Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Switches to a Mac
renai42 writes "Linux creator Linus Torvalds said this afternoon that he's now running an Apple Macintosh as his main desktop, mainly for work reasons, although partly simply because he's a self-described "technology whore" and got the machine for free." And yes, he is running Linux on it ;)
My carpenter switched from a 15" hammer to a 16" hammer. It's just a tool fer Chrissakes....
Always good to see another boost to the PPC64 platform though...
Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
I got a mac too. So what? It runs Linux just as fine as on any other mashine.
This has been known for a while. Read it and he discusses why he runs PPC instead of x86, just to have a different view on kernel development. Plus it's not like he runs OS X or something.
It should be pointed out that he is certainly not using Mac OSX - but Linux's PPC port (of course). Don't worry - *BSD is still dying. ;-)
He is using linux on mac hardware that was given to him. Wouldn't you?
Get a free ipod.
Cost of hardware (he got it for free) and cost o software (he writes his own).
Hey, I'd take it too, given that kind of deal!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
While I think this has no real significance in terms of kernel development, I think it may go a long way in promoting the cross-platform, fashionable traits of Linux.
Some of my previous employers think of Linux (unfairly) as nothing more than a DOS knock-off. I'd love to see their jaws drop when they read about this. (Perhaps Vogue might do a fashion shoot with Linux on a Mac Mini?)
Torvalds is showing 2 things :
a) Linux on PPC is at least as good as on any x86 CPU.
b) Apple hardware is desired over your Average Joe's box from Dell or HP.
But of course if he decided to go to Windows you would all have a fit.
But seriously, let's not turn this into the E! network for geeks. I really personally don't care what hardware platform Linus uses or whether he buys his underwear from thinkgeek.com just so long as he continues doing a smashing job maintaining kernel development.
Rats who jump from sinking ships, because somehow, they just instinctively KNOW that it's sinking?
Just kidding. For GODS SAKE I was just kidding. I swear.
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
"[...] the man who has single-handedly revolutionised the use of Unix on the x86 platform"
Oh, I thought there were several people involved in Linux? Didn't know Linus created it "single-handedly".
Thanks for pointing that out to me, ZDNet!
The dual G5 is a neat box, and having gotten it for free, it's hard to argue with his choice.
Personally, though, I don't see a lot of point in running Mac hardware and not running Mac OS X. The OS is what makes the system so insanely great.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
If you submit it again, we will ;)
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
Why should it really matter what platform he's using? Is everyone worried that there is going to be an end to the x86 version or something?
Linux is portable. It shouldn't matter if the main man behind it is running it on a PC, a Mac, an Amiga, a PS2, or a toaster. This should be seen as a good thing.
You aren't LINUX TORVALDS!!!!! So it doesn't matter :)
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Wrong
Apple includes full Developer's TOols with every version of OS X, including a customised version of GCC. So there is a compiler, and much more with OS X.
Actually I find OS X runs surprisingly well on old Macs (perfectly working on my 350MHz G3 iMac) but if you want to use Linux, that's cool too. Just don't make inaccurate statements about OS X.
Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
Concerned geeks need to know.
This is good for people who run big-endian architectures like PPC. That way, endianness bugs get caught sooner rather than later. It also means PPC support in general will benefit, because if something breaks for Linus, you can expect it will get fixed (or dropped) pretty quickly.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
But of course if he decided to go to Windows you would all have a fit.
Firstly he is only switching hardware to one of these not OS (as is mentioned in the summary now).
Secondly, he is showing how Linux is portable. The PPC versions run just as well as x86. So now people can say "But how do you know it works on Mac platforms?"
Thirdly, there are no tangible reasons to go to Windows, and it's hard to see how he could benefit.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
In fact, 2.6 kernels are fully useable on PPC & PPC64 machines without any patches - so PPC kernels are 'keeping up' fine already.
Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
Which is a shame. Booting into OSX once in a while might give him an additional perspective.
He always used to run suse at home and redhat at work. However, I don't think it's wise for him to say what distribution he's currently using. Imagine the response when he told he runs gentoo :-)
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
The thing about Apple is that they put just as much effort into their hardware as their software. If you buy a Mac and ditch OSX in favor of Linux, they have still made a sale of exactly the same value. If a bunch of Linux users started buying Macs to run Linux because Linus does (even though he got his for free!) I'm pretty sure they'd be happy with that.
"The memory management on the PowerPC can be used to frighten small children."
Which is a shame. Booting into OSX once in a while might give him an additional perspective.
He has repeatedly said that he doesn't care about userspace.
He has also said that Mach, which is the microkernel OSX is based on, is a "piece of shit". Read "Just for Fun", his autobiography, for full details.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Sheesh, he's been using the G5 for over a year now.
Anyone who worrries that x86 support is going to end anytime soon is just silly. Thankfully, I don't see anyone claiming that anywhere. The sky is hardly falling.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter somewhere. Personally, I'm hoping that by having the "father of Linux" running Macintosh hardware that more attention will be made to PPC ports, incorporating more capabilities of the hardware, and bringing some of the distros more on par with their x86 cousins.
Are you aware that it's only been within the past few months that there have been some fixes for sleep support on Apple laptops? I'm running a PowerBook here myself, but until more recently couldn't even consider running Linux on it, as if I did I couldn't put the system to sleep (and expect it to wake back up, at least). The built-in AirPort Extreme wireless adapter is likewise unsupported.
Having Mr. Torvalds running on Macintosh hardware may help illuminate these issues, and get a push going to get Apple to open up their specs a bit more, or at the very least attract more Open Source developers to the cause. Personally, while I run OS X as my main desktop environment on my PowerBook, I wouldn't mind seeing PPC Linux on-par with x86 Linux when it comes to hardware compatibility. It's close, but there is room for improvement.
(And for the record, while OS X is my day-to-day OS for getting work done, I do keeep an Ubuntu PPC live CD in my laptop bag for those times when I want/need to run Linux, and have several Intel-based Linux boxes which I routinely access through the PowerBook).
Yaz.
Which is a shame. Booting into OSX once in a while might give him an additional perspective.
Perspective on what? He works on the kernel, not the desktop. If he cared about the desktop, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Linux on the desktop is getting real long in the tooth for me. I'm trying real hard not to boot Windows but I keep doing it day after day even though I'm wasting all of my free time trying to assemble some usable "free desktop".
More
I'm writing to share a tragic little story.
I have a PC that my sister and I used to use for our operating system development. One night, I was writing a new memory manager on it, when all of a sudden it went berserk, the screen started flashing, and the whole VI session just disappeared. All of it. And it was a good memory manager! I had to cram and rewrite it really quickly. Needless to say, my rushed memory manager wasn't nearly as good, and I blame that PC for the crap I got.
I'm happy to report that my sister and I now share an Apple Dual G5 that we got for free! It's a lot nicer to work on than my old PC was, it hasn't let me down once, and my memory managers have all been really good.
Thanks, Apple.
Linux Thorvalds
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
I'm trying real hard not to boot Windows but I keep doing it day after day even though I'm wasting all of my free time trying to assemble some usable "free desktop".
Now, now, while Linux is definitly not "ready for the desktop" no matter how many of the zealots tell you it is, I really can't say that it "takes all available free time to assemble some usable 'free desktop'".
Gnome and KDE handle this rather well in recent years and they come pretty standard with most distributions and even bootable CDs... Perhaps your requirements are different than others?
Yeah, it's easier to use all that crap in Windows because you're comfortable with it and it happens to work better in most ways but it's certainly not as difficult as you make it out to be to do it in Linux.
Somebody ship this man a free Windows PocketPC phone and see whether he's a high-class technology escort, or a low-down crack technology whore.
What's your damage, Heather?
It's funny you should mention this. Have you ever worked on a Chrysler? How about a Mercedes? I've owned both and worked on both and I can tell you that the Mercedes is a better-engineered vehicle in every way. Most Chryslers that are not highly powerful are really fucked over versions of Mitsubishis. In other words, riding to meetings in one of their piece of shit minivans doesn't seem to have helped Chrysler build a decent vehicle. They make a few good cars (more since the merger) and a bunch of crap and it's all driven by economic desire. As usual, automotive metaphors are not applicable to computers.
Given that the majority of Linux developers, maintaners, etc are still using x86, I sincerely doubt that there will be any serious issues with loss of quality. On the other hand, this will probably significantly improve PPC support, and since PPC is going to be in all the game consoles coming out, I want good PPC support in the hopes that someone will hack one or more of them to run Linux. Especially the new Xbox.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Apples do not come with a C compiler. Here at work, I have an iBook I bought in October
Funny, my wife's iBook, purchased in December, came with a compiler. It wasn't installed by default; I had to install it from one of the CDs that came in the box, but that only took a few minutes.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
There's one HUGE important point to all this, and it has nothing to do with fashion, nothing to do with conspiracy, nothing to do with elitism.
It completely prevents the merging of kernel patches that malfunction on non-x86 platforms.
Sure, these would get ironed out eventually, but if someone were to inadvertently do something x86-specific, it would immediately break on Linus's computer. That's a pretty darn good guarantee that the kernel is going to remain architecture-independent all the time, rather than only after cross-platform QA has been recently performed.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
See, this is bullcrap. It's always been bullcrap. What people mean is that it's not ready for *them*, which isn't nearly the same thing. The desktop experience on linux is far better than Windows 3.1, for example. It's better than Win95. It's better, for certain values of better, than OS 9. In fact, the Linux desktop has a lot of advantages over WinXP and OS X, although they do have a polish advantage. The Linux desktop is perfectly usable, no matter your level of technical sophistication. People get upset because they're skilled with Windows and can correct problems there, but don't want to learn the same skills under Linux.
It's been ready for mine for some time. Anything I might "need" Windows for (with the sole exception of certain games) runs fine through Wine and/or VMWare.
I realize your comment was an overall defense of Linux usability...but I get just as tired of hearing "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" as I assume you do of "Linux is teh r0x0r!"
For most basic day to day use (e-mail, web browsing, typing up a letter and printing it) Linux is a fine desktop environment needing little tweaking (or at least no more than XP) and has next to zero learning curve as many environments are specifically designed to mimic Windows as faithfully as possible (unfortunately, as some would argue). For many desktop environments (mine in particular) it's superior. For others, it's sub-optimal to be kind.
The simple fact is, "ready for the desktop" is a misnomer and is no more meaningful than any other ridiculous invented memes foisted onto our consciousness by people (usually pundits, analysts, and journalists) who have little, if any, idea what they're talking about.
A Beowulf cluster of four Logitech MX900 Bluetooth mice, one for each limb.
Sorry, I have a far more time invested in Linux than I do Windows or OS X. I'd been using Linux "on the desktop" during the Win9x years and only switched during the 2000/XP timeframe. I recently switched to a Mac as well.
With all that time invested and the several years more experience I have had with it over Windows and OS X I am going to say again that you are wrong and Linux is NOT ready for the desktop no matter how many times people like you claim it is.
How many times have people been chided for saying "Linux" when referring to a Linux Operating system? They get lectured "linux is only the kernel" blah blah blah
;)" he said."
Well, here ya go, time to STFU about that
"Torvald's response came quickly and succinctly. "My main machine these days is a dual 2GHz G5 (aka PowerPC 970) - it's physically a regular Apple Mac, although it obviously only runs Linux, so I don't think you can call it a Mac any more
If the inventor of it can call the operating system "Linux", then I say that means it's officially "cool" to use the term "Linux" to in fact refer to Joe Blow's "LinuxOS". We;ve more or less dropped saying GNU in front of it, so let's just drop the pedantic grammar fascist lecturing about the difference between a Kernel and the OS.
Now the other issue. He doesn't care about userland space. You know, I think this is a serious problem. Think about this long and hard for awhile. Then rethink about it.
Maybe it's time someone with ultimate say so DID care? Just maybe that might be a good idea seeing as how it's 2005 and not 1995? Look on the shelf at the retail level, how much "Linux" do you see? Perhaps time for some groups to think about forking the kernel and having the forked maintainer dictators actually *care* about userland? Get some much needed standards going? Evolution is not static.
i think the biggest thing about this is that it legitimizes
the mac hardware for linux advocates - which have been
traditionally x86 biased. it legitimizes linux as
multi-platform more than anything else could have done.
j.
Long ago, long before most folks were using Linux, Linus got into a fight with Andrew Tanenbaum about Linux and its design as a monolithic kernel. This is one of the more famous debates of linux lore, so it doesn't hurt read it and its annotations.
The quick summary is that Andy Tanenbaum proclaimed Linux dead way back in '92, saying, "While I could go into a long story here about the relative merits of the two designs, suffice it to say that among the people who actually design operating systems, the debate is essentially over. Microkernels have won."
Linus on the other hand much preferred the monolithic design of linux, for a variety of reasons. Mr. Tanenbaum even went so far as to imply that Linux wouldn't be a passing project for his class. Ironic, no?
Even so, Tanenbaum did and still does have some good points about the Mach microkernel. I can't exactly imagine Torvalds is the most impartial judge of the mach microkernel.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
OS X and X both rely upon IPC message passing for the basis of their windowing system. The biggest difference is that X servers generally come with transport mechanisms other than shared memory that offers network-transparent usage.
Over local connections, images are stored in shared memory segments, messages are sent via shared memory over unix domain sockets, and hardware accelerated 3D is performed optimally.
Loss of performance? None. It is not uncommon for an X server to have considerably superior performance to that of GDI or Quart2D. It's also not uncommon for an X server to perform badly, because its drivers are poor.
It's even more common for toolkit authors to create radically suboptimal decisions, such as with Gtk+ and Qt.
In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. Presumably you've never written a display server, and thus don't really understand how they work.
Linus does hate the hashed page tables of PowerPC.
They are not cache-friendly, and they are complex.
The hardware does have redeeming features. It runs
cool, allowing for less fan noise. It has AltiVec,
giving it wonderful performance on software RAID,
crypto, and image processing. The FPU is very fast.
Plus, Linus got it for free.
I don't know, I'm just saying that the talk about an OS tax, as usually applied to deals Microsoft has with OEMs, seems to not-quite apply here any more (or less) than it would apply to talking about the OS tax on a Palm device.
Even if you somehow manage to obtain OS X without the dev tools, you can download them for free from Apple's site (after signing up for a free online ADC account).
So you point to some general benchmarks showing the G5 not performing better than everything else at any speed and claim it's an architectural problem? Do you even realize that architecture has very little to do with actual chip implementation?
Both x86-64 and PowerPC have pros and cons. Until someone decides to prove conclusively that it's not the OS, or anything else in the system, but only the processor that is the problem, this is mere speculation on the part of fanboys.
You are a troll and nothing more.
kc8apf
"is that every microkernel, kernel, etc. is a piece of shit."
What a truly ignorant statement. Microkernels are more stable than macro's (theoretically) but come at the cost of speed.
Its a tradeoff.
I know shit about kernel design as well but the arguments I see are as follows....
With kernels getting huge, microkernels could be easier to write and maintain since they have to be bugfree and stable. Macrokernels are easier to write generally but when huge can lead to problems. A kernel that has a bug brings down a machine unlike a userspace app. What is Linux? 70 million lines??
In this day and age of fast hardware and very bloated software and kernels, the argument to use a microkernel is quite strong. More userspace and less code touching the hardware can make sense. Also the speed difference is less and less of an issue today.
Qnx is a microkernel and so is AIX. Both are the most stable operating systems out there besides OS/390.
http://saveie6.com/
Tell us your story
"Well, I found the need for a dual CPU big-endian computer with 64 bit addressing on which to test patches for the Linux kernel, so I got this Power Mac G5, wiped OS-X..."
After someone tells you a punchline, do you usually ask, "And then what happened?"
Microkernels are more stable than macro's (theoretically) but come at the cost of speed.
Yeah, yeah - micro, macro, CISC, RISC, this here achitecture is the best evar for everything.
Also the speed difference is less and less of an issue today.
Mmmm. You like bloatware, too, don't you?
I think it has been admitted that though technically it would be a good idea, the encouragement it would be to hardware makers to produce binary modules would damage the linux kernel more in the long term, since it would lead to something comparable to the windows world, where there are no open source drivers.
Currently the cost of maintaining a closed-source driver for linux is prohibitive, so any hardware maker that wants their hardware to work on linux is strongly encouraged to release their hardware specs, and plenty of them do. With a solid binary-only framework in place, there would be little to no encouragement to release specs, and so most drivers would end up being closed source.
To sum up: technically good, politically bad, so no go.
It is funny but disheartening to see how even Slashdot editors can't remember yesterday... before Intel (or HP or Compaq, you name 'em) killed the Alpha, Linus was given a four-way Alpha workstation he used for quite some time, I think it was two or three years until x86 hardware took over in performance (over his three-years old system!) or Alpha was seen as a dead end or whatever.
So he's just doing the same, this time with a platform not so fancy but with a safer future.
It means an easier life for us Linuxers on PPC, but we were already blessed with great hackers both on the kernel and in other parts; for example the leader(s?) of the Debian X Strike Force are Linux on PPC users.
Now what would be great is if proprietary vendors start porting their stuff... every day I miss things like j2re plugin for Mozilla, a Flash player, Adobe Acrobat and NX. Granted there are alternatives and clones, but gcjwebplugin still crashes Epiphany and ain't Java 2 level yet, swf_player is only playback, no interaction and takes way too much CPU, Evince doesn't do PDF forms and X.Fast (LBX) simply can't work in POTS dial-up situations where NX shines.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Having a dual-proc PowerPC with G5 (PPC 970) processors will increase the chances that Linus will think about performance issues for such hardware. The 970 has a longer pipeline than the G4, for example, so it's possible to leave quite a bit of performance on the table with code that stalls the pipeline a lot.
If Linus' insights on this for Linux can help the OS X people even find 1% better performance for any publically quoted benchmark, it will have paid for itself many times over.
This is just a SWAG (simple wild-assed guess).
Why, for the love of all that's holy, should anyone care what computer Linus uses to do his work? If he uses a Sun, Mac, PC or even a PDA, does it matter as long as what he produces works?
I think the simple matter is that Macs are generally appealing, and that those who like them tend to evangelise a lot and those who don't have some fear that x86 is not good enough, or somethiing to that extent.
Then ripped out all the leather, wood trimmings, chrome plated parts, etc. and replaced it all with treadplate stainless steel. Seats would be covered with sandpaper, and there would be no steering wheel. Real men don't need steering wheels anyway, they can drive from the console.
The mods who gave the parent 4, Insightful know nothing about the kernel development process.
For one thing, the lack of support for binary-only modules is not an "oversight". It has been done deliberately, for somewhat political reasons, and is a touchy subject with many kernel developers.
Before giving (or modding up) grandiloquent advice on what the kernel and Linus "need", one should have at least some understanding of how the kernel is developed and what is its current state.
Linux isn't for the desktop and never will be until the driver issue is settled. When I bought my digital camera, I had patch the kernel in order for it to be recognized. It was a trivial patch, granted, but still I shouldn't have to do that.
/etc/foo restart init.d. That is bullshit.
As far as learning new skills to correct problems under linux, that's a bit of a canard. Linux problems tend to be a lot more arcane than problems under other oses. Patch the kernel. Edit
I am not a fucking sysadmin. I do not enjoy fucking sysadmining. Trying to find out out why I have to manually load a module to get USB to work is not my idea of fun. I don't get my rocks off by screwing around with XF86Configs for a week only to get an image that almost fills the screen, and is almost straight across, and just has a little bit of white and black vertical lines in along the top and left edges. When I shove in my USB mouse, I want it to not only be recognized and made usable, but I want all 7 buttons to work damn it. For 10 years I've run linux as my primary OS, and not once in those 10 years has all my hardware worked.
Even if the driver issue is resolved. You then have to deal with the "community". Buggy software that if you ever say anything bad about it, you'll be shouted down as a heratic that should learn some respect for getting something for free. Releasing subpar software doesn't mean you're infallible, it just means you have a hobby. Then if the sofware ever gets to a usable state, the software will be rewritten "the right way" and the bug cycle starts all over again.
I like unix. I'm comfortable in unix. Unix let's me do my work, but these claims of linux apologists saying "Just wait! It will get better! Linux on the desktop is just around the corner! Linux is just a easy as windows! Linux is easy to install, it's windows that's difficult!" (That install line, is my all time favorite.) are getting old. I've heard them all before. Hell, I even used to spout that tripe. Then I grew up.
Just a side note, but that would execute a lot faster if you just piped the list of names through to xargs and let it run cat, rather than run cat once for each file: