Load Linux on the Mac mini

An anonymous reader writes "The Mac mini is an ideal low-cost, high-performance PowerPC development platform for numerous applications. Learn how to install and configure Linux on the mini. Future articles will add the software required to make it into a stand-alone multimedia appliance."

Comments

Linux

[turtled]

Linux keeps on running. I just installed it on my microwave!

Meant to be funny... not trolling.

Re:Linux

[mockenh]

If you have to spell it out like that your comment might not be as funny as you think ;-)

Re:Linux

[MarkGriz]

"If you have to spell it out like that your comment might not be as funny as you think ;-)"

If you have to spell it out like that it's because some moderators might not be as bright as you'd expect;-)"

Re:Linux

[bano]

No he is right, It is not funny.

Re:Linux

[Elranzer]

He's right. It's NetBSD that you install on your microwave. Duh.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

How do rural areas compare to urban areas regarding obesity rapes?

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! QED.

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah? I just installed netbsd to an empty shoebox. beat that.

Further software ?

[rokzy]

what is linux going to offer over OS X since you get OS X with a Mini anyway?

plus does linux have support for AirTunes? and will it have support for the possible video streaming over AirPort Express that was hinted at in the discussion of iTunes 4.8? I don't know but I don't think so.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to work with external harddrives that doesnt work with Mac OS, in my case, the Freecom Classic.

Re:Further software ?

[Fear the Clam]

What's that, the nickname of your Trash-80's game tape?

Re:Further software ?

[dasunt]

what is linux going to offer over OS X since you get OS X with a Mini anyway?

Some of us prefer linus to Mac OS X. In my case, I'm a bizarre, twisted individual that prefers FVWM to any other window manager, likes mutt, slrn and vim, and I don't want to spend hours on end playing with fink and trying to mimic a linux install when a true linux install is just a few minutes away with the right distro and boot CD.

Plus, it annoys the mac zealots. ;)

Sorry guys, while MacOS X is a fine OS, its not all things to everyone.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA:
Why Linux?
This series uses the Linux operating system for a couple of reasons. The foremost reason is that it is a design goal for this project to be entirely open source. This goal cannot be fulfilled on top of Mac OS...

(and there's the modularity of linux et al...)

Re:Further software ?

[TheRaven64]

I have a Mac Mini in a co-lo centre, running OpenBSD. For me, it was a very cheap way of getting a co-located host (the mini is a lot smaller than a 1U server, and so hosting was cheap). In a headless box, most of the benefits of OS X are lost (assuming I am too cheap to pay for OS X server - which costs more than the Mini itself).

I can't really see a reason for installing Linux. The article mentioned that YellowDog was `lightweight', at only 4CDs. OpenBSD is a 4MB boot CD and then you just download the parts you need (around 100MB for the base system). This gives you a secure server, which can easily be administrated remotely. Oh, and unlike OS X, you can upgrade things like Apache separately from the core OS.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Freecom is just a typical USB drive. It works with OS X fine.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a bizarre, twisted individual that prefers FVWM to any other window manager, likes mutt, slrn and vim

And that doesn't work with Darwin because ... ?

I mean, come on. You don't even need to load Aqua if you don't want it. Boot to command line, load your weird-assed window manager, and you're off to the races. Why mess with linux when you can have a flavor of BSD?

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and unlike OS X, you can upgrade things like Apache separately from the core OS.

Nothing stopping you from doing this on OS X.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The foremost reason is that it is a design goal for this project to be entirely open source. This goal cannot be fulfilled on top of Mac OS...

Yes it can. Use X11 instead of Aqua and you are 100% open source with the Mac OS.

You don't get the pretty desktop environment, but you wouldn't get that with Linux either.

Re:Further software ?

[Elranzer]

what is linux going to offer over OS X since you get OS X with a Mini anyway?

The inability to run Macromedia Flash content, for one.

Re:Further software ?

[grotgrot]

There are those of us who bought a mini 3 months ago and don't think that forking out 25% of the original system price for 10.4 is reasonable. So I am going to put Linux on that partition I reserved for 10.4 instead.

Re:Further software ?

[qw(name)]

What kind of problems are you having with it?

Re:Further software ?

[superpulpsicle]

I had an old/decent Mac, I remember trying PPC linux on it. Easily sum up the experience as Disaster. That's the last time I'd ever try running linux on that hardware.

Re:Further software ?

[aristotle-dude]

Sorry, but I don't get you people. Who the fuck cares what "window manager" is running? Do you spend all your time playing with your window manager or do you run software to actually accomplish something productive?

Most people do the latter. The really don't give a crap what window manager is running as long as they have access the the software that they need/want to be productive or creative.

Only a platform zealot would go out of their way to install a different *nix OS onto a box that already comes with one.

Most users use a computer to do "stuff" rather than obsess over what OS it is running or what "window manager" they have installed.

It's the "apps" stupid. The OS is just a means to an end and not the end in itself.

Let's see, you can disable AQUA and start the included X with the ancient/creaky window manager of your choosing.

You have access to AQUA and all of the wonderful free and commericial "software" available for it.

You can get linux/bsd ports through Fink,Darwin Ports or Gentoo.

What more do you want from an OS? Do you want an OS with "less" software and hardware support? Is that what turns you on?

Re:Further software ?

[aristotle-dude]

So what do you use your computer for? Do you use it to fuck around with the OS or to run productivity/creative apps?

If the latter, how does linux provide you with a better choice of software considering gentoo and aptget are available for OS X?

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the parent post a Troll? He's making a legitimate point. Nothing the grandparent said requires that you dump Darwin in favor of a Linux port.

Re:Further software ?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It isn't as if OS X 10.3 will spontaneously delete itself from the hard drive because you didn't buy 10.4.

10.3 is still a fine OS, most of 10.4's features are relatively minor updates anyway, save for Dashboard and Spotlight. There are some issues that need to be worked out with 10.4 anyway.

Re:Further software ?

[grotgrot]

I mostly use it to develop open source software.

What you missed from my post is that I already have OS X 10.3 on my machine and had reserved half of the disk space for 10.4. But since Apple wants 25% of the system price from 3 months ago for 10.4, I'll be putting Linux on that partition instead (ie I will have both 10.3 and Linux).

Re:Further software ?

[argent]

I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the three options I'm inferring from your post.

You can stay with Panther. That's a viable option, the only reason I switched from Jaguar to Panther is that it was the software installed on my mini.

You can upgrade to Tiger. That's also a viable option. You can even stay with Panther now and upgrade to Tiger later when you find you need it... by then you'll be able to buy Tiger cheaper than you can now.

You can install Linux. That's a viable option, if you want Linux. However, it was just as viable 3 months ago and it would have been much cheaper to put together an x86 based Linux box with comparable functionality than to buy a mini.

So what I want to understand is what's changed that makes Linux more attractive than Panther. What can you do with Linux on a Mac mini that you can't do with Panther, because I honestly can't think of anything.

Re:Further software ?

[grotgrot]

No, but I can't add dashboard or spotlight to my open source apps without 10.4. I don't care - it only affects the users of the software.

And adding Linux means I will also be able to release PPC Linux binaries.

Re:Further software ?

[argent]

Some of us prefer linus to Mac OS X.

Linux.

Well, OK, so why did you spend $500+ for a Mac Mini instead of maybe $150 less for an x86-based box with comparable specs that you can put a better video card in?

Re:Further software ?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

This attempt to seem l33t 'n' all might impress the neighbors, but if you can't figure out how to install fvwm, mutt, slrn and vim under MacOSX then I suggest you take up a hobby like flower arranging instead.

Re:Further software ?

[grotgrot]

I use my Mac to develop open source software. The operating system dictates what features I can code against, and what platforms I can produce binaries for.

My original plan was to have half the disk for 10.3 and half for 10.4. When I got the Mac mini I made both partitions and had the 10.4 partition empty till now.

Since I am not going to get 10.4 now, I'll be putting Linux on that partition instead.

I will not be replacing Panther. I will just have both Panther and Linux. Ultimately this will benefit PPC Linux users and be to the detriment of 10.4 users who would like 10.4 features supported. I also have no idea if the 10.3 binaries I produce work on 10.4. (Yes I know they should, but my project is written in several different programming languages, uses some language components from the OS and some from 3rd parties, has hooks into the USB subsystem etc etc).

I already have several x86 based machines.

Re:Further software ?

[argent]

If it's open source software, and there's interesting features in 10.4 that some people want, see if you can talk some of them into doing the work. If it's important, and you're willing to accept updates, you might be surprised at what people will just pop up and do.

Re:Further software ?

[BibelBiber]

What I like about Linux is the better performance on tasks like KDE. For my part I like the Latex programs on KDE sometimes better (i.e. Kile) Then my scanner only works on Linux (maybe I don't know how to to the Sane-backends on os X but anyway. Sometimes it's just good to have Linux (just as some of us Macusers have a spare Windows machine in their cupboard. Just in case...) BTW, it's a lot of fun to install Linux. You always get the feeling you have accomplished something very geeky :-)

Re:Further software ?

[jellomizer]

Well I found that Linux is well geared to developing applience like applications. Take a Distribution strip it down. And make it do what you want and make it do it quite well. A firewall, A spam filter, A way to do remote backups. Or just a multimedia presitation unit. OS X as a desktop operating system is Great, and it is Good for a General Server too. But if you want to a more detailed workhorse then Linux does the job a lot better. Say you want to make a Multimedea system. Install Linux have it open up X-Windows and use your application say Firefox without the menus being displayed full screen. No window managers just firefox. So you have an easy to make multimedea station. Or better yet if you make your multimedea station software as a live CD. You just pop in the CD and boot the Mac. and bingo it is up and running make as many copies as you want and have it spread across your company stores.

Re:Further software ?

[grotgrot]

I do accept code from anyone. But like most open source projects, there are large numbers of users requesting things, way fewer who say they will do something, and even fewer than that who actually do so. Doing official releases is an even more thankless task - they are fairly frequent and should include all the optional components.

Re:Further software ?

[nuggetman]

There are those of us who bought a mini 3 months ago and don't think that forking out 25% of the original system price for 10.4 is reasonable

Yeah. It really pissed me off to no end that all those installs of Panther just totally stopped working at 6pm on April 29th

Re:Further software ?

[argent]

But like most open source projects, there are large numbers of users requesting things, way fewer who say they will do something, and even fewer than that who actually do so.

So you shouldn't worry about whether any but the last group are missing out on the features. :)

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wahhhhh....Apple sold me a very inexpensive machine and they won't sell me the OS for the same percentage that other get it for.

Wahhhhh....for instance, Wahhhhh....someone that bought a wahhhhh dual G5 2.7 only has to waaaaaahhhhhh pay 4% of the system price....waaaaahhhhhh.

Dude, are you really that stupid? Did you not know that Apple had been saying for a year that they were going to release a new OS? Did you not know every major update to the OS is $100 or more? Seriously? Do you think Apple sold you that cheap computer so that you could get off easier than everyone else?

I'm sorry, but your logic is way off and ya sound like an idiot.

Oh yeah....waaaaahhhhhhhh.....you can keep using your fucking 25% quote as much as you want, but if Apple gave you the machine for free with $20 shipping, would we now hear you bitching that the OS now costs you 650% more than the machine? Dude, your a fucking idiot.

Waaaaaahhhhhh the AC

Re:Further software ?

[kwerle]

For me, it was a very cheap way of getting a co-located host (the mini is a lot smaller than a 1U server, and so hosting was cheap).

I'm very curious to know how cheap, and where. If you don't reply here, I'll try to email you.

In a headless box, most of the benefits of OS X are lost (assuming I am too cheap to pay for OS X server - which costs more than the Mini itself).

Gotta disagree with you there. But I guess you don't use java at all, which is a must for me.

This gives you a secure server, which can easily be administrated remotely.

My server is running OSX on an old tower; headless, keyboardless, mouseless.

Oh, and unlike OS X, you can upgrade things like Apache separately from the core OS.

I don't get it. There are plenty of 3rd party apache distro's for OSX - or just compile it yourself...

Re:Further software ?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Gotta disagree with you there. But I guess you don't use java at all, which is a must for me."

Java support on OpenBSD is crap. PF support on MacOS X is crap. Depends on your needs.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I plug it in, nothing happens. Formatted as fat32.

Re:Further software ?

[argent]

I found that Linux is well geared to developing applience like applications. [...]

All a good answer for "why Linux?".

But that's not the question. The question is "why Linux on a Mac?". The question is "why not x86 or x86_64?".

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it does not.

Re:Further software ?

[dasunt]

I have no problems with installing fvwm, mutt, slrn, and vim under MacOS X, nor would I have any problems with installing the same programs under windows.

Heck, I could even emulate OS X under windows and install those applications under the emulated OS X interface.

But trying to turn MacOS into linux is as silly as trying to turn a Volkswagon Jetta into a 1 ton truck. With enough time and energy, it is possible, but why not buy a truck in the first place?

As for l33tness, I run mutt and slrn because both are fine apps, with scoring capabilities, and both will let me edit using vim (and both will run under GNU screen). I use vim because its one of the best editors in existance. I use fvwm because it allows me to do stuff such as map ctrl-j ctrl-k to switch to the page with the nearest rxvt terminal (or open an rxvt terminal if it can't find any).

I'm sorry if you think that the only reason to run certain applications/linux is to be l33t.

Re:Further software ?

[ceejayoz]

But trying to turn MacOS into linux is as silly as trying to turn a Volkswagon Jetta into a 1 ton truck. With enough time and energy, it is possible, but why not buy a truck in the first place?

I was thinking it'd be more like changing a BMW Z4 into a Ford Pinto....

Re:Further software ?

[kwerle]

Java support on OpenBSD is crap. PF support on MacOS X is crap. Depends on your needs.

PF?

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Resorting yo name calling I see. Mac users typically fo that in lack of proper arguments.

Re:Further software ?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"PF?"

It's the firewall maintained by the OpenBSD project. The other BSDs now support it because it's more powerful than the IPFW and IPF firewalls that have been used historically on the BSDs. MacOS uses IPFW with a GUI. It's perfectly good for a desktop machine, but it's not hard to imagine someone wanting more on a server.

That's just an example, but there are other reasons one might pick OpenBSD over the alternatives. Same goes for Linux, MacOS X, just about every OS out there.

Re:Further software ?

[llefler]

There are those of us who bought a mini 3 months ago and don't think that forking out 25% of the original system price for 10.4 is reasonable.

I hear that. There are also several annoyances with OS X that are getting to me (apps should exit when you hit the x), so it's nice to know that if they push me over the edge I have an alternative. And is it really necessary to make us agree to their EULA every time a security update is installed? It's starting to feel like WoW in that regard.

Re:Further software ?

[mblase]

what is linux going to offer over OS X since you get OS X with a Mini anyway?

Someone asks this question every single time "Linux on a Mac" is posted, and the answer is always the same: because you can.

I mean, geez, you can't even call yourself a geek if you have to ask that one....

Re:Further software ?

[kwerle]

Ah - right. Thanks for the clarification.

I've used IPFW on FreeBSD on my server box for years and years, and never cared for anything more.

Re:Further software ?

[ArbitraryConstant]

Well the other two are perfectly serviceable, and if it meets your needs it would likely be a waste of time to duplicate the same firewall with different firewall software.

Re:Further software ?

[douglasq]

How is that cost different than the cost of a Windows upgrade on a cheap Intel/AMD box?

I don't see Windows users complaining about the cost of the OS as compared to their hardware. By your logic, I think they should.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that supposed to be funny?

Format it properly with HFS+, and you're good to go.

Re:Further software ?

[drsmithy]

Java support on OpenBSD is crap. PF support on MacOS X is crap. Depends on your needs.

If pf is heavily involved in your needs, I'm not sure if a Mini is the best hardware platform to be using.

Re:Further software ?

[drsmithy]

What you missed from my post is that I already have OS X 10.3 on my machine and had reserved half of the disk space for 10.4. But since Apple wants 25% of the system price from 3 months ago for 10.4 [...]

You sound indignant - as if this were somehow a *surprise*...?

Re:Further software ?

[ArbitraryConstant]

It's just an example. There are plenty of others.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Mini is relatively cheap and offers high performance for a system with such a small footprint and low power consumption.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that supposed to be helpful? I can not format when it does not show up anywhere. Not in Disk Utility, not under /dev, nowhere. And if I formatted it with HFS+ it would be of no use to me, since I no longer can use it on my work machine with Windows XP. I could of course shell out $200 for a LaCie external harddisk, which will work fine with fat32, but I thought Mac OS was supposed to save me haedache, you know, plug it in and it works.

Re:Further software ?

[geoffspear]

Why "should" an application quit when you select "Close Window"?

An application that does so is broken. Your statement is like saying "an application should save my file when I print."

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

He also sounds like a fucking snob. "I'll have you know that I HAPPEN to develop OPEN SOURCE software!" Like his shit don't stink.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody still wondering why open source is dead and buried? Here's a vendor who brags that he doesn't give a shit about offering important services to his customers and says by way of consolation that he'll be able to support $IRRELEVANCY instead, as if that's somehow a trade-off.

Dead, man. The acme of its accomplishment was Apache, a product that hasn't changed one bit in four years. Everything else is crap that's not even worth talking about.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately this will benefit PPC Linux users

Let me know when you find some.

Dude, if you're not writing Mac applications, then don't fucking bother. The last thing the world needs is another cross-platform piece of shit application that nobody wants. Especially this "written in several languages" crap.

You're a fucking hack. You really need to just give it the fuck up.

Re:Further software ?

[grotgrot]

It is a surprise. When I ordered my Mini, I spoke to someone from Apple. They claimed to be an Apple employee in Austin. I specifically asked them what the upgrade price would be for someone buying a Mac Mini and he said $20. 3 months later it turns out the truth is $130. I wouldn't have bought the system until now if I had known that would be the case.

Re:Further software ?

[argent]

Everything else is crap that's not even worth talking about.

Without open source software there would be no Mac OS X, no Safari, no Dashboard, ... I guess you're a Windows user then.

Re:Further software ?

[b17bmbr]

what is linux going to offer over OS X since you get OS X with a Mini anyway?

nothing. other than to say "I run linux on my mac mini". a coolness factor. sure, there's things you can do on linux, but for $500, you can buy alot nicer white box PC, or even a dell. i love linux, but i need java, php, perl, python, basic unix dev tools, and and some X stuff like gimp, etc. all runs great under os x. i don't do linux kernel development. os x is truly an awesome OS. i have never used anything like it.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because for the last 20 years applications have quit when the X is pressed. Even the Amiga had this one nailed down. Why can't Mac? Is it a bug?

Re:Further software ?

[Lussarn]

Why are you answering a question you obviously have no answer for?

What if I like Linux better then BSD? Why can't I run Gentoo (Which is a Linux) instead of OS X (which is a BSD). If you have used both Linux and say FreeBSD you would know there are ALOT of differences. Startup is totaly different (On OS X it's even more so). Firewall is totally different (on OS X I 've heard it's even somewhat lacking).

Package manager is nonexistant on OS X. I have to resort to third party apps and then I won't get the base system which means shell out money or don't upgrade (If yI have an old OS X I also have security holes because of lack of updates).

I have an X86 box for HTPC right now (built on Linux), I can not see ANYTHING that OS X would give me that Linux won't in the setup I'm using. Would it be so totaly wrong of me to buy a mini to replace my X86 (because then I could have the box next to the TV) but keep the software I'm using.

Re:Further software ?

[Ender_Wiggin]

Mac OS X Up-To-Date Program. Now with Tiger, they lowered the price from a $20 upgrade to $9.95! Just mail in your proof of purchase, and that's it.

Re:Further software ?

[Ender_Wiggin]

Maybe YOUR apps quit, but I remember Mac apps not doing so from the olden days.

Not everything quits when you press X. AIM? MSN? Yahoo messenger?

Re:Further software ?

[jellomizer]

Why non a x86* well if your Linux system is going to be hacked it will be hacked optimised for the x86* so when a rootkit is installed it will be for x86 most likely and probably not work to well on the power pc platform. Also the mac Mini is low cost and small formfactor with full functionality CD/DVD Eathernet, USB, Firewire, Modem, Digital Video out. Also there is the situation that your software that you run just for some reason compiles fine in Linux but not under OS X (And yes Mac fans it does happen... A lot).

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But trying to turn MacOS into linux is as silly as...

That's all fine and dandy, but all the apps you mentioned are Unix apps, which happen to have versions that run on Linux. Seeing as how OS X is a Unix, what you've said doesn't really make any sense...

Re:Further software ?

[argent]

if your Linux system is going to be hacked [...]

If my Linux system is going to be hacked, even if the guy doesn't have a rootkit that'll work on me I'm going to have to reinstall anyway.

And yes, there's Linux software you can't easily port to OS X (or FreeBSD, or Solaris, or Tru64, or HPUX...), but then there's Linux software you can't run on PPC because it's binary-only... so you're still better off with an x86 Linux box.

Re:Further software ?

[grotgrot]

I bought my Mac Mini at the end of January when they were announced at Macworld, along with Tiger (ie 3 months ago), which is why I also asked the Apple rep about upgrades. The Up-To-Date program only covers people who purchased a Mac two weeks before Tiger came out.

Re:Further software ?

[mekkab]

Now that you mention it, an application SHOULD save my file whe I print!

And ask me "Are you really really sure you want to quit?" when I try to exit.

Re:Further software ?

[O]

For me, it was a very cheap way of getting a co-located host (the mini is a lot smaller than a 1U server, and so hosting was cheap).

I'm very curious to know how cheap, and where. If you don't reply here, I'll try to email you.

If you find out, do let the rest of us know, too.

Re:Further software ?

[kv9]

you make it sound like that is a bad thing.

Re:Further software ?

[Thu25245]

I think you meant to say, "The ability to avoid annoying Flash advertisements."

And a stock install of OS X has this feature as well (until you install the plugin.)

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as how OS X is a Unix

The crontab dissapeared for me in a minor update. That was a new one for a unix.

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these things probably work on darwin, but why muck around with an os nobody uses, and I when it comes to straght darwin I mean NOBODY.

Re:Further software ?

[b17bmbr]

you can run anything you want on your hardware. the question was about os x versus linux, and i had an answer. you disagree. fine. i don't think someone buying a mini is going to be missing out on anything linux, especially considering that {fink|darinports} provides almost everything *nix. and darwin ports has a pretty good package management system. not great, but name one linux distro that does. and linux/x86 is a great combo and i didn't say buying a mini was wrong. but for most, many, whatever people, it's not going to be different. i have a linux box at home that a ssh -X into from work, primarily to get around the bess filter to read blogs. but other than a pure OSS system, i lack nothing on os x. i need for development java, perl, python, php, mysql, etc. and i use jedit and vim. i use gimp, but keep fireworks handy.

and when there's a linux version of iLife, than linux will have everything.

Re:Further software ?

[kwerle]

In short:
http://www.macminicolo.net/

Re:Further software ?

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Why do you Apple zealots always whine about this? OS X does not render Linux obsolete.

Re:Further software ?

[geoffeg]

http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

Re:Further software ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that cheap... add some decent bandwidth, and the costs go up dramatically. Server pronto has machines for $30 a month, with 200 gb transfer.. but it's not your machine.. I wonder how much better a mac mini is though.. for 200 gb of mac mini transfer, you'd have to add $88 a month.. that sux.

WTF?

[baldass_newbie]

Why would anyone waste hardware and time doing this?

Not to be a troll, but you've got BSD running under the hood with a clean UI, so uh, what do you gain besides bragging rights?

Or am I missing something? I did read the fine article and I see they want their project to be OpenSource, but THEY ALREADY PAID FOR THE LICENSE!!!!

Re:WTF?

[Mad_Rain]

'Cause I think that the Mac Mini would be an excellent MythTV frontend. Of course, there are some binaries for OSX already, but they aren't optimized for HDTV yet. I have absolutely no idea, but perhaps linux development for this project would be ahead of the curve? (Would probably take someone with more knowledge than me to answer this one. :) )

Re:WTF?

[Victor_Os]

Freedom! (and yes, I am serious).

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more to Free Software than just not costing any money. OSX, pretty though it may be, is still proprietary.

Re:WTF?

[Professor_UNIX]

There's more to Free Software than just not costing any money. OSX, pretty though it may be, is still proprietary.

Darwin is open source, Aqua (the pretty GUI and toolkit) is the part people pay for. There's nothing stopping you from running X11 on Darwin though and you'd basically have a totally open source box.

Re:WTF?

[aristotle-dude]

Freedom? Do you realize that you are "free" to use and develop Open source software "on" OS X and they are kind enough to include GCC with each install?

Are you talking about "real" freedom or GNU/Freedom?

Re:WTF?

[aristotle-dude]

Yeah but you do realize that Open Source "Software" is the main thrust of the free software movement. Operating systems are just another "type" of software. You really should think of the OS you run as a "tool". Now if that tool, allows you to accomplish everything you want, what is the problem? I have a lot of open source software running on my mac right now and I can use the bundled developer tools (GCC) to develop more open source software if I so choose.

Stop making a "god" of RMS and "worshiping" his philosophy and think practically for a moment. If you are running Open source software "and" contributing to open source projects, you are doing more "good" for the movement than if you are just spending your time fighting with your own installation of an OS even if it happens to be open source.

How about thinking of it this way: all that time your OS that "just" works saves you can be used to be more productive personally which leaves you with more time to contribute to open source projects.

Re:WTF?

[argent]

Open Source "Software" is the main thrust of the free software movement.

There's lots of main thrusts of "the" free software movement. If I had more time I'd come up with a wholly remarkable spanish-inquisition skit about the goals of "the" free software movement, but unfortunately my lunch hour is too short to contain it.

Re:WTF?

[ArbitraryConstant]

minis are popular for testing software destined for embedded systems running Linux on a PowerPC processor.

MacOS X and Linux are similar enough that porting software is pretty easy, but they're different enough that the software has to be ported. If software has been ported, you're not running quite the same code. The libraries and system calls also have subtle differences.

It doesn't matter that you're wasting an OS X license if the alternative costs more than a mini. It also doesn't matter if all the hardware doesn't work if the mini ends up sitting in the server room with people SSHing to it.

Re:WTF?

[Victor_Os]

You suck

Re:WTF?

[Sithgunner]

It's right that you do lose the nice OS X that you have payed in the cost of buying Mini, but setting up a decent consumer level i686 hardware costs just as bad as buying a Mini, but with the extra size and noise it produces.

So, unless you think you will change the hardware component, like adding new hard disk or something in later time, Mini can be a real good and silent server for Linux, OpenBSD etc, plus the nifty look.

Now, I may even consider buying it in future not for any desktop use, just to get a decent silent small server for OpenBSD.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably talking about the freedom to run what the fuck he wants on his computer without you and your gay friends trying to convert him all the time.

Nothing New

[Horrortaxi]

People have been installing Yellow Dog on Macs for a long time. This is nothing new.

Since it doesn't support the built in wifi or bluetooth I'm not sure why this would be such a good idea though.

Re:Nothing New

[Andy_R]

If (like me) you only have the bluetooth keyboard and mouse, it might be a very, very bad idea indeed!

Re:Nothing New

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you can run outdated OSX on it with mac-on-linux but not sure if you'll still get builtin wifi and bluetooth support with that.

Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Mac mini is an ideal low-cost, high-performance PowerPC
> development platform for numerous applications

Not to be a troll, but no matter how many times this is said, it's simply not true. The Mac mini is the cheapest Mac, but it's by no means a low-cost machine when compared with equivalent x86 commodity boxes. I could build a mac mini equivalent for half the price, and it would probably outpower the mini just by virtue of the cheap x86 gear no longer going DOWN as low as 1.25GHz. You have to pay more for gear that's compatible with those speeds.

When you can get a commodity box running at 2GHz+ with full sized hard drive and optical drive, along with the performance benefits those parts provide over a 2.5 drive and laptop optical device, how does the mini compare? I don't think it does.

Mod me down if you like, but you can't deny what I've said is the truth.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[rokzy]

what you said may be factually true, but you still miss the point completely.

you even quote the relevant sentence yourself but go on to ignore the most important word: PowerPC.

plus if you RTFA it's about the Mini being good because of its small size etc. so all your points about cost are worth fuck-all unless you can find an x86 machine with the same size and aesthetics. any retard can order a tower peecee from Dell. we didn't need you to point that out.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

"and it would probably outpower the mini just by virtue of the cheap x86 gear no longer going DOWN as low as 1.25GHz. You have to pay more for gear that's compatible with those speeds."

One of the dumbest lines of thought I've encountered on /. Congrats.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

look at ddr ram. pc2700 is more expensive than pc3200.

Point proven.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Scarblac]

You cannot compare a G4 at 1.25GHz to a x86 at 1.25 GHz. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

But when a G4 at 1.25GHz costs as much as an x86 at 2.8GHz, and the x86 demonstrably beats the pants off the G4, then that makes sense from an economic point of view.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[faloi]

plus if you RTFA it's about the Mini being good because of its small size etc. so all your points about cost are worth fuck-all unless you can find an x86 machine with the same size and aesthetics.

There are some decent smaller PC cases out there, with happy fun handles to make 'em easier to haul around. I won't argue aethetics, PC cases (even the cool micro/flex ATX stuff) are still basically boxes.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it does. The G4 has very similar IPC to a old-style Athlon Thunderbird or late-model PIII chip. The only saving grace is Altivec, and that really only makes a difference is a small number of cases (movies, some photoshop).

You can argue 20% either way, but a 1.25GHz G4 basically Year 2000-level PeeCee peformance. Note: I own a Powerbook with this exact chip.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

(G4 at 1.25Ghz) != (x86 at 1.25Ghz)

Hey I just did

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'd very much like an x86 case that has the size and quietness of a Mini for a project (yes, I need x86, I have a Mini here too).

There are some decent smaller PC cases out there, with happy fun handles to make 'em easier to haul around.

Links, man!

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to take this opportunity to warn that the first one of you knuckleheads who uses the word "boxen" is gonna get a smack in the head.

Thank you. Please carry on.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[faloi]

Directron has some small form factor cases... I like the ASUS pre-built one, but I've always liked ASUSes stuff some I'm biased. In general, the small form factor stuff has always worked out pretty well from what I've seen. I certainly haven't played with every brand, but none of the ones I've messed with are craptastic

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Quattro Vezina]

Actually, if the G4's IPC is similar to the Pentium III, then the G4 is far, far better than an equivalently clocked Pentium 4. The Pentium 4 has one of the worst IPCs of all time.

The Pentium III (especially Tualatin) has a much, much higher IPC than the Pentium 4. In fact, the Pentium 4 was ridiculed early on because the Pentium 4 was easily outperformed by Pentium IIIs that ran at hundreds of MHz lower. Pentium 4s only started outperforming Pentium IIIs when Intel started ramping up the P4's clock speed like mad, pushing it past 2 GHz in a few months, and past 3 GHz not much later than that.

Also, the Pentium M is very similar to the Pentium III when it comes to architecture--the PM is basically just a jacked-up PIII with lots of cache and lower power consumption. Right now, we have 1.8 GHz Pentium Ms beating the crap out of 3 GHz Pentium 4s. Why? The P4's NetBurst architecture just plain blows.

Although I do agree that the grandparent is wrong--it's just that the only time a G4-to-x86 comparison is valid is when you're comparing a G4 to a Pentium M or Athlon 64 (especially the Pentium M, as the G4 is a 32-bit CPU).

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

boxen

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[argent]

A quick digression: Directron are less than a mile from me, and they're pretty damn cool.

No, you can't get a PC as small as the mini, because the mini is basically a repackaged laptop, not a stripped down desktop. But you can get a mini-ITX box and motherboard and a decent AGP video card that's small enough. There's not really all that many situations where a one-foot-cube is too bag, and a laptop isn't really what you're looking for... and for those a reconditioned laptop is still pretty price-competitive.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

*smack*

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

OUCH !

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[adam1101]

> You cannot compare a G4 at 1.25GHz to a x86 at 1.25 GHz. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

Very true, different x86 processors vary wildly in performance. A 1.25Ghz Pentium-M beats the crap out of a 1.25Ghz P4 or a 1.25Ghz Via C3.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[enrico_suave]

" I'd very much like an x86 case that has the size and quietness of a Mini for a project (yes, I need x86, I have a Mini here too)."

Check it, we put a nano-itx mobo IN your mini

Although I haven't seen (or looked) to see if any nano boards are out in the wild yet.

e.

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[ErikZ]

Hey! He said you can't do that! Stop that immediately!

Re:Some statements need addressing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong wrong wrong. Early P4s sucked, but the later chips with fast busses and hyperthreading have better IPC than PIII chips. Not as good as A64s, but still better.

The G4 isn't even in the same league as the P-M or A64.

This boggles the mind...

[Dragoon412]

This is Slashdot; I know better than to ask why someone's installing KitchingApplianceLinux 0.3 on his toaster, or trying to get his car to boot off a Knoppix disc, but this, to me, seems asinine.

Paying the absurd premium for Apple hardware just to rip the already-beautiful OS off of it and install *nix?

It's like buying a souped-up $50,000 Cadillac and replacing the engine with something out of a Honda. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Hondas, but if that's the performance you want, why on earth would you spend the money on the Cadillac?

Re:This boggles the mind...

[birdwax2k]

because it looks pretty...something that many companies struggle with

Re:This boggles the mind...

[metamatic]

Paying the absurd premium for Apple hardware just to rip the already-beautiful OS off of it and install *nix?

Absurd premium? No doubt you'll post links to equivalent non-Apple machines that are significantly cheaper. Something like a complete fanless mini-ITX system in a Mac Mini size box, for $300, right? Or are you just bullshitting?

Also: Mac OS X is Unix.

(But not necessarily UNIX(TM))

Re:This boggles the mind...

[Palshife]

Ya know, some of us dual boot ;) We can use that VTEC when we want and then switch back to 8 cylinders with a keystroke. Ditching OS X is a travesty, but nothing should prevent me from using Linux on the desktop when I really want to.

Re:This boggles the mind...

[ItMustBeEsoteric]

Just to remind you, the Mini is pretty far from absurdly priced. They start at around $500 (US).

Re:This boggles the mind...

[argent]

The mini is about $150 more than a comparable x86-based box. Adding the price of OS X to it brings you into the same ballpark... which is an absurdly low price for a Mac, but if you're just buying the hardware that's about a 25% premium, which if not "absurd" is still a bit beefy.

Re:This boggles the mind...

[Wudbaer]

Huh ? How do you have to add the price of OS X ? It already comes with the machine.

Re:This boggles the mind...

[ctid]

Huh ? How do you have to add the price of OS X ? It already comes with the machine.

Add it to the price of the X86 box.

Re:This boggles the mind...

[argent]

How do you have to add the price of OS X

It came with the Mac, and so part of what you paid was the price of OS X.

Re:This boggles the mind...

[Mistah Blue]

I'd love to know an x86 that comes in the same form factor as the mini with comparable performance. I'm not talking a Shuttle box, but one in the paperback form factor the mini is in. I don't think the mini is absurdly priced at all either.

Re:This boggles the mind...

[argent]

I'd love to know an x86 that comes in the same form factor as the mini with comparable performance.

"paperback"? Well, maybe, if you count something half the size of a phonebook as a "paperback". But, yeh, it's pretty small thanks to its laptop technology. So let's see what you can get in the PC world if you use similar techniques...

Googling around it took me about a minute to find a 1.13 GHz Pentium III laptop for $530. That's a bit slower than a mini, but not by much, and that includes a display, keyboard, and mouse ... and wireless.

Re:This boggles the mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

A 1.13Ghz P3 isn't even in the same ballpark as a 1.25Ghz G4. The mini will smack that one right nicely!

Next up

[justforaday]

Next up on Slashdot: How to install Windows on that pile of hardware you just bought!

Umm, why/how did this get posted?

Re:Next up

[Winterblink]

I don't know. Why did you read it?

Re:Next up

[justforaday]

I didn't read it. I skimmed through it, saw that it boiled down to "how to install yellow dog on a mini" and posted my comment.

Re:Next up

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here...

Ummm

[j0nkatz]

Linux on a Mac when it already has OS X?

That's like putting a ricer engine in a new Corvette!

Re:Ummm

[repruhsent]

How is this flamebait? The author was expressing his opinion. You Linux zealots are a bunch of fucking morons.

Think about things for a moment: Linux has been in development for about a bazillion years and still has a primary UI that's based on technology that's 20 years old (e.g. the X window system). Mac OS X has been in development for considerably less time than this and it already has a much better UI (with the capability of running your crappy X window system) and all of the benefits you'd expect from a *nix.

Contrary to what you believe, Linux is NOT the solution to every computing need. Some of us live in the real world (and not our parents' basements); we don't have time to read through thousands of hits on Google for the solution on how to recompile our kernel to support the color blue. For us (and for you fuckers, if you'd pull your heads out of RMS's ass), Mac OS X is about the best *nix we'll ever run.

Just face it: Linux sucks.

Re:Ummm

[mattyrobinson69]

Do you know what X is? Do you know anything about X other than 'it doesn't like pretty on my osx box'?

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I write quite a bit of code under the X window system. I would say this makes me quite qualified to make this observation.

In fact, I bet I know more about it than you do, since you're too much of an idiot to call it by its real name. How about you do us all a favor: go use some shotgun mouthwash. No one likes you, fag.

iBook

[the_rev_matt]

I haven't done it on my mini yet, but I did install YDL 4 on my iBook last week. It was the easiest linux install I've ever done. If you've used any version of Red Hat > 8.0 then YDL will be very familiar. It's basically a PPC port of Fedora Core 3.

Re:iBook

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's basically a PPC port of Fedora Core 3.

Now that Fedora Core 4 has a PPC port, what other advantages does YDL offer?

Linux on Mac

[Thijs van As]

I initially bought my 12" iBook G3 to install Linux on it. I chose for the iBook because of the size/battery life/price. It was going to be my first mac, I didn't even work with one before.
After all, I did install Linux on it (YDL), but I didn't use it for longer than an hour! Before that time I used Linux as the OS on my PC. It's just because the sharm of OS X I didn't use it.
Now, 1,5 years later, I bought a Mac mini and I'm not planning to install Linux on it... I'm totally OS X'ed.

Plus add the fact that important stuff like Airport Extreme won't work.

Think...

[COBOL/MVS]

Since IBM is hosting this article, I'm not that surprised that this was done. IBM has always seen Apple as a threat, not an ally. If you could run Linux on all Apple hardware (which has been done for years I know) then that hurts Apple in IBM's book.

How come no one has figured out how to install Linux on an iPod yet?

Re:Think...

[Anonymous Coward]

iPod Linux

"How come no one has figured out how to google yet" :)

Re:Think...

[Nastard]

I'm guessing you aren't aware of who makes Apple's processors.

Re:Think...

[confused one]

Maybe they're doing this because they are pushing linux and are suggesting a development platform compatible with Power??? Could it be that IBM supplies Apple with the G5 and would rather see people use that platform than the x86. Could it be their giving developers a low cost option to work with; so they can develop code to use on their Power based servers?

Re:Think...

[Chucker23N]

"Since IBM is hosting this article, I'm not that surprised that this was done. IBM has always seen Apple as a threat, not an ally."

I'm sure you can explain the series of "Using Mac OS X with your Mac mini" articles at IBM then. They don't even mention IBM's commercial compiler and use Apple's provided GCC version.

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/libr ar y/pa-macmini1/?ca=dgr-mw01macminip1

"How come no one has figured out how to install Linux on an iPod yet?"

http://www.ipodlinux.org/Main_Page -- they have. A long time ago.

Re:Think...

[COBOL/MVS]

Well, now i've seen everything.

Re:Think...

[COBOL/MVS]

Could it be their giving developers a low cost option to work with;

With a few exceptions (eclipse, iTunes, etc.) there is nothing low-cost about IBM or Apple. There is no altruistic motive behind this, although it looks like one on the surface.

Re:Think...

[COBOL/MVS]

I'm sure you can explain the series of "Using Mac OS X with your Mac mini" articles at IBM then. They don't even mention IBM's commercial compiler and use Apple's provided GCC version.

No, I can't.

Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[wolf31o2]

1. Download Gentoo 2005.0 for PPC
2. Boot Gentoo 2005.0 for PPC
3. Follow Gentoo Handbook for PPC

How exactly is this news? Is it really that hard to use other distributions on the Mini?

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Can I just say that your amazingly patronising post, paired to your sig pointing to your official capacity as a gentoo spokesperson is one of the reasons I will NEVER EVER even consider installing gentoo. This ceaseless gentoo trolling and hidden RTFM attitude is frankly infuriating.

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[wolf31o2]

Not having a Mini myself, I was asking a serious question.

Is it really so hard to install Linux on a Mini compared to any other Mac that it deserves its own article?

I could care less what you think about Gentoo. However, you made your position quite clear when you immediately assumed that I was spouting some pro-Gentoo stance and trying to detract from other distributions. Whether I am a Gentoo developer or not doesn't change the simple fact that I asked a simple question, to which I would really like to hear an answer rather than some baseless nonesense being spouted off by an obvious Gentoo detractor that self-admittedly has never even tried the distribution.

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Oh come on now, you come here with your 4-line gentoo pimping sig, you have four links to gentoo on your posts and you act hurt when someone takes you up to your obvious spamming?

But no, you have to reply and act all hurt. That is even worse and in my eyes makes you a hypocrite.

Good day sir.

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[@madeus]

Smart move IMO. Don't forget Gentoo is for ricers!. Seriously though, I love Gentoo users, they're funny.

Personally, I'd rather install a GNU tool chain on a FreeBSD, Solaris or Mac OS X box and cross compile a network enabled kernel, a shell, some core utilities and then just download anything else I need from the appropriate location than ever again waste time with the retarded horror that is Gentoo and it's 'non-installer'.

It's as if whoever came up with their recommended 'install proceedure' did it specifically in ways designed to utterly waste your time. Due to largely pointless overhead the whole install proceedure and portage system is markedly less efficent than using curl to pull down packages from a local gnu.org mirror alone, in so far as man hours required to actually achive the objective of getting a system that does what you want it to do, IME.

At some point, the penny will hopefully drop and someone will realise the the vast majority of the installation process can in fact (if they had a clue) be automated and wrapped in, at worst, an ncurses display, and that having the end user manually piss about untar'ing files makes the likes of Slackware and MkLinux (circa 1995) seem /polished/.

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[wolf31o2]

Gentoo Linux Installer

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[wolf31o2]

Actually, my sig mentions Gentoo exactly once. There also wasn't a single link to Gentoo in my post.

Not to mention, you still have not answered my question, it is pretty obvious that you're just spouting out bullshit to hear yourself talk.

So, can anyone answer my question? Is it really that hard to install Linux on a Mac Mini (versus any other Mac)?

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[damsa]

I'll bite. If the Mac Mini is a crossover machine for first time Mac Users switching from PC windows or PC Linux. Then it makes sense that people will post how to install Linux on a Mac Mini. Is there a big different between a Mac Linux install and a PC Linux install. I think so, especially if you want to dual boot. Is there a big difference between a Mac Mini Linux install and an eMac install. Probably not. But if the question is does it warrant it's own article. I say why not. I tried installing linux on my Lime Green iMac way back when. A step by step how to would've been quite helpful. I might never have given up.

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you the man with the big fucking title? YOU answer us. Wanker.

Re:Load Linux on the Mac Mini

[@madeus]

I should point out for the benefit of anyone reading that that isn't the current Gentoo installer, and in fact it has not had an alpha release yet. To my knowledge the current release has not so much as an ncurses installer (which would require all of a long weekend to implement).

Certainly, the screen shots look good and are a step in the right direction, and it seems to be designed well enough, but this is the sort of stuff that's reasonably trivial to do (having been done umpteen times already, so there are plenty of points of reference).

Though, it still utterly misses the point that all the work needed to turn Gentoo into something as practical as Debian, SuSE, Slackware, Red Hat or Mandrake (etc) is all together very significant, and by the time it's complete you'd find you have a mature distribution which bears little resemblance to the current Gentoo distribution.

From my perspective, it's all so ten years ago, but so many of it's users didn't seem to be Linux users back then (going by the forums a significant majority of them still seem to be in school right now, so I'm not surprised and that's not intended as a troll) that they are reinventing the wheel, and labour under the impression that Gentoo is something different.

It strikes me as especially odd, as Slackware is still plodding around and is just as good an introduction in that vein as ever, if that's what your looking for (you don't need a whole new *distribution* to start using CFLAGS or compiling software FFS). Gentoo is *really* doing nothing new, it's just doing stuff people use to do, but no longer do in the same way, for good reason.

Actually, that's a lie, it doesn't strike me as odd, because I know that it's largely to do with being much cooler to start 'your own thing' or take part in the 'latest craze' than help with an existing project that doesn't seem as 'cool' (even though it would have been a far better starting point).

One thing that out of whack with reality is that Gentoo developers apparently think that a FreeBSD ports system is "innovative" (to quote from the Gentoo site). Well, to be fair, it's much less logical to maintain that FreeBSD's ports tree is (due to someone who doesn't know how to write software with sensible command syntax coming up with emerge), but I'm not sure that's truly in the spirit of the word 'innovative' in my book.

Never the less, much is made of the fact that the Gentoo developers don't consider *other* distributions 'innovative', without detailing what *specific* 'innovations' Gentoo has brought to the table, or aims to bring (neither 'ports system' or 'compiler flags' fall into this category, sorry). I find this rather ironic, given how much distributions like Red Hat have actually contributed - probably to an extent that Gentoo will never parallel either.

I shudder to think why anyone would waste time (and, in a commercial environment, money) working out bugs to due bizzare machine specific installs (a side effect of not having real package management) or spending *days* building software that runs no faster than native 686 binary packages. I can't say I'd be impressed spoting a core component was previously compiled with --ffast-math and --funroll-loops by some overzealous speed freak, and that's what's been causing the system to crash and burn.

Unless you are writing Linux kernel device drivers for x86 (or your RMS or have other similar moral objections to 'proprietary' software) my advice is leave 1995 behind and if you can afford it buy a PowerBook with Mac OS X (which has a ports system, apt-get (for .DEB), as well as a GNU toolchain with GCC provided out-of-the-box) and watch your productivity sky rocket. Thanks to both free and inexpensive commercial x86 emulators, developing software for x86 systems is still a breeze too (something I do on mine from time to time), if that's an issue.

Commercial Software & Solution Developer
UNIX (Linux, BSD, Solaris, Other.)

Those are small

[Anonymous Coward]

But they aren't mini small. Only one of those even comes close to being as thin as the mini, and it's much wider.

In general, you're going to be bigger than the mini on the basis of power supply alone, because the mini has a power brick under the desk.

Navy used Mac hardware and Linux

[AHumbleOpinion]

Why would anyone waste hardware and time doing this?

You need to think of something beyond (or below) the desktop. For example look at the Navy's sonar image processing, Mac hardware running yellow dog Linux.

WiFi and Bluetooth not standard

[AHumbleOpinion]

You are assuming everyone is popping the extra $100 for the WiFi and Bluetooth. Wireless for my laptop, absolutely, for a machine that's deskbound and already has easy access to cat5s, its a waste. Call me a luddite but the ongoing cost of havng to put batteries into my keyboard and mouse is not attractive. ;)

Know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you 99%.

G4 1.25GHz is about Pentium 4 1.5 GHz

[AHumbleOpinion]

You cannot compare a G4 at 1.25GHz to a x86 at 1.25 GHz. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

However you can compare a Pentium 4 1.5GHz to a G4 1.25. PowerPC CPUs tend to get a 25-30% performance improvement over their x86 counterparts. The applications that are well tailored to a RISC architecture are few and far between. If you are running one great, but all folks should really expect is the 25-30% boost.

You've got it completely backwards

[Dan Ost]

Sorry, but I don't get you people. Who the fuck cares what "window manager" is running? Do you spend all your time playing with your window manager or do you run software to actually accomplish something productive?

You've got it backwards. Those of use who care about window managers do so
because we want to minimize the pain of working with a window manager
so that we can be more productive.

I use FVWM because I can configure it to stay out of my way as much as possible
so that I can work in the fashion most natural to me.

Re:You've got it completely backwards

[aristotle-dude]

Uh, the amount of time you are going to spend interacting with the window manager should be minimal compared to using the applications. If you are spending an inordinate amount of time interacting directly with the window manager, then there is something wrong with your environment.

I don't see how Aqua get's in your way.

Re:You've got it completely backwards

[Dan Ost]

It is never my intension to spend time interacting with the window manager, but
there are things that I expect the window manager to do for me:
1. provide independent work spaces so that I can keep programming terminals,
web browsers, email clients, etc. seperate from each other so that I never
have to spend time searching for the window I want.
2. provide a fast way of switching between workspaces such that I can bounce
between them without moving my hands away from the keyboard.
3. remember which window last had focus when I return to a workspace.
4. provide a fast way of switching window focus without my hands leaving
the keyboard.
5. not waste screen space on things that only have meaning to the window
manager (task bars, launchers, icons of minimized windows, etc).

The only interactions with the window manager where it is acceptable to require
the mouse are:
1. moving windows
2. resizing windows
3. cutting and pasting between windows
For everything else, it's okay to use the mouse, but there should be a way to
do it without leaving the keyboard.

With a well configured window manager, everything else becomes as automatic
as hitting the esc key in vi. That's how I like it, and yes, I'm much more
productive that way.

Re:You've got it completely backwards

[ch3]

Desktop manager:
http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/

There is a tool that mimic "Windows" alt-tab behavior, switching between all windows from all application with the keyboard but I can't remember its name.

For the wasted space, using Exposé and a rightly configured DragThing, I never use the dock anymore nor I minimize windows.

Re:You've got it completely backwards

[Cochonou]

I don't see how Aqua get's in your way.

Some things that annoy me with Aqua:
- Click to focus:
If you click on an unfocused window, it will *only* focus it. That means that if you want to click on the "OK" button of an unfocused window, you will have to click twice: once to focus the window and once to push the button.
- Double click to minimize:
Double clicking on a window title to minimize the window isn't a bad idea. However, there is a particular implementation of this behaviour that is troublesome: let's say I want to close a window (clicking on the red rounded button). As Aqua buttons are round shaped and rather small, it might happen that I miss the button and click outside. However, if I quickly click *inside* the button afterwards, the OSX windows manager will register this as a double click, and minimize the window.

I still think these annoyances are quite small compared to the other benefits of a OSX desktop (Exposé and such). But they still annoy me.

Re:You've got it completely backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want to mimic Windows alt-tab behavior. They've got something better built in. Command-tab switches between apps, and command-` (the key above tab) cycles through the foreground app's windows. I find this 2-level approach works much better than one key for all windows.

Re:You've got it completely backwards

[El_Servas]

So you're saying... One key to rule them all?

someone ALWAYS asks this

[ArbitraryConstant]

• Because it has software MacOS X doesn't. Linux and MacOS X are not source code compatible, just close enough that porting isn't that hard most of the time.
  
• Note that "most software" being ported doesn't cut it, because we might be talking about in-house stuff.
  
• When you're testing software, it has to be in the environment that it will run on in production. If it's expected to run on Linux PPC, you test it on Linux PPC. To make it portable, you need to mess around with the preprocessor and the code that runs isn't the same on the two platforms, so a test on MacOS X is not good enough. Also the libraries aren't quite the same, and some of the system calls are different.
  
• The mini is one of the cheapest PowerPC boxes you can get new, so there is actually a reason to use it for testing. PowerMacs are some of the cheapest 64-bit PowerPC boxes you can get.
  
• It doesn't matter that you don't get support for the airport and graphics when the thing is sitting on a shelf in the server room.
  
• it's cool

Re:someone ALWAYS asks this

[rokzy]

yes I understand all that, my question was in the context of producing a multimedia box.

for me, the greatest recent advance in computer multimedia is the ability to wirelessly transmit audio using AirTunes. plus iTunes is my jukebox and music shop of choice.

now iTunes is supporting videos and there are hints of an "AirTunes for video" being developed.

so I ask again, what is linux supporting that OS X isn't (for multimedia)? it's clear what OS X has over linux, and for me it's a lot.

why buy an ipod shuffle and rip out the audio chips to get a fancy thumbdrive? why buy a mini and rip out OS X to get a fancy linux box?

Re:someone ALWAYS asks this

[argent]

When you're testing software, it has to be in the environment that it will run on in production. If it's expected to run on Linux PPC, you test it on Linux PPC.

That just begs the question "why are you running LinuxPPC in production"?

Re:someone ALWAYS asks this

[ArbitraryConstant]

Because Linux/PowerPC is really nice for embedded stuff?

Re:someone ALWAYS asks this

[argent]

OK, fair enough. I was conflating "using LinuxPPC in production" with "using Linux on Mac in production".

Now you've pointed it out, it's obvious.

why is everyone so down on this?

[enrico_suave]

I for one welcome our yellow dog linux installing overlords...

Are you pissing on it because you don't think it's worthy of /. post?

*shrug* I think it's a pretty cool project, but i'm mostly interested to see the next step unfold (the whole multimedia/HTPPC part ). Maybe THEN it will be more clear (besides the author's desire to use OSS as a project goal) why he went in the direction he did.

i.e. is he planning on just using it as a client to a MythTV Backend or is he going to hook up a Plextor USB ConvertX PVR to it? (which has linux and Mac drivers)

e.

Re:why is everyone so down on this?

[jcr]

Speaking as an Apple shareholder, I can't see any reason to object to people buying Mac minis and installing any software they want on them. Knock yourselves out, guys!

(Of course, since Apple doesn't support Linux, one could argue that this lowers our support costs, too. ;-)

-jcr

This is so cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking of buying a mac, buying one doesn't make me gay does it?

Re:This is so cool

[Anonymous Coward]

no, but all that dick you've been taking in the ass does.

PowerPC incl. PowerPC 970 Grandpa!

[Anonymous Coward]

by your name I'd say you know something about big iron, but newsflash: IBM provides Apple with CPU chips, so it seems unlikely that anyone there sees them as a threat. Not to mention iPod Linux being around for a while now. Where have you been lately? Time to step away from the terminal, and get some fresh air.

Updates

[screwthemoderators]

1. Don't want to pay $129 to upgrade OS 2. Minimize Server OS- Decrease boot time 3. Tighten Security- Yes, I know there's few (none?) viruses, but I don't want lusers to even try to install games,chat,etc so I turn to OpenBSD.

Re:Updates

[aristotle-dude]

1. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade. You can continue to use open source software and older versions. - No money == no access to new features.

2. A server OS? Ok, linux is probably perfect for a set it and forget it server like a web server but I don't see how a mac mini would make a good server.

3. Why not get a cheap big X86 box then?

Re:PVR for Mac OS X

[screwthemoderators]

http://www.plextor.com/english/products/TV402UMac. htm Not exactly what you're looking for, but.. Eye TV for Mac OSX PVR software: proprietary

True, true, true...but dual boot! Choice

[screwthemoderators]

Apple hardware is reliable, and lately their customer suppport has been very good, as opposed to cheap X86 boxes. On the other hand, I just don't trust Apple software in the long run. I believe open source OSes keeps OS X competitive, if Apple "drops the ball" on any issues, I want to be able to turn to a "free" un*x

huh?

[overbom]

Wifi and bluetooth aren't built in. They're addons that cost money.

Re:huh?

[Horrortaxi]

Wifi and bluetooth aren't built in. They're addons that cost money.

Right you are. I had a moment of confusion--I was typing that on my new PowerBook, which came with bt and airport. On other models they do cost extra.

However if you do pay extra to get airport, YDL ain't gonnna support it.

Re:huh?

[overbom]

Unfortunately true. That's one of the larger failures of the darwin project. I don't remember why they can't open up the drivers; I don't recall if it's a broadcom driver copyright thing or what.

rebate

[humina]

Does anyone know if you can get a rebate on OS X if you decide not to use it? I'm guessing the system software is licensed differently than Microsoft's windows so getting a refund on OS X is impossible. Anyone know if this is true? It would be great if one could buy a $500 computer and then get an extra $130 off of that.

Re:rebate

[Chucker23N]

No, but you can get Macs preloaded with YellowDog Linux over at TerraSoft Solutions.

Apple Tax

[el_womble]

If, like a reguluar PC, you could by the Mini 'un-encumbered' with Mac OS X, or if Mac OS X didn't have a full featured UNIX sub-system and two fantastic portage packages etc.. then maybe, just maybe these articles would only irritate me a little. I can see the point that Linux has MythTV and that is a wonderful product, but thats not news either. Its not that I don't see the point, I climb mountains for fun, "Because its there" is my raison d'etre. The fact is that installing Linux on Mac is so easy so as to bearly make a blip on my geek radar. I thought this was "News for nerds - stuff that matters". The fact a mac mini can load and run linux is simply not news. Call me when its running Windows XP PPC or somebodies grandmother managed to get Micorsoft Office running on Darwine without looking at source code or configuration files.

Why would you want to do that :P

[core]

There's already two functional Unix platforms that supports all of the Mac mini hardware.. That's MacOS X and Darwin (F/OSS). Most useful linux apps will compile without trouble on MacOS X, if they aren't already available via the excellent Fink project.

Cartoon miniature golf for Mac: http://www.funpause.com/gardengolf/

Apple Tax on a mini?

[aristotle-dude]

Apple Tax? Are you sure they are not giving OSX "free" with the machine?

499.00 USD (price of mac mini)
-129.00 USD (price of OS X)
-79.00 USD (price of iLife 05)
=291 USD

Does anyone really believe that Apple is making a lot of money on the minis? Show me an X86 machine with similar features/form factor for anywhere near that cheap.

Java

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading this article I bought a mac mini, installed debian on it, and voila, discovered that I can't run java 1.4.2 on it.
Oh I tried IBM's sdk, but it core-dumps whatever I attempt to run. What are my options? Kaffe? Jikes? Blackdown?
I haven't been using Linux since OSX came, so I don't really know what works. If I can't run java, I'll have to reinstall tiger.