Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
In the end I find myself more impressed with GNU/Linux.
... which are all incredibly hard to look at. So ... you know. To each his own, I guess, but ... wow. Horrible.
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
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.
Because a most Shuttle boxes are about six times the size, and look like poo.
the GNOME suite of applications do interoperate to a point
...except all you're trying to do is listen to some music. Complexity isn't automatically bad, but unnecessary complexity is.
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
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