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

Yes, but...

[prattboy]

Yes, but can you install Windows on it?

Re:Yes, but...

[idobi]

Yes, You can install Virtual PC

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.

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?

[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?

[frostman]

I'm happy about this not because I don't like OS X, but because it radically extends the potential life of a Mini for me.

I want to get a Mini and start using OS X as my main (but not only) OS. After living with a 17" Powerbook for a few months, I'm ready to switch - well, switch back anyway, until Win2K I was a Mac guy.

But if I end up liking it as much as I expect I will, I'll want a dual G5 at some point. Then what would become of the Mini?

Problem now solved: the Mini would become a Linux development server (something I always need a few of around).

Very nice. And by setting it up for dual-boot I get can keep it as a backup Mac as well.

Re:Why?

[OmegaBlac]

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.

Steve Jobs is that you? Go choke on an ipod shuffle please.

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?

[c0bw3b]

not to mention that you can't use all of the hardware in the Mac Mini under Linux. Like the Airport extreme.

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

Re:Why?

[MerlinTheWizard]

I already said that not long ago, but absolutely *nothing* beats the Mac Mini for the time being in terms of processing power and smallest form factor. Ok, that and the price: a Mac Mini is rather cheap. Oh, and some people like challenge and like to "make things happen" instead of just gobbling up what they're being given. So there, there is every reason why someone would want to run Linux on a Mac Mini. Of course, I could also mention that a recent Linux kernel is more advanced that the OS X kernel. We could go on... Anyway, why would you want to see a "main factor" or even a philosophy behind a simple purchase. There is not necessarily. But as I said, find me one single device that is as small and as powerful as the Mac Mini. I bet you you can't.

Article Text (just incase of slashdotting)

[Jsutton1027w]

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.

Re:Article Text (just incase of slashdotting)

[Solder Fumes]

"Personally, I bought the Mac Mini as a replacement for my girlfriend's aging 1GHz Pentium-III system"

Aha! Here we have the TRUE purpose of the article: a geek bragging about having a girlfriend. And at a time of the year when most geeks weep silently into the pillow of their twin bed every night, fervently wishing they were Cloud in Final Fantasy IIV.

Re:Article Text (just incase of slashdotting)

[forkazoo]

Weep silently? I added the first steps of primitive network play into the RTS I've been working on. The one good thing about Valentine's weekend is that I can always plan on getting work done, because I know I won't be bothered by other people. It's *great!*

OK

[Anonymous Coward]

learn to live without the AirPort Extreme

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?

Re:OK

[lspd]

The biggest disappointment is that sound doesn't work yet. In the Ubuntu forums there are some comments on forcing the snd-powermac driver to work with the Mini, but I haven't had any luck with it using Debian's 2.6.9 powerpc kernel.

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.

Apparently

[Primotech]

The "because-you-can" department is in overdrive today.

Remember, a Mac Mini = a Mac, period.

[FunWithHeadlines]

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.

Debian and OSX

[puregen1us]

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.

Re:but why?

[Chairboy]

Much less? Mac mini is $500, roughly equivalent to a comparable mini-itx.

I have an M10000 Mini-itx mobo in my car, and I know the costs. Your message smacks of 'it's a mac, so it's obviously much more expensive'.

We live in a strange time, with cheap Macs (mini) and iPods (shuffles). We're like one wax seal away from the apocalypse.

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*

Re:Why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Mac mini doesn't *have* a 64-bit PPC. It's processor is a plain old 32-bit G4, not a G5.

Re:Why ?

[Inconnux]

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.

Re:Slackware?

[faedle]

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

[Phat_Tony]

Yellow Dog Linux, based on Fedora Core, also supports Mini Mac already, although they don't support Airport Extreme (yet) either.

How confused can you possibly get?

[gotr00t]

It seems that with the officially supported version of X11, Apple has made it sound like it expands the functionality of OSX so that it is able to run any app from any *NIX platform. However, this is terribly inaccruate.

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.

Re:How confused can you possibly get?

[dr.badass]

It seems that with the officially supported version of X11, Apple has made it sound like it expands the functionality of OSX so that it is able to run any app from any *NIX platform.

Nobody, not even Apple, has said this.

"Easy to port X11 applications
With the complete suite of the standard X11 display server software, client libraries and developer toolkits, X11 for Mac OS X makes it even simpler to port Linux and Unix applications to the Mac." -- Apple's X11 Page

What you might not realize is that there are already a significant number of X11 apps that have already been ported. This is what the OP was basing his statements on.

Re:but why?

[puetzc]

I built a mini-ITX computer for my wife about a year ago. My specs were 1) Small and 2) Quiet. I used a Ontonashi fanless case from http://www.scythe-usa.com/cooler/epia.htm to satisfy #2. The only OS installed is Debian unstable. My total cost was $600-700 without CD burning capability. If the Mac-mini had been on the market, I would never have bothered, and I doubt that I would have worked with Debian either (as much as I like if for my use). The mini, with OS-X would have been easier to support, smaller, and lower cost. I will probably buy a mini for my college bound daugher soon. You could build a mini-ITX for less, but you wouldn't get all of the features in the mini.

Me?

[diegocgteleline.es]

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

Re:Me?

[b17bmbr]

i'd rather have a crappy OSS desktop than a propietary one.

you and four other people.

most of us will use the best tool for the job. that is why i use os x AND darwinports. i get the best of both worlds. until iphoto, itunes, and imovie have comprable equivalents on linux then it's a moot point. for me, i need java, perl, mysql, php, and python. hmmm...already there. X11. there. the only real reason i'd need to run lunux is if i was doing kernel development or something x86 specific. and i don't.

and by the way, i have linux installed on my pc at home. i've run linux since 1998 (red hat 5.2). my "switch" if you will came a couple of years ago when i needed a new laptop and didn't want to pay the ms tax and hardware compatibility was less than perfect for linux on laptops, though it is better now. plus, i have three children and lots of digital movies.

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?

Use Ubuntu (Debian)

[MarkWatson]

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.

Re:Use Ubuntu (Debian)

[Macphisto]

That's fantastic and I'm glad it's working out for you, but I don't think I'd cite as one of the benefits of my favourite operating environment that it runs *less* software.

Re:Use Ubuntu (Debian)

[peterb]

Why run Linux on a Mac? I find that Linux has less to distract me from work.

Yeah, by running Linux on the mac mini, you get to completely avoid the unnecessary distractions of audio, bluetooth, wireless networking, or modems. Plus the screen driver's flickering will keep you from being distracted by smooth, high-quality graphics, and the annoying, error-prone install procedure will prevent you from getting distracted by having software that works, or being distracted by a GUI that doesn't suck.

Yeah, boy, what an incredible win.

Re:Use Ubuntu (Debian)

[tres]

Well that's funny. I feel exactly the opposite about the whole thing. When I want to get work done, I fire up the Mac. Things just work right. It stays out of my way while I complete my work.

When I want to experiment, play and tinker endlessly with the system (it seems most often to get it working the way it already should, or find another project that works better) I fire up the Linux box. When I want to spend time learning how to get something working or the elements of a project I fire up the Linux box.

Not saying that one is better than the other, it's just interesting that you find you're more productive on a Linux box.

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.

Re:but why?

[powerlord]

Exactly.

I've been debating about upgrading my PC since its gotten a bit out of date. In a college dorm room you don't have a lot of space, so I've been looking at mini-ITX cases and all, but the Mac-mini looks like a very good alternative. Its small, fanless (so I can leave it on and work with a silent keyboard without bothering my room-mate too badly), and the price and OS-X are both additional plusses.

Re:Why ?

[b17bmbr]

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.

You know it...

[mrbarkeeper]

- A new Mac mini: 500,-

- A set of Debian CDs: 5,-

- "Making her new Mac look like her old PC": Priceless!

Re:but why?

[bob beta]

We live in a strange time, with cheap Macs (mini)

Of course, the equivalent PC is only $200 at Walmart. And it includes the keyboard and mouse at that price (Mac Mini doesn't).

Re:keep in mind

[kyrre]

One can get sound to work on the Mac Mini. There is a post from a guy getting it to work on Ubuntuforums.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=12748

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.

IBM behind on G5s?

[diegocgteleline.es]

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.

why there's no Airport Extreme Linux driver

[raulmazda]

"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.

Re:why there's no Airport Extreme Linux driver

[polyp2000]

I think this is where I read it ...

WEP encryption

In addition if you google for "Broadcom Military" you will find quite a few references to their relationship.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Hose writes:

"I love Macs because they represent cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement, they are merry, bright and lively, they have vivid and joyful style."

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word you're hunting for is gay.

Re:Debian on PPC

[TotoLeFoobar]

Fink is nice, but I simply find Debian more practical for my needs.

For example, I like how Debian has mirrors all over the world. Source Forge has mirrors here and there, but most countries have strict limits on the speed of international connections, even with a neighboring country. (Where I currently live, my home Internet connection is 16k/sec for international, 96k/sec for national, 200k/sec for movies stored at my ISP's tera-byte drives^W^W^W^W^W.)

And finally, well, I'm lazy and I find Linux more simple. It answers my needs and I like how the community works, which is open and decentralised. :-)

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.

Firewire problem?

[Dr.Zap]

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.

Deb on G5?

[realinvalidname]

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

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.

Re:Why ?

[marcello_dl]

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 ;)

Re:Yellow Dog / BronzeG3

[andreyw]

Well. Debian on my 200mhz 604e certainly isn't any worse than Debian on my 200mhz Pentium Pro (runs quite good here) - so it will certainly run better on your G3. Key things you might want to do to improve X11 performace is to add an accelerated video card (something stupid like ATi Rage Pro will do).

For OS X (which unfortunately is out of my league, DUE to the 604e, unless I want to run 10.1) I suggest looking at XPostFacto, which should take care of your installation issues. http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/XPostFacto/

Re:What! No Airport Extreme!

[prockcore]

Wow, bad wireless support in a Linux Distro? What next? No major vendor games?

Wireless support in linux distros is actually quite good these days.

I'm on an older pismo powerbook that dual boots osx and ydl. I plugged in a dlink 802.11b card and osx didn't see it at all. I ended up paying for a $40 aerocard driver. (There is an opensource driver but it doesn't support wep or wpa for 90% of the cards). Linux did see it and prompted me for the wep key etc.

Then a year later I got an airport card from work. I plugged it in, and removed the dlink card. OSX made me reconfigure the card, including plugging in my wep key again. Linux asked me if I wanted to migrate my wireless settings over to the new airport. It required 0 setup and "just worked".

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...

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.

Cheap portability check

[Jay Carlson]

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.

Re:Cheap portability check

[toddestan]

The old fanless G3/450 iMac is the loudest machine in the house because it has one of those Maxtor drives that goes "weerrrerrrowwwwwwEEEERERROOWrrrrreeeoor".

Just curious, but why don't you replace it? 40GB drives run about $50-60 or so now, and most of the ones on currently the market only have 1 platter and run pretty cool and quiet.

Re:Why ?

[As Seen On TV]

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.

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 replace Mac OS X?

[argent]

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.

Indeed. Maybe back when Macs were running Mac OS 9, or even OS X 10.0 and 10.1, there might have been an advantage to Linux... but since Jaguar came out I've been hard-pressed to come up with a reason to run FreeBSD, let alone BSD's adopted cousin Linux. People talk about running Linux on a Mac laptop and I look at them like they've grown an extra head... Apple's laptops are uninspiring if you don't get to run Apple's software on them.

If in a few years Ocelot requires more beef than the Mini can provide (unlikely, my daughter's running Panther on a 1999 iMac and it's actually faster than with Jaguar), you'd do way better with Darwin than Linux.

I can maybe see an advantage to the Mini hardware for a little while, but as soon as someone comes out with a nice slab case for your Mini-ITX boards, maybe 8" by 10" but only an inch thick, why spend more for a less expandible box?

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

Apple is not quite there yet

[Cap'n Crax]

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.

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.

From your list of gripes ...

[Macka]

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?

Re:Why ?

[latroM]

Someone who wants to run a totally free system.

Re:but why?

[lost_n_confused]

Of course, the equivalent PC is only $200 at Walmart. And it includes the keyboard and mouse at that price (Mac Mini doesn't).

Do some /. readers even read the thread before they post their 2 cents. Let me give you an example. The Corvette is an exceptional sports car for the price. Na ah I can buy a Geo for $9995. The Geo isn't a sports car and is not even close in form or intended use. When you are going to argue a point read the posts it will open a whole new world to you. Look at the points below and look at your post and then ask why did you ever speak.

Things people have said about the Mac mini that make it attractive to them

1) A low cost
2) Energy efficient
3) A full measure of ports Firewire, USB, DVI
4) And the big one SMALL SIZE
5) Video card that isn't using shared memory
6) From a tier 1 vendor
7) Well built from a vendor known for quality of their hardware and software
8) High resale value
9) Extremely quiet
10) Looks good

Now lets look at your $200 Wal-mart computer

1) Check it is cheap
2) Nope it is as energy efficient as a 1950 Buick
3) Limited output of non legacy ports. No Firewire No DVI
4) It is the size of a 1950 Buick
5) The video card is a shared memory video card
6) What tier vendor is the Wally World Computer from? Is the company one that anyone other then their customers have heard of?
7) What is the quality? Can the Wally World Computer Company even spell quality?
8) Resale value equal to the box it came in
9) Sounds like a vacuum cleaner
10) Looks like a Yugo

I can see your totally right a Mac mini isn't the same value as your $200 Wally World PC. Now I know why I wonder why there is even a voting process in America.

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:No offense

[Ed Avis]

No offense, but that makes it sound like you care more about ideology than about functionality.

Quite, or as RMS would put it, 'care more about freedom than about convenience'.

Re:Why ?

[mabinogi]

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.

Re:Why ?

[kitzilla]

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.

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.

Thank you Apple!

[fsmunoz]

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!".

Re:Why ?

[shking]

You don't happen to have old hardware around?

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"

XFS, Reiser, ext2, etc, etc...

[solios]

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.)

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/

Re:Why ?

[fr0dicus]

I'll tell you why you should consider it. Mac OS X comes with a lot more than just "eye-candy" (although I might point out that it's not very good form to criticise a feature of a different system simply because your favourite doesn't do it too well), it's the greatest thing since sliced bread for some people simply because it comes with bloody great software.

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.

Re:No offense

[fr0dicus]

But it would take very very large changes to even approach some of the functionality (especially the integration) offered by Apple's software with OS X. The "could" argument is pretty weak when it generally "doesn't". Most people aren't coders either.

I used Linux mainly before I switched to Mac, and it just seems to me that since I switched (early 10.2 time) OS X has been accelerating away from Linux in the functionality areas that I require.

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.