etc) from Linux, decided relearning or reconfiguring that was too much trouble for essentially the same software as a result. I don't see why, if I like BSD, I would buy an Apple to run it on though.
3. OK. I'll keep my mouth shut about all the Free Software that's available that the average user will find just as useful as stuff that costs hundreds of dollars. So far my biggest reason for not switching to all Linux hasn't been applications, it's been driver support for my printer.
4. IDE? Dev tools? I use emacs. That's it. And the VBA IDE for building MS Access apps at work. Which I hate, and would rather use emacs.
5. To me, YDL is something that is mostly useful to take existing Macs that would crawl with OS X and get them running a real OS. Mac OS 8.6 is the last Mac OS I've used much, though. Maybe 9 was an improvement in terms of stability. But you're right, the OS X community is much bigger than Linux/PPC, but I doubt the educated OS X community is bigger than the Linux community.

My comments were directed almost squarely at the visible user interface which I found annoying. a) the no-button mouse, after using scroll mice and relying heavily on right-clicking and center-clicking for a while now, the lack of buttons is disconcerting. b) it's ugly, that's an opinion, though, and not a fact. c) when you close the last window to an application, the application should quit, or at least ask if you want to quit, OS X leaves it running. d) no apparent ability for the TCP/IP stuff to autodetect traffic and, if needed, initiate a dialup connection.... this is all based on very limited exposure to the system. At the price it doesn't seem worth it to me. A long time ago I decided I would move towards a Free Software-only system and OS X offers few compelling reasons not to keep going that direction. YMMV, people are different and have different needs and wants.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Golias]

Tried BSD. Was too used to default settings (BASH, basic fs structure, etc) from Linux, decided relearning or reconfiguring that was too much trouble for essentially the same software as a result.

A lot of BSD (and Solaris) geeks react the same way to Linux. You were asking what the selling points of OS X were over Linux, and for a BSD fan, one of those selling points is "it's not Linux."

IDE? Dev tools? I use emacs. That's it. How '1337. (Personally, I prefer vi or vim to anything else when writing simple Perl scripts, or even big-ish projects in C, so I kind of know where you are coming from.) If Microsofts's Visual Basic tools are the only IDE exposure you have had, I can see why you feel so strongly. Trust me, there are better ones out there. Someday you might even find that you prefer one of them over a raw text editor.

The point is, you didn't think OS X had any selling points. I listed five. The fact that these might not apply to you is not really my concern.

Re:I have to wonder why

[WatertonMan]

Wow - a person who picks Linux over OSX because you have to configue OSX/BSD more than Linux?

I thought the whole sexiness issue for Linux geeks was that you *had* to spend so much time configuring it, downloading the latest versions, etc. If you hate configuration, why go with Linux at all?

Re:I have to wonder why

[fuckthetux]

Come on men not so cheap you sound like Troll.
Linux needs more config then BSD?
Give me an example please, ever tried to configure
a "normal" office postscript printer with BSD, i want to
use all 3 separate paper draws..good luck, in
Mandrake or Redhat thats done in 5 clicks, yeah i am
a newbie and looser but even i know BSD needs a lot more config that Linux!
Anyway i am not willing to feed the Trolls but i could
not resist......

Gnu/Linux is a great product, BSD in general is a somewhat great product, MacOSX is a not so great product because:

( i use Mac for over 5 years now and Linux about
2 years)

1. its not Free (Free as in Freedom a speech not free beer)
2. It only runs on Mac hardware (exept for Darwin but then i would prefer FreeBSD)
3. Its just ugly (that is a personal point of view)
4. It is REAL slow (i use it almost everyday)
5. I does not run all Mac software nativly (you must buy upgrades or even whole new packages, very expensive!)
6. I just love Penguins

Re:I have to wonder why

[KshGoddess]

Tried BSD. Was too used to default settings (BASH, basic fs structure, etc) from Linux, decided relearning or reconfiguring that was too much trouble for essentially the same software as a result.

A lot of BSD (and Solaris) geeks react the same way to Linux. You were asking what the selling points of OS X were over Linux, and for a BSD fan, one of those selling points is "it's not Linux."

What's a geek who refuses to learn something new? Dead. Especially with the job market as tight as it is. If you can afford the luxury of deciding not to learn a new skill, you probably can't afford to graduate from high school/college and move out of your parents' house.

ichimunki is why I don't talk OS's with people. "I'm used to it my way! I'm obviously right! You don't know what you're talking about! I'm so leet!" Where's the expected geek curiosity? Where's the expected "Hey, this is new and shiny, I want to tear it apart to see the insides"?

Maybe I'm just too old (at 26) to deal with the younger geeks without a chuckle at their naive view of operating systems. Now if only I had some official UNIX suspenders (I can't grow the beard).

Golias is perfectly justified in the points given; of course, I'm a bit biased, as I'm saving my pennies for an ibook at the time... and not one running Yellow Dog Linux. ;)

Re:I have to wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

2. It's BSD (actually, Mach+BSD) instead of UNIX. I know this is slashdot, rah-rah Linux and all that, but you would be surprised how many UNIX geeks strongly prefer BSD over Linux when talking about free *nix platforms.

Not this UNIX geek. While I admire some people's pragmatism, I'd have to say that Linux is _more_ free (and freedom respecting) than BSD. That is a very important point for me. As for the Mach distinction, that's very important. There's a reason micro-kernels haven't taken off; do a search for "Torvalds Tannenbaum" on Google groups.

3. OS X can run a lot of programs that will probably never, ever be ported to Linux. Programs like Photoshop, QuickTime, Quark (in a couple weeks), M$-Office, etc. In fact, with OS X, the Classic environment, the BSD layer, the built-in JVM, and a copy of VPC, you can run damn near every piece of software written in the last 10 years or so, all on the same machine. And don't tell me about open source projects that "do the same thing" as the major comercial OS X & Windows apps... GIMP ain't Photoshop, and Open Office sucks (so far).

OpenOffice sucks? Says who? And who says that's your only option? AbiWord works beautifully for me, including all those bloated Word attachments people send me. As for GIMP, you're right, it's not PhotoShop; it's better.

4. The IDE and other dev tools for OS X (all available for free) kick ass. Nobody ever took NeXT seriously as a computer company, but the one thing that everybody who used them really liked was their software development tools. OS X's Project Builder picks up where NextStep left off.

The IDE does not kick ass. This comes from someone who has been using it for the past couple of months to develop a Mac OS app. Granted, the UI builder is nifty, but the actually project build sucks ass, especially the editor. I admire some of the design goals and paradigms of NeXT, but the overall feeling I get developing software for Mac OS X is that the whole thing is bloated and way more convoluted than it needs to be.

5. The OS X community is much bigger than the LinuxPPC community (and may even be bigger than the entire desktop Linux community by now... I haven't seen any recent surveys). I personally know dozens of OS X users, while I know only one person who has even installed YDL, apart from myself. Some parts of LinuxPPC (such as how it boots) are radically different from what the Linux communtity at large is using, so the peer support network for YDL can feel very small sometimes.

Who cares how many people use it? What's important to me is a) is it free (as in speech)? and b) how well does it work? On both these points, Linux beats Mac OS X hands down. As for "radically different" have you ever considered that not all Linux/PPC users are YDL users? Ever hear of Debian?

Re:I have to wonder why

[Artifex]

Your reasons are pretty much exactly why I want my next computer to be a mac - and I've been running PCs for 17 years or so.

A Mac with OSX would give me a stable OS with real apps (Photoshop, some office product) and still let me fart around with BSD pretending to know what I'm doing. I don't have to worry about "serious" apps breaking from dependencies on some package that just got updated, but I can still play around with the free stuff if I want to. Plus, I'm not a software developer, and I feel it's pointless for me to have to spend hours tweaking desktops and hardware drivers to get things useful.

I think their engineering is solid, but I am still waiting for them to get up to speed. Macs look pretty, but a 533MHz FSB on a Pentium 4 still makes me drool. And before you complain that I'm comparing things improperly, imagine your G4 with a 533 FSB. Then there would be no doubt that it rules, right?

Re:I have to wonder why

[rapidweather]

As for GIMP, you're right, it's not PhotoShop; it's better.
I use GIMP. It's easy to make the graphics I want, and GIMP was free, included in Redhat 7.1.
(check my site, and you'll see some of them.)

Re:I have to wonder why

[foo12]

You're right --- for basic RGB editing, the GIMP is fine. But it's useless for anything but basic (one or two color) prepress.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Xenex]

"a) the no-button mouse, after using scroll mice and relying heavily on right-clicking and center-clicking for a while now, the lack of buttons is disconcerting."

It's not a "no-button mouse", it's a one button mouse. Just because the button is built in an innovative way doesn't mean it does not exist.

You're finding the lack of extra mouse buttons "disconcerting", are you? Then why don't you plug your fancy mouse into the Mac? OS X supports right clicking and scroll wheels straight out of the box, and Logitech, Microsoft, and Kensington all have free official OS X support software if you'd like to set 'advanced' options.

"b) it's ugly, that's an opinion, though, and not a fact.

Then change it.

"c) when you close the last window to an application, the application should quit, or at least ask if you want to quit, OS X leaves it running."

Once again, this is just your opinion. However, the OS X way really is the 'advanced users' way. OS X works around the concept that the window is not the application.

Close the iTunes player window, the music continues and you don't have to deal with a window being open. Need access to a window again? Click it in the Dock and the window reopens. Close the XMMS (or Winamp, or whatever) window, the music stops, the app closes. If you want to get the thing out of the way, you have to minimise it, or move it out of the way.

And, for anyone out there now thinking "Well, I do prefer the XMMS example": You can work that way in OS X as well if you'd like. You can still minimise and move windows if you'd prefer not to close them.

Mail.app is the same. I have Mail.app running in the background, checking my e-mail every 5 minutes. Now, if your advice were to be taken, I'd have to have a Mail.app window open somewhere to do this.

The OS X way is far more advanced, and gives more flexiblity. However, if that's to hard to grasp, just be sure to use the Application menu (it's always the one next to the Apple up the top) and choose Quit in that, or press Cmd-Q (Command is the 'Apple Key', just so you know). I assume you're capable of that.

"d) no apparent ability for the TCP/IP stuff to autodetect traffic and, if needed, initiate a dialup connection...."

Well, personally all my dialing is done automatically by an Airport Base Station. However, I've just had a look in System Preferences. In the Network Settings, I chose 'Internal Modem'. I then looked in the 'PPP' tab and saw this button that said 'PPP Options'. The first option in there? Connect automatically when starting TCP/IP applications.

Now, this took me no more then 30 seconds. Perhaps you should try opening your eyes next time.

"this is all based on very limited exposure to the system."

What did you do, play with the operating system for 2 minutes in an Apple Store somewhere?

Most of your 'issues' with OS X do not exist. Informed opinions really are good things to have; perhaps you should try one sometime.

Re:I have to wonder why

[jbolden]

I think there is a huge difference between running software that is non-free and developing dependencies in your own apps that are non free. For example my laptop is a Wintel box and I use Office, Visio, Project... all the time. Whenever possible I try and use open source tools like Perl for the apps I write, keep the data in open formats and make sure the app would run in a Linux/BSD environment.

Certainly writing a Cocoa app is tying yourself into nonfree software. Using a Cocoa app to write an OpenDarwin app OTOH...

Re:I have to wonder why

[bsartist]

Certainly writing a Cocoa app is tying yourself into nonfree software.

Not if you port it to GNUStep

Re:I have to wonder why

[jbolden]

Not so sure. I'm speaking from ignorance here but to quote the GNUstep people:
Can I transfer archived data from GNUstep to Cocoa?
Apple's archiving format is proprietary and not documented, so this poses a problem for anyone wanting to implement compatibility with it. However, even if we reverse engineered the format, there are enough differences between the class and ivar layouts to make this sort of compatibility difficult. Not to mention the fact that we would constantly have to keep up with the changes Apple made. Also Apple's archiving format, as far as we know, would not be compatible between different machines because of endiness issues, although GNUstep doesn't have this problem.
Your best bet is to implement your own archiving format that would work both with GNUstep and Cocoa. Fortuneatly, you don't have to start from scratch, since this has been essentially done for you in the nib2gmodel tool, which has an archiver that works both on GNUstep and Cocoa. It might be nice to split this off into a separate project to make it easier for other people to do the same thing.
Does distributed objects work between GNUstep and Cocoa? See the answer to the previous question (on archive compatibility) for why this won't work either.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Golias]

What's a geek who refuses to learn something new? Dead.

I would hardly call a BSD/tcsh person adapting to Linux/bash, or vice versa, "learning something new."

The syntaxes are almost identical for most things, it's just picky little details that annoy you when you are not using your favorite flavor of *nix. And when you are talking about your regular home system or your laptop, you most certainly can afford the luxury of sticking with what you enjoy using.

Maybe I'm just too old (at 26) to deal with the younger geeks without a chuckle at their naive view of operating systems.

Are there still younger geeks than that? I thought we gen-Xers, growing up with Commodore 64's and Apple ]['s, were just about the last of the breed that groks the command line (or even knows where the word "grok" comes from for that matter). Knowing there's a Gen-Y 26 year old kid out there going by the moniker "ksh goddess" actually warms the cockles of my heart just a little. :)

Re:I have to wonder why

[DavidRavenMoon]

GIMP ain't Photoshop, and Open Office sucks (so far).

This is so true. BUT if you really do like The GIMP, nothing is stopping you from running it on OS X.

So aside from all the commercial and shareware apps that OS X has that Linux doesn't, you can still run X11 and many Linux apps on OS X.

And besides ProjectBuilder, OS X does have all the usual CLI UNIX tools, and what ever it doesn't have can be installed.

I run LinuxPPC on my old PowerMac clone, but I prefer OS X anyday. :)

Re:I have to wonder why

[DavidRavenMoon]

My comments were directed almost squarely at the visible user interface which I found annoying. a) the no-button mouse, after using scroll mice and relying heavily on right-clicking and center-clicking for a while now, the lack of buttons is disconcerting.

You can use any USB mouse or trackball you like. I'm using an MS Itellimouse Optical. I use all the buttons, including clicking on the scroll wheel. Using either the MS software, or USBOverdrive (which the MS software is based on) you can program the buttons for what ever function you like, and different function sets for different applications, which is all automatic.

b) it's ugly, that's an opinion, though, and not a fact.

I don't agree. Windows is ugly, and most of the X11 window managers are not so attractive either. Maybe they just look more technical to you?

c) when you close the last window to an application, the application should quit, or at least ask if you want to quit, OS X leaves it running.

That's also a matter of opinion, and is not the way Mac applications have ever worked, though a few do use this behavior. Mac OS has a common Menu Bar, so it's not a parent/child window based system. There is no parent window to close to quit the application. This is an MS way of doing things, and was never the way Macs worked.

d) no apparent ability for the TCP/IP stuff to autodetect traffic and, if needed, initiate a dialup connection....

Also incorrect... I don't use dial up, but under the PPP options there is a check box that states: "Connect automatically when using TCP applications."

this is all based on very limited exposure to the system.

Obviously :)

Re:I have to wonder why

[DavidRavenMoon]

Are there still younger geeks than that? I thought we gen-Xers, growing up with Commodore 64's and Apple ]['s, were just about the last of the breed that groks the command line (or even knows where the word "grok" comes from for that matter).

Hey...I'm 44! I still have a Timex/Sinclair 1000!

And it was from the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Robert A. Heinlein ;)

Remember the Bowie movie?

Re:I have to wonder why

[DavidRavenMoon]

Non-standard GUI? Compared to what? What the hell is a standard GUI? If anything Apple is the only company that enforces a standard, uniform interface for all applications so the user has a consistent interface. Try to say that about Linux/Unix. *laugh* Don't even mention Win32 varients.

Exactly, and Apple had the first standard commercial GUI on the market. And all the big MS apps like Word and Excel that set standards for business were originally Mac applications.

Motif always looked like Windows 3 (or vice versa?) and Win 95 very obviously borrowed from NeXTSTEP. Look at the window borders, the window buttons, the recycle bin, the taskbar (dock), and the Windows Explorer. All from NeXTSTEP/OPEN STEP (circa 1978).

I think OS X turns off some people because it's pretty, and they want their GUI to look like something from a Sci-fi movie...

I have to admit, Aqua took some getting used to, just because of all the whiteness ... but I love it now. Aesthetics do matter to some people.

We buy cars because of the way they look, why not computers/OS's?

Re:I have to wonder why

[DavidRavenMoon]

Oops, I meant circa 1988...

But you knew that!

Re:I have to wonder why

[MoneyT]

Steve does have a monopoly... over the macintosh. The difference is, other than x86 users and a handful of people, no one else is complaining. Steve already said, M$ won the desktop war. Currently his plan (in so far as I can tell) involve bettering the macintosh line. With NeXT he started his interest into OpenSource, now he has the chance to make that interest a commercial reality. So you want to run Gnome, that's great, if you look at some of the previous posts, you will find that there is a way to run Gnome as the default window manager in OS X.

Re:I have to wonder why

[MoneyT]

If by clusters you mean something like PVM and shared processing, the answer (AFAIK) is yes. I believe the program is called "Apple Seed" and if I recall, it's basicaly drag and drop clustering. Search for it on google, you should be able to find it.

Start here I guess

http://exodus.physics.ucla.edu/appleseed/applese ed .html

Re:I have to wonder why

[MoneyT]

Since when did you have to be a Gen Xer to be a geek? My first and only computer till 1996 was a Comodore 64 (God I loved that computer). My school was packed with old Apples (the ones that ran ProDos too). I recall days of 5 inch REAL floppy disks, and I remember having to load programs from the command line. Hell I remember my friend (who's dad worked for GE so he got the cool stuff) loaded his programs in DOS. Granted, I have no idea what grok is, but I would consider myself a geek.

Re:I have to wonder why

[MoneyT]

Here we go with a redudant post, but hey, maybe you'll read what I say, then I'll feel important.

1) Yeah, aint it great to have a nice OS preinstalled instead of having to erase your HD, format and start from scratch with a real OS.

2) I thought the fs structure between UNIX and Linux was more or less the same. I never saw any significant differences. And you would buy the mac because not only could you have a cool OS, but you would have a cool computer too.

3) Sometimes, espesialy if your trying to convince your boss or someone else to buy the machine, having commercial software that he/she is already fammiliar with makes it worlds easier.

4) emacs? great! last I checked, OS X had emacs and if not, you can install it. It also has vi and for a more simpified interface, pico.

5) The plus side is, the OS X community incorporates not only the PPC Linux community but also the Educated Linux community. You get all the resources.

a) So take your old mous and plug it into the mac (it was a USB mouse right?) POOF! you have a multi button mac. BTW, for most apps, click and hold == right mouse. Ctrl-click also == right mouse.

b) There are plenty of customizations to the GUI, plus someone on slashdot was saying you can install your own GUI and set that for default and still be able to run your mac apps. Personaly though, most other interfaces I've seen are worse. There are places were OS X could improve but it's a big step up from the last GNOME I used.

c) Actualy, when you think about it, this method makes more sence. You can leave an app running (say a picture viewer or a music player) while you go through a collection and not have to wait for the program to start everytime you open a new file, realize it's not the right one and close it. And sometimes, you just want to close all the windows and start over from scratch. Do that in windows and you have to wait for the program to start again. Trust me, you get used to it, and it works out much better.

d) Check the options again, look for "Connect on TCP/IP" or something like that.

Use the system before you criticize.

Re:I have to wonder why

[Golias]

I run LinuxPPC on my old PowerMac clone, but I prefer OS X anyday.

No doubt about it. LinuxPPC is a great way to breathe life into an old Mac, if you want it to do heavy-lifting that the old Mac OS is unsuited for.

I still have yet to hear anybody convince me why they would ever need to buy a G4 with Linux pre-installed. If I need a Linux system, I'll buy an AMD shitbox and use that. The whole magic and wonder of Linux for the desktop is that you can have a UNIX-alike running on an AMD shitbox.

Sure, Stallmanists will tell you that Linux rocks because it's the only GPL'd choice out there and we should all support the GPL wherever it is found and drink the Flavorade... but while I like some GNU applicatioins, I really don't give a shit about their political agenda. I actually prefer the BSD license; and no, I'm not interested in chatting about it... it's worse than the emacs/vi flame wars.

Bottom line, LinuxPPC is mostly only good for getting extra use out of old Macs, or for Mac owners who want to learn Linux without buying a second machine to do so. Nothing posted under this story has really demonstrated otherwise.

Re:I have to wonder why

[MoneyT]

machines are in service for up to 5 years

Isn't that a great reason to buy mac. Time and time again it's been shown that macs have longer life than a PC counterpart. Suns have long life too. Buy mac, buy Sun.

Re:I have to wonder why

[ichimunki]

Thank you for one of the kinder responses to my flamebait!

I am aware that you can use other mice with OS X. I just think the default is a design fault. So much of the OS is geared towards mousing, why not make the mouse that much more powerful from the git-go?

I agree that Windows is ugly. My favorite GUI for Linux is Enlightenment, mostly because it gets out of the way most of the time.

You're right about (c). I guess I'm quickly getting de-accustomed to Mac OS (which I used heavily from 1987 to 1998).

I swear I looked at PPP, but I guess not. I *know* I checked the modem setup and TCP/IP for such an option, but couldn't find it.

Well, since my opinion was based on helping my friend get on his feet with his new iMac (which he bought on my recommendation), I'll have more opportunity to try it out--- now that I've convinced him not to just return the thing. You won't believe this: he was having trouble getting set up on the 'net, so he calls "tech support" at MacMall... they have him reinstall the entire OS from CD. He was still visibly depressed when I finally got there hours later.

Re:I have to wonder why

[ichimunki]

You're right. I'll spend more time with it before I criticize it again. Thankfully, my negative experience was actually spent getting my friend up to speed on his new iMac (which I recommended he get-- that's two Macs I've helped people buy in the last couple months)... so I'll have one available to try a little.

It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[krog]

Slam me into -1, Flamebait land if you want.

But anyone who buys new Apple hardware and shuns Mac OS X in favor of Yellow Dog is throwing their money away. You can run Linux on PC hardware which is way cheaper than Apple hardware, and it will run better than Linux on PPC. Installing Linux or BSD on old Macs makes good sense sometimes, but when you have a top-quality Unix (OS X) which is more beautiful than any other Unix out there, why strive for second best?

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[Hobbex]

You didn't say the magic words:

"I'll be modded down for this."

(btw, I'll be modded down for pointing this out.)

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[b1t r0t]

I held out with my old PowerTower Pro and waited until I could get 10.1 running on it, rather than install Linux on it. I've already got Linux running on a couple of cheap PCs to do server stuff, and I really hate X-Windows as a windowing system (aside from its nifty remote capabilities which I never got far enough to use), something I won't even say about W2K.

Now I get the best of both worlds, except for Finder label colors, and I can even get to see those by running Finder 9.2 as a Classic app. Once I moved the IDE card into a 25MHz slot, the machine was rock solid running 10.1, more stable than it's ever been since I bought it. Of course it took $800 worth of hardware upgrades over the past year and a half to get it to the point where it could run 10.1, but it was worth it.

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[jmu1]

Perhaps having solid hardware is an issue... not to mention good looking hardware. You can't find better stuff than what Apple is making. I'd rather use Free Software, however. I like where they are going, but Apple just isn't where I would want them to be, software wise.

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[pete-classic]

You can run Linux on PC hardware which is way cheaper than Apple hardware, and it will run better than Linux on PPC.

While this is the conventional wisdom, and I have always been an anti-mac guy, I priced a dual gigy PowerMac with a 17in FP and found that perfomance-for-perfomance (as opposed to MHz for MHz) the price is about the same as an Intel box. I think you may actually do a bit better with the Apple when you consider (hardware) support. For me the sexyness factor of the Mac puts it over the top. I mean, the MB is mounted to the side panel. It has handles. It isn't beige (or black, which was cool 'till it was over-done).

-Peter

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it took $800 worth of hardware upgrades

And I just spent $300 to build a 1.1Ghz x86 server with 512MB, excluding monitor, keyboard, and mouse which will be shared via KVM switch and I already have a 40 GB Hard Drive sitting around. Who knows what I could have built for $800.

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[dalamcd]

Who knows what I could have built for $800.

A non-server computer a human could actually use?

Or... this! Starting at $799.

dalamcd

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's not the _exact_ same hardware (they make different models), there are other vendors who have Quanta make them 1U rackmount servers. (Apple uses Quanta as well)

I find it unlikely that Quanta uses all the 'good parts' in their hardware and shuns IBM, et al.

Now Good looking hardware... You may have a point, but there's something to be said for saving hundreds of dollars per piece of hardware if it's just going to be in a rack somewhere.

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[siskbc]

For God's sake, you have to be kidding.

Let's amend your statement....

....A non-server computer a STUPID FREAKING RETARD could actually use.

Remember, don't blame Linux. You're the one who couldn't figure out how to use it. The rest of us did. What does that say? Apple should just port their moron-friendly software to the X86 architecture. The Motorola hardware can't compete on a MIPS/$ basis.

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[reallocate]

Ummm...I use Mac OS X and I'm not a 'retard". I'm a desktop guy who's been using Linux for seveal years. KDE and Gnome in their current incarnations aren't bad, but I am really sick and tired of having to jump through hoops just to get a desktop that's easy on my eyes. Yes, I kow all about antialias fonts and all that, and, yes, I know about things like tweaking the freetype code before you compile it, etc., etc. But, you know, within reason i don't really care that much about MIPS/$. I care more about my time, which was being twiddled with Linux.

Statements like "the rest of us' convey a belief in an imaginary community that vets its membership via a rite of passage based on man pages and HowTo files.

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Installing Linux or BSD on old Macs makes good sense sometimes, but when you have a top-quality Unix (OS X) which is more beautiful than any other Unix out there, why strive for second best?

Because Mac OS X *is* second best? I've got an iBook, and it runs Linux beautifully. Fast, too. If it weren't for the fact that I have to develop *some* Mac OS software, I would wipe Mac OS X from the disk. Mac OS X is slow, buggy (I've crashed it more than a few times), and I *hate* the UI. Click to focus sucks. Non-stack based window switching sucks. Don't even get me started on their programming model.

You may argue with me over the merits of Mac OS versus Linux, but when it comes right down to it, Linux works better for me. Your opinion that Linux is "second best" in comparison to Mac OS X is just as biased as mine that Linux rocks the Mac world. I bought an iBook for a number of reasons, the least of which was running Mac OS X.

I could go on; I haven't even gotten into the issue of freedom yet.

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[dalamcd]

Hey, if a "STUPID FREAKING RETARD" can use it, it must be a pretty damned good job on Apple's part. Hell, if Jordan Hubbard likes it enough to work on the underlying UNIX OS, and quite a number of Linux users have admitted to (nay, rejoiced in) switching to OS X, what kind of asshole must you look like for assuming only idiots use it, eh?

People like you are one of the prime reasons Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop. "You're too stupid to use it" is not an attitude _anyone_ should take with _any_ product they wish to see gain wide-spread acceptance.
If software and hardware were supposed to be hard to use, we'd all still be using punch-cards.

dalamcd

(I have the distinct feeling I might just have been trolled.)

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

"Click to focus sucks."

Focus follows mouse simply does not work in a Mac OS-stype GUI. The Menu Bar is always at the top for the active application. If focus followed the mouse, if you crossed *any* other windows on the way to mocing the mouse pointer to the Menu Bar, the Menu Bar would change apps.

Have you actually thought about this?

Re:It's a good idea, if you want to waste your Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

granted you can build a pc cha bit cheaper, but, with the ms tax apple hardware vs pc hardware is redall6y close

--NitroPye

Why?

[DarkMan]

I must admit that I'm a little blank on why anyone would particularly want a Mac runing Linux, to the point of buying it with Linux preinstalled.

I mean, yes they're nicely built, and they're decent price performance, but why not use a PC compatable? It would give you more choice in terms of OS vendor, and much of the commercial Linux is PC only. PowerPC is a nice chip, but an Athlon will be as quick, for similar money.

I suppose if you've got lots of PowerPC installed already, then you'd gain by matching architectures, but that's (IMO) unlikely.

Even in terms of numerically power, the Athlons with SSE2 are faster than the AltiVec (SSE2 does double precision, AltiVec doesn't), for similar money.

Don't get me wrong - someone selling Linux pre-installed is a Good Thing - I just can't see anything particularly gripping about Mac's pre-installed with Linux.

Re:Why?

[Rydia]

Flash and Shockwave work for NS 4 and gecko-based browsers. GIMP is every bit as good as photoshop (with my PERSONAL exception that it doesn't make my wacom tablet whiz and bang like PS does). From there you have HTML stuff and Aqua. If you want to do HTML in linux, there's nothing really stopping you, and unless you REALLY like Dreamweaver/others and their extra stuff, it really doesn't seem like it would be much of a difference.

That said, I don't get it either. I'm just guessing based on the pretty even functionality that they're hoping some people really don't like Aqua....

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I pointed out to others, there are plenty of reasons for using Linux over Mac OS X. First of all speed, on the same hardware YellowDog is significantly faster for server-type tasks. It has better disk and I/O throughput. In addition, Linux is Open Source, while Mac OS X is closed source (the other BSD variant known as Darwin is open source, but will Apple support your Mac running Darwin like they do OSX? I didn't think so). Being Open Source automatically gives you all the benefits of the entire community: quick defect bugs, excellent software development support, etc. Slashdot people know this intrinsically. And of course there is also the side benefit of not being tied to a SINGLE vendor for your hardware AND software. Competition is a wonderful thing.

Re:Why?

[bmetzler]

It would give you more choice in terms of OS vendor, and much of the commercial Linux is PC only. PowerPC is a nice chip, but an Athlon will be as quick, for similar money.

On AMD I have a choice of NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, XP, and maybe Solaris. I'm pretty sure I haven't missed any.

On Mac, you get the choice of NetBSD, Linux, and OS X. Again, I don't think I missed any.

OpenBSD and FreeBSD really aren't that much different from NetBSD, FWIW. That means that you choose between XP and OS X. And I'd rather have OS X, hands down.

That's why I'd dual-boot a Mac, rather than an AMD.

-Brent

Re:Why?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Why would I want to replace a unix based OS with an excellent user interface, support for things like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and heck even Flash/Shockwave plugins. None of this is on Linux (unfortunately)"

Im glad somebody else said this. The answer is "You don't switch to Linux just to gain a few popularity points on Slashdot". Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head to use Windows 2000, I'm using it because I use Lightwave, Photoshop, After Effects, lotsa games, and the internet in general extensively.

Too bad my Windows 2000 preference has earned me a reputation for being 'pro-MS' as opposed to being practical.

The OS is nowhere near as important as the apps you use on it. I wish the Linux zealots out there would learn that before spouting 'Switch to Maya!' every time I breath a word of Lightwave. I'm happy to switch to *nix *if* it benefits me. Until them, I'm a Windows guy. I did not make a bad choice.

Re:Why?

[DarkMan]

That's a good argument for a dual boot system.

However, for a dual boot, you might as well buy the system with OS X pre-installed, and then install Linux yourself - Having linux pre-installed is not a major benefit, from that point of view (if you want to dual boot, you're going to be capable of doing an install, in > 99% of cases).

BTW: By OS Vendor, I ment Debian, Slackware, et al (I should have said distribution, rather than vendor. oh, Well).

Again, I just can't see a major benefit here, other than just more people selling linux pre-installed.

Re:Why?

[bmetzler]

However, for a dual boot, you might as well buy the system with OS X pre-installed, and then install Linux yourself

If I'm going to dual-boot, why not get it pre-loaded? Especially if it doesn't cost anymore, and it saves me the time and trouble.

Again, I just can't see a major benefit here, other than just more people selling linux pre-installed.

I thought that's what everyone wanted? Linux preloaded on computers.

-Brent

Re:Why?

[saintlupus]

On Mac, you get the choice of NetBSD, Linux, and OS X. Again, I don't think I missed any.

OpenBSD also runs on Macs - either PPC or m68k.

--saint

Re:Why?

[Toraz Chryx]

Even in terms of numerically power, the Athlons with SSE2 are faster than the AltiVec (SSE2 does double precision, AltiVec doesn't), for similar money. Uh, Athlon's don't have SSE2, they have "3DNow! Pro" which includes instructions that just so happen to be identical to SSE, but not SSE2 support. SSE2 = Pentium 4 or AMD Opteron (which isn't out yet)

Re:Why?

[SerpentMage]

Having gone through the PowerPC vs x86 life I have to say in the end x86 has won. Ok sure you can get the OS to run on most platforms, but what about the apps? THat is where the x86 platform wins hands down. Even with Open Source I have build my own software to get it to run on PowerPC. Sometimes it would not compile because the autoconf files or libraries were not updated to include PowerPC. And what little commercial software there is on LINUX is primarily x86 compiled. In the end I simply gave up. Apple has nice hardware, but you get much more mileage for your buck on x86.

Re:Why?

[good soldier svejk]

On Mac, you get the choice of NetBSD, Linux, and OS X. Again, I don't think I missed any.

OpenBSD also runs on Macs - either PPC or m68k.

So does MacOS 9.x.

Re:Why?

[BigFootApe]

New iBook units are lighter and have a longer battery life, excluding firewire, not to mention cheaper than most Intel machines. IMHO, they're the best product in the Apple line.

Re:Why?

[DarkMan]

Uh. Ooops.

Never realised - I just tell the compiler to use the funky flop stuff, and away it goes. Never realised it was technically different, given it's pretty much the same in effect.

Re:Why?

[Toraz Chryx]

Except that SSE and 3Dnow! aren't double precision... whilst SSE2 is.

Re:Why?

[DarkMan]

I'm pretty certain that 3DnowPro! (in the Athlons) must be. This is an empiricism, based on the speed of execution of my code, which is practically fully double precision, (couple of integers for loop counters).

Of course, I could be wrong, and there might be some other factor that's making the Athlon appear to be that fast.

Re:Why?

[Toraz Chryx]

3dnow Pro! is standard 3dnow with the addition of SSE compatability..

Could be that you're just seeing the raw brute force the Athlon core can bring to bare :)

Re:Why?

[DavidRavenMoon]

SSE2 does double precision, AltiVec doesn't

I don't know about the Athlon, but with the P4, the FP unit doubles as the vector unit, so it can only do one, or the other, not both. So you have a switching penalty.

The G4 already has a double precision FP unit separate from AltiVec. Plus the MPC 7450 has four AltiVec units. Each AltiVec unit processes data at 128-bits. The G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle.

I'd consider it . . .

[kalidasa]

If the default configuration dual-booted OS X and YDL. But without OS X installed? Why bother?

It's a dual boot

[mblase]

For the record, the store page says that Mac OS X is also preinstalled, and that YDLinux is available as a second OS. So this is just a bonus feature for the hackers.

That said, I'm not sure I see the point, except possibly bragging rights. If you want to get into *nix on a modern Mac running OS X, all you have to do is open a terminal window and go to it. (Yeah, I know it's BSD instead of Linux, but most of the functionality is the same. And if you really really want a Linux box, wouldn't it be safer to run it on its own cheap x86 hardware instead of having it take up hard drive space on your expensive PowerMac or iBook?)

Re:It's a dual boot

[Chris Croome]

mblase said:

...I'm not sure I see the point... I know it's BSD instead of Linux, but most of the functionality is the same...

I'd have said the same thing a while ago, before I'd actually got my hands on a new Mac...

A few months ago I was lent an iBook (long term) and I thought 'great', a UNIX shell it'll be easy to do stuff on it just like it was a Linux box... then I realised that the shell had no syntax highlighting, it didn't have vim... etc it's like ssh'ing to a Solaris box when you are used to Linux -- not very friendly at all.

I decided that it would be far quicker to set the machine up so that it could boot YellowDog since I'd then have all the things I'm used to, (I have been using RedHat on my desktop for several years), rather than bothering to work out how to make OSX more like a Linux environment.

The iBook now triple boots, YellowDog, OSX and OS9 and it spends 99% of it's time in YellowDog.

The only thing that I don't like about the hardware is the one button mouse, but a cheap optical Logitech USB wheel mouse works in all the OSs so I never use the built in mouse.

YellowDog is mostly a good RedHat clone, with some improvements, like having apt-get. I don't know what their Gnome or KDE is like -- I use WindowMaker and I'm very happy with it.

Re:It's a dual boot

[NukeIear]

I had the exact same issue when OSX first came out. But yesterday I just setup a tasty new dual 1Ghz G4 box with the latest (non-10.2) OSX, popped open a terminal and saw syntax highlighting has been added to the terminal app! As for installing vim, that's a pretty easy compile, or of course there is Fink.

Give OSX another try, I know I'll be.

Re:It's a dual boot

[cbowland]

Actually, it does have have vim (but not gvim) and emacs (but not xemacs) if that is not quibbing too much with your critique.

But generally I agree, the shell could be improved. One of the other things that I used to miss was virtual desktops, but now with Space even that complaint is fading.

Fink has also done a lot for eliminating any need to boot into a true "Linux" including adding xwindows in rootless mode so that a remote display can be exported to appear on the mac.

Re:It's a dual boot

[Golias]

then I realised that the shell had no syntax highlighting, it didn't have vim... etc

You know, if you have a decent internet connection and a little know-how (which it seems like you do) you probably could have installed all of the tools you missed (and bash, while you were at it), in less time than it took you to get YDL going on that iBook. My G4 tower has a crapload of GNU tools running on it, and they work great. When I first started out (with 10.0.0), I worried that Apple's automatic software updates might break some of the UNIX toys I was installing, but it hasn't happened, and I've stopped worrying about it. Good design pays off.

Re:It's a dual boot

[dcstimm]

Your right, I installed bash, Xdarwin, Fink, vim, and a ton of other unix apps on macosx. its great as far as command line goes. But X darwin is sooo slow. I run Window Maker and if you try to "shade" a window it struggles. This is because Xdarwin is not accelerated and doesnt detect the video card in your machine. I even compiled X my self and logged in as >Console so I could "startx" which worked but it was still slow like before and I couldnt find a /etc/X11/XF86Config file to change the driver (I have a nvidia geforce 2 so I was going to change the driver to nv) Oh well, So I installed gentoo linux ppc, my ibook has never ran so fast. Its amazing. Soo much faster than 10.2 jaguar. And Since I use Windowmaker I dont need all the fancy gui stuff macosx has. I just need glx to work but Nvidia hasnt made a ppc nvidia driver yet. Oh well.

Kudos

[rberton]

I run YDL 2.2 and before that I ran 2.1 on a QuickSilver (867 Mhz) PowerMac. I have been running glitch free for over a year now and my uptime is currently 85 days (power outage caused a reboot).

The one drawback is that setup was a PITA. I think it's great that Terra Soft is selling these pre-installed to take some of the ass sores out of the setup. Also Kudos to Apple for allowing them to resell with another OS on the machine.

Re:Kudos

[HiThere]

I *think* that Apple knows that they are mainly a hardware company. Not sure though. (But this is decent evidence.)

Re:Kudos

[foobar104]

I run YDL 2.2 and before that I ran 2.1 on a QuickSilver (867 Mhz) PowerMac. I have been running glitch free for over a year now and my uptime is currently 85 days (power outage caused a reboot).

Somebody has to say it.

I run Mac OS X 10.2 (6C106, developer seed) and before that I ran 10.1 on an iBook (500 MHz). I have been running glitch free for over a year now and my uptime is currently only 4 days, because I just upgraded to Jaguar on Monday, but before that it averaged around 80 days between reboots for 10.1.2-10.1.5 maintenance upgrades.

And, unlike your experience with YDL, setting up OS X is definitely not a PITA. The new Jaguar installer is terrific. It's a two-stage install: boot from CDROM and install the new kernel and core OS on your hard drive, then reboot from your hard drive and install apps from the second CD. (This is all automatic. All you do is switch CDs when it asks you.) The really cool thing is that you don't reboot after installing from the second CD. The installer says, "You're all done, click Okay to quit the installer" (more or less), then you click Okay. About five seconds later, POOF! There's the login screen. It's not a big deal, but it's a great post-install experience. You finish the install, and then it's immediately time for you to log in and play with your new toy. Just great.

My whole point here is that I respect your decision to use Linux on your Mac... but I don't understand it at all.

price time * Timecost

[SuperCal]

A friend of mine bought a base model iBook online and had it mail ordered home. By the time it reached his home he had already downloaded and burned a linux dist ISO at my house. We had that baby running (by we I mean he) linux in less then a hour. That resaler wants a almost a $200 premium for installing free software. I think spending a hour is worth saving $200.

Re:What a joke

[rberton]

Morons!

Hands down the 1Ghz PowerPC chip is the fastest, most stable chip in it's price range. Most servers of this type are used to run application servers anyway and they are not usually disk intensive as the database would be somewhere else. If the Java implementation for PPC linux was just a little better I would use them for our app servers.

Okay, I gotta ask...

[Silverhammer]

...are Linux and BSD really that different? Different enough to make someone go to this much extra effort?

Sure, this would have made sense a couple years ago, but now? Do you really hate the Aqua interface that much?

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[rberton]

Yes and no.

Aqua is nice and all, but it is extremely heavy especially for all day use. I prefer something that is quick and lightweight and cannot get that behavior out of Aqua. Linux gives me more choices in that arena.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[sloveless]

Gnome is available for OSX. http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/1006658566/index_ html As is KDE. http://dot.kde.org/1022869694/ There are a few more here: http://www.xinetd.org/pub/darwin/X11/ You're really not limited to Aqua.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[skribble]

Linux gives me more choices in that arena.

How exactly does Linux give you more choices? Almost everything you can run on Linux (PPC anyway) will compile and run fine on OS X. You can even run X instead on Aqua if you'd like, and then switch into Aqua if you want to use Photoshop or Word or whatever
I just don't see the sense in this.

The only thing I could think of as to why you'd run Linux on a Mac is either a) you have an older Mac that won't run OS X, or b) You think it make's you special to tell all your friends you run Linux on your Mac (BTW it doesn't).

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Corporate Troll]

One of the things I'd like to run on my Mac (iBook with OS X) is The Gimp because I'm too cheap to pay for Photoshop and too honest to pirate software.
I didn't manage...yet...
XFree86 runs fine...

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[arloguthrie]

You want to run The Gimp on your iBook? Then do it. [http://openosx.com/gimp/]

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Corporate Troll]

Yup, I know of that one... It's 30$ plus shipping and handling. So to get the CD to Europe it'll be 50$. For the occasional graphical editing I do, that's way overkill. (I told you I was cheap ;-)) If it were 30$ for the download I'd consider it.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[dalamcd]

Having never touched any kind of *nix before (closest I ever came was DOS something like 7 years ago at my friend's house--MacOS since then), I had Gimp running about 3 weeks after getting a computer with OS X.

Have you checked out Fink?

dalamcd

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Corporate Troll]

Yes, I have...
I told it to install the GIMP and it coudn't figure out the dependancies. Ooops.... Probably because I installed XFree86 myself.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

GIMP for OS X has been out for months now. Look into it.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Corporate Troll]

I have to reply to myself, because I was incorrect. It wasn't dependencies. Fink didn't want to go through my firewall. Actually it wouldn't download a thing. FTP works in some cases: with IE and Chimera for example, but not with Mozilla or the command line. I never understood why, I thought I setup ftp-proxy correctly on my OpenBSD machine.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[dalamcd]

Have you checked out the FAQ?

dalamcd

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Corporate Troll]

Yup...it's not a proxy, it's a firewall/NAT. You need a ftp-proxy in that setup, but it is supposed to work transparently (as in: looks like a real direct connection and no username/password for the proxy) That entry didn't help me, and I read it before you linked it. Believe me, I don't give up very fast to get something running.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not fully photoshop, but photoshop elements 2.0 is out and is OS X native. I don't know how intensive the work you do is, but it's a nice option.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Corporate Troll]

I'll take a look at Photoshop Elements. It's the version that came with my scanner and that I use on my PC, the CD includes an OS 9 version (older SCSI scanner you know) For me it's just some rudimentary editing for web-usage. Nothing really professional.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate Troll,

I had the EXACT same problems, and I installed xfree86 myself too instead of via fink. I solved my problems though. They resulted from the fink which gets installed not having an up-to-date package list (this is not their fault it's changing all the time!)

So do this:

fink selfupdate-cvs

This will take a long time. Just let it go. Then do this:

fink install gimp

This will take even longer. Like so long you cannot believe it. On my 350mhz g3 it took somewhere between 6 and 8 hours.

Also, when it asks you which xfree86 to use, use the one which says it's a package placeholder for people (like you and I) who have built xfree86 outside of fink.

Hope this helps.

Bobby

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[Corporate Troll]

Great thanks!
I'll try it...ehm, tomorrow... Since this is only a G3 600, I doubt I'll get much beyond the 6 hours you mention. I just copy pasted your comment in a "sticky" so that I don't forget.
Thanks again!

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[foonie]

I installed the Gimp on a 333MHz Blueberry iMac yesterday... using Fink. Pre-compiled binary, made it easy as pie.

Re:Okay, I gotta ask...

[MoneyT]

If all your doing is basic stuff, there was a nice (and fairly easy to use even without the manual) program out there called PhotoLine. It's shareware, but it works nicely for most of what I've tried. If worst comes to worst, reply to this with your email and I can send it to you, but it should be availible at macosxapps.com

Why?

[OS24Ever]

Seriously, I'm not flaming or trolling. I have an iMac, and I have intel hardware. I've run Linux on Intel Hardware, and I've run OS X.

Why would I want to replace a unix based OS with an excellent user interface, support for things like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and heck even Flash/Shockwave plugins. None of this is on Linux (unfortunately)

Now, on the XServe, this could be cool, but on a iBook, PowerBook, iMac or Power Mac I just don't get it.

Older machines?

[saintlupus]

I wonder if they'll expand their product line to older machines at some point. I love running OS X on my iMac, but Yellow Dog absolutely 0wnz my 7200/120.

It just seems that exploiting the main strength of Linux/PPC, it's ability to maximize the potential of older hardware, would be a sound business move.

--saint

Re:Older machines?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a reseller though, they can't sell something that doesn't exist. If it isn't part of Apple's current product line they would have a hard time acquiring their stock.

Re:Older machines?

[saintlupus]

If it isn't part of Apple's current product line they would have a hard time acquiring their stock.

These guys seem to have a pretty constant inventory of older machines.

I'd love to be able to buy a G3 tower workstation or something similar from TerraSoft. Maybe even an XTerminal or something based on a 6100 in that pizza box case.

--saint

Re:price time * Timecost

[Anonymous Coward]

The prices are the SAME as those provided by Apple ... but the configurations are different than the default Apple configs. Look at the specs --the RAM is a min of 256 while Apple defaults to 128 on some models. The drives have been increased to 80MB on the desktop models, etc.

Why would they do that?

[MarvinMouse]

I love Linux and all, but why ship a quality system with Linux when you can ship it with OS X.

OS X is an absolutely amazing OS, and it has almost all the features Linux has.

If you are going to ship comps with Linux, ship PCs with it pre-installed.

Re:Why would they do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

> OS X is an absolutely amazing OS, and it has almost all the features Linux has.

For my info, what Linux features do you believe OS X lacks?..

Not on a server for the love of god.

[BoomerSooner]

Whoops that last reboot went to OS X instead of YDL so our webserver is down.

Re:What a joke

[nattt]

You've not used one, have you?

Rendering tests using 3delight showed a 7 times speed improvement over a Linux Total Impact Briq. The Xserve was dual 1ghz processors over a Briq which is single 500mhz. It's very stable - I really tried to crash it with renders way too big for it (the test model only had 512 ram) and the remote management software is excellent.

[Trolling Stones] Close, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

you got number 1 wrong. Different song from same album with a similar title.
I did a Zep quiz earlier, but since they have so many radio staples, I should easily be able to do another one without a lot of repeats.

I only own the staples of the Waters era - Dark Side, Wish You Were Here, and The Wall. I probably should get some more, but I gotta get stock up on Hendrix first.

Re:What a joke

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Hands down the 1Ghz PowerPC chip is the fastest, most stable chip in it's price range."

I dunno about that, I'm still getting 0fps with GTAIII on my Mac. :D

"Do you wish it ran Linux?"

[Wakko Warner]

Actually, no, I don't. I don't think I've ever found myself wishing computers that weren't designed and built around one particular operating system were able to run Linux, or any other OS. I consider myself a better, saner person for this.

What is so bad about Mac OS X?

- A.P.

Re:"Do you wish it ran Linux?"

[SquadBoy]

IMO nothing is bad about OS X. for me it is simply about learning curves. I like the hardware but I *really* do not want to take the time to learn a new OS that is why if I where to get enough money to buy some of Apple's sweet sweet hardware I would put Debian on it.

using linux on mac right now

[Anonymous Coward]

I am typing this message on an ibook2 running Gentoo linux right now and I am very happy about this combination.
Hardware: bit pricey, small but comfortable ideal for travelling, nice screen, long battery use (4 to 5 hours) and it has almost no features I don't want but have to pay anyway as most x86 laptops of good structural quality.
Software: OK, OSX is a lot more beautiful than linux, but beauty is just not enough reason to leave linux with all its cherished tools and features behind. Installing linux on this was also a lot easier than I had feared.

Re:using linux on mac right now

[Anonymous Coward]

ummmm...what tools would you be missing from Linux that you don't have in OS/X? Take off the Linux blinders for a second and see the beautiful world of BSD around you!

Re:Chirstians and Lions

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the world is full of Christians whil Lions are on the decline, I'll assume by saying that Intel and AMD can take lions while motorola can take the christians means you agree. :)

Lions and Christians indead!

The the geek within me

[Anonymous Coward]

The geek within me shouts - Benchmarks! I want Benchmarks!

A/UX

[bsDaemon]

I wish Apple would let it out, or port it to the PPC. A/UX, IMHO, is much nicer than OS X. It does an excelletn job of being UNIX and being Macintosh all at once. It shiped with an Xserver right away, that could be used by its self, or under Finder to run X applications. OS X, as far as I know, forces one to go a lookin' for it. Mostly, i jsut dislike Aqua. it's much too candied.

Re:A/UX

[foo12]

Are you serious? A/UX was written to run on 68040 class machines and will not boot on any PPC. Getting it to run on modern Macs would be a Sisyphusian feat.

If you dislike Aqua, use the login '>cosnole' at the gui login screen.

Interesting happenings in the PPC world lately...

[Amiga Trombone]

I think this is great news, it's good that Apple is at least benignly tolerating Linux on their platform, even if not actively encouraging it.

I don't see the value of this so much for Apple, but for the Linux/PPC platform in general. Linux PPC, unlike OS X, does not run uniquely on the Apple platform, other implementations are possible. And there have been some interesting developments in the PPC/Power world lately, for example:

IBM's newly announced desktop PPC processor. Possibly this will be the successor to the G4 in Apple's offerings.

Also, the new Amiga platform will be PPC based, and also runs Linux. Whether this new platform will have any substantial success is still open to speculation, but it will be an interesting experiment, whatever the outcome.

Also, IBM is looking to eventually migrate their mainframe line over to the Power architechture, probably starting with the Power6.

It would be nice to see some competition to the x86 in the commodity processor market. I was ready to write off PPC/Power as doomed, but the recent flurry of activity on that front has caused me to re-evaluate my position. And an OS like Linux which can run across all the various implementations of the architecture would be great for encouraging it's propogation. Imagine applications that are binary compatable across everything from your iBook to a mainframe.

But

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone sell me a mac with a 3 button mouse pre installed

No. No, I haven't.

[hatless]

No, I can't say that I've wished Apple's Xserve ran Linux. OS X is a more polished OS than Linux is, especially on this hardware. It can run essentially all the same software and then some, it has a better JVM and far, far better administration tools for everything from directory services and Apache to Samba. It's got great monitoring tools and drivers for its hardware, true plug-and-play support for things like Firewire RAID arrays, unified management of SMB, Appleshare and NFS file sharing, and commercial grade on-site support for all of the above.

By going to Linux on it, you get rid of the nice development tools, you sacrifice a lot of the Mac OS 8.x/9.x application compatibility and all of the OS X compatibility. You trade wonderful, richly-featured and consistently designed distributed admin tools for things like webmin. And you give up several avenues for support.

It's not like PPC Linux will let you run the many x86 commercial packages out there. So unless you're a Linux shop already and someone has given you a free Xserve, why put Linux on it? Surely you can find 1U hardware with comparable performance and more mature Linux driver support for a lot less money, no?

So no. No, I haven't ever wanted to run Linux on an Xserve.

There can be reasons

[Sloppy]

There's multiple posts where people question running Linux when MacOS is already there, and in many ways, just plain better than Linux.

This is pretty much equivalent to saying, even in the context of x86 hardware, "Why would anyone run Linux when they could run FreeBSD?" or even "Why would anyone run FreeBSD when they could run Linux?" Just because something is good doesn't mean alternatives are necessarily stupid.

Linux does have features that Darwin doesn't have, BTW. Linux4Video, for example (not that I've ever got it to work on my hardware ;-). It's probably not important for 99% of the population, but no need to call the other 1% of the population stupid.

Re:There can be reasons

[skribble]

"Why would anyone run Linux when they could run FreeBSD?"

Wow... did you really want to open that can o' worms? Let the battle begin...

Re:There can be reasons

[verch]

Yes and no.. Its not as simple as maybe people want linux instead of freebsd. The reason to buy apple's hardware (which is PPC pased, and more expensive) instead of 'standard' 'cheap' x86 hardware, in my book, is for OS X and assorted apps that are only available for, or run better on, macs. If you just want a pc running linux, I think x86 hardware makes much more sense and is a much better value.

Re:There can be reasons

[Sloppy]

Apple's hardware has virtues to commend it, beyond merely MacOS. Some people like the vector processor(s). Some people like machines that don't need a lot of fans.

There are also some subtle aesthetic/religeous/nonrational reasons why someone might abhor x86 and find PPC attractive. Some people like the Fisher-Price case designs. Some people like the all-in-oneness (and the space savings) of the iMac.

Re:There can be reasons

[laserjet]

Isn't this arguement not even relevant? I heard on slashdot that BSD had died.

Re:What a joke

[ptomblin]

There is a java implementation for PPC Linux? Where?

I have a TiBook, and it's easily the best laptop on the market. Huge screen, light weight, 5 hour battery life. But I use Linux at home as my main desktop environment (even though it means I have to drag out the laptop every time somebody sends me the URL for a quicktime movie or something).

A long time ago, I ran Linux on an Alpha, and it was extremely annoying. There was no decent native web browser (this was pre-Mozilla), the Java was pre-alpha quality at best, none of the Linux apps was as stable as the Intel Linux equivalents. I swore to never do that again. But now that there is a decent open source web browser and maybe a JDK available, I'm wavering.

The one button thing

[Laplace]

A while back I installed Windowmaker on my iBook and spent a bit of time configuring the desktop to behave well with only one mouse button.

Except for x-cut-and-paste I didn't miss having multiple buttons.

FYI, folks.

Re:The one button thing

[foniksonik]

WHY are you using a one-button mouse? All Macs support as many buttons as you want.

One button mice are free simple point and click devices for old grannies and 6 year olds to use until they realized how much more you can do with several buttons and a scroll wheel.

Re:The one button thing

[Laplace]

Because I use my iBook for portability. I'm not in the habit of lugging around any peripherals with it other than my headphones.

Re:The one button thing

[siskbc]

Why can't macs ship with multiple buttons? Are they really that afraid of confusing the hell out of their customers? Are their customers really that dumb? I mean, if you don't like that other button, just ignore it.

Re:The one button thing

[Laplace]

Hm. You seem to be spending alot on energy raving about this one button thing. Perhaps this is an indication of some serious mental deficiency? Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't mind having only one button because my computer works just fine with only one button. I know of some windmills that you can start screaming at to.

Re:What a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM offers one. It isn't "certified" for Macs but seemed to work fine when I tried it.

Re:price time * Timecost

[Anonymous Coward]

The drives have been increased to 80MB on the desktop models, etc.

Because everyone knows that you'll never need more than 80MB.....

Do you really want to deal with a company that leaves a typo like that on their order page?

Geforce4

[pete-classic]

I'd love to run a dual flat panel PowerMac, but it requires the whooptie Ge-whiz-force4 Unubtanium or whatever. I can't find any Linux info except "not supported" for any currently shipping video other than the Radeon. Is support for this setup on the horizon?

Anyone know where I can get any info?

-Peter

Re:Value-Added Keyboard Needed for Apple Laptops

[Anonymous Coward]

So Apple must change because you're stuck in your old habits?

WOW an 80MB Hard Drive!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Terra Soft website:

"Please note that the following are not identical to the default configurations offered on the Apple store. We have increased the RAM to a minimum of 256MB and 80MB drives with Power Macs."

Re:WOW an 80MB Hard Drive!

[Morky]

Well that's clearly a mistake. It should read 256KB of RAM.

Re:WOW an 80MB Hard Drive!

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn you you just made me spew milk out my nose.

Someone mod parent +1 Funny as Fuckin' 'Ell

Re: iTunes Beats Toast...

[alfredo]

I do things on linux that I wouldn't risk on my OSX. If YellowDog goes up in flames, I just reinstall.

What I learn in Linux can be and will be applied to OSX.

Linux is OSX's lab rat. Many years ago the guys at Apple suggested we try MkLinux or LinuxPPC to get an idea of what to expect with the new MacOSX.

Also there was danger that Gates was going to kill Apple over QuickTime. Linux was seen as a refuge for us who refuse to bow before King Bill.

Seems kind of stupid.

[dasmegabyte]

So...you want to trade your decent BSD based OS with quality commercial support, a usable GUI, great built in software and ability to compile pretty much anything for Yellow Dog Linux?

If so, you may be interested in knowing that I've got a BMW 330i which I've taken the seats out and replaced with phone books and installed an engine from a 1972 Super Beetle. It's a good, solid engine, very hackable. Price is only $3000 more than a new Bimmer.

Re:Seems kind of stupid.

[powerlinekid]

I'm not picking on you but its a stupid argument. MacOS X isn't unix, I wish people would stop calling it that. Its unix "compatible", as under the hood its the mach kernel with a bsd (closely resembling freebsd hence all the core/apple jumping going on) compatibility layer. Yeah I suppose it could be called unix or bsd, but from what I've heard its not just as easy as to compile other unix software, or even freebsd software. There seems to be some stuff missing on the implementation side. Anyway in lab I used to work, we ran Mandrake 8.x on an imac and it ran great. Same machine with Mac OSX felt klunky. Yeah OSX has more eye candy and i'll admit that its absolutely beautiful but its not as aerodynamic (i know bad use) as kde or even gnome. Just my 2 cents...

Re:Seems kind of stupid.

[dasmegabyte]

What you've heard is wrong. OSX IS unix. It IS easy to compile for. I compiled our application, written in Java for Solaris, using the mac and it runs great...better than it did on our dev server. I compiled postgres, openssl, apache, tomcat, ant, and a dozen other apps without incident or problem...something which isn't true with my cobalt linux server.

If stuff is missing, your friends probably didn't think to install the tools on the developer CD (sent free with the OS and continually updated). Such essentials as Make and grep are not installed by default because the majority of mac users don't (and, I content, the majority of desktop Linux users shouldn't -- why does my MOM need to compile everything?) need them.

The only major things that won't compile for mac are those which require x86 hardware for some bizarre reason (*cough* endian crap). And those won't work correctly in Yellow Dog, Mandrake or MkLinux either.

Furthermore, Mac OSX's interface is clunky on older machines because they aren't optimized for it. When OSX 10.1.5 finally offered 2d acceleration for my video card, it doubled the interface's usefulness. When I put in the g4 upgrade, it doubled again. This has little affect on the speed of serving pages or getting work done in the terminal -- only on graphics stuff. Which no server should be doing.

nope

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you think the Xserve is cool, but you wish it ran Linux?"

uhhh, hell no.

Maybe for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but not for me. My time is worth more than $200.

Re:Maybe for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your time is worth more than $200 an hour?! What are you, a prostitute?

Re:Maybe for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's either a prostitute or a lawyer. Wait a minute...

Yellow Dog vs. Debian

[realinvalidname]

I haven't tried Yellow Dog, but I have Debian running on a Performa 6400, and I like it a lot more than I did LinuxPPC. Is it just me or do a lot of people forget that you can run Debian on Mac hardware?

--invalidname

Re:Yellow Dog vs. Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this has got to be most unknown thing! Thanks for the info...
How's the boot sequence thingie: yaboot and stuff? do you still need a Mac partition on the drive?

Re:Yellow Dog vs. Debian

[leandrod]

It's just another GNU/Linux system as far as booting goes: yaboot on NewWorld Macs and quik or BootX on OldWorld ones. Same software available and compatible, etc. Just that you get Debian's sane policies, over-the-Net installation of 8K packages, seamless upgrades, security updates, 11 platforms - including M68K pre-PPC Macs & Amigas -, localization, free software emphasis etc.

This is why

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why.

Re:This is why

[reallocate]

Yeah, yeah. I suspect the percentage of desktop computer buyers who have the ability to even recognize source code when they see it -- or have a reason to look at it -- is about the same as the percentage of TV buyers who know how to repair their own sets.

Free software and the surrounding RMS-inspired thought have a reason for existing within the particular culture spawned by Unix, especially given it's focus on servers, but not on the desktop.

Helluva Deal !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Triple boot. (YDL, OSX & 9)

(boot from YDL or option key to pick from 9 or X)

Hell you'd need a road map to keep from getting lost on a reboot. :D

(+ install VPC and you could run yer windoze games in emulation on one of the mackie OS)

(Need another partition to run FreeBSD and X-Windows?)

You could spend your whole life just installing apps and compiling new kernels & stuffs and doing upgrades! bwwaaaaaaannnnnnnnnhhhh!

Re:um... why?

[Anonymous Coward]

tought you silly boy, they took it from the open source community?

YellowDog is outdated

[axxackall]

YDL 2.3 surpasses YDL 2.2 with an array of timely updates, improvements: kernel 2.4.19, the 'Liquid' theme, CUPS print system, apt-get, OpenOffice 1.0, Mozilla 0.9.9, Galeon 1.2, Evolution 1.0.5, AbiWord 1.0.2, netatalk 1.5.3.1, and support for the Radeon 7500 (excluding 'Mobility') video card.

Maybe YDL 2.3 surpasses YDL 2.2. But it's still way to outdated. Where is Gnome v2 and Mozilla v1? What's the reason yo update the kernel version and keep user-critical applications old?

Well, here's why I do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been a lot of "why?" posts in this thread, so thought I'd respond. A couple of months ago I was looking for a laptop in general. I wanted a "real" laptop, something that was small, light, had a nice screen and good i/o ports. I looked at all the x86 machines, and some were nice, but it seemed the small ones were much more expensive than the large ones. I found a refurb ibook2, 500mhz, 15gb HD, CD drive, with a beautiful screen and 4-5 hour battery life for $799, complete with 1 year factor warranty.

I tried OSX, and it's OK, but as a person who only uses linux at home, it just seemed bloated, slow and not as "tweakable" as what I was used to. Then there's the problem with commercial software. I haven't been able to find any GPL apps for OSX that do what I'm used to doing in Linux, and I didn't feel like spending hundreds of dollars for software to recreate the functionality for what I do, which is mainly internet and office type of work.

So, I installed Yellow Dog 2.3 as a dual boot option, and I've been very happy with it. I have all my old familiar apps that look and work the way they do on my Athlon home computers, it came right up and detected all the hardware, airport wireless works BETTER in linux than OSX (better throughput), and KDE 3.01 looks fine to me for a desktop.

I still have OSX as an option for when I need one of the few features that I think OSX does better, but 95 percent of the time I use Yellow Dog.

Re:Price? - clarification

[guacamolefoo]

The geek factor I was talking about was in reference to the Apple server box running Gnu/linux now, btw. The release does in fact state that *other* Apple products are now being shipped w/ GNU/linux installed. The thing I hadn't seen before was the Apple server running Gnu/linux. I guess I should have been more specific on the potato clock factor.

How about an Xserve with YDL?

[hoytt]

IMO it makes sense for servers and especially Apple's Xserve 1U rackmount server. If Terrasoft can ship these Xserve without OS X server (a retail price of $999) than an Xserve with YDL 2.3 can do anything OS X server can, except it costs less, but I doubt Apple will ever let Terrasoft sell Macs without OS X and for less than Apple itself.

Must hit preview...

[Golias]

Obviously that was a typo on point 2.

It should read "It's BSD (actually, Mach+BSD) instead of Linux"

Now, I must wait 2 minutes before submitting this correction.... tra la la...

Single Precision

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of science can be done on a box with fast single-precision. 3/cycle nothing to laugh at. Yes, it depends on what exactly you are doing, but my personal code still runs faster on a G4.

According to penguinppc.org . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

BenH, maker of a fine kernel tree for ppc systems, is hard at work getting linux to work on the XServe:

Another One Bites the Dust
July 24, 2002

Ben Herrenschmidt has pounded 1U of Apple hardware into submission. The Xserve has booted and run GNU/Linux!. There are still some kinks to work out, and your favorite distribution's installer may need some tweaks to install (check with them). Support in the kernel source trees is forthcoming. Word is, running in uniprocessor mode GNU/Linux returned data from mysql databases 4 times faster than OSX running in SMP mode. This was with the same datasets, same queries, same mysql version, and same compile options.

I have YDL 2.3 on my 250mhz powerbook, and while I think OS X is terrific, my hardware is just too slow for it. If I had a 800mhz G4, I'd probably not use linux on the mac, though, since xDarwin/fink satisfies most of my traditional unix needs.

From someone who runs YDL on his Ti

[Mr_Icon]

A lot of questions here as per "why would anyone run linux when there is OS X?". I personally run YDL on my Titanium, and I have my personal reasons to. Let me see if I can cover them.

1. I do this primarily for ideological reasons. Aqua is closed-source, proprietary software and I do not like that. Understandably, you may have different ideals, so this might or might not apply to you.
2. I am a computer professional and whenever I am in OS X, I feel extremely constrained by the interface. Sure, it's pretty. However, I miss my virtual desktops, I miss my hotkeys, I miss focus-follows-mouse, I miss many other things that I'm used to. I miss having a usable mail client (I don't like Mail.app for several reasons that I won't go into). I know that I can "emulate" all those things, but in order to do that I would have to buy even more proprietary software that costs money -- as opposed to already having all of that available under X.
3. I admit -- I am boggled by the prettyness: from full alpha transparency to the consistency of the interface. Then again, I recently looked at gnome-2, and I like what I see. Full power of X-window -- including network transparency, which is non-existent in OS X -- and nearly just as pretty. Full alpha-transparency support is, of course, not there yet in X-window (apart from cheap tricks like grabbing whatever is below), but I find it actually annoying on OS X most of the time. It doesn't do anything to me in terms of real usefulness. I mean, whooptie-doo, I can see what's below my terminal. Now that's useful.
4. I don't like having to depend on one vendor for security updates. If I find that TerraSoft is taking too long to come up with a new version of a package, I apply the patches myself and install a patched RPM. In order to do that under OS X I would have to a) have access to the package source (which is not always available), b) guess and double-guess which patches Apple already applies to the packages to make them work, and c) install from source, possibly breaking the Apple's Automated Updater mechanism.
5. Darwin sucks as a unix. :) You can't just take a product and compile it under Darwin and expect it to work like you would under Linux or most BSD's. I mean -- c'mon, it doesn't even have dlopen. You have to emulate it. Besides, we run Red Hat at the office, and I like to have all configuration files to have the same layout between home and work. It's saner to me that way.

I do use OS X periodically. I have an MP3 player that can't be accessed from Linux at this time -- it only works from windows and mac classic; and I use Macromedia Fireworks with my Graphire Tablet from time to time. It has its uses. For real work I use YDL.

From my point of view, OS X is an OS written and suitable entirely for middle-of-the-road users. It's a system that a grandma can use without getting hopelessly lost and confused. I am not a grandma -- I'm an enthusiast. To draw popular analogies to cars, I like to get my hands into the very innards of the system, including replacing the engine, overhauling the suspension, and putting oversized tires. I can only do that efficiently enough under YDL -- when I try to do something like that to OS X, I feel like I'm ricing a Civic.

As there are companies who sell parts and tools to car enthusiasts, similarly TerraSoft sells a distribution to people who like to be adventurous with their computers. Branding that as "stupid" is not entirely correct, nor really called for.

Now, why did I get an Apple notebook in the first place? a) I didn't pay for it, :) and b) I was intrigued by OS X. Would I get another Apple notebook? Probably, but not a Titanium. I might get a next-generation iBook, whenever they come out on G4's. Simply because I've already invested in some software on OS X that I would like to keep using (same MM Fireworks, for example). Titanium is like an all-leather interior: good for impressing your date, but no real use otherwise. :)

Re:From someone who runs YDL on his Ti

[rasterizerjay]

OS X is an OS written and suitable entirely for middle-of-the-road users. It's a system that a grandma can use without getting hopelessly lost and confused. I am not a grandma -- I'm an enthusiast.

So, because I can use Photoshop, XEmacs, Office and bash simultaneously, I'm a "grandma." Sure.

I'll give you that Linux is "ideologically," superior, but doesn't the ability to increase productivity by not being stuck in reboot hell counter it, at least somewhat?

Re:From someone who runs YDL on his Ti

[pininfrna]

Your analogies to race cars are particularly ironic, considering the fact that OS X is immensely faster than YDL. No, I'm not saying OS X is a faster OS than Linux at large, but unfortunately YDL is hopelessly slow... I don't know if it's a bad port of gcc, or the Linux kernel, or what. Refer to another post by me in this thread "YDL Is better in theory than in practice", to take a look at speed comparisons I did a while back. I don't have specific numbers because it was just something I did when I was bored, but I invite anyone to bench a shell app in YDL against a shell app in OS X. Not even close.

Re:From someone who runs YDL on his Ti

[Mr_Icon]

So, because I can use Photoshop, XEmacs, Office and bash simultaneously, I'm a "grandma." Sure.

No, you're a "middle of the road user". Last week I've enabled loopback encryption in YDL (ppdd). Let's see you do that under Darwin/OS X. :) Notably, 99.9999% of people won't need to do that, but I thought it would be fun to try out, so I did. The knowledge might come useful some time in the future, you never know.

I'll give you that Linux is "ideologically," superior, but doesn't the ability to increase productivity by not being stuck in reboot hell counter it, at least somewhat?

No, I use the tablet about once in every two-three weeks, when I am working on some graphics. It's not my primary occupation, more of a hobby. For other people rebooting is sub-optimal, I agree, but the whole point of my post is showing why I use it, not why everyone should switch to it, which I don't even suggest.

Re:From someone who runs YDL on his Ti

[MoneyT]

1) Ideology is something for people who have been screwed over by M$ one to many times. But, you want to use all free and open software, more power to you.

2) All or most of these can be installed for OS X. Not just emulated, the actual features can be installed. And if that doesn't float your boat, install and use Gnome or KDE as your primary GUI on Darwin. I don't know specificaly how to do it, but I know you can.

3) See 2

4) Never really had a problem waiting for the security update from apple (at worst 3 days after a hole is found). But again, your preference, not mine.

5) I'm fairly sure you could instal dlopen and whatever else your missing to Darwin. As for the layout, well, that's just something you'll have to deal with on your own. I personaly haven't seen a huge difference between OS X and Red Hat, but I never explored too deep. Just deep enough for what I needed.

6) Hoe the hell did you get a Ti for free and can I have it?

Re: iTunes Beats Toast...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do things on linux that I wouldn't risk on my OSX. If YellowDog goes up in flames, I just reinstall.

I think I speak for nearly everybody here when I say

Huh!?

Wait

[CableModemSniper]

Let me me see if I understand this. They take a relatively expensive computer system. One which I seriously doubt they can buy w/o the OS. So that must be factored into the cost. They then install a new OS on it, which adds to labor. They then advertise and sell it to you the discerning consumer. How could one of these boxes be even remotely close to affordably? I could see putting Linux on an older mac, but a brand spanking new iMac, or iBook, or whatever? Who are they planning to sell these too? Rich extradinarily lazy geeks who like the new Macs for purely aesthetic reasons? Does such a creature exist?

Re:Wait

[CableModemSniper]

Ok so they are magically managing to sell these at the same price as apple.

The computers offered below may not be identical to the default configurations offered by Apple. We have increased the RAM to a minimum of 256MB and the Power Mac drives to 80GB. Our prices are identical to those provided by Apple for the same configurations.

Still begs the question how? and how are they gonna make money??

Re:Wait

[One Louder]

They're an Apple reseller, which means they're buying the machines at a wholesale-type discount. They're hoping you'll buy machines from them instead of another retailer by adding "value".

Pretty simple.

Re:Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

your right it is. I'm always amazed reading slashot how seemingly generally knowledgeable linux geeks are just stupid when it comes to basic business practices, economics and marketing.

Re:Wait

[gerardrj]

Because Apple charges a premium for larger HDs and RAM.
If I purchased a new PowerMac G4 base system, and added my own RAM and drive from a third party, then re-sold if for what Apple would charge for that system with the now upgraded RAM/HD, I would make a tidy profit.

Take the current base system (G4/800 256MB, 40G ATA) priced at $1,600.
Apple wants $150 to make that 512MB and $100 to make that 80G
On the open market, PC133 RAM goes for $27 for 256MB, an 80G drive $80

Apple wants $1850 for that system (upgraded to 512MB/80G).
I could purchase the base system from Apple at full retail, upgrade it and sell it for $1850 and make $143 profit (Plus have a 40G drive left over to sell bare or create a RAID in another system that I sell).

Now throw in a 5% VAR discount and that profit becomes $223 (or about 14.5%).

There would be little to no installation time for the YDL, as they probably use a disk duplicator and the process probably takes about 15 minutes.

Re:Wait

[CableModemSniper]

There are days when I wish I could magically mod down my own posts. Ah well.

Re:Price? - clarification

[Golias]

Apple's Xserve box is hardy what I would call a potato clock. It's basically just a rackmounted G4 Macintosh. Does the use of DDR and the half-rack design really make it a radically different challenge for a Linux install?

Laptops... Hmm

[DarkMan]

Must admit that I never thought about laptops - I'm a number cruncher, so mobile computing doesn't happen.

That's a good point.

What I want to know is

[Anonymous Coward]

Are those Bricks that they sell capable of running OSX?

What about Debian?

[leandrod]

I will buy the first SCSI, silent RISC machine with digital video interface I can buy for less than CHF10K or US$5K with Debian preinstalled.

Linux? umm why?

[Anonymous Coward]

As everybody knows, Linux is a fad. its dead, its unsable, and viral. Why someone would choose any Linux distro instead of OSX is silly.

Linux = commercial joke. It needs to die

YDL

[Ryan Amos]

These are also the guys who ship Yellow Dog Linux, an EXCELLENT professional distro for the PowerPC. This is really old news to the PPC Linux community, Terra Soft has been doing this for years. This is mostly aimed at people who want to set up servers/labs, NOT home users. Their Black Lab clustering system is bar-none one of the coolest things I've seen a company do (yes, you CAN have a beowulf cluster of these... they'll even set it up for you!) Anyway, if you have a PowerPC system, check out Yellow Dog, it's a very cool distro (it's apt based, which is another plus.)

Re:Price? - clarification

[guacamolefoo]

1. I never called the Xserve a potato clock.

2. I agree that it is basically a racked G4.

3. I agree that this was not a technical coup.

The point of the potato clock comment was originally to mock the absurd tendency in the GNU/Linux community to try to run an OS on any platform regardless of the sense or purpose. It seems like a silly hobby to me, but then so does golf. It was hardly a commentary on any technological barriers or lack thereof to performing the install. Sheesh.

My original point is that I just think it is a dumb idea to put GNU/Linux on (newer) Apple hardware for the reasons I stated previously.

Different strokes for different folks, whatever. I just don't see the sense in it.

Upgrading Power Tower for X.1

[commodoresloat]

Did you upgrade the processor? What upgrade card did you use, and was it easy to get OS X running on it? I have a Power Tower Pro with the original processor (225 MHz 604; when it first came out this thing screamed!). I still run MacOS 8.5.1 on it (8.6 and anything higher was way to slow). I also have SuSE 7.0 installed on it, but I would love to get OS X running on it. I've been considering a G4 upgrade card but they are practically the price of a new iMac.

By the way and totally offtopic... I was at an art opening last night and there was a bunch of what looked like Apple prototypes. One that looked like the millennium Mac - a tall thin greyish box with a small monitor built in and tall Bose speakers .... Another was an iBook but it was dark green plastic and it looked way cool and weighed little. Also a message pad that looked like a cross between a Palm and an old Newton. Anybody seen these things? They all had the Apple logo and looked legit, though it could I suppose have been someone's art installation. None of them had accessible keyboards (the clam shell laptop was closed and the newton couldn't open either) or were plugged in or anything but they looked cool as hell.

Re:Upgrading Power Tower for X.1

[Maserati]

Hmmm, if it looked like this it was an eMate. NewtonOS, keyboard. Small, light, and very kewl.

Re:Why? this was not a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

who is rating all these as troll? there is sincere and valid question. Are the mods that sensitive to any thing even remotely negative to linux? Even the mac "faithful" argue amongst themselves. lighten up moddy.

Unix install base

[siskbc]

Really, in terms of un*x market share, the number of OS X machines sold is irrelevant. What is relevant is the user base, ie how many people are using OS X as a unix. Most of your twit mac users don't know what the hell BSD is, let alone how to use it. They don't know what GUI stands for, or even that there is more than one. So, anyone have an estimate on how many drone mac users have attempted to download some source, compile it, and run it on their "unix" machine? I'm guessing about 3.

Re:Unix install base

[reallocate]

Why? Who cares how many people use OS X as a Unix box? Who cares how many people are using a Mac as a Unix box, or as a dead paperweight? Unless you get paid for it, or are just interested for their own sake, who cares about BSD, or Linux or all the others? Unix has been around for about 30 years. It is great as a server OS, but the most desktop computer users don't care. For them, servers are just the invisible background. They care about what's sitting on their desktop, and, in that regard, Apple seems to have done a pretty good job with OS X. Much better, I think, than any GUI Linux has coughed up to date.

Re:Unix install base

[MoneyT]

Most linux users aren't using their boxes as real linux boxes. They just want something different, but are afraid to go mac (for whatever reason, I won't bother with that here).

Most PC users don't know what GUI is or that there are more than one either.

I would have downloaded and compiled source for my linux machine, but unfortunately, I couldn't get any of the distros I downloaded to install well. Even on the Sparc, we finaly gave in an ordered the commercial disk. But I did install OS X on my iBook, downloaded PVM, compiled, and ran it, in the Sparc network.

So there.

FANS are the reason?

[siskbc]

Cost of Mac : $1500
Cost of PC with equal processing power: $600
Cost of fans to cool PC : $30

Hmmm...I think I'll deal with the extra heat output.

Oh, and as for that "all in one-ness"...all that means is you have to upgrade your monitor as much as your PC. I know my monitor has made it through 3 PC's. Seems a bit wasteful to get the iMac.

Re:FANS are the reason?

[gerardrj]

Where is this mythical $600 wintel machine that matches a $1500 (There actually isn't a $1500 model iMac or Power Mac, but a $1399 and $1599 pricepoints respectively)
I don't just want the cheapo clone to match memory and HD, but FireWire, video, CDR, case design, included software, etc.

Re:FANS are the reason?

[jbolden]

Lets take the 17" iMac which just came out. Most retailers will bump you up to 512 megs of ram + you get printer free (junky inkjet) so we'll use that for the specs:

17" high end LCD
DVD-R/CR-RW

Those two parts right there will run you over $1000
__________________

800 mhz g4 ~ 1g PIII (or use a 500mhz PIII if you want its not going to matter)
512 megs ram
80 gig hd
Nvidia video with 32 megs
network, 5 usb, firewire....
Operating system + apps

That's not bad at all for the other $1000.

Then Consider Free Software on Windows

[krmt]

This doesn't negate the message at all. While somehow I doubt many people actually would trash you for not using Linux to do your work (anyone who would isn't a real advocate) that doesn't mean that you can't use Free Software in your daily routine.

So you want to stick with Windows 2000? Ok, then how about using Mozilla for your internet experience? It's better (read: more practical) than IE in various ways.

Try using Open Office instead of Microsoft Office. Does Open Office not do what you need it to? Fine, then file a bug report with the team (wishlist bugs are great too) and move on and try the next release some time in the future. Consider using Abiword if you want something lighter.

Do you use the internet for MP3 or other sorts of file trading? Try using Gnucleus, it's a very well done program. If you can't find what you need on the network, maybe then go and try one of the other networks, like KaZaA and whatnot.

Linux won't solve the world's problems, and if it doesn't solve yours then don't use it. For some of us, it's great. It makes my life a lot easier on the desktop, but that's just because of my own personal uses, as yours are obviously different. But just because Linux itself won't work for you doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider using Free Software on your chosen OS. I personally try and keep all the programs I listed above and a few others on any Windows box I use regularly. They are very good programs, and like you said, it's the apps that matter to you.

Re:Then Consider Free Software on Windows

[Anonvmous Coward]

That was definitely one of the more interesting responses I got. I'm not anti-free software. Actually I use Opera. I'm the type of guy who runs around and looks for new ways to improve productivity, and that's how I landed on Opera. All because it has an MDI interface heh.

Funny thing is, Lightwave users are not really in a different world from Linux users. Comparing Lightwave to 3D Studio MAX is very much like comparing Linux to Windows. Lightwave is very much supported by the community. A good chunk of the plug-ins I have are free little apps that people write and give away. A good deal of LW's evolution came from it's users! Sadly, this isn't so true with MAX. It's very much like Lin vs. Win, where LW's Lin and Max's Win.

That's one of the reasons it really bugs me when the Linux zealots (note: I did NOT say Linux users in general) give me shit about running Win2k and liking it.

"For some of us, it's great. It makes my life a lot easier on the desktop, but that's just because of my own personal uses, as yours are obviously different."

The average Linux user understands this, I think, and doesn't bug me about it. However, there are people who are so anti-MS that they can't see past their own nose. That's where a good chunk of the heat I've taken comes from. They think I'm crippling myself using Windows and have no concept of the idea that I'm actually kicking mucho butto with it.

Re:Then Consider Free Software on Windows

[krmt]

Funny thing is, Lightwave users are not really in a different world from Linux users. Comparing Lightwave to 3D Studio MAX is very much like comparing Linux to Windows. Lightwave is very much supported by the community. A good chunk of the plug-ins I have are free little apps that people write and give away. A good deal of LW's evolution came from it's users! Sadly, this isn't so true with MAX. It's very much like Lin vs. Win, where LW's Lin and Max's Win.

That's cool. It reminds me of my old Mac days, where we were all the dying breed and had to support ourselves. The only problem with it is that potentially the parent company can really mess things up, as Apple managed to do, which is what drove me to Linux in the end. They've made amends but it taught me a valuable lesson. Hopefully the Lightwave creators don't fuck up like Apple did (although it's kind of hard to fuck up quite as bad as Apple managed to do :-)

They think I'm crippling myself using Windows and have no concept of the idea that I'm actually kicking mucho butto with it.

Bizarre. Win2k is a really good system for the most part, as anyone who's used it will agree. Either way, a I think a lot of the people who will bash on you for not using Linux are the types who just got it installed for themselves and are feeling really cool about it. It's the idiots who don't even understand Linux that are the most vocal and adamant about it. Just forget them and keep kicking animated ass.

Re:Then Consider Free Software on Windows

[Anonvmous Coward]

"The only problem with it is that potentially the parent company can really mess things up, as Apple managed to do, which is what drove me to Linux in the end."

That possibility ALWAYS exists. Fortunately, though, Newtek doesn't appear to be so arrogant. Arguably, though, Mac has regained some ground. Is OSX interesting to you? (Never been a Mac guy, so I'm curious if Apple regained some respect with you lately...)

"t's the idiots who don't even understand Linux that are the most vocal and adamant about it."

Yeah, I think you're right. I'd add to it, though, that they have no idea what kinda stuff I do in 3D. Pity really. Linux users and Lightwave users have a great deal in common. Heh.

Re:Then Consider Free Software on Windows

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

So you want to stick with Windows 2000? Ok, then how about using Mozilla for your internet experience? It's better (read: more practical) than IE in various ways.

I have mozilla on my win2k box. As much as I admire it, and always use it for testing purposes. It will never by my default browser at the moment. I just can't stand the GUI. In IE, I only have one bar with all my controls. I like it that way. It's clean looking and maximises the space for the webpage.

It's a pitty that no one has done the equivilant of Chimera for the windows paltform (taking a good browser engine and adding a good UI).

Open Office not do what you need it to? Fine, then file a bug report with the team (wishlist bugs are great too) and move on and try the next release some time in the future.

Ha. Unless you like to wait around for months I wouldn't suggest that. I'm still waiting for a bug to get fixed in Mozilla for OS X. Time ran out so I've had to completly re-write a peice of code for a project I'm doing. I don't have the time to wait around untill a particular bug is fixed.

Re:Then Consider Free Software on Windows

[krmt]

I think OSX is great. I used the old, slow version (10.0.something I think) for a little while, and aside from the speed it lives up to everything that people say about it here. I haven't used it since, but I think if you can afford a machine with a lot of RAM it's a great OS. It's really the best desktop OS on the market, in just about everything except game quantity.

I think Apple has become a much better company ever since Jobs came back. He really turned the place around. I'm just wondering what will happen to it once he leaves again. He can't stay forever, and I get the feeling that no one else in the world will be able to properly manage it. It's sad really, but I think once Steve leaves for good, it's going to be a long and slow demise for Apple. I could be wrong, and I really hope that I am.

A rather strange marketing strategy...

[MalleusEBHC]

Instead of delving into the OS X v Linux debate that this has pretty much become (OS X rules all btw... guess I couldn't go without adding my two cents on this one), I am more intrigued by how Terra Soft thinks they carve a slice out of the already small pie that is Apple hardware sales. Apple had about a 5% market share last time that I checked. Of the people buying Apple hardware, I would be willing to wager that 80-90% don't even know what Linux is. Of the people who would buy Apple hardware and would commonly be considered potential Linux users (wanting a good *nix OS, at least decently knowledgeable about computers, and willing to spend the time to install/learn Linux), a large majority are people who are in love with OS X because of its Unix foundation and beautiful GUI/ability to run most commercial software. So this leaves a very small portion of Apple hardware users (with Apple already being a small portion of the hardware market) who would want to run Linux. Of this small crowd, how many do you honestly think would want to pay about 200 extra dollars for someone else to install Linux which they could do for free?

Re:A rather strange marketing strategy...

[darqchild]

Come on! I've already decided that my next machine will be a mac. It's some of the nicest hardware. I think that migrating away from IA-32 hardware is the next logical step for the power user.

Re:A rather strange marketing strategy...

[Anonymous Coward]

as more than a few people pointed out, for the extra money you also get more ram and a bigger hard drive than the apple standard.

OSI doesn't agree with you

[Anonymous Coward]

The OSI doesn't agree with you.

Now, please begin your RMS-style ranting about how open source software is not the same as free software.

Replacing Mac OS X with another OS

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in a manner similar to those people a few years back that bought PCs and tried to get the PC maker to refund the cost of the unwanted preinstalled Microsoft Windows OS:

Do you suppose that anyone has tried the same thing with a Mac, trying to get Apple to refund the cost of the unwanted preinstalled OS X, if the system will only be used with another OS like Linux or BSD?

MacOX X kicks Linux's ass

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a Value Added service it is a Value Subtracted service. What a pointless waste of time

Bringing the extinguisher...

[tuxedobob]

Geez, everyone, it's as simple as this:

Apple/OS X/Aqua fans, be glad the GNU/Linux users are supporting Apple in the form of hardware sales. No matter what a reseller does, Apple will get some portion of the price. (Probably the same no matter what the reseller does.) This will inevitably go to development of OS X, to some extent. However, if you flame them, you may shoo them off to some other architecture.

YDL and GNU/Linux fans, welcome to the club. Enjoy the hardware, but try the OS as well. If you need any help, be sure to check out Apple's support site, including the discussion boards. Just keep in mind that most people will be expecting Mac OS 9/X users, so they may or may not be of much help. And remember, it only gets better from here.

You'd think people would realize that this benefits everyone.

Re:I have to wonder why (you're so wrong)

[lungbutter]

I often wonder why people bother to post about a topic they know very little about...

Your comments about Mac OS X are flat out wrong and you obviously haven't used it...or if you have you don't understand it - which is hard to imagine b/c it's one of the easiest OSs in the world to use...

A) no 2 button mouse support (wrong! plug one in and see for yourself)

B) Ugly - your opinion...whatever.

C) Wrong! you are just USED to apps quiting when you close the last window but that doesn't mean it makes sense...if you work in word or photoshop or IE all day long why keep launching and quitting and launching and quitting every time you finish with one document and move to another?!?

D) Wrong! very easy..in fact it's as simple as clicking a checkbox..to have system automatically dial or connect when there is TCP/IP activity...even the airport base station itself can do this...

No wide screen? No way

[Anonymous Coward]

The wide screen version of the iMac is actually
pretty nice for programmers, writers, movie-watchers.
I haven't seen a regular PC with a wide screen LCD
yet. HOWEVER Terra isn't selling the wide-screen
model with Linux. That sucks! And I'll have to pass.
(Yet another good idea screwed up by Apple...)

Yellow Dog

[maccrapper]

I would have loved,( and tried to) run YDL on my new iBook.I got pissed when I found out I'd have to pay $129 bucks to keep OSX 'up to date" This on a 60 day old machine! I've owned several Macs but switch to Linux after playing with BeOS, then Linux PPC. Much to my dismay I found that I couldn't use my internal modem here in dialup country, so I'm hosed again! Thanks Apple! I'll "Switch" back to a PC running RedHat!

Sorenson?

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, why the hell are you bringing Sorensen into a discussion about the OS X GUI?

Why the hell would their video codecs have anything to do with Quartz?

And while I'm mentioning Quartz: The OS X GUI system is called Quartz, not Aqua. Aqua is the theme's name.

Re:Sorenson?

[MoneyT]

AFAIK the GUI is Aqua. The graphics layer is what is called quartz. In other words, Quartz is a component of Aqua

your printer?

[jbolden]

Your printer is what's stopping you from switching? What's the printer worth? Since it isn't Linux compatable it isn't postscript, PCL... so unless its commercial (AFP, IPDS, Metacode) I doubt worth much at all.

Re:your printer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck You, i mean the guy does not want to change his FUCKIN printer, imean if that's your only weak ass answer, linux is DEAD!

Re:your printer?

[ichimunki]

I dunno what the AC's problem is, I'd be glad to spring for a new printer if can get decent dpi and color under Linux. My existing printer (practically an antique now: an Epson Stylus 740) has been sporadic under Linux, whereas under the old Mac OS it is brilliant. With Debian 3 out, I'll be giving the printer a go on an x86 box and see what happens. Either way, I assume *someone* out there is running a printer off Linux, and my legacy OS days are numbered. :)

They don't want iApps

[theolein]

The people to whom YDL are aiming their machines are the people who have switched to the Mac from Solaris and Linux and want their X11 chugging along at speed, instead of the relative slowness that it now does. They probably also don't want to have to wait for ports for Mac OSX of their favourite commandline utilities.

Re:They don't want iApps

[DavidRavenMoon]

The people to whom YDL are aiming their machines are the people who have switched to the Mac from Solaris and Linux and want their X11 chugging along at speed, instead of the relative slowness that it now does.

If what you are referring to is the speed of the GUI of OS X, it's not X11.

However you can install XDarwin, which is the OS X version of XFree86, and your favorite window manager and there you go. You can even run it rootless, right along side native Aqua apps.

Maybe some pople just like Linux better?

Re:They don't want iApps

[MoneyT]

They probably also don't want to have to wait for ports for Mac OSX of their favourite commandline utilities.

Wasn't the big selling point for open source *NIX software was there was no need for porting, just take the code, recompile on your machine and poof, your own version? Did they lie to us?

Re:They don't want iApps

[theolein]

Apple's core is a mix of BSD and Mach. Mostly compatible with Linux but not entirely. The Aqua GUI is completely proprietry and not compatible with X11. While X11 does run next to Quartz, most Apple users would prefer an Aqua version which would require porting. Understand it now?

Re:They don't want iApps

[MoneyT]

But the post I was replying to was talking about command line programs. In that case, it shouldn't matter whether it was Aqua, X, KDE or Gnome, it should all work the same right?

Re:They don't want iApps

[theolein]

No, the systems are still different internally. The kernels differ as do other things. BSD has a Linux compatibility layer which can cope with this but Darwin does not.

YDL vs. OSx

[theolein]

I will be buying a new iBook 12"/700MHz next week. I will almost defintely be installing YDL on it, but I'll get the ISO's or buy the distro. I have used YDL on my present 333MHz G3 Powerbook and apart from Linux being much faster on older hardware than OSX, YDL has one of the best text based installers that I've ever seen. To be honest they are helped in this by the fact that the hardware options are restricted but having recently installed RedHat on a Dell Laptop I really apreciated the lack of problems installing YDL.

Linux is just fine for what I do, and I can run OpenOffice, Mozilla, the Gimp and do my work in vim with less problems and headaches than I would have running the XDarwin environment in OSX. IN fact I have exactly one complaint in Linux on PPC and that is doing Java. Java is simply terrible without a JIT or HotSpot and there probably will never be one for PPCLinux. That is the reason I have to boot into OSX often. OK, that and EVNova.

Java for Linux on non sun supported platforms

[Anonymous Coward]

Check blackdown.org

unfortunately, there are issues with porting hotspot.

A big blue shadow

[Anonymous Coward]

G5? That doesn't actually "exist" yet...

However you might want to check this link before you think Intel is all that & a bag of chips:

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT101 60 0000000

This coming October they're releasing specs on the "Desktop" version (the above version is strickly server level - dual processors on the chip!).

YDL is better in theory than in practice

[pininfrna]

I've made extensive use of YDL, running on a few different hardware configs over the years, from a 300mhz beige G3, to a dual 1ghz silver G4. Although theoretically it should have some nice advantages over RedHat and other Intel distros, it's just too slow. There's no reason why a 500mhz P3 running redhat 7 should outperform a 667 G4 running ydl 2.1 on things like mp3 encoding and complex pgsql selects, but it does. I tested the two side-by-side once, hoping to get a strong argument for linux on a RISC architecture, and it blew up in my face. I'm convinced it's the fault of YDL and not the architecture. When I moved my web and DB servers (apache, php, pgsql) over to OS X, the speed increase blew me away. It's just a better kernel.

Re:I have to wonder why (you're so wrong)

[ichimunki]

a) I never said it didn't support it-- I said I don't care for the one they include as a default.

b) Yep, and I said it was an opinion.

c) You're right, there's a good reason for it. Except that I still found it confusing and hard to tell when an app is still running.

d) OK, but in 30 minutes of looking through the TCP/IP config and modem setup I couldn't find it. So much for "very easy".

Another reason to stick with Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I just found out another reason to [use / keep using] linux on my ibook. I phoned apple to ask if I could get a free upgrade to OSX10.2 for my 2 months old ibook. Sorry, not possible. A discount then maybe? Nope, I have to pay the full 168.19 euro to stay up to date.
I just love Linux.

Why YDL on a new Mac

[Buskaatt]

Disclaimer: I work for Terra Soft.

I just got off the phone with a gent who bought an Xserve with OS X server. He thought, as most folks here do, that it would run smoothly out of the box. He ported his PHP/MySQL inventory control system over to OS X from an Intel Linux solution. The darn thing wouldn't run! PHP timed out and it was hosed. Further, there was no solid backup solution for his machine either. He was left in the dust as long as he was running OS X.

He could strip OS X server out of there and just install BSD. Maybe that would be a better option for him, but Linux support seems really solid on Apple hardware. Also, he has the support of our company. He'll call, I'll answer his questions, and he'll be doing everything in YDL that OS X brags about. Try that with Apple.

eMates

[commodoresloat]

Nah.... it was dark green and looked like something brand new.... but those eMates were cool; why hasn't anyone ever ported linux to it?