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."
Yes, but can you install Windows on it?
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?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Introduction
Apple's Mac Mini is something which a lot of Linux users have been waiting for: An inexpensive, readily available PowerPC system in a small, quiet and attractive chassis.
Debian is very popular on Intel i386 compatible systems. Due to the open source nature of the Linux kernel and the Debian operating system, it is possible to build the same software to run on the PowerPC processor found inside the Mac Mini. It's simple to swap your big, noisy old PC for the slim, svelte Mac Mini, and this page aims to show you how to do just this.
Personally, I bought the Mac Mini as a replacement for my girlfriend's aging 1GHz Pentium-III system. Thanks to the portability of Debian and its advanced package management tools, making her new Mac look like her old PC took only an hour or so.
Hardware
The hardware specification is somewhat less than stellar by 2005 standards, but still perfectly adequate. One can choose between a 1.25GHz or 1.42GHz PowerPC G4, both running with 512K on-chip L2 cache and a 166MHz "MaxBus" front side bus. This is markedly less powerful than contemporary Intel or AMD x86 systems, but for the overwhelming majority of tasks this is more than enough processing ability. If you need more power, you can always stack a few more Minis on top;-)
The advantage of the G4 used in the Mac Mini is that it produces very little heat relative to an x86 processor with comparable computational power, making it ideal for the small space inside the Mac Mini. The G4 used dissipates around 21W at 1.42GHz, and 18.3W at 1.25GHz.
The other hardware in the box is also mature and reliable (or, if you're a glass-half-empty person, cheap and slow). The Mac Mini has an RV280 GPU ("Radeon 9200") with 32MB of dedicated DDR SDRAM. The RV280 doesn't have fancy features such as hardware geometry or lighting transformation, but it's more than adequate for people who aren't interested in playing the latest 3D games. The 3D hardware it does possess is supported by XFree86, which is excellent news.
The system has a single DIMM socket which takes standard PC2700 modules, although it is slightly tricky to gain access to it. The largest available upgrade at present is a 1GB module, but I believe that the Mac Mini will also be certified for use with 2GB modules when they enter production. For the average Linux user, 1GB will be more than adequate. The 256MB Apple supply is far too little for MacOSX.
For heat and noise reasons, Apple have chosen to use a 2.5" (laptop-size) hard drive in the Mac Mini, making end-user upgrades fiddly and expensive. The 40GB or 80GB hard drive supplied is unlikely to be large enough for everyone. Apple appears to be shipping a mix of 4200rpm and 5400rpm units in the 40GB size, but currently all 80GB units are 4200rpm. The 5400rpm drives are apparently faster, presumably due to their shorter head seek times. My unit has an 80GB Toshiba MK8025GAS.
The Mac Mini uses Apple's "Intrepid" north bridge. It appears to be a very compact derivative of the eMac's motherboard design. This diagram illustrates the hardware in the Mac Mini as exactly as I can. Note that the MaxBus and SDRAM are clocked at 166MHz, and the internal optical drive is configured as a slave device on the same ATA-100 bus used by the hard drive. This is a cost-saving measure on Apple's part, as the Intrepid chipset has a second ATA channel that could be used for the optical drive.
The Airport card and Bluetooth modules are mounted on an optional mezzanine card. If your system did not come with either of these options, the mezzanine card will not be present. I am told that the modem is not present on models sold into the educational market.
Noise
It's quiet -- very quiet. But not silent. The only noise is the barely audible hum from the hard disk. Thanks to the fluid dynamic bearings, this isn't the annoying high-pitched whine that older 2.5" disks produced. I'm very pernickety about noise, and I find it quite acceptable.
i'm sure many geeks will find this interesting, but does this have any practical uses?, i mean seriously, who would buy a mac mini just to put on debian?
:).
you could make a mini-itx computer for much less, and put debian on that, not to mention it'll be much more fun
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
And iMovie, and iDVD and iTunes and Photoshop and Poser and Bryce and Vue D'Esprit and... wait... why do I want to do this again?
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.
The "because-you-can" department is in overdrive today.
Do Not Eat iPod Shuffle
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?
Wow, bad wireless support in a Linux Distro? What next? No major vendor games?
You can build a decent and small Debian box for the same money, and MacOS X in a small package is the main reason for buying the Mini in the first place.
I just ordered a PowerBook. I'm going to run MacOS X on it. If I wanted a laptop running Debian, I already have one. I want something with absolutely perfect support for all the hardware on the machine, but which doesn't hold me back like Windows does. MacOS X is the answer, and I bought a PowerBook to run it.
If I got a Mini, it, too, would run MacOS X. I already have Debian boxes, and I didn't pay $500 just to spend an hour undermining half the benefits of having the machine in the first place.
It's nice to see all the excitement about the Mac Mini, and it is a cool box that is cheap but without cheap parts. But let's remember that a Mac Mini is basically just a Mac in a new box. If you can install Debian onto a Mac Mini, you can do it for any Mac.
The main bonus of Debian has always seemed to me to apt.
I have OSX. I have apt. I just installed fink, and got apt with it. I installed Apple's X11 and I run GNOME in full-screen mode. I like the way it runs with Aqua. The desktop is the same in both. I use LyX a lot, but don't like the Aqua QT version so I use the X11 version with GNOME it works better, but when I click "View DVI" it switches back to Aqua and opens TeXShop because I like that program.
I love that kind of interoperability. I get the best of both worlds. I can apt-get install stuff, and still get nice OSX software running alongside it.
If I did want debian on my powerbook I would install Ubuntu. I has a great install process, has a clean desktop even my parents could use, and runs well. But I wouldn't give up my Airport Extreme card for it.
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
The procedure looks rather similar to installing Linux on an ibook/powerbook: nothing difficult, nice hardware, but not everything is supported (a problem with most laptops anyway, but I wish hardware makers would be more cooperative).
:-)
I've been using Debian GNU/Linux on my ibook for two years and I love it (except for the buggy motherboards, but Apple finally fixed that). OSX is perhaps Unix, but it doesn't give me the freedom that Debian GNU/Linux does, nor does it have apt-get
In terms of user-friendliness, OSX wins hands down, but it is for performance and customizability that ppl will turn to Linux on a mac.
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*
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
currently there is no intrepid audio support.
...
i can live without bluetooth and the apple modem support, but no audio
This is why I run MSDOS! No bloat and blindingly fast! And by the way, who needs anti-aliased font!?!?!?! That just consumes extremely valuable CPU and memory resources!!!!!
But the Mac mini doesn't *have* a 64-bit PPC. It's processor is a plain old 32-bit G4, not a G5.
why? because some people prefer linux :)
although OSX is 'unix' under the hood, I still cant stand the 'bubbly' backwards interface. Another great reason is to play around with the source code on a different platform. Although I would never buy an apple product, if someone gave me a mac, I would wipe the OS immediately and install linux.
Well, for starters: how much do you know about the Mac hardware? Apparently, very little.
Slackware, officially, only supports x86 processors.
The Mac dosen't use an x86 processor.
Debian, on the other hand, does produce a PowerPC Linux distro.
Yellow Dog Linux, based on Fedora Core, also supports Mini Mac already, although they don't support Airport Extreme (yet) either.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
X11 is a windowing server, nothing more. What Apple is probably talking about is the fact that a lot of graphical *nix apps use X11 library routines to facilitate their graphical interface, and Aqua does not support these calls. Although the presence of X11 on OSX does make porting apps over to OSX easier(e.g. OpenOffice), it is still (usually) nontrivial.
Either way, it does _NOT_ mean that X11 makes OSX binary-compatible with the other *NIX'es.
People who cares about having a 100% open source operative system, instead only a part?
The people at Ubuntu start with Debian and package it for end users. I have Ubuntu on 2 of my 3 Macs (but both are dual boot) and except for having to install IBM's PowerPC Java SDK, it was just about ready to go.
Why run Linux on a Mac? I find that Linux has less to distract me from work. I like to boot OS X to edit video, etc., but for writing (OpenOffice.org) and programming (Eclipse for Java, Python, and C++) there is less fluff on Linux to distract me from my work.
Just what can you do on Debian PPC that you can't do on OSX ?
apt-get will get you a precompiled binary and all of its dependencies, or you can use apt-build to build them from source.
This is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine...
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.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
There is no internal expansion.
Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
and sadly enough I have a professor who only browses the web in Lynx.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Anyone experimented with running these systems as cluster systems or disposable servers? Would be pretty cool to stack these up.
So why not just make a user for "pure-x11" and make metacity+gnome(or whatever) the default wm/de for that user. You could then log both users in at once, and have get a excuse for using that extremely cool looking user-switching between the two.
not true at all. my old bondi blue 233mhz/160mb ram runs osx slowly, but yellowdog 3 runs rather well. the only problem is the small hard drive and cd-rom. ppc linux runs rather fast. in fact, my 700mhz G3 ibook dual boots between panther and yellowdog. i use it at school and need the linux partition as os x can't access novell netware servers. now, i'm trying to figure out how to run os x under linux via mac-on-linux. but as for linux/ppc performance, linux wins. as for darwin alone, don't know.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Debian is neat and all, but why replace OSX if you already have it? I mean if you don't have a mac, then by all means put debian or some other Linux distro on your box. But if you have a mac, why not go with OSX panther, and soon Tiger?
- A set of Debian CDs: 5,-
- "Making her new Mac look like her old PC": Priceless!
I had Yellow Do on my 333 Bronze G3 for about an hour, it was rather painful..
OSX, wont even let me boot for the installer.. So Im stuck with OS9... Somewhat outdated, but it does fly...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
I would be surprised if linux wouldn't run great on G5s too. IBM has quite a lot of people working in the powerpc port of linux - and IBM is who makes G5s.
"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"
No kidding. We're finally able to buy cheap functional BSD or BSDesque machines and people want to install Linux on top of that? Why? Not enough security problems? A fixation to put things in the wrong place ? An aversion to dp->d_type ?
Need Mercedes parts ?
Not sure if it's the same one - but there does seem to be some sort of "mezzanine board" (whatever that means ;)) inside the Mac mini.
Maybe this will help you: Disassembly Documentation for the Mac mini.
Don't whistle while you're pissing.
"Airport Extreme" is really just the Apple name for a broadcom chip. Broadcom does not provide documentation for their chip, the OS X driver is binary only.
How about ndiswrapper ? I use this under linux with a belkin 802.11g broadcom based card.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
It sounds like this box could be ideal for a low-power low-noise low-size gateway system. I'm actually considering that for this, but my main problem is that it only has 1 ethernet port... guess I could use an usb-ethernet plug.. Anyone any idea? Or any idea where I could get a really small low-power low-noise system (preferably in Belgium)?
Having said that the notion that somebody with Debian in production can just switch in a Mac Mini has tremendous appeal.
Segments are for worms.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
From the article:
A few odd problems I've discovered:
* If I plug the firewire port into the firewire port on my PC, it seems to interfere with the PC's power supply. It's like holding down the "reset" button on the PC. This makes it impossible to use "firewire target disk mode" on the Mac Mini.
However, I'll wager that if he used a 4 pin Firewire cable and it would have worked fine. The 6 pin cable supplys power as well as data, and both the PC and the mini are supplying power. It's probably a ground loop.
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.
that uses a win32 driver, so only wortks under Linux/x86, not Linux/PPC
Why the hell would you want to do that? Isn't that what the old Dell clunkers are for?
Um, Apple deliberately killed off OS9 bootability years ago. You know, something about getting rid of support for that old obsolete OS in favor of the OS they're putting 100% of their effort into for the last three years or so... if you want to keep using your old (and I would assume, since it's so old) unsupported software, keep using your old machine. Nobody's stopping you. However, If you'd like to join the 21st century with it's promises of proper memory management, system stability, and all that, and all the cool new non-ADB/SCSI klunky old hardware, please enjoy your new system.
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
Does anyone know if you can safely install Debian on a G5 yet? The G5's require the operating system to run the fans to keep it from melting itself, and I hadn't heard of any distro other than Yellow Dog claiming to provide that (also, no information about this that I could find on debian.org).
--realinvalidname
Making Mac OS 9 work on every new system requires Apple to spend money to hire people to continually upgrade it so that it works with the new hardware. Apple is understandably unwilling to do this.
Making Debian work on every new system requires effort on the part of Debian developers, with whom Apple has no association. This is completely free for Apple.
So, what's your problem?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
You don't happen to have old hardware around? I have installed debian on two macs and one intel. I can use the same software and share data on all three, no more shareware and tryware notices, and I can keep all machines current, I can experiment with free software packages without fuss (I mean, installing debian is easier than port packages) On my tibookII I have no problems with peripherals (digital cam, firewire hd bought yesterday - gotta repartition it NOW, printer, airport - not extreme, ati radeon), on an old mac i have a scsi scanner - see journal for details. The intel laptop is just behind NAT and firewalled when somebody wants windows. Mac on linux (running an istance of OSX in a separate linux window/virtual console) is also possible, but i didn't get it to run on the newest 2.6.10- guess what, i didn't care to as i seldom use OSX anymore.
;)
The only risk is if a naughty exploit hits debian. But it's a risk that win-only or mac-only setups have, too. Especially win
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
My list of OS X annoyances is here. I'm sure everyone has their own list, and if it's longer that the Linux list why stick with OS X and annoy yourself every time you use your computer?
Beep beep.
It's just that most people who have used OS X and like it for being a *NIX and ease of use think it's absurd to choose the inconveniences of Linux over OS X. Like the lack of AirPort Express.
If that's what you like, more power to you, but don't expect those who like OS X to care too much.
Woever wants to have a decent remote acces... Face it OSX is nice, but it is lousy if you want to have remote access... There is VNC, which is a pain, there is Timbuktu or the Apple remote thingy, both highly expensive. On the Linux side you have FreeNX which is excellent. Those who want to have never versions of the favorite Linux tools, newer than 2000 I mean, both Fink and Darwinports lack new version of many programs, and they lack many programs generally.
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...
Plus you don't get anything like the amount of built in software with your Shuttle + Windows, compared to a Mac Mini. To get the same features as iLife 05 and iWork 05 on the Shuttle would add several hundred more $$'s to the retail price.
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.
I bought a Mac mini the day it came out because it was the lowest price for a OS X dongle I've seen, and I needed something quiet. The old fanless G3/450 iMac is the loudest machine in the house because it has one of those Maxtor drives that goes "weerrrerrrowwwwwwEEEERERROOWrrrrreeeoor".
I installed dual-boot Debian testing the day I got the mini, however. (debian-ppc lost my success report mail from weeks ago, so I can't cite precedence over this guy.)
Why install Linux on an OS X dongle?
Because it's probably the cheapest new non-x86 machine you can buy. I care about the portability of my software to other architectures, and I can check them on the mini. Also, it's big-endian.
At some point I'm going to buy a nice Athlon 64 box and run it in pure AMD64 mode. That will give me a sizeof(void *) != sizeof(int) box, and mostly a non-i386 machine. (It's still little-endian, though.) Between the mini and the Athlon 64, I figure I've covered most of the common portability problems, without spending too much money on hardware I can't use for something else like OS X or Halflife 2.
64 bit support on the application level(photoshop, etc.) for Panther has no performance benefit because the operating system really just breaks the instructions in half.
Um. You really don't understand how 64-bit computing works, do you? When a program is compiled to a 64-bit ABI, the instructions are not, themselves, 64-bit words. Rather, the program just uses 64-bit pointers, allowing it to address more than 2 GB of virtual memory.
Besides, you can't even run Photoshop on Linux, so I don't understand how putting Linux on your 64-bit Mac could possibly improve your life.
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.
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
I bought a 17" Powerbook. While I'm fairly happy with it, they are a bit hacker-unfriendly in some respects.
The UJ-825 "SuperDrive" in mine is RPC-2 with a vengeance, for example. It won't even read the raw data from an out-of-region DVD, making even VNC useless, and it doesn't look like any firmware hacks will be forthcoming.
Also, because Broadcom will not release specs on the Airport Extreme, no "monitor mode" is available, so passive wardriving is impossible without using a 3rd-party wireless card.
Maybe someone smarter than me will eventually reverse engineer and fix these problems, but it's not looking too good so far. IMO, Apple needs to get back to it's hacker-friendly roots.
PK: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
I don't know where you got "proprietary wireless driver." The AirPort Extreme card is a commercial-off-the-shelf miniPCI 802.11g card with an Apple logo on it.
Honestly, who wants to run Linux on a MAC when they are able to run MacOS-X on it.
People like me. I have two Macs running Linux right now. I'm thinking about scooping up a third for the same purpose.
Linux on the PPC really stomps ass.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Gentoo does support PowerPC however, and I think that's the one I'm going to install on my girlfriend's powerbook whenever she gets it (Or whenever powerbook G5's come out).
No SSH server
Open up the System Preferences app. On the "Internet & Network" row, click the "Sharing" icon. Look down the Services list for "Remote Login" and enable it. Done !
Autoupdate keeps on telling me I need 40mb of updates for an iPod and I don't own one.
Highlight the update when it appears in the list, then goto the Update menu option and choose "ignore update".
Image and font rendering isn't as good as pango/xorg
You have sky high standards mate. Image & font rendering are stunning on Mac OS X, and from the few pango'd screenshots I can find I can't see any difference
Expose is nice but more of a gimick than a useful feature
Huh? You're joking. Try using Mac OS X for some real work and get your screen a bit busy. Multiple terminal app windows, a brower or two, mail, etc and you'll soon discover just how useful it is. Especially if you map the Hot Corners of the screen to the different functions. Parking my mouse pointer in my Top Left corner exposes all app windows in the same group. Top Right exposes everything. Bottom Right exposes the Desktop, and Bottom Left turns on the screen saver.
I'll give you the point about the DVD Region locking. Discovered that pain in the ass when I went to the USA recently and grabbed a DVD in the airport to keep me amused on the flight back. Only allows you to switch Regions 4 times before you're stuck. Boo hiss
Don't you think you're being just a touch nit picky with the rest though?
Someone who wants to run a totally free system.
I'm not aware of how the 64-bit intel line works but it would make sense that a 64-bit machine would have 64-bit opcodes. Unless your machine has a harvard architecture you have the same bus for address and data so I don't see why the op-codes themselves couldn't be 64-bit.
16-bit micocontrollers typically have 16-bit op-codes; the ARM is a 32-bit machine with 32-bit op-codes. Why would'nt a 64 bit machine not have 64-bit opcodes? There would be a big benefit since you could squeeze more info into the instruction and minimize multiple access on the bus to do one instruction.
I probably just need to educate myself on 64-bit computing.
16, 32, 64 and further BIT CPU's are not calculated by their opcode size, they are calculated by the amount of addressregisters available. a 64 bit CPU can easily have an 8bit opcode. The old Amiga 68k had 32bit and it had opcodes which were 8bit, 16bit and 32bit long. Now the PowerPC for example has 32bit opcode cpu-mneomonic but that's just because of the nature and design.
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.
it would make sense that a 64-bit machine would have 64-bit opcodes
I don't know about "it would make sense" or whatever, but this is not a true statement. Why would you ever need 64-bit-long instructions? Are you seriously going to have an instruction set with more than two billion instructions in it?
I probably just need to educate myself on 64-bit computing.
Word.
Not yet
I've heard he also wears the shirt to mid-terms and finals
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Someone who wants a less rigid, more customizable UI.
GHelm: A FOSS vector nautical chart
You only get to claim your mom is your girlfriend until such time as you attend the first grade. After that, it's just weird.
If you're familiar with linux, it's a hell of a lot better for most server things than OS X. And it's free. Yes, netatalk isn't as good as Apple's own filesharing implimentation, but it works well enough.
:P
If you don't need a GUI, you don't need OS X (with few exceptions). Debian, in my experience, makes a vastly better server than OS X on the same hardware.
You can support the idea of someone being able to do whatever they like with things they have purchased and still be mystified at the choice of things that person does when they excercise that freedom.
That's not hypocrisy.
Besides which, by asking the question "Why?", you get the oportunity to maybe learn something. In this case, the advantages of running Linux instead of OS x on a Mac mini.
Advanced users are users too!
That's exactly how I see it.
I'm considering buying a couple to use as small quiet headless servers to replace the two loud, large, ugly x86 boxes I currently have serving that purpose.
I'd probably leave the mail and file server one with OS X on it, but I suspect I'd need to install Linux on the firewall / proxy machine.
Unless OS X has similar firewall functionality that is, which I simply don't know at the moment (but of course I'd take the time to find out before I actually did it).
Advanced users are users too!
ok, so I'm replying to myself...
10 seconds on google found this, so I guess I probably wouldn't be removing OS X afterall. But I can still definitely see why one would want to.
Advanced users are users too!
Well if you just stuck with OS X instead of Debian, you could use emerge. But given that it's still in the super-alpha "may eat your cat" stage, perhaps not a great idea.
English is easier said than done.
On his Mac Mini before installing Fedora...
- Because Unix, for me, means very rarely having to reboot to install a security upgrade. MacOSX isn't very Unixy in that regard
- Because I have to do lots of stuff to make my iPod work under OSX, due to some silly iTunes DRM thing, whereas GTKPod just works. Also the tag editor in GTKPod (just click the text to edit) is simpler than iTunes (right click context menu).
- All my work is in OpenOffice and JOffice isn't very good.
on one side we have fanatical fans that have little reason or understanding behind their choice of HW and OS and on the other side... its the same damn thing.
Personally, I can't STAND linux. And the Penguinistas are really getting on my nerves. I believe it is a great OS, but soley on the point that it is free. Yes, and it gets better every day... but that's part of the problem... every single day, the damn thing changes... and from my experience, it breaks itself at regular intervals.
Many Apple users are annoying too... fanatical, but really a bunch of winers. Apple is proprietary, but it is an entity that tries very hard to take care of its customers (iPod batteries notwithstanding). If you want the HW but don't like the GUI, don't use it, you can run KDE if you want (I'm sure there are others). If you can afford it, and don't mind the GUI, what you get is excellent HW, excellent support, and a machine with software that works nearly flawlessly. I am really impressed with how Apple has turned itself around, and just when Microsoft started falling on its face... who knew this would happen?
As for the 64-bit processing questions... I just don't get it... besides games, I think, what is the average or lower educational user going to do with applications that can access more than 2GB of memory? Who can afford more than 2GB of memory? The Mini won't even hold more than a GB (though I hope someday someone makes a 2GB stick that will work in it).
This post, Debian on Mini, was bound to happen. And it is neat, I guess, for the 'science' of doing something the manufacturers never intended. I think linux on the iPod is neat, too. But that's it. Its neato mosquito, man, but... almost entirely worthless, other than having the experience of doing an install that might be tricky.
I can't wait to see the /. post where some genius finally gets linux to install on his cat... now that would be impressive, and turn something totally useless into something that might be incredibly useful.
The Admin and the Engineer
because GNOME is easy to use, and looks nice. because it's faster. because it's open-source. because it conforms to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. because it's more customizable. because GNU-style builds work better on linux. because all of my audio applications run only/best on linux. because APT blows away fink.
I'm tempted to mod the parent as both overrated a troll, but I'll respond instead. And this is coming from someone who is typing on a dual G5 with two other Macs in view.
The general answer is that it could be the user simply *likes* Linux or Debian (for a host of reasons that really don't need explanation to most Slashdotters).
It could also be that the user is philosophically committed to Open Source software, or doesn't have the means or inclination to commit to an OS that doesn't come bundles with something as basic as a decent FTP client.
It could be the user has older Mac hardware that feels sluggish with OS X. Apple has done good work optimizing OS X since its first release, but it's still pretty heavy.
It could be that the user is building a server and has no need for the desktop goodness of OS X.
It could be that the user was given or acquired a Mac box cheaply, but is committed to Linux.
It could be that the user has acquired a Mac without an operating system, and finds the investment in Panther unaffordable.
In the case of the Mac Mini, it could be the user has need of Linux in a small form factor.
It could be that the user has a Linux application need and wishes to take advantage of the PPC platform's modest power and cooling requirements.
It could be that the user is committed to Linux, but appreciates Apple's design ethic.
Really, one could go on and on, but here are a few answers to your question. I suspect, however, your comment was rhetorical.
It's "Mac," not "MAC," by the way. And there's no dash in OS X.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
You realize that 32-bit RISC CPUs don't have 2^32 instructions in it, right? Most of the bits are used for addressing. A 64-bit instruction size would be useful to help out with direct and indexed addressing since it'd reduce the number of add/shift/etc. instructions necessary to build up the address, though of course it's pretty unlikely that it'd ever actually be used anyway (since 64-bit addresses would be used for stuff computed on the fly and not, say, hardcoded into the program).
There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
I see. So her old PC had no wireless, no sound, and flaky video?
I bought the Mac Mini as a replacement for my girlfriend's aging 1GHz Pentium-III system.
yeah.. those shitty old 1ghz p3 machines can't run ANYTHING anymore...
Note: This sig contains nine S's, nine I's and five O's which... means absolutely nothing.
Because linux doesn't kernel panic regularly. To be honest, there isn't much in MacOSX that makes me want to stay - Gnome offers everything useful now. Debian simply has better software.
(As someone who got fed up with the poor hardware support and crappy firewire hardware)
I've bought a Mac Mini about a week ago and it came with both OS X and OS 9 installation CDs.
Also you can install OS 9 from inside OS X and have it set up in such a way that when you're working inside OS X and attempt to run OS 9 app it will start OS 9 until you finish using the app - all without having to reboot and allowing you to switch between OS X and OS 9 apps on the fly.
The more I read the reactions of the recently converted Mac OS X users the more I like Apple. Not because of the OS itself, which is nice in the extent that it is NeXTStep based. No. Because in a clean sweep it has clarified the waters and draged the apparently significant ammount of "pragmatics" away from the GNU/Linux and BSD fields.
Reading the above comments by OSX users is funny as hell! "We can use Photoshop!", "We can use Word!", "We can use iWhatever!". The only important thing is "getting work done with the best tool!". Basicaly all they say applies to Windows, but being made by Apple makes it acceptable. The concept of freedom in the development and use of software is just a sidekick, something that can be convenient but not at all necessary.
Thanks a lot Apple! OSX has attracted -- like a bright light attracts flies -- the Windows rejects looking for a company to worship that rided the free Unices bandwagon for years, but always whinning about the need for pragmatism and pissing in the ideals that made it all possible.
Good ridance, and "think different!".
Read, and laugh. It's funny. :)
100% functionality vs 100% open source. You pick open source, I pick functionality.
Well, I pick open source because it gives me the functionality I want and need, something OS X does not do.
I lost the ability to what, modify and recompile my programs. I still have access to all/most of the same programs, due to BSD+Fink, though.
I was trying to use Fink for a couple of years and finally gave up: it's too much hassle. Ditto for all the proprietary stuff Apple has put into OS X.
For people who want a UNIX or Linux system, OS X simply is not a good replacement.
I purchased a Mac Mini and am dual booting Fedora Core 3 with OSX, though I probably will reclaim the OSX space.
Instructions on how to do this are
here
What's ICQ? What's Ogg Vorbis
When did you get Internet access? ICQ is one of the oldest instant messaging services. Dating back to 1998. Ogg Vorbis is "a completely open, patent-free, professional audio encoding and streaming technology with all the benefits of Open Source." http://www.vorbis.com/faq.psp
They have UI Guidelines and have conducted usability studies.
While that may be true, there is no evidence of it.
When have you used GNU/Linux with any graphical UI? And what was the distribution? I think you haven't seen any modern desktops. In past 15 years I have used all kinds of operating systems Windows, OS/2, GNU/Linux distributions, Solaris, Irix, Mac Os classic and Mac Os X. They all habe usable GUI's but on my humble opinion Os X is one of the strangest of them all. Integrating software totally into operatings systems own GUI messes things up I think. Why can't programs have their own menu's? And how usable it is that you don't close the program by closing all it's windows, but by going trough active programs and killing the application?
The point is that something that's possible but difficult might as well be impossible for all practical purposes. Because long before figuring out how to do it on Linux, a reasonable person will give up and go do it easily on Mac OS X.
But still they would read some tutorial and learn from that how to do it. In Linux you might even learn what happends underneath the pretty surface. I have given Linux cources to unemployed and elderly people. They have learned to use GNOME desktop quickly and have installed Linux on their PC's. All of them used Mandrake or SUSE. Both of them have logical program menus, with best choise of free software. Mandrake has even menu "I wan to.." which has different topics. Clicking somethings like ".. burn music on cd" would start the right program with easy userinterface for you. I just installed latest SUSE and I was really impressed of the installation programs usability. Other Linux distributions should learn from it.
To the contrary, the example you pointed to of a killer app appears to be an atrocity, worse by a million miles than the very worst Mac OS X application ever written.
On what ground can you say that? Lets see Firefox, Evolution and OpenOffice are more feature rich and easier to use than their counter parts on MAC OS X. You got Internet Explorer, your fancy Mail.app and Microsoft Office! Into how many different kind of mail and groupware can your Mail.app connect? In 21st century it's not practical to have isolated programs that can talk to other programs on the same computer. But not with the corporate mainframe that has GroupWare and user management. Can you just drag and drop those into your system?
Apple, the kings of usability, have a product that needs to be modified to work as you like? Something so intuitive needs to be figured out? How can that be? Being intuitive means you don't have to figure it out. Apparently Apple has failed here.
Curiously, gays have more "market share" than Apple does.
Otherwise, this comment is undeserving of a response.
Rejected by a mac zealot were you?
The latest version of OS X runs great on my Powermac 7600 (early 1996), thanks to a G3 upgrade and XPostFacto. As long as you have a decent amount of memory, you'll have few problems. 512mb of ram seems to be the "sweet spot"
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
Heck, if you want to measure the filesystems an OS can deal with by the formatting utilities it includes, Apple's taken a GIANT step backwards with OS X. Can't use Disk Utility to format for A/UX, linux, ProDOS, etc. :-|
Apparently you either haven't heard the horror stories about UFS, or you're one of The Few The Proud The Etc. who've had good experience with it.
Apt is handy. And a hell of a lot easier to use than software update, ime- with debian, any gui app you have is updated through apt. No going to Adobe's site to download updates, going to Macromedia's site to download updates, no downloading Quicksilver and copying it to the Appllications folder every single week, etc. It makes the environment quite a bit more transparent.
Especially when it comes to hardware. Debian makes beige macs and blue g3s (machines that SUCK for OS X) useable, and more importantly- the system isn't strapped to the PPC.... which enables us (my workplace) to spend a heck of a lot less on server hardware. And if you're running it on PPC, you're not stuck with PCI cards and hardware with OS X drivers available- you can run anything that has a linux driver- a good example would be Debian Stable shipping with drivers for common Realtek ethernet chipsets- something that's a driver install on either OS 9 OR OS X. A driver you have to _download_.
Server-wise, I'm a lot more comfortable with linux than I am with OS X. I can get around it, but I just _don't_ like using it headless. The GUI's the entire point of the OS, and if I'm not going to be using it, I'll run something that takes advantage of the features I DO want. The box in the closet could be a pentium three, a Sparc, an SGI or a PPC, but if it's got debian installed, it doesn't matter. (compare SGI, solaris, and Apple command line environments... bleh.)
Some people ask why a Mac Mini owner would install Debian on it. 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 (although it contains a good amount of opensource in it). Debian on the other hand is _your_ OS, something you wrote by yourself and you can feel proud for it. That's why I would install Debian if I had a Mac Mini.
What's so special about Linux?
Um, ASOT? Have you ever used it? You can take a Linux box 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. There's a proper firewall turned on by default, and the web browser that comes with it doesn't suck.
It comes with great personal productivity software: Thunderbird, Evo, OpenOffice, and in many cases, Totem / MPlayer. Some applications that are kinda sorta similar to those are available for Mac OSX, but the Mac versions have three huge problems: first, you have to download them. Second, the OSX versions are less maintained. Third, you have to use a billion different tyools to keep your apps up to date, rather than just one.
Then, of course, you can play a lot more games on Linux on a PC than you can with OSX - either native (usually the same games as most Mac Ports - Doom 3, UT 2004, etc), or through Cedega. Want Halflife 2? You got it.
Then, of course, there's GTKPod. Personally, when I buy an iPod, and upgrade my computer, I can't imagine being told I should delete all my songs to use it.
Given that Linux 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 1984 all over again.
Um, AE doesn't work under Yellow Dog either.
I did try YD on my Powerbook. Then I discovered that AE doesn't work, not to mention the laptop was hot as hell because proper fan control wasn't implemented. I put OSX back on it the next day.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
As usual , Gentoo has an excelent documentation , but for the mini , here a guy gives a lot of nice information about installing gentoo on the mini
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
I hate to reply to my own post, but I forgot to add this:
Closing the clamshell did not put the laptop into sleep mode, further making Linux on my Powerbook totally useless.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
I've never had trouble installing Debian on a Mac using the PPC code set- this is NOT news and NOT difficult- the oonly issue UII've ever had with any Linux distro was in the detection of the graphic card which could leave you in a lerch for certain- Command line hell for a Mac user.. The fact that Airport extreme cards are STILL unsupported stinks.. I've been pining for an older (say 500Mhz TiBook) for Linux use which supports the older Airport card and works flawlessly with the Mac Airport hardware. http://www.petitiononline.com/BCM4301/petition.htm l
Lets petition the drivers be released to the public once and for all!
export the drive where ever you need it ? .
it has nfs, ftp, appletalk, samba, ssh , X11. .
Mac OS X has a built in emulator called Classic. The CD comes with the Mini and if you buy the Dummies book it tells all about Classic and how to use it. Looks amazing, a Mac Emulation inside OS X.
I have yet to try it on my Mini...
Your Average Joe
As the slashdot blurb even states, the Mac Mini uses a proprietary wireless driver that does not work with Linux at all. So it does make a difference if you intend to use wireless connectivity with your SFF PC, you should not buy a Mac Mini to run Linux no matter how cool you think it looks.
Given the popularity of the Mac Mini, I would bet that it's only a matter of time before someone codes a Linux driver for the wireless adaptor. Still, if you absolutely need wireless + Linux, I would hold off for now.
So boot to the command line, and run X11 or whatever other SHITTY interface you think is better than OS X.
My milkshake is better than yours.
That said you are correct that that supporting 64-bit virtual addressing doesn't have anything to do with the address bus size.
It is possible to support 64-bit addressing in a system with a 32-bit physical address space (32 address lines). Similarly, most 32-bit CPUs have more than 32 address lines. PowerPC beginning in either the G3 or G4 (I forget which) supports 36 bits worth of physical address space if you design the northbridge to support it. Ditto on some 32-bit x86 chips.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Ok
1) Max OS X also has another ace up its sleave. It's called Hide. If you've too many apps on the screen and you want to clear it up a bit, hit the Command-H keys and it hides all the windows for the current live app. They don't go into the minimized portion of the dock, they just vanish. But the app is still running (the black triangle below the app icon in the doc shows this).
Too much trouble for you to hide multiple apps? No problem. Select the app you want to keep and go to the first Menu item for that app on the menu bar. Select Hide Others and every other app on the desktop gets hidden in one fell swoop.
2) Download Desktop Manager. It's a Virtual Desktop app just like any you get on Linux, only better. At 322KB it takes minutes to download, then you click on the
- Cross Fade
- Zoom
- Reveal (a powerpoint like slide effect)
- Slide
- Warp & Fade
- Swap Over (very cool - old screen shrinks into the distance, new screen zooms towards you)
- Cube (also very cool - uses the same "switch user" rotating cube effect to switch screens)
- Warp
Plus
30-15 to Mac OS X
From the article: I decided to have an 8GB partition which I would format as FAT32. This allows me to easily and reliably share files between OSX and Linux, both of which have good FAT32 support but, at the time of writing, poor or incomplete support for each other's native filesystems.
I've just bought a Mac, and have been dual-booting between Debian and Panther. Unlike the author, however, I've just been using a large HFS+ partition to move things about. I was under the impression that recent Linux kernels incorporated the supposedly safe HFS+ driver from here: ArdisTech
Was I mistaken? Are there still valid reasons to not to let Linux write to an HFS+ partition?
Does that mean Firefox is crap? Just asking, by your logic it must be.
There are a few things I don't like about Excel, MathCAD, Firefox, Thunderbird, Xnews, Scilab and Matlab, but I wouldn't describe them as crap, exactly. Essential would be nearer the mark.
I find it really surprising that some people (apparently Mac-heads) really think that "why would you want to run Linux, when you can run OS X?". They honestly seem to think that Linux-users will migrate to OS X in hordes. I mean, why should they? Because of the eye-candy?
Honestly, do they think that people use Linux for the eye-candy? Maybe they want an OS that suits their needs? Maybe they want an OS that is free both in speech and in beer. Maybe Linux simply outperforms Mac OS? Maybe they prefer Gnome or KDE over Aqua? Maybe they don't need GUI?
Yes, OS X is a fine OS. No, it's not the OS that will end all other OS'es. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread for some people, but it might not suit some other people (even though those people might like the hardware OS X runs on). I have fiddled around with OS X and there are several things in the UI that annoy me. I don't like the OS X style menubar in the top of the screen. I fail to be impressed by the dock, I absolutely hate the minimize/"maximise"/close-buttons.
And before anyone says "But OS X is based on Unix! That's the reason to use OS X!". Well, Linux-users haven't meen migrating to FreeBSD either (which is more free that OS X is), so why would they move to OS X? Becuase of the eye-candy? Think again!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
While it's fun if you've got hours to kill to muck about with Linux, installing bits of software here and there, OS X is simply ready to use. Plug in your printer, camera, scanner, it'll just work, and there's good quality software to use with them. Linux has nothing to compare to the quality of even software in the iLife suite, let alone the Pro applications that Apple offers. OS X is the consummate "home" operating system.
I like Linux, it's a fantastic server OS, but in my opinion, the desktop software is lacking massively because it has no integration. Best of breed picture editing might be made by (for instance) a GNOME favouring author, which won't play nicely with best of breed word processor which is written without using that toolkit. Actual features which simply don't exist - not to mention the more esoteric things like look-and-feel differences from having different toolkits on the same desktop. It's not particularly pleasant even on the Mac when some apps are more Carbon than Cocoa based, so mixing Qt, GTK+ and other styles (Firefox, OOo, etc.), which are even more fundamentally different is just bad. I'm not belittling choice, just pointing out for me that the Open Source desktop has some fundamental flaws in my opinion, things which stop the job getting done.
Of course these are all just my opinions, but it's nice to not sit waiting for functionality to arrive, and just get on with it.
and many prefer PPC over Intel/AMD architecture.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Yes yes yes.... You say that "But OS X just works!". Well, my Linux-OS also "just works". Every problem I have thrown at it has worked or they have worked with minimium of fuzz.
Weird, my KDE-desktop is integrated. The software works seamlessly together. I fail to see your point.
I use KDE-apps, so I don't see any "look 'n feel issues". Well, I do have Firefox installed (although I don't use it that often), and it does look different from rest of KDE-apps. And guess what? That doesn't bother me one bit! And what about Mac? Will that particular app use the brushed-metal look or not?
And another thing: Everything I need in Linux is free. They are just download away. I have looked around for Mac-software, and free-software (as in price, not to mention speech) seems alot rarer. Maybe they are not that expensive, but I would still have to shell out money for them, whereas in Linux I get it all for free. I guess I'm just spoiled in that regard.
While you do say that "these are all just my opinions", your whole post stinks of the "you would be crazy if you used Linux instead of the divine Mac OS X!"-drivel Mac-users seem to spout. Is it REALLY that difficult to comprehend that some people simply prefer some other OS instead of OS X? I don't spend my time trying to convert Mac-users in to Linux-users, but heaven forbid if I dare to mention that I actually prefer Linux over Mac OS X. I get half a dozen Mac-fanboys trying to convert me to OS X. I have known that Mac-fanatics are even more fanatical than Linux-fanatics are, but it's getting ridiculous! Hell, some of them seem to think that running Linux on Mac-hardware is a sacrilige. Yes, I'm planning to buy the Mac Mini. And I'm planning to install Linux on it. Maybe I will try out OS X for one more time. But I wasn't blown away earlier, and I fail to see why I would be blown away this time.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
but there are other apps for Linux that do the same thing. Some people like to CHOOSE which apps work best for them. And for programmers, open source applications are much easier to customize than Apple-branded software.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Also, try looking a little harder for free OS X software - it's definitely there, I have loads of it!
Nice to know about XPostFacto running on g3 cards, if i should ever decide to put a g3 inside my 7300/166 i will surely try out OSX :)
It has 96MB and barely able to run gnome before swapping out (I know, i should really try something lighter than gnome)
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
KDE has extensive support for drag 'd drop. if I drag an mp3-file from Konqueror to Amarok it get's added to the playlist. If I drag an image-file to the desktop I get an prompt asking whether I want to make it my desktop-wallpaper (seriously, I remember reading a review of OS X where they raved about that feature. I had had it in KDE for a long time already!). Same thing with burning files, ripping music to mp3's/ogg's (have you tried doing that with Konqueror? You just drag and drop the wav-files to your HD, Konqueror does the conversion on the fly. Seriously: it just works!). I fail to see what I'm missing.
That's just it. With Linux, I don't have to "look for it". Just about all software is free by default.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
... and Sonnet is reselling them as their own product at a hefty markup.
When speccing a server for quality parts, you get a broader selection of quality chipsets at good prices with an {IA32|PPC}/linux solution than you do with a PPC/OS X solution.
Lousy if you want to have remote access? I use SSH and don't have any issues, but I don't try to use the entire desktop. Shoot, most of my time when sitting at the machine is spent working in a command prompt.
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
Just to correct you my friend, i work with NOVELL servers, and i have people connecting to these using Prosoft Engineering NOVELL clients for Mac OS X. To connect to a Novell Server from Mac OS X all you need is the right client/s. you will find my favourite of the numerous novell clients at this site http://www.prosofteng.com/products/netware_client_ x.php/
The second correction!!!
Newer versions of Mac OS X, are optimized for the higher end processors, if you run Mac OS X on a 233MHz what do you expect. I could even say that DOS 3.22 runs faster than linux on that same processor simply because DOS is well suited for lower end processors.
If you do a benchmark test, btn Linux/Mac OS X on applications compiled for the IBM Power 970FX you will notice fluctuating results, for Databases(MySQL, Postgre) Linux might be slightly faster, on other things Mac OS X will be faster too. so really these 2 operating systems are in real competition.
Mac OS X just works,
Linux works, but with glitches here and there.
Also an OS X user, I enjoy the occasional use of Linux (to have a headless machine without the GUI eating RAM).
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.
For me, AirPort Extreme would be a big issue, and although there is an issue with disclosing interface specs, I really can't understand why there aren't at least 10 different 802.11g drivers for Linux already. I guess all the developers are busy hacking their 5.25" floppy drivers for more speed (I kid, I kid).
About the only big thing from the Linux side that isn't workable on OS X is glibc (for compatibility as a software porter/hacker), and that's only because it's so dependent on the Linux kernel. There's really very little practical difference for a developer as long as they aren't completely ignoring code portability.
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.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
re: drag'n'drop, you've just proved my point, KDE only does it at a file level, every example you quote is just files. OS X is a lot more granular.
Just because my examples were file-level does not somehow "prove your point". those were just the activities I use the most. I could say that you haven't proven a damn thing, since you haven't told ANY examples yourself! You just said "ooooh, but it's more _granular_!". Sorry, but that doesn't fly. It would be same if I just said "ooooh, but KDE is _better_!"
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I also have one of those -- a first generation iBook. Mine has a little more RAM, and, yes, it runs OS X well enough to keep me from throwing it across the room. Pretty much. ;-)
But I booted the Ubuntu live CD the other day, and it positively *flew* compared to OS X. Even booted up with power management and found by wireless LAN with no hassle. If I didn't need a couple of Mac-specific programs on my laptop, I'd drop OS X on this machine only.
In fact, I probably will when my Powerbook arrives.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Thanks to the portability of Debian and its advanced package management tools, making her new Mac look like her old PC took only an hour or so.
that sounds like sacrilige. I hope the old PC was running Debian and the new setup was double boot. But, then the Jobs co writes at least as much scary legal shit as the Gates gang. So maybe he's doing the right thing.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
You mean they killed off OS9 Bootability a year ago. Its really not been that long.
I cant use Connetix Virtual Game Station anymore! Thank god PCSX came out, I was having to use my G3 DV iMac to play Playstation games. Seriously, Classic can't emulate whatever CVGS needs, which is annoying. Of course i purchased my copy of CVGS several years ago when it was legal software.
Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.