Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu For PPC, And As A Live CD
Jeff writes "Ubuntu is just sweet. For Mac users it is even sweeter, as you can read in this review: it supports hardware like a charm ad now with a live CD out everyone can taste ... sorry, test it." And
Chris writes "Gnoppix 0.8.1 now appears to be Ubuntu Linux based. At OSDir, we've got over 50 screenshots of the Gnoppix 0.8.1 release, including the controversial Ubuntu desktop background images." (See this earlier story; the default background images have been changed in Ubuntu proper, so the "controversy" need not keep you up nights.) The Gnoppix version is a very nice Gnome-based live CD, with fewer apps but more polish than most live CDs I've tried. (Note that this is not the same as the official Ubuntu CD, and that the PPC version is not a live CD.)
Why does everyone love Ubuntu? It seems like it's how slackware was in the mid 90s. it's the 3133+ distro.
err... anyone got a link to the controversial theme so we can see what all the fuss was about?
After having played around with it for quite some time now I have to say that Ubuntu is really a great distribution.
It's really solid though it is only in it's first release now, the desktop is really well thought out, the package selection makes sense and doesn't overwhelm new users but you still can use thousands and thousands of debian packages if you are so inclined.
This distro for me really strikes the right balance between ease of use on the one hand and not taking away the power and choice of linux on the other hand.
All in all I'm really impressed and even now looking forward to the next release. And this is coming from someone who normally uses KDE and Gentoo, so if you impress someone like me with a Debian based Gnome distro you certainly did something right.
First: Why not ?
Secondly: Maybe some of us want a real *nix on our PPC machines ? (Bah, OS-X is NOT a BSD, read this rant on why OS-X is anything but a BSD)
Sunny Dubey
Perhaps you are unaware, but PPC hardware did in fact exist before OS X, and most of that pre-existing hardware will not run OS X. Given Linux vs. OS 9, I'd certainly choose Linux. Of course, I'd probably choose Linux regardless, as I'm not a huge fan of OS X, but to each his own.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
1. Someone buying a mac can certainly afford OS X. This may come as a surprise to you, but if you buy a new Mac it even comes with OS X. So please stop your trolling.
...
2. Again, I know it is hard to believe for some people, but there are computer users who don't think that OS X is the best OS that ever was and ever will be and that simply prefer Linux. Reasons for that may be that they are simply more familiar with Linux, that they want a coherent IT infrastracture and are already using Linux on their other machines, that they simply enjoy the choices Linux offers compare to OS X, that they are more productive with something like ratpoisen than with the eye-candy of OS X
3. For older Macs Linux is a great option, as OS X tends to run, ehm, not really fast on these machines.
If gnoppix is based on Ubuntu and Ubuntu already has a liveCD, then what the hell is gnoppix doing? Is gnoppix now just Ubuntu renamed? Seems like gnoppix just got displaced right?
;)
If gnoppix is based on Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is based on Debian, then who the hell is working on releasing sarge?
I use Xemacs in ubuntu fine - just enable the universe repository (uncomment the line in /etc/apt/sources.list). It would be nice if they moved it to main, but I've had zero problems with it so far.
Gnoppix Live CD works, whereas for many of us the Ubuntu Live CD does not. Tried all the listed boot options, went over to to morphix.org and tried such of their stuff as seemed possible. No good. The Ubuntu distro looks excellent, but the Gnoppix CD works on my hardware, while Ubuntu does not.
Dammit, put that can of worms down.
There was extensive discussion on the users list and an IRC community meeting about the 'controversial' artwork. Very few people actually had a problem with it directly, but most people thought it was a bad idea as the default for a distro that wanted to be taken seriously and appeal to as broad a userbase as possible. There were plenty of real-world examples from people who wanted to deploy Ubuntu in their company but would have to create custom install-images to change the default.
My take on it was that I didn't want my computer to look like a Bennetton advert; more that it was goofy looking than that it might upset people.
That artwork is still installed, it's just not selected by default.
This is somewhat of a stock remark.
...
There are very good reasons to run linux on an OSX machine.
I used to run linux on several Mac's at my old workplace.
Reason OS9 is useless for serious web development work - sorry but dreamweaver and go-live are not my bag. Its also useless as a half decent web-server platform. I could have done some of these things on OSX granted but
a) it wasnt possible to persuade the powers that be to purchase OSX (not that I even asked)
b) on older Mac's - linux just performs much faster compare the speed of YDL on a blue G3 (333mhz) to OS9 running on the same machine - the latter is like a snail in comparison.
Now dont get me wrong - OSX is great and all - Someday soon I might treat myself to a powerbook.
There are things that make OSX superior to Linux eg:
availability of "cool" livestyle applications iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto, iWhatever - The other attraction for me about OSX is the avalability of proper decent Music Sequencing / Composition software like Reason / Logic and Cubase. All this cools stuff and the inner peace that "it's not windows/micorosoft" and "theres a unix variant under the hood" are the reasons I find it attractive.
Linux however is still IMHO better as a server platform because it enables you to cut out all the crap that goes with the OSX gui. Its much easier to set-up , configure and run in headless operation. Its easier to patch and keep up to date. OSX can be more expensive to keep running if you manage to get yourself into the upgrade cycle.
While OSX is a very capable OS in both the server and the desktop space. And in addition it can run lots of your fave Linux apps via Fink et.al. For serious server-side development all the sexy gui stuff "Just gets in the way" whereas for Joe sixpack "It Just Works". We had am OSX server at my old place I rarely used it because it was such a pain to configure apache and friends.
IMHO Linux PPC
is great on older Macs as a desktop or a server / development platform
IMHO OSX
is great on shiny Mac's as a desktop and as a point'n'clicky server for less experienced staff.
Its also great if you have an eye candy fetish and an open source fetish.(you can still use many of your favorite apps), but also need use some of the proprietary apps that just dont exist on Linux.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
.. dual-boot with OSX.
.. you can see visible tearing with rect updates in the manager, though the system generally feels (from the cmd line) about as fast as it should be.
.. and with Mac-On-Linux (installed, but not properly config'ed .. yet) I'll be in real heaven, using OSX for candy and Linux for hard-core work.
..
Mine is the rev-a powerbook (the one with the firewire problems), so maybe its my hardware, but the default X config that ships with Ubuntu is s-l-o-w
It is pretty darn nice, sloppy GUI aside, to be running Linux on this machine, which has been a trusty and productive computer (running OSX) since I got it. It truly is pleasurable to have the two best operating sytems around as a selection on my powerBook
OSX is a great Unix, anyway, but for the things that I can't be bothered porting (or using fink to install), and just want to check out anyway, a quick boot into Linux to have a complete 'standard-ish' Linux system to apply that code to, is really productive.
If you've got a PowerBook, I urge you to dual-boot it with Linux/OSX. It will give you some serious reflection about the power of your computer, I think, to see Linux running on it, and OSX side-by-side, as well
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The Ubuntu LiveCD and the Gnoppix LiveCD are based upon Morphix, which basically takes away the hard work of re-mastering a Knoppix CD. The base, the part based upon Knoppix contains the kernel, kernel modules, hardware detection, etc. This base is left untouched. You can either a change a mainmod or add lots of minimodules to make different liveCDs
The Ubuntu LiveCD is built using one of Morphix Tools Module Maker. Feed you XML file into module maker and out pops your mainmodule for the LiveCD.
There are a range of tools Morphix tools available to make a LiveCD. Such as Module Maker ibuild and TROM. It is even possible to save you files, configuration and setting to the Morphix LiveCD you using using CD persistant, ready for next boot up. Did I mention the GUI Morphix installer ?
I dunno, I found that image to be quite sexy, two hot chicks with big smiles, nice top-down boob profiles, standing in a suggestive circle, implying that .. once you log in .. the 3 of them are gonna get it on ..
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Here are the images from the thread, and I agree with you. What sort of a fucked up world do we live in, where we can show images of people killing other people, but not of 3 people caring for each other.
RegardselFarto
Why not? I never said 'Don't install Linux on your Mac', I said 'Linux on the Mac is for masochists' and it's true.
Please elaborate. I find distros like Ubuntu as easy to use and install on PPC as Mac OS X. Yeah, I've used both, in case you wonder.
For me, I just have no desire to dick around with Linux while I have a perfectly serviceable Unix (tm) available.
Well, it's your life. We linux users don't care.
As far as the Mac not being a real Unix, it is far more of a 'real' Unix than Linux. It's directly descended from AT&T Unix. It has a microkernel design, and is definitely BSD.
First, AT&T unix didn't have microkernel parts at all, so direct descendency is more than questionable. Second, UNIX System V came after BSD, it's a more modern UNIX specification, but still UNIX. Linux follows this one. Third, OS X uses a microkernel to load the bsd one completely in memory. There goes your microkernel design.
And last, remember that to have a true UNIX(R) system, you have to pay for certification. Perhaps linux could get it, but the developers already said they wouldn't apply for it since it's not their goal to make a pure UNIX system.
Yeah .. *ahem* .. all of that Apt package management is for naught if, after doing a successful install, you still don't get icons in your Program menu.
.. stupid!
This is the #1 problem I have with Ubuntu so far (besides the slow X refresh rate...), its so frustrating to have to work out how to start apps once they've installed, and I usually just resort back to the shell to fire things up
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Except that Linux is now the default *nix. There is a reason why IBM designed there mainframes to run Linux. IBM didn't setup there mainframes to run virtual machines of BSD. There is a reason why Solaris and FreBSD have linux emulation layers. There is a reason why Sun sells Linux machines.
There are more Linux than Mac servers. Depending on whose numbers you use, there are more Linux Desktops than Macs. Even the conservative numbers put Linux about equal with Macs.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Why would you want to run *nix on a ppc when you can run it on a cheaper amd64 machine?
Shit this is a stupid question, but I'll answer it anyway:
Because you have a PPC machine, and don't have an AMD64.
Consumericanism, kiddies. Cure thyself!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
After Novell surpised me by sending Suse DVD's all the way to the bushes in Africa I could not stop myself from requesting some Ubuntu CD's (I am still on a 56K modem and Telkom charges an arm and a leg for connecting to the internet). I am now watching the mail box like a hawk. Thank You Mark in advance Anxiously waiting for Ubuntu CD's.
...and one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
A Newbie to Linux is not going to have much fun installing the Ubuntu Warty 4.1 release, unless they just let it "do it's own thing" which will more than likely end up destroying all the data they have on thier hard drive, namely, windows.
Perhaps a "newbie to Debian" would be a more accurate description.
I tried it recently and as a slackware 'fancier' I must admit it didn't suit me. In fact, I've never been able to get used to the idiosyncracies of Debain based distributions, even though it's supposedly so easy.
I installed and am giving it the benefit of the dought - who knows, perhaps I'll become a convert and learn to love the Debian way as much as I like Slackware !
But Ubuntu a newbies distro ? - wow, maybe the LiveCD, but the i386 I tried is anything but !
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
In a nutshell, the thing that has amazed me is how easy it was to set up. I was running slack with dropline, and this was a transparent replacement.
Mind you, I reinstalled rather than upgraded, but it was frighteningly simple to get EVERY device on my thinkpad working, including the wireless.
It just works. Beyond that they have kept the amount of stuff installed to a reasonable minimum, so that I don't have to fish through 10,000 packages.
That is why there is such a furor over the 'disputed' artwork in my opinion. The distro works so well that people have nothing else to bitch about.
K
"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared." -St. Augustine