How to Install Debian on Mac mini

wikinerd writes "After the hype about Mac mini, a Linux consultant wrote a detailed guide on how to install Debian on Mac mini. The whole procedure takes about an hour, but you will need to erase the hard disk and learn to live without the AirPort Extreme, since it's unsupported. The guide also explains how you can dual-boot with Mac OS X and Debian and gives you ideas on how to set up your partitions."

Comments

Why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, who wants to run Linux on a MAC when they are able to run MacOS-X on it. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Re:Why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

MAC

That would be "Mac". It doesn't stand for anything!

MacOS-X

ARGH! "Mac OS X" .. "Mac OS X" .. how did you come up with "MacOS-X"? Is that the evil dude's base in a James Bond movie or something? "Take him to... Macos-X!"

I swear I think the next time I see someone write "MAC", my head will rotate 360 degrees and turn Bondi Blue.

Re:Why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters spend a great deal of time bitching about how if you by something you should be able to do whatever you want with it. That is until someone wants to do something different than what the geek masses think makes sense. Then they become as offensive and hypocritical as the *AA organisations and Software companies they constantly whine about. I guess geeks/nerds aren't what they used to be.

If I want to buy a Mac Mini and stick Linux on it is my business and no one else's. Hell if I wanna buy a Mac Mini and dismantle it and turn it into a dubious modern art sculpture that is up to me too.

I swear the world is in such a piss poor state purely because people are massively obsessed by what other people are doing.

Re:Why ?

[Pierre]

i suppose somebody that wants hi quality/quiet/small form factor/sexy/500 dollar PC who prefers linux would.

i've been thinking of picking one up totally based on the hardware for the price. i want a small quiet machine that isn't made of cheap looking plastic. i don't really want an intel solution (cappuccinopc) or one that is too pricey (hush).

if i could be sure that i can basically have my cake (minimac) and eat it to (linux) i'm a happy camper and i'm sure steve jobs won't mind me reformatting that disk

Re:Why ?

[kitzilla]

However, your arguments are that some people are "committed to Linux" and that's about it. I know plenty of people that are "committed to Windows". It would be better if you could tell us how Linux is *better* rather than OS X.

I wouldn't presume to say why Linux is "better" than OS X. To begin with, I prefer OS X, on balance, to anything else. I've invested far more cash than I should probably admit in the Mac platform. To me, it's worth it.

Being "committed" to a platform can mean a number of things, which is why I chose such an ambiguous term. It could very well mean being strapped to proprietary software. There's such a volume of financial, scientific, and military software on Linux that we probably needn't belabor the issue of platform legacy beyond noting the relative advantages of PPC power efficiency.

Yeah, you could probably run some of these Linux programs on top of OS X. Can't imagine that's a good solution for truly mission-critical applications.

There are also the subjective reasons a user might prefer one platform over the other, very much as we might prefer one member of the opposite (or same!) sex to another. I can see why someone would be smitten by the aesthetics and functionality of the Gnome desktop, or the irritatingly configurable KDE environment.

One thing I didn't touch on in my original post is hardware lock-in. Linux enjoys broad vendor support. I'm happy to cast my lot with Apple, but not everyone feels that way. If you're investing in development and training on Linux, you can rest fairly easy that you won't wake up one morning to find your sole hardware supplier just decided to abandon computer production for -- well, I dunno -- manufacturing iPods or something. ;-)

Again, I'm a Mac guy. Long live Steve Jobs. Hooray, iTunes. Look at my bitchin' G5: it's precision-manufactured, dual-processor, aluminum sex. It's desktop penis enhancement -- the answer to a geek midlife crisis. Watch me plug in an off-the-shelf peripheral and have it "just work" with a minimum of fiddling. Ha-ha: no Windows viruses here. I rule.

But I totally get why someone might want or need to run Linux on an Apple box. It's not necessarily a question of which OS is better than another. It's a question of user needs and desires.

Why?

[Junior J. Junior III]

I guess that's neat and all, but why wouldn't I just install X11 for whatever apps I run that need it, and run everything through OS X?

Re:Why?

[chrism238]

Easy. Because one may have a job developing code that has to tested on a Linux platform.

Re:Why?

[chrism238]

... for example, I currently have (and want) only one desktop computer at home, and I use it to share my Linux with my girlfriend's Windows - on the same box. Others may similarly wish to share OSX and Linux - seems an obvious concept to me.

Re:Why?

[slux]

Is it such an absurd concept for you that some people might actually prefer GNU/Linux to OS X for whatever reason? You can't really get *every* Linux application installed so easily under OS X. At minimum, software installation is easier and the apps tend to integrate better on a Linux desktop.

Seriously, could someone explain to me why similar remarks about Windows aren't modded up on stories about x86 hardware? What about all the other proprietary UNIX-like operating systems in addition to OS X. Why doesn't every Linux story have a modded up comment about HP-UX, Solaris, Irix and others asking "why use Linux?". What's so special about OS X? Sure, it's a nice OS but in no way is it equal or better than Linux in every possible aspect and for everyone.

Linux has many things going for it that OS X does not. And even if it didn't, some people would use it just for the freedom. I personally have an iBook running Ubuntu and my sister is dual booting Fedora & OS X. I also have a friend using debian exclusively on his iBook for many years.

Re:Why?

[slim]

I guess that's neat and all, but why wouldn't I just install X11 for whatever apps I run that need it, and run everything through OS X?


Maybe you just don't get on with the Mac UI. Such people do exist. I understand that if you want focus-follows-mouse in Mac OS X, you either get a compromise where it only works on X apps, or you have to spend $40 on third party virtual desktop software.

Mac Mini is definitely a cuter form factor than anything else out there right now.

I'm tempted to get a Mini just in order to try out Mac OS X, but I'm dubious enough about Mac OS that having the option to replace it with Linux if I don't like it is a selling point for the hardware.

Re:Why?

[Ianoo]

What is absurd is that people would buy a Mac Mini to run Linux. Why not just buy a Shuttle XPC instead? By not using OS X, you negate the main factor behind buying a Mac in the first place - and in so doing significantly reduce its value when compared with equivilently priced PC hardware.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Liberty. If valuing my liberty makes me a zealot, than I'm happy to be a zealot. But really, you're the zealot, worshipping at the church of Jobs.

Re:Why?

[legirons]

"What is absurd is that people would buy a Mac Mini to run Linux."

How is that absurd? It's no worse than buying a PC to run Windows.

"Why not just buy a Shuttle XPC instead?"

Because for the same price as the Mac, you'll get a shuttle PC without a motherboard, CPU, memory, disk, or drives. An actual working Shuttle PC, built, to similar specifications will be about $950

"By not using OS X, you negate the main factor behind buying a Mac in the first place"

Indeed. Unless your reasons for buying were the price, the size, or the neat design.

and in so doing significantly reduce its value when compared with equivilently priced PC hardware."

What equivalently-priced PC hardware? For that price, in a shop, you'll get a beige box PC filled with the cheapest components they could find. Try selling that in 2 years, and compare it to the price of a secondhand Mac Mini then

Re:Why?

[As Seen On TV]

Is it such an absurd concept for you that some people might actually prefer GNU/Linux to OS X for whatever reason?

Yes.

What's so special about OS X?

Um, slux? Have you ever used it? You can take a Mac out of the box, plug it in, and be on the Internet doing whatever you want to do in about five minutes. You don't have to dick around with settings, or fiddle with security stuff. It comes with great personal productivity software: Mail, Address Book, iCal, Keychain Access (for storing passwords and sensitive information), TextEdit (for word processing), Preview (for reading electronic documents), iChat (for audio, video and text chat). Some applications that are kinda sorta similar to those are available for Linux, but they've got three huge problems: First, they're laughably primitive by comparison. Second, they don't work together at all. Third, if they're bundled with the OS, they're bundled with a gazillion other programs of dubious value, making them nearly impossible to find.

Want examples of how these programs work together? The most obvious one is Address Book and Mail. They're two separate programs, as they should be. But all your contacts in Address Book show up in mail through address auto-completion. And you can add people to Address Book right from Mail. How about Mail and iChat? If you receive an e-mail from somebody on your iChat list, and that person is available to chat, a little light appears by the mail message. You can click the message, and up pops a video chat window with that person. Those are just two examples of how these programs all work together. It feels like you're using one big program with a lot of windows, even though you're not tied into using all of the pieces together.

And that's just the stuff that's included with the base OS. Every new Mac (as far as I know) comes with iLife, which gives you iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD, three programs that don't have even vague approximations on Linux.

Then, of course, there's iTunes. I can't imagine living without iTunes, frankly.

Given that Mac OS X does so much, it is, yes, a pretty absurd concept for me that people might want to throw all that functionality away and use an operating system that makes you feel like it's 1979 all over again.

Re:Why?

[slux]

Yes, I've used it and I agree that it's a polished OS and Apple's iLife suite did impress me. They encourage creativity like no other. In the end I find myself more impressed with GNU/Linux. I'd like it to learn more from the Mac way of empowering the users, though. Philosophically, free software is doing exactly that, empowering computer users everywhere and I wish it would show from the apps as much as it does on Mac OS.

As for the applications you mention, they're all great but for one reason or another I do end up preferring some available on the GNU/Linux desktop.

Evolution has both an address book and mail. It also has a calendar and these days you see the Evolution calendar events even in the panel's calendar, which I think is great and a good example of the GNOME desktop integration. Evolution is truly a great mail client although it really has even more stuff than I need.

For chat I like Psi which is a great Jabber client available for whatever platform I choose. I may try iChat when it supports Jabber (next OS X I hear) and Psi doesn't offer that kind of integration but it still is the best IM client I've used and currently iChat isn't an option.

AmaroK kicks iTunes' ass in my not so humble opinion. It has many features not found in iTunes which I'm not so impressed with. Also, Ogg Vorbis really is an issue for me as I've got a substantial collection of self-ripped vorbis files. Each and every Linux player support them and so does for example WinAmp.

As for the rest, iPhoto is pretty nice and I can't name anything superior but I'm not that heartbroken from not having it. I can't talk much about iMovie but it seems a pretty good entry-level video editing app, certainly better than Windows movie maker. The stuff that's available for Linux tends to be more pro-oriented in that are I guess (same goes for Garageband). What's so good about iDVD? xine/mplayer/ogle/... do more and work well as DVD players.

Linux distributions vary a lot, if you select a good one, you won't be overwhelmed with choice initially but will be able to get to the options if you want to test the large amount available. Ubuntu, Fedora and SuSe are my recent favourites here. I don't think so much of the OS X desktop and feel your 1979 comment is a flamebait. Some things work better in GNU/Linux, others are still lagging behind it, but nothing's perfect.

Re:Why?

[As Seen On TV]

In the end I find myself more impressed with GNU/Linux.

This baffles me. Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about Linux. I don't know what "GNU/Linux" is. Is it something different?

a good example of the GNOME desktop integration

But the pieces only work with each other, not with other applications. There's no interoperability between, say, the piece of Evolution that stores your address book and your chat program.

I like Psi which is a great Jabber client

That's fine and all, but it's kind of like being the only person in town with a Home telephone when everybody else has switched to Bell. There's nobody to talk to.

AmaroK kicks iTunes' ass in my not so humble opinion

Okay, well, you've obviously got some criteria which would seem strange and silly to me. Because the Web site is so incredibly disorganized I can't find the list of features; the only thing I can find quickly is a set of screen shots ... which are all incredibly hard to look at. So ... you know. To each his own, I guess, but ... wow. Horrible.

I don't think so much of the OS X desktop and feel your 1979 comment is a flamebait.

What does "flamebait" mean? Let me clarify so you don't misunderstand me: Looking at Linux, you'd think that it was created in 1979. It's based on very, VERY old ideas. Programs have bad user interfaces and don't work together. Major pieces of the puzzle are simply missing: There's no way to assemble movies into a DVD for example. It's like Linux was created back before we had DVDs, and never caught up. For that matter, it's like it was created back before we had human user interfaces, and never caught up.

That's what I meant: It looks like 1979. It's bad. Like, bad all by itself. It can still be less bad than other things, and I'm sure there are computer operating systems out there that are worse. But when you put it side-by-side with a Mac, well, it's just kind of embarrassing, isn't it? It's just kinda sad, I think. It wouldn't be as disappointing if Linux were some dusty relic that nobody's touched for twenty years, but it looks an awful lot like it's still in active development. Which means there are people out there who are working hard, every day, to make Linux bad. And that makes me depressed, to see all that labor just wasted on trash.

Re:Why?

[Nailer]

Because a most Shuttle boxes are about six times the size, and look like poo.

Re:Why?

[As Seen On TV]

the GNOME suite of applications do interoperate to a point

That sounds more like an excuse than a feature. Why only to a point? Why is the interoperability incomplete, and why is it only available to other programs in the "suite?" It's obviously possible to do interoperability the right way. Why doesn't Linux have good interoperability?

for other operating systems there *are no different desktops and accompanying software suites*

I don't understand. Why would you want to use a different user interface if the one you have already works? I can understand if you have two interfaces that are both bad in certain ways; you might want to switch from one to the other in order to work around the bad aspects of each. But again, that sounds more like an excuse than a feature. "Linux has more workarounds" isn't a selling point, in my opinion.

And you're kind of missing my point about "accompanying software suites." Talking about software in terms of suites -- applications that are specifically written to work together --is 20th-century thinking. It's a bad solution. Why should you only get interoperability when you use Program A1 and Program A2? Why aren't the interfaces in Program A1 implemented in program A2 and B2 and C2 and G2 and Y2?

There are millions of Jabber users, more than there are ICQ users today.

What's ICQ?

What do you find so hard to look at?

Are we looking at the same thing? The interface is incredibly ugly. Fonts are mis-sized and improperly kerned. Interface elements are placed with no consistency and with insufficient use of buffer space. If you were to put your mouse point in any part of the window and click, some control would intercept the click because the interface is too dense. And the main controls --you know, "play" and "stop" --are completely obscured by insignificant controls. It's like sitting down in the cockpit of a jet fighter ...except all you're trying to do is listen to some music. Complexity isn't automatically bad, but unnecessary complexity is.

I like having the album covers (automatically fetched from amazon)

That's technically a violation of Amazon's terms of service. That's why iTunes doesn't do it. I'm not sure I'd feel very good about using a piece of software that's distributed by people who don't seem to care about being good citizens.

the automatically displayed lists of favourite songs

Yes, in iTunes we call them "smart playlists." One of the defaults is a list of the most highly rated songs in the library. But you're not limited to the default smart playlists, of course.

AmaroK has this and more cool stuff.

You're playing up features, but forgetting that throwing all those features together behind a sham of a user interface is a giant mistake.

And lacks Ogg Vorbis as I said.

ICQ, too, evidently. Whatever the hell that is.

Flamebait is an opinion that's needlessly harsh and unaccounted for.

Sounds an awful lot like "anything with which I disagree," to me. I'm not a fan of dismissiveness. This "flamebait" term of yours seems like an excuse to dismiss somebody's opinion because it conflicts with your own.

They have UI Guidelines and have conducted usability studies.

While that may be true, there is no evidence of it.

Try picking up a recent issue of LJ for a tutorial or do a bit of research online.

A tutorial? Research? You're not seeing it, are you? With iDVD, you drag movies to the template and click "burn." No tutorials or research required. There's no excuse for making it harder than that.

I doubt you can name many tasks that would be impossible on a free software operating system today

That's not really the point, is it? The point is that something that's possible but difficult might as well be impossible for all practical purposes. Because long befo

WHy would you want to?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really wanted a Debian machine, then if you spend the amount you would on a Mac Mini on x86 hardware, then you can almost get a top of the range box, certainly a 1gb ram, 80gb hdd, 2.8ghz machine is possible with the cost the Mac Mini is at.

So why would you use the same OS, on what is essentially older, and far less impressive hardware, when for the same price you get the same OS, and FAR better hardware?

Please fill me in.

Re:Why would you want to?

[elendril]

Maybe because from the price of the mac mini, your x86 hardware will be a bigger, less pretty and probably noiser ? "Better" is quite relative: It all depends on your priorities.

We could debate the interest of using Debian over Mac OS X, but if your really need Debian on a small computer, why not the mac mini ?

Re:WHy would you want to?

[HuguesT]

It's simple. You cannot find a PC that is both as small and as cheap as the Mini, even if you build it yourself. Even ITX boards are bigger (and they are slower, amazingly).

You *can* find faster and (not much) cheaper PCs, but it will be large, ugly, and loud.

Why - Because OS X and BSD are not Linux

[jayloden]

I can think of a reason right off the top of my head why you might want to install Debian on a Mac. There are plenty of people making comments that this is stupid, but guess what? I like Macs, and I really want a Powerbook, but I'd like Linux on it in addition to OS X for two reasons.

1) I like Linux, and I like to switch it up sometimes - maybe on Tuesdays I dont feel like running OS X
2) When I'm working in an all Linux environment, it's often more convenient to have a full Linux OS to test on, work with, and interface with the rest of the system. YES, OS X has BSD under there, but that's not Linux, as any BSD fan will be quick to point out, and there _is_ a difference between being able to fun some linux apps on your OS, and actually having Linux on your machine.

-Jay

It Just Like...

[Doc Squidly]

Wouldn't it be like installing Debian on another Mac? Installing Linux on any box with new hardware will require a bit tinkering but, IMHO, it doesn't warrent a story.

*Shakes head, walks away*

Why not?

[MarkByers]

Why not use one? Why do you need to find reasons to use one? Haven't you seen a picture of it?

I wouldn't mind ditching my towercase for a Mac Mini, if I knew that all the software I run would work on it.

Maybe this should be called...

[chriskzoo5]

Maybe this story should be called "How to make your Mac Mini less useful." I'm all for open source, but at times people go too far, to the point where they would have a less useful open-source run piece of equipment than a "closed-source" one that was very useful.

Re:Maybe this should be called...

[delire]

...errm but OSX isn't free and (for many) has a horrible, confusing, ram and GPU hogging UI. secondly many linux users do miss many applications natively available in popular linux distributions.

regardless there are many real reasons to switch. i know several people that moved from OS9 to OSX and switched to Linux, claiming that OSX was slow, difficult to learn and ugly. i realise that it may be surprising to hear that, given Apple's increased suggestion that they have user-friendliness down to a tee; but for many their particularly rare approach to user-friendliness doesn't suit some people.

even moreso these days given that installing something like Ubuntu linux on a g4 PB takes about an hour and Just Works TM.

Afterall most people just want a clean, easy to install (and maintain OS), to check email, browse, view movies. not one that constantly reminds them of the entire LifeStyle Computing suite offered by the vendor company. and again, they don't have to pay for it. linux feels good, a person can grow into their computer, make it theirs.

Apple (well in fact Asus, IBM and Quanta who make it for them) offer good hardware, second only to Asus in the laptop range. thanks to linux, hardware need not be considered mutually dependent on platform. we should celebrate this fact.

Re:Yes, but...

[whitlock]

I had WinXP running on it a couple days ago, but removed it due to the fear of a virus infecting my precious machine.

WTF?

[Sloppy]

WTF is with all these antihackers who are all asking why someone would want to put software on a computer?! Did I really load Slashdot, or is someone typo-squatting?

Perhaps questions about why someone would want to install software on a computer, is an attempt to start up one of those stupid jokes. 1) In Soviet Russia, Mac installs Debian on YOU! 2) Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Mini Macs. 3) ??? 4) Profit!

But seriously, since when did asking why (as opposed to how) someone would do something unusual with their computer, switch from being a source of shame and embarrassment, to being a source of pride such that people trip over each other trying to get the First Post so everyone can see what a luser they are? Fuckwits.

Re:Deb on G5?

[demon]

Actually, some of the _really_ new G5 variants have a newer (liquid?) cooling system. This has to be controlled by the running OS (hence, OS X), otherwise the system actually will burn itself to a crisp. Last I knew, the Linux kernel developers were trying to glean enough information to write kernel support to control this cooling system, so you could run Linux on the systems without turning them into expensive paperweights, but I hadn't heard if they actually worked it out or not.

Something to think about

[Pax00]

Right now.. I am out of a computer... I am having to use my uncles... what a shame a geek without a computer... anyway... recently my mother got a mac... I helped her set it up.. showed her how to use it.. and man.. I must say.. it has come a long way since the days of the IIsi and System 7... I was impressed... then they release the mac mini... nice.. I have a monitor sitting around... I have a keyboard and mouse.. but no computer... I am tired of windows... I have had my fill.. my uncles computer is always having problems.. and I am always fixing them.. it is slow.. buggy... doesn't want to shut down right half the time... yes.. it is running ME... anyway... I would love to get more familure with Linux... but I don't want to live in Linux... what I like about this article is the instructions on duel booting... why not? keep the full capabilities of Panther and beable to learn more about linux... that sounds good to me... I am tired of the people that are sitting her saying why? not everyone on this site is kernal hacker... not everyone on this site thinks that the x86 is the best thing in the world... its good for those out there that have a mac and want to learn more about linux...

Why replace Mac OS X?

[onesadcookie]

I have to say, I personally wouldn't replace Mac OS X with Linux. On the rare occasions where a piece of Linux software really is the best tool for the job (eg. GIMP, Ethereal) it's usually easy enough to get it up and running under Apple's X11. For me, running Linux would be no advantage.

I'm not running my Mac as a server, though. If I were buying a Mac Mini to be a server, I'd be seriously considering running Gentoo on it. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with Mac OS X client as a server OS, but I do think that Gentoo is easier to administer and keep up-to-date.

My final thought is, that there's always a place for the idealist in this world. Sure, they'll be ridiculed (read the comments here, and many other stories on Slashdot), but face it -- your beloved Linux wouldn't exist if it weren't for the idealism of a few people. The sorts of people who would run Linux on a Mac Mini now are the sorts of people who are contributing patches to, or making donations to, your favorite open-source software projects. They're the ones who are ensuring that in three or four years' time when the Mac Mini can't run Mac OS X Ocelot acceptably, that you can install Linux flawlessly and get another few years use out of the machine. Why they do those things doesn't really matter. "Because I can" is as good a reason as any.

Re:Why would you do this?

[As Seen On TV]

I'm having a very hard time taking your list seriously. It starts with this:

No SSH server.

Dude, what the hell do you think that "remote login" checkbox is in the Sharing preferences pane? That turns on ssh.

But really, the bottom line here is this one:

Image and font rendering isn't as good as pango/xorg.

That's just a big old heaping pile of crap. There is no better on-screen graphics system than Quartz 2D. There just isn't. Everything is antialiased, everything is color-calibrated ... hell, the fonts are even optically kerned in real time! You're just out of your mind.

Re:IBM behind on G5s?

[Anonymous Coward]

If only gcc (and particularly g++) could optimize for shit on the G5. Fortunately, IBM has a compiler that can (CodeWarrior is better than gcc on the G5 as well). I find it kind of irritating that Apple makes out their XCode environment to be satisfactory when it is quite inferior to everything else available.

No offense

[bonch]

No offense, but that makes it sound like you care more about ideology than about functionality. Which is cool if that's your thing, but for me, I'm not thinking about idealism when I need to get work done on a UNIX system. I just need something that actually works.

Re:Cool, man

[michaeldot]

Hey, man, so when can I install Windows 3.1 on my new Sony Vaio that came with XP? Sorta the same deal, isn't it?

Wash your mouth out, sunshine! Round here, Linux is the ultimate OS. Macs are for girls, Windows is for losers. The only reason Linux isn't being used by 101% of the planet is marketing.

Okay, I'm being ironic, but the prevailing attitude on /. is centered in the ideology of the kernel. The essence of a consistent and usable GUI is usually dismissed as eye candy.

Re:Me?

[IPFreely]

Honestly, who wants to run Linux on a MAC when they are able to run MacOS-X on it. Doesn't make much sense to me.

People who cares about having a 100% open source operative system, instead only a part?

I think you missed the question slightly. If what you want is Open Source/Debian, then you pick the software first, and the hardware second. You can get a lot of hardware cheaper than a mini and just as good or better.

The decision to get a mini generally involves a decision that the extra cost brings with it something that you cannot get on other hardware. And that extra is OS-X.

So the question is more like:
Why buy a mac mini just to put debian on it?

Re:Why I would install Debian on Mac Mini

[anechoic]

>>Of course MacOS-X is a great OS, but it isn't a community-supported project. It is something you buy, not something you build by yourself

Darwin - which is what OS X runs on top of - IS open source, can be downloaded separately and installed using X-11 or Gnome as a window server...
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
htt p://www.opendarwin.org/