Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Installing Fedora Core 4 on the Mac mini

Posted by timothy on from the more-cliches-to-the-rescue dept.

Tammy Fox writes "The Mac mini is all the rave. Discover how to install the soon-to-be-released Fedora Core 4 on this tiny desktop appliance, including new features in Fedora Core 4 to support the new hardware."

86 comments

  1. The article leaves out one detail... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...Linux on Mac mini (or any Mac) won't support any built-in wireless hardware. I don't have any wireless hardware on my mini, but I can see that being important.

    If a person wants a GUI-less Mac, it is possible to run OS X without the GUI as a text-only BSD variant. I forgot where I found the doc, I think you comment out one command in a script. I think that doc might be at the osxfaq site.

    1. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can enter the login name >console at the login prompt, and it'll dump you to a text-only login

      yes, that's

      >console

      with the > and all

    2. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by Chucker23N · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Options for Bluetooth® and Airport® Extreme exist, however the latter will not work on Linux."

      "the Mac mini supports three options: wired Ethernet, wireless Airport Extreme, and Bluetooth. Wired Ethernet gets automatically configured, either via DHCP or static IP, via the system-config-network tool. Airport Extreme, however, sports the Broadcom chipset, where open source drivers are non-existent at present (and there's no reason the believe that they will ever exist)."

      How does the article leave this detail out?

    3. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't read that part. Sorry

    4. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by Rxke · · Score: 4, Informative

      FYI I run Ubuntu on a Clamshell iBook and it recognized and configured the airportcard automatically during install.

      So your double use of 'any Mac,''any built-in wireless hardware,' is a bit errr... FUDdy ;) if you are happy running obsolete hardware, that is.

      OTOH, Airport Extreme does indeed not work, so be warned.

    5. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by Rxke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, this is SlashDot, one should apologize for *having* read TFA, not the other way round!

    6. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by hunterx11 · · Score: 1
      /etc/ttys has a commented-out entry for non-graphical startup. Just uncomment it and comment the line that launches the login window.
      #console "/usr/libexec/getty std.57600" vt100 on secure
      console "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app/Cont ents/MacOS/loginwindow" vt100 on secure onoption="/usr/libexec/getty std.9600""
      --
      English is easier said than done.
    7. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by shadowbearer · · Score: 2


      Broadcom sucks.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    8. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      I think it'll just be a matter of time before the Mini's particular combination of wifi, bluetooth, video hardware and superdrive are all well supported 100% by the more active linux distributions.

      It takes time. Even Apple hasn't 100% supported the hardware yet; for instance, some of the new Tiger desktop effects don't run on a mini, because the Mini's video chipset hasn't been worked into Tiger's new vector processing engine.

      As someone else here pointed out, Apple has made an artificial distinction (as has Microsoft) between machines that can be servers and machines that cannot; linux doesn't suffer under this "milk the consumer for compiled-out-options" mentality, and that's one very good reason to consider linux if you would like to run the machine as a server. The Mini's two PPC variations both have plenty of horsepower for normal server activity; I've got linux servers running on far less impressive x86 hardware and they run very well indeed. Linux can allow you to run the Mac OS on top of it, but you can't do it the other way around... that's another good reason.

      Those good reasons will probably drive further efforts to put linux on the Mini hardware, and it seems to me that this can only be a good thing.

      One can even hope that wider availability of linux will be seen by Apple as competition and drive them to roll back some of the licensing issues.

      I am really a fan of my Mac, like most Mac owners, but I sure would like to see Apple become more consumer-friendly. Not that I have a lot of hope, mind you. :-)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    9. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by Kplusplus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the FUD, but let me point out the actual state of affairs.

      1) Apple has complete hardware support for the mac mini, your confusing hardware support with what the hardware can support. The hardware itself simply cannot perform a multitude of the things CoreImage/CoreVideo is capable of, so all that work is done in the CPU rather than on the GPU.

      2) There is no distinction between what machines can be servers and what cannot, the distinction is that there are client versions and server versions of the OS distinguished by pretty GUI tools to control those services, whereas the normal "client" version you have to open a terminal and manually configure those same included services. Seeing as your bitching about how linux doesn't distinguish, then I trust you are comfortable opening a terminal and doing it yourself.

      3) You provide the most piss poor reasons to run linux I have ever heard. OS X can do everything in a server capacity that linux does, as such there is no reason to run linux on the mac, and even worse to run your mac os inside of linux.

      4) Apple is hardly going to care that people want to run linux on their hardware, because you already paid them for their hardware. Repeat after me: "Apple is a HARDWARE company." The fact they make good software doesn't change that.

      5) Apple isn't consumer friendly? They replace non functional components on the spot in their stores, they perform the os upgrades for you preserving yoru data, and take your expensive toys and provide you new ones when they break or your battery dies, how are they not consumer friendly?

      --
      -"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
    10. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by fyngyrz · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I can see the actual state of affairs, instead of just what Apple's marketing wants me to see. Rest assured, I'd let you point the current state of affairs out if you knew what it was. Since you clearly don't, however:
      1. If the GPU doesn't have enough oomph to do something, then by all means, load the CPU with the task. Don't just make it unavailable to Mini users. I'm speaking here of some of the effects like "ripple" that, if I understand correctly, are not available on the Mini. I am most certainly not "confusing hardware support with what the hardware can support." If the mini requires the hardware of the CPU to be used for some things where the hardware of the GPU is used in other machines, fine -- then I'm looking for that specific support. Especially from a company you want to characterize as a hardware company (a characterization that I most profoundly disagree with, more on that in a bit.)
      2. If you have to go to a "linux like" level and configure Apache, for instance, then the support for Mac users is considerably different, now isn't it? On the other hand, under Linux, you're going to have GUI configuration tools and no one is going to be saying you can't use them because you didn't buy this or that. Which is where the advantage comes in. With linux, you get the goodies, all of them, whatever they are. And that's no small thing. With the Mac, you get a crippled system or a system with everything, depending on what you pay. Which is certainly not consumer friendly, re your #5. As far as my comfort level goes, I'm awesomely comfortable, thanks for your concern. I'm not talking about me here, I'm speaking of Apple's general market, which isn't me -- it's people who need GUI based tools, and for them, linux is going to do a better job because those tools are becoming more sophisticated every day (I'm alpha testing a GUI/wizard based Apache configurator right now that is just awesome, in fact -- it even handles SSL certs and configuration, a sore spot for Apache.) Linux isn't just about the command line anymore, and it hasn't been since about... red hat 9 or so. Perhaps earlier. RH9 is the earliest server system I've got around here that can be managed entirely via GUI, anyway.
      3. OS X is not Linux. OS X is derived from something else. It's important to keep that in mind, as there are consequences. You will run into many, many things that OS X will not do out of the box, or easily even if you grab a project, such as compile something like Midnight Commander because, as it isn't linux and (apparently, correct me if I'm wrong, of course) as it has GPL-related licensing conflicts, the requisite environment isn't there though it is there on just about any linux distribution you can imagine.
      4. Apple is not a hardware company. If they were, they'd be dead. That's because they have, since time immemorial, sold inferior hardware. Right on back to the Apple II, when they used a crappy 6502 instead of (for instance) a 6800 or a z80, or later a 6809, which was an awesome 8-bit MPU, probably the best ever made. Apple's PPC designs have been (a lot) slower than x86 based hardware since they saw the light of day and still are to this day, even with the dual G5 at the latest and greatest MHz. And don't even start with "MHz != MHz", because that's a load of FUD itself. For instance, my 3 GHz x86 linux machine runs ray traces -- regardless of the scene being modeled -- in just the appropriate bit less than half the time that my 1.42 GHz Mini does. Compiled from source, using GCC. I wrote the ray tracer from scratch; I know it's a pretty decent computing task mix. That clock-speed/time-taken relationship stays the same no matter if I do an integer ray trace or a float or a double, too. When software==software, MHz==MHz, pretty much.

        Then we can look at other Apple hardware for examples of what a bad hardware company they make. Consider one of the newest Apple mouse efforts. One button, as per usual and still clueless as ever.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    11. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by ErikZ · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      2) There is no distinction between what machines can be servers and what cannot...

      Then why do only the Xserves have ECC RAM?

      3) You provide the most piss poor reasons to run linux I have ever heard. OS X can do everything in a server capacity that linux does, as such there is no reason to run linux on the mac

      I've done VNC to a Fedora Desktop and a OS/X desktop. Just because OS/X *can* do it, doesn't mean it's any good at it. To sum "You don't have to install linux on a Mac, but there are some things that Linux can do better."

      4) Apple is hardly going to care that people want to run linux on their hardware, because you already paid them for their hardware. Repeat after me: "Apple is a HARDWARE company." The fact they make good software doesn't change that.

      Oooook. Then why charge 125$ for a *software* upgrade? Seems that they're making a good chunk of change from that. I bought a Mac Mini to try out OS/X. It certainly wasn't for the hardware.

      For a hardware company, they sure farm out a lot of their hardware to be created/produced by othe people. It's almost as if they just collect all the parts and build them into a computer, which they sell. Repeat after me, "Apple is a COMPUTER company."

      5) Apple isn't consumer friendly? They replace non functional components on the spot in their stores,

      The stores going out of business because Apple is no longer cutting them deals?

      they perform the os upgrades for you preserving yoru data, and take your expensive toys and provide you new ones when they break or your battery dies, how are they not consumer friendly?

      And there we sum it up in one word from your mouth. Toys. Apple computers are shiny expensive toys.
      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    12. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a longer response but it was lost on this PC of all things.

      1) You describe it as a dongle but guess what, the amount of money made on a $125 piece of software versus the amount you spend buying a Mac Mini to run that software is a clear example of why Apple is a hardware company that makes excellent software. The fact they use software to drive sales is evident through the iTMS, iTunes, iPod trifecta.

      2) If a 1.42 MHz Mac Mini provides half the performance as your 3GHz x86 machine, that should be a clear indication of the crappiness of one in comparison to the other. In this case we know the Mac Mini is just a low End Power mac in a different case, so you have slow RAM, HD, FPU, and CPU versus a desktop machine that should perform not 2x but several times faster.

      3) AltiVec accounts for a lot more than people give it credit. A 13X increase in performance on average is nothing to sneeze at, especially when there is no such way to get that same increase for such minor changes on other platforms. (Yes, I'm aware of SSE, and MMX, etc, but notice I said minor changes)

      4) The G5's hardware design is superior to almost every other desktop/workstation out there that relies on x86 processors. The crossbar inspired direct bandwitdh interfaces between system components is alone an automatic win as far as performance goes.

      5) Upgrades aren't free because every version of Mac OS X makes teh exact same hardware FASTER, if your trying to drive Hardware sales, why would you make user's machines faster every year for a measly $125 as opposed to the much higher margins on basically and computer upgrade they can make?

      6) The mouse is one button to force developers to be aware of that at ALL TIMES. Teh fact you lack the dexterity to use the current mouse properly shows more about your old age than it does Apple's mouse.

      7) I love how everyone thinks they know what Apple should do, since after all Apple is dieing and manages to lose money every quarter. It's not like they have plans or might know wtf they are doing.

    13. Re:The article leaves out one detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "OS X is not Linux. OS X is derived from something else. It's important to keep that in mind, as there are consequences. You will run into many, many things that OS X will not do out of the box, or easily even if you grab a project, such as compile something like Midnight Commander because, as it isn't linux and (apparently, correct me if I'm wrong, of course) as it has GPL-related licensing conflicts, the requisite environment isn't there though it is there on just about any linux distribution you can imagine."

      You're wrong. You can install whatever GPL'd software you like on OSX, and it even comes with some (GCC being the largest). And if you want "the requisite environment" (GNU shell tools), take a look at fink.sf.net

      "Apple is not a hardware company. If they were, they'd be dead. That's because they have, since time immemorial, sold inferior hardware. Right on back to the Apple II, when they used a crappy 6502 instead of (for instance) a 6800 or a z80, or later a 6809, which was an awesome 8-bit MPU, probably the best ever made."

      Apple is primarily a hardware company, but they are more an integrated systems/solution company. They sell you a complete package. Also, bad analogy. The "crappy" 6502 was a 6800 clone, which resulted in Motorola suing MOS. There were differences, but they were minor (and some of them were in favor of the 6502, performance wise). The largest one was that the 6502 cost 1/4 as much. The 6509 was not released until YEARS after the debut of the Apple II.

      "Apple's PPC designs have been (a lot) slower than x86 based hardware since they saw the light of day and still are to this day, even with the dual G5 at the latest and greatest MHz. And don't even start with "MHz != MHz", because that's a load of FUD itself. For instance, my 3 GHz x86 linux machine runs ray traces -- regardless of the scene being modeled -- in just the appropriate bit less than half the time that my 1.42 GHz Mini does. Compiled from source, using GCC. I wrote the ray tracer from scratch; I know it's a pretty decent computing task mix. That clock-speed/time-taken relationship stays the same no matter if I do an integer ray trace or a float or a double, too. When software==software, MHz==MHz, pretty much."

      Ah, the old "compare a fast system from one manufacturer, against the other manufacturer's base model machine" trick. And this outcome surprises you? Duh. But you are still wrong, MHz != MHz. How do you think your 3GHz Intel CPU would compare to my 2.4GHz Opteron? Not so well, I suspect.

  2. Goodie! by sgant · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can write over OSX, the put on Fedora and then start the endless road into making Gnome behave and look like OSX...which I just wrote over!

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    1. Re:Goodie! by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      And I could overwrite OSX and throw Linux with ratpoison on it as my WM.

      I know it may disagree with the Gospel according to Jobs, but some people don't *like* OSX. The form factor of the mini is pretty nifty though.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    2. Re:Goodie! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      If you just want the form factor, how does a Mac mini it compare to a miniITX system?

    3. Re:Goodie! by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

      1998 called. They want their troll back.

    4. Re:Goodie! by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      Dimensions-wise?

      310 x 200 x 185 l/w/h (<a href="http://global.shuttle.com/Product/Barebone/S B83G5M.asp">this</a> shuttle PC) vs. 165.1 x 165.1 x 50.8 l/w/h (<a href="http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html">Mac mini</a>)

    5. Re:Goodie! by tyagiUK · · Score: 1

      I run an Epia 5000 system in a basic case with a large-ish HDD and an external USB2.0 HDD. This system acts as a fileserver for my LAN and a backup system so that I can dump stuff to the external HDD.

      It was a cheap system to put together and really just works (with Debian GNU/Linux on there).

      I would make the same decision if I was doing it again. Firstly, you can use 3.5" HDD internally, so you get some performance and size benefits. The Mini is just 2.5" and has slot internal drives. The external option is there in both systems.

      If nothing else, I don't see the point in buying a Mini with a license for probably the best desktop operating system out there and then using it as a headless station running Linux. Unless you can sell the OS X license and software to recoup some of the cost that is.

      As for installing Linux on a Mini to use on the desktop, that's just crazy talk.

      --
      Contribute to the online videogame encyclopedia: GamerWiki
  3. Why? by bcmm · · Score: 1

    Apart from the form factor, what advantages does the mac mini have over an x86 box of similar price? What is PPC hardware like? Does it perform better under load or something?

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Why? by sgant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The advantage of the Mini is that it's the cheapest computer you can run OSX on...but this is a moot point if you're just going to write over it and install Linux.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    2. Re:Why? by AnObfuscator · · Score: 1

      DOH, because it's APPLE, and Apple is COOL. Sheesh, what's wrong with you people, anyway?

      Pffft. x86 box indeed.

      --
      multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
    3. Re:Why? by adam1101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're reasonably powerful systems with very low power consumption: the entire system (minus display) usually stays under 20W. Even the Pentium-M consumes much more on the desktop (granted, they're also much faster). The most comparable competition in terms of power consumption are Via Mini-ITX systems, which tend to be much slower.

    4. Re:Why? by Chucker23N · · Score: 4, Informative

      The form factor itself is a major selling point. The thing is *tiny*.

      Second, it is very low on power usage, similarly to G4 laptops (as it shares much of the architecture).

      Thirdly -- obviously this goes away when you (only) put Linux on it -- it's the cheapest available machine that runs OS X.

      Generally, you'll have a hard time finding a competitive machine at this price with similar dimensions.

    5. Re:Why? by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple hardware isn't as much of a moving target as PC hardware is, so there are fewer hardware compatibility issues to deal with. Also, not too many pieces of PC hardware at that price point have Firewire 400 and DVI.

    6. Re:Why? by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny
      What is PPC hardware like? Does it perform better under load or something?

      Everything is much snappier on PPC.

    7. Re:Why? by hunterx11 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It must be because it uses RISC instead of CISC.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    8. Re:Why? by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      One thing people seem not to grasp about Linux on the Mac Mini is that it is a decent cheap way to run Linux on PowerPC hardware.

      So, if you're a Linux developer and want to work wiht PowerPC hardware, here's an inexpensive way to do it.

      And, since Linus runs on PowerPC, there must be something to be said in favour of it.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    9. Re:Why? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Also, not too many pieces of PC hardware at that price point have Firewire 400 and DVI.

      And you think that Linux is the best OS to take advantage of those interfaces? Do you think that Linux is going to offer better, more polished apps than OS/X?

      Installing Linux on the Mac Mini is like buying a Mercedes and then replacing the engine with one pulled from a Saturn.

    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you think that Linux is the best OS to take advantage of those interfaces?

      The post you were responding to did not even hint at suggesting that. Calm down, dude.

    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RISC will change everything.

    12. Re:Why? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I don't WANT to run polished desktop apps. Not everything I do is best served by Office 2004 or iPhoto.

      I'm running OS X 10.4 on both my iBook and my G5 (yes, I paid for the "Family Pack"). Ideally, I'd like to be running Fedora Core on my iBook because there are things I want to be able to do on my iBook that are slightly easier with Linux than they are with OS X (apps that simply are easier to use on Linux, rather than running them in an X11 window on OS X). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to use my Airport WiFi card with any of the Linux distributions I've tried on the iBook, and I don't want to run Linux on my main desktop, since that has a lot of apps on it that aren't substitutable with Linux apps.

      I've been thinking about getting a small, cheap desktop machine to run Fedora on, and yes, I'm considering a mini for that purpose because of the form factor, and because the hardware is solid.

    13. Re:Why? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I have a Mac Mini in a co-lo centre. The hardware is more than adequate for my needs, and the small form factor means that the hosting fees are small. I picked OpenBSD as the OS to run on it for a number of reasons which will be covered in the second article in this series, due for publication next Friday.

      Before anyone points out the laptop hard drive, I have 512MB of RAM in the machine, and most of that is used as disk cache - the disk itself spends a lot of its time spun down.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Why? by jbplou · · Score: 0, Troll

      I recently bought a 3 port Firewire 400 pci card for $18 at Wal-Mart, I don't think Firewiree is expensive.

    15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The question isn't the price of an aftermarket Firewire 400 card, but of what comes integrated into an integrated solution at that form factor. And I notice you're not giving us the price on the DVI video card (which would be what, an extra $50 for the lowest end nVIDIA or ATI card with DVI?)

    16. Re:Why? by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      now try and fit that card in a case the size of a mini (and no, you cant take out the dvd drive to do it) then we'll talk

      --
      TIAEAE!
    17. Re:Why? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      You mean "apart from the main selling point of the Mini, what is the main selling point?"

      The form factor is pretty much it. It's also very quiet, and a low power device.

      If you want computing power and don't need to keep it tiny, get something else. Of course, to get a really powerful machine, you need to pay more than a Mini (I'm thinking x86-64 here, but it certainly applies to the iMacs and PowerMacs).

    18. Re:Why? by Monx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RISC is good

    19. Re:Why? by jbplou · · Score: 1

      I agree it won't fit in a mini, but the poster did specify the size they argued the size as one point and the firewire as another point.

    20. Re:Why? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Installing Linux on the Mac Mini is like buying a Mercedes and then replacing the engine with one pulled from a Saturn.

      I now have a summer project. Look out, Saturn!

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    21. Re:Why? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      What about running it under Virtual PC?
      I've been trying to do this to see if I like Linux, and I've read that it's entirely possible, but I haven't been able to figure out how to boot from CD or an .iso file with VPC yet.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    22. Re:Why? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      When figuring the simular selling point, make sure to price the hardware "extras" Apple sells you.

      I ended up spending 900$ on my Mac Mini just to get it up to somewhat decent specs. I'm currently eyeing the HD upgrade.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IPOD have RISC

    24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VirtualPC won't run the PPC version of Fedora Core 4, just the x86 version. I started installing the x86 version under Qemu, but really would rather have it on my laptop as the main boot OS.

    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good points, although you should say that it's the least expensive new machine to run osx. you can certainly run osx using an older machine such as a b&w or one of those graphite g4.

  4. YHBT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You have been trolled, by slashdot. The only reason they run these stories is to get the Mac losers to start a fight with the Linux losers. Thanks for biting.

  5. FYI by flood6 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a related story from the 11th on an IBM article with instructions on installing Yellow Dog on an mini.

    --
    SEO Firefox Extension
  6. Hurrah! by AnObfuscator · · Score: 1, Interesting

    As a long-time Mac Zealot (11 years and counting), I'm love the recent increase in attention linux-ppc is receiving! Now that Apple is "cool" again, and now that Apple's OS has "geek cred", it's finally getting some serious attention from the FOSS world, and that is great news for me.

    I'm no big Fedora fan (I'm a Debain/Ubuntu user), but I'm grateful for the work RH is putting in to make Fedora Mac-friendly.

    Thanks, guys.

    --
    multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
    1. Re:Hurrah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a long-time Mac Zealot (11 years and counting)

      I'm no big Fedora fan (I'm a Debain/Ubuntu user), but...


      how does that make you a mac zealot? System 6 forever!

    2. Re:Hurrah! by ninboy · · Score: 1

      i know it is hard to believe but many of us mac users are linux users as well, I have 2 power macs running debian as well as my OS X machine

  7. But...why? by onebuttonmouse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This seems like a semi-on-topic question. Why would I want to install Red Hat on my Mac? This isn't meant to be a troll, I like Linux, I use Debian Sarge and Ubuntu Hoary on retired x86 boxes at work. I just would love to know if anyone is running Linux on their Mac - what are you using it for? Why can't I use OS X to do it?

    --
    MacBook Pro. Worst name since the Bicycle
    1. Re:But...why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This question comes up a lot and people have some good answers but here goes mine...

      I have a linux desktop and an iBook. I actually prefer XFCE over Aqua. The only thing I miss about Aqua is Expose. However, XFCE, on similiar hardware, feels much snappier and responsive to me. I like having a unified look and feel on all my machines.

    2. Re:But...why? by argent · · Score: 1

      I have a linux desktop and an iBook.

      Did you get the iBook and then later decide you wanted to run Linux on it, or did you get it to run Linux on... and if so, why did you pick an iBook over something like a Thinkpad?

    3. Re:But...why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the AC that has the iBook.

      I chose the iBook based on price, it just works, & unix base. I'm a poor student who does 90% of my programming work using a command shell and VI. I wanted a smallish laptop (12~14 inches) with good battery life, more than 256MB of RAM, and 802.11G (this was a while ago). Using student discounts at all the major vendors (Apple, Dell, HP, Gateway) for the items I wanted the iBook was honestly cheaper.

      Linux was an after thought and I should clarify I still use OS X from time to time.

      To the best of my knowledge all Thinkpads were WAY out of my budget ($1100 USD).

      Hope that helps.

    4. Re:But...why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually prefer XFCE over Aqua.

      and nobody told you that you could run OS X without Aqua until it was too late?

    5. Re:But...why? by JMZorko · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... because, as cool as OSX is (I actually really like it, and I have a 12" PB 1.5ghz running it, as well as a dual 1.25ghz PM G4 MDD), some things need Linux:

      1. AIO (I don't know about Tiger, but Panther only does AIO on file-based FDs, not FDs based on pipes or sockets -- if you don't believe me, check out the XNU kernel source and see for yourself by grepping for ESPIPE) -- some apps need this ability.

      2. The Linux toolchain is the same on PPC and x86. ld is ld is ld, gcc is gcc is gcc, elf is elf. Plus, Linux works on embedded devices (which is one nice thing about the Mac mini -- it's a cheap PPC embedded development platform) while OSX does not yet.

      Regards,

      John

      --
      Falling You - beautiful
    6. Re:But...why? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Linux is quite popular with older macs. G3's are quite sluggish running OSX. Linux flies on them.

      Of course NetBSD is becoming quite fast and stable now as well. NetBSD is popular with really old macs (pre powerpc) as well.

      Also Linux still has the best smp performance around for dual processor macs.

      Some hackers who want to learn assembler swear by the risc architecture of the chips. X86 is really really screwed and old. For example the 640k limit we like to make fun of Bill Gates qouting is hard coding in the chip. Modern cpu's use hacks to move behind this limit and even trick parts of the cpu that use 640k?? That is what one assembler programer told me once.

      Risc is a great an easy way to learn this and is a better architecture from a design standpoint.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    7. Re:But...why? by sickofthisshit · · Score: 1

      I'm a poor student who does 90% of my programming work using a command shell and VI

      You do realize that Mac OS X has vi, various command shells, perl, etc., included, as well gcc included? I.e., it's still not clear what advantage you get using Linux over Mac OS X.

    8. Re:But...why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You do realize that Mac OS X has vi, various command shells, perl, etc., included, as well gcc included? "

      Thank you Captain Obvious. Thanks for copying the reasons in my own post why I bought my iBook with OS X to use those OS X tools and then turning it around to ask if I knew those tools existed.

      I told everyone in my post that I chose Linux...later on...to ADD (not replace) to my laptop because I prefer a unified environment with my desktop and I that Linux feels faster and more responsive than OS X on my laptop.

    9. Re:But...why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and nobody told you that you could run OS X without Aqua until it was too late?"

      How is it too late? OS X is still there, I still use it and Linux.

      Amazing, if I had gone from Windows to Linux on x86 everybody would think it was great. Now you are attacking me for my supposed ignorance ("nobody told you") because I derive benefits of having two operating systems on my Mac.

      Also, how would running OS X without Aqua mitigate the fact that I like to run XFCE in Linux?

    10. Re:But...why? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      What part of "Poor Student" didn't you understand?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    11. Re:But...why? by sickofthisshit · · Score: 1

      Poverty is irrelevant to the question. What I heard was "I bought an iBook, and because 90% of the work I do involves vi and programming, I installed Linux." Which, given the presence of Perl, Python, gcc, vi, with the Mac OS X *included with his iBook purchase* didn't make a lot of sense to me. I expected him to mention some limitation in the programming environment.

      Then, he starts talking about the apparent real reason, which is to have a "unified" appearance with his desktop system (presumably running Linux.). Fine. Maybe he said that in some *other* AC post, so perhaps I should apologize for not more thoroughly browsing the story and doing detective work to determine which AC posts were his. Of course, he apparently misses Expose, and I don't use Linux, so I don't know what about the unifed appearance is beneficial. But God forbid I should ask him to explain further. Or ask him to get a slashdot id.

  8. No OS X, think non-desktop applications by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why forsake Mac OS X on a Mac, well think about non-desktop applications. For example the Navy using Yellow Dog Linux and Mac hardware for a Sonar application: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7789.

    For a somewhat detailed list of who is using Yellow Dog Linux see the links on http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/realworld/showca se/

    1. Re:No OS X, think non-desktop applications by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      when I own a sub, i'll run linux on my mac. until then, i'll just run linux on x86 and os x on ppc. now, that being said, i would run linux on an older mac if i had one laying around. i did install ydl 3.01 on my dad's old 350mhz imac. it has in thin 512mb ram, and yes, linux ran much faster than os x, howeevr, it's my kids computer and lots of eduactional games don't run on linux. so os x it is. however, on newer hardware, especially since you can't get airport extreme to work, there's little(not no, just little) reason to run linux over os x.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  9. I'd consider Mac mini for OpenBSD firewall by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... on newer hardware, especially since you can't get airport extreme to work, there's little(not no, just little) reason to run linux over os x

    "Little" may not be as small as some readers are thinking. Again, think non-desktop applications. For example the mini is small, quiet, and could make a good OpenBSD firewall. Do you recall all the various articles around here where people were spending lots of money to build quiet PCs for firewalls, lightweight home servers, etc? I think the base mini would be an attractive alternative. If my current firewall dies I'd consider the base mini over my an old celeron or 604e. Similar story with my home file server. It only receives lightweight use, transferring the odd file, backing up files, etc. The mini's slow hard drive wouldn't bother me. I'm currently using a mini with 10.4 for email, web, and lightweight development. I expect it will someday become my home firewall or server.

    1. Re:I'd consider Mac mini for OpenBSD firewall by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      I would gather though that there are small form factor PC's that will do that nicely as well. not that a mini couldn't, but don't you need two NIC's? where's the other one going, unless hopefully one day the airport extreme drivers become available. i think the mini is one of apple's greatest ideas. i have been using linux since 1998. seriously. just because i happen to love both doesn't mean they're peanut butter and jelly. besides, os x has easy interent sharing, remote access, and wireless support.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    2. Re:I'd consider Mac mini for OpenBSD firewall by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... but don't you need two NIC's? where's the other one going, unless hopefully one day the airport extreme drivers become available ...

      No airport, I don't bother with wireless on desktops that already live in a heavily wired room. I would connect to the cable modem with USB 2.0 and use the ethernet for the switch. This is all theoretical, my mini is still being used as a desktop.

    3. Re:I'd consider Mac mini for OpenBSD firewall by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If you're looking for a small, new, machine to use as an OpenBSD firewall, you might be better off looking at something like a Soekris net4501 (or one of the faster models). They can be used to build very low power, silent, machines with no moving parts, and can be bought in very small cases which look rather like commercial routers and have 3 ethernet ports (e.g. internal, external, DMZ).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. Putting linux on a Mac mini, eh? by earthbound+kid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, sounds like an interesting story... Or at least it was, the first two times Slashdot wrote it up.

    For real, this story isn't even a dupe-- it's a TRUPE!!!

    Oh boy, I get to read all the posters who say, "But why install linux on a Mac?" again. It sure was interesting the first two times, so this time, I know it'll be awesome for sure.

    Seriously, I can understand some dupes popping up, when two editors post links to the same story that seems interesting, but this isn't even interesting. A Mac Mini is just a normal Mac. It's no surprise that you can put Linux on it. You can put Linux on any Mac. Hell, you can put Linux on an iPod. As for those who are obsessed with asking "why," why should we install Linux on anything? Because we can! That's good enough, isn't it? This story isn't News, it's only barely for Nerds, and it definitely doesn't Matter, when you consider that anyone who wants to put Linux on their Mac Mini already did so back when they were released.

    1. Re:Putting linux on a Mac mini, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... so don't read it, mmmkay?

      Problem solved.

      And, by the way, there was actually some interesting dialogue above about people's reasons for running linux on ppc. Because there were some sincere questioners asking for information. I learned something too. Just what slashdot is about.

      You, on the other hand, have added nothing of value to the discussion; just ranting "I don' wanna read this!" So -- don't?

      Maybe we need another moderation option: "Another Pointless Whine About What Gets Posted On Slashdot These Days"

    2. Re:Putting linux on a Mac mini, eh? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      this story isn't even a dupe-- it's a TRUPE!!!

      The accepted term here is "tripe". Of course, that can apply to the first and second run of the story as well...

  11. Because... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    Because my G3 tower has workstation-quality hardware (64-bit PCI, solid power supply and fan, rugged case, etc.) and more than enough horsepower for what it does (serve files over gigabit LAN, remote ssh server, personal web stuff, and sftp).

    It does all this with no fan except a big slow one that cools the PSU, CPU, and drives. You just can't get PCs built like that, even celerons need a cpu fan. You can't get a PC that's built for silent operation and massive I/O, it's one or the other. My G3 runs at 450MHz, but it's got a 64-bit gigabit ethernet card and another 64-bit Ultra160 SCSI card. It doesn't take CPU horses to keep the pipes filled.

    I TRIED replacing it with a mini-itx box, but the quality of the componentry, lack of expansion, abysmal performance, and price made it a losing proposition. I ended up selling the mini-itx box.

    As for why I don't run OS X on it? Several reasons:

    1. No built-in package management, I prefer portage, which still isn't fully-baked on Darwin. Fink/apt-get is godawful, IMO.

    2. I use the machine as a server, I don't want to pay Apple $500 for a server OS license, nor do I want to be subject to any limitations they might put on the non-server systems.

    3. Linux is MUCH lighter, the machine will boot and serve with 32MB RAM. OS X uses much more, and that eats into disk-cache that could be making my system faster.

    4. Linux is more customizable and it's easier to get answers for questions you have with it. I can easily tweak any VM setting on my Linux box, it's much harder to find those settings on OS X.

    5. Linux often has BETTER driver support for non-Apple hardware. I get better disk and LAN I/O under Linux than I do under OS X as a result.

    6. It's obscure and unlikely to be hacked. Even if I don't patch it in time when there's an exploit, someone injecting x86 binary code into an overflowed buffer isn't going to get very far on PPC/Linux. I think OS X is more likely to be hacked than PPC/Linux in the long-run.

    7. Mac-On-Linux lets me virtualize an OS X or Classic system should I have the need. Apple's blue box doesn't let me virtualize a Linux session.

    That's all I can think of right now. There's probably more, and I could have written this better, but it's after 4am here and I'm quite tired.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It does all this with no fan except a big slow one that cools the PSU, CPU, and drives. You just can't get PCs built like that, even celerons need a cpu fan.
      There are plenty of PCs with some decent horsepower that use no separate CPU fan, just one big slow fan fir the entire system, it depends greatly on the case design. My old IBM Aptiva desktop (733mhz P3) was like that. The HP D330 desktop at my workplace (2ghz P4) is like that. Some recent Dell desktop are also designed like that (Dimension 2400 amongst others). My underclocked Athlon XP-M runs stable with only a heatsink at 1.4ghz.
  12. Re:FUCK SHIT COCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG LMAO

  13. OS Wars: Episode III by afa · · Score: 1

    Revenge of the Redhats ...

  14. KDE, K3B, tvtime, pan by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Frankly, linux just works for me as a desktop (yes, I know I'm in an extremely small minority). The ports of pan I've seen are just not up to snuff, and I've never found a news reader that was anywhere near as easy to use and reliable. With KDE, I can drag and drop mp3s into my Creative lab's Muvo mp3 player directly, and I have easy access to a tool chain for converting my .flacs. tvtime is simply the best tuner app for cheapskates. Sure, you buy a $150 dollar tuner you probably get bells and wistles, pick up a $32 dollar el cheapo on newegg though and you'll be thanking God for TVtime. K3b is simply the simplest, most straight forward burning app I've ever used. I hate it when I've got to burn something in Nero or EZCD on someone else's machine. Plus, when I make DVDs, I can mount the images loop back and burn the data directly, which has proven much more reliable than any other methond I've come across.

    Linux has real advantages on the desktop, believe it or not.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:KDE, K3B, tvtime, pan by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm missing something important here, you've listed advantages to using KDE as a desktop. KDE, however, works fine on OS X. What makes Linux a better kernel than XNU (or GNU/Linux a better base OS than Darwin), in this case?

  15. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cmdr taco takes it long and hard in his asshole

    1. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU FAIL IT!

  16. BIG reason to run Linux on a Mini by Ammonium+Cowherd · · Score: 1

    One guy stated it before, but if you want to code for PPC-based embedded systems, I could imagine that the Mini might be one of the cheapest solutions for your needs.

    Since many embedded systems are Linux based, this would make it a very viable option.

    I DO love OS X, but why not put Linux on a Mac? What's so wrong about it?

    It's not a sacrilege, guys 'n' gals!

  17. Embedded systems by core · · Score: 1

    You can program for PPC embedded systems right from your Linux PC and cross-compile. By definition, you won't be testing your code on the mac mini anyway, so why bother? I've cross-compiled OS and application code for SuperH, ARM, M32R, ST20 and other cpus from x86 servers, even using unattended build systems, and it's very efficient.

    Mac games: http://www.phelios.com/mac/macsites.html

  18. Software + Hardware by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

    I think that the motivation behind buying a mac is about more than just software issues. Which is to say, purchasing an apple is about the Hardware as well as the software. When I recommend Macs to clients its about such issues as them not having to worry about OS compatability issues, or having to tweak for optimal performance.

    Windows on the other hand... To install Linux is about getting at the guts of the system and the high level of customisations and optimisation. Windows, having to cater for all the different hardware mades it complex. MacOS is more powerful having a smaller range. Also, if one is concerned with maximising performance, perhaps a mini is perhaps not the best buy.

    I do applaud linux advocacy though, and for that reason I applaud this.