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

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

[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

[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

[discstickers]

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

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

[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

[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:Yellow Dog?

[Otter]

Well, they are Yellow Dog.

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?

[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... ;-)

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Toraz Chryx]

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

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.

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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...

[arloguthrie]

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

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: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.

"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.

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.

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

[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

[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: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: 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.

[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.

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

[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?

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.

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.)

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: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.

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?

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?