Free Software on a Cheap Computer

Shell writes "Is this the solution to free software on a cheap computer? NetBSD and Yellow Dog Linux have both begun to support the Mac Mini. This article from IBM looks at open source operating system options on this new contender in the embedded PowerPC platform space." From the article: "This article looks at the current state of Linux and NetBSD support on the Mini. If you need all the hardware and options fully supported, these open source options won't do it for you ... yet. But, if all you need is a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, the code is high-quality and the price is unbeatable." This is part two in the series. Part One was covered a while back.

Comments

OS included?

[WilyCoder]

Is it possible to get a mini without the apple OS?

If you can't, then whats the point? You've already paid for an OS....

Re:OS included?

[lederhosen]

The sam could be said for most winboxes.

The answer is that you can get a _free_ os with 64-bit support.

Re:OS included?

[ciroknight]

Odd, you know what motivated me to buy one of their pretty plastic boxes (iBook G4 as well)? iTunes.

I was so impressed on how well iTunes worked for me, though not being perfect, it seemlessly worked with my iPod and my crappy Riothingy I had at the time. When time came to buy a laptop for college, I looked at my options and saw OS X. Now, I'd seen OS X before; 10.0 disks came with my teacher's G4 desktop (our school's video editing machine), but it wasn't quite the beast I was looking at on Apple's website. I thought, "an entire operating system, as seemless as iTunes, as crashproof as OS X, and good battery life on their laptops." I was sold.

I would have NEVER considered an Apple product had it not been for OS X 10.3. 10.0 was fine and dandy, but it seemed sluggish, nothing seemed to work quite the way it should have, and required expensive hardware to run on. OS X 10.3, however, was stylish, integrated, things Just Work(tm)ed and on top of it all, it was a HELL of a lot cheaper than the Wintel laptop I considered (1300 w/ educational deal, plus 69 for another iPod, vs 2100 for the Dell I would have otherwise got [centrino]).

Re:OS included?

[amonredotorg]

Mind reader.

1. Installing Linux or BSD takes time and experience; Mac OS X comes preinstalled.
2. You can run most Linux/BSD software on Mac OS X. X11 comes preinstalled, too.
3. Mac OS X doesn't lack any package management systems: Fink, DarwinPorts and now even Gentoo MacOS.
4. No need to compile and install drivers for any devices you have. They are preinstalled.
5. If you don't like the Mac OS X GUI, run X11 with your favourite window manager in fullscreen. It works perfectly.
6. You can easily use X11 and the Mac OS X GUI at the same time. It works perfectly, too.

The list goes on.

"Free Software on a Cheap Computer" doesn't mean getting rid of Mac OS X, dammit.

Re:OS included?

[diamondsw]

Bullshit or FUD, I can't decide which. Gentoo/MacOS is brand-spanking new, and has a handful of things running - it's nothing more than a technology demo at this point. Fink, on the other hand, is very mature and works extremely well.

Apple's X11 implementation is extremely fast, being OpenGL accelerated and such. For a silly example, fire up an xterm and run "sudo ls -R /" and watch it fly. For better examples, run KDE or Gnome - they run very well, as well as on any Linux system.

Oh no, Aqua is only available to Cocoa/Carbon which are *gasp* non-standard! Non-standard to who? These are the default frameworks and API's for the platform. I could say just as well that X11 is non-standard on Mac OS X, or Win32 is non-standard on anything but Windows. That is such a completely bogus argument it's trollish.

OS X has a nice kernel, all of the BSD userspace tools, good debian-based package management (although I do look forward to Gentoo/MacOS, as emerge is very nice), a full X11 system that can swap back and forth between OS X and X11, full hardware support, "mainstream" applications - what the hell more do you want?

The only people OS X will not satisfy are RMS-style free software zealots, and those who want complete tweakability and control (which is perfectly valid). For everyone else who wants a UNIX workhorse that is stable, has full driver support, has "It Just Works" down pat, and wants to get work done, OS X is peerless.

Re:OS included?

[Selecter]

People that are using Mac OSX just possibly, maybe, prefer it to Windows or Linux, and dont give a SHIT how free the software is. They use their computers to do things, and they will pay for whatever gets the things they want done faster, easier, and simpler.

I have never met a Mac user that would even consider Linux, not in 15 years. But there are tens of thousands of linux users who have adopted OS X. What operating system do you think all the science geeks who went out and bought powerbooks last year use?

It's not linux.

But ya know what? WHO GIVES A FUCK? The whole argument about who "wins" in the computing world sucks. Use whatever you want, it used to be a free country.

Unbeatable?

[gellenburg]

But, if all you need is a stable kernel, a C compiler, and network support, the code is high-quality and the price is unbeatable.

Especially when all of these things ... as well as full hardware support comes with the f*cking computer!.

Ever hear of installing the Developer Tools on your Installation CD?

No offense, I'm a big *BSD supporter, but this article's summary is rediculous.

Re:Unbeatable?

[Visaris]

Mod parent up. This article is a waste of time. I know people like to put linux and *BSD on everything, but talking about this as a price/feature advantage is just crazy. When the mini comes with OS X, which supports gcc, gdb, X windows, (almost all gnu software) as well as all the Mac software, why the hell would throwing out all that support somehow become "cost savings" ?

Re:Unbeatable?

[ciroknight]

Everyon'es got an agenda to push. It just so happens this article's trying to push the free software agenda. Sadly, I don't think they do so effectively; the Mini Mac is virtually a perfect desktop computer, it comes with a great, fully functioning and partially Windows/Linux compatible operating system, great hardware support, a decent hard drive for the home user (though lacking for the mid-upper range users we are), and Wifi (if you want it) to integrate seamlessly into your home's wireless network.

I just don't understand the need for better software on the machine, even if it is lacking in the USB/Firewire (read: hardware) department.

Re:Why not OS X?

[FLAGGR]

You do realize most apps that run on linux work in OSX? Right now I'm running X11 along with OSX's window server (quartz or something), so you have plenty of free apps you cheap basterd. What do you mean Firefox is better when its not in OSX? I'm failing to see a difference, I've had my mini since it came out, and my PC runs Gentoo (which means its up to date ;)) and the only difference I can see is the close/max/min buttons are on the left in osx :) Modern X font rendering? I prefer OSX's thank you very much. They both look equally nice, but in OSX I don't have to spend hours getting things working. You can repair and upgrade OSX - it's still a BSD. For example, you can still get all that scrolling boot text ala *nix by changing a setting in the BIOS to remove the bootup framebuffer. You can do anything in OSX that you can in BSD. Just some of the things aren't open source, like Aqua. If that bothers you, you can switch to only X11 and use KDE. Oh, and show me a PC that is 1.5--2x cheaper than a Mac Mini, with equivelent hardware (That rules out the Dell knock off pc's) and with the same software bundle. (I hate to tell you, but some open source apps aren't as good as their closed source counterparts. iLife just plain rocks.)

Sunk cost

[omnirealm]

If you can't, then whats the point? You've already paid for an OS

When making decisions about your future actions, you should not take into consideration what you have already spent. That's a sunk cost, and it can only serve to bias your decision. Rather, you should be considering, from where you stand right now, what your best options are for the future. This is why companies will spend millions on building a new facility, only to abandon it one month before completion. They do this because they figure that they will wind up losing more by continuing to dump time and effort into the facility, so what's the point?

If you get more usability, security, performance, or what have you, out of Linux than you do out of MacOS X, then it does not matter whether or not you have already paid for MacOS X. That has nothing to do with what operating system you should be using from this point forward.

Re:cheap $500 ?

[Chess_the_cat]

You're absolutely right. I'm interested in the Mac mini and think it's a good price but that's because it's really OS X I'm interested in. A Mac mini is the cheapest way for me to be able to run it. That's what they're really selling: the OS. As cheap hardware to run Linux on it's a bad deal. I can cobble together hardware for less than $500 that'll handle Linux.

Read the article in context!

[treerex]

People need to remember that the first article in the series was talking about using the Mini as an embedded development platform. Mac OS X is hardly an embedded OS, so being able to replace it with a more customizable system (i.e., Linux, NetBSD) is a plus, especially if you can make use of the hardware provided in the sexy little package.

Putting a crippled Linux/BSD on a Mini when you have OS X installed is silly: except for the sheer studliness of it go out and buy a cheap x86 box to get your Linux fix.

As opposed to...

[ShatteredDream]

MacOS X which has 64-bit support. Besides what does it matter since the Mac Mini uses a 32bit processor...

Re:cheap $500 ?

[mrchaotica]

What part of SMALL FORM FACTOR do you not understand?

Let alone NOT WINDOWS...

So many of you miss the point...

[cbreaker]

So what, MacOS is a decent OS. Who cares? It only runs on Macs anyways. The great thing about Linux and other open systems is that they aren't platform dependant.

You know, some people actually LIKE Linux systems, and they prefer to use them on whatever the hardware of the day is, be it a G5 or an Opteron or an Itanium. At the end of the day, you're still using your trusted and open OS, which you'll more then likely be able to run on the next system out the door by whatever company.

Don't you get it? Vendor lock-in sucks, I don't care if it IS the proverbial underdog that's doing it.