Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat, Linux and Intel iMacs

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

segphault writes "Ars Technica examines the implications of Red Hat's recently announced plan to get Linux running on Intel Macs. 'Red Hat representative Gillian Farquhar announced last week that the company plans to add support for Apple's new Intel Macs to its popular distribution. Fedora and several other commonly used Linux distributions support the PowerPC architecture used by Apple in the past, and Red Hat wants to ensure that its software will continue to run on new Apple hardware in the future.'" The real question is will Windows or Linux be first?

5 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. yellow dog linux by DarkClown · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since apple has autorized yellow dog linux to resell macs preloaded with linux on them it surprises me that they weren't given development versions to have it running already. Then again, powerpc is the yellowdog deal - although their homepage proclaims 'we have an answer' to the intel move without really elaborating on the boot situation....

  2. Linux history on Macs by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You'd only ask which would run first if you don't know the history of Linux on Macs. Since we already have excellent Linux for PowerPC Macs, the device driver and BIOS issues have already been dealt with. So, it's absolutely trivial to put Linux on an i386-architecture Mac. But nobody seems to be considering Xen. Xen is what's going to be interesting on these platforms. You can run OS 10 and Linux simultaneously, and Windows too on CPUs that include hardware support for emulation.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  3. Re:Im not sure I understand... by cswingle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > .. aside from the whole dual booting fad, why would someone go pay good money for a mac, only to install RadHat?

    For my part, it's because Apple produces excellent hardware, but their operating system isn't configurable enough. Most obvious example of this: focus behavior. Second most obvious example: vi /etc/passwd. OS X is better than Windows, in my opinion, and it's nice to have a Unix back end and a terminal window that's actually functional, but NetInfo and Aqua aren't innovative, they're restrictive.

    --
    cswingle Fairbanks AK
  4. Re:Ars being an arse by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My main gripe is that it's not as configurable as desktops or window managers in Linux. I'm used to being able to change every thing I can so it's how I just like it, in OS X you're pretty much stuck with the options they allow you to tweak.

    Two things: one, I completely agree with your original point, re: installing Linux on OS X. Two, OS X is actually incredibly customizable; Apple doesn't provide options but I assure you it is very tweakable (for instance, all UI elements are stored as PDF snippits, easily replaced). You just gotta dig for it and do some research. Or use something like ThemeChanger and the million other Mac freeware UI-tweaker apps.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  5. Re:Im not sure I understand... by lostchicken · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a student who hates Windows as much as the next guy. I like using the Mac, and the Mac will always be my primary workstation, and I use it whenever possible. I don't want to carry two computers around, but I still need to be able to run Xilinx ISE and AutoCAD and ANSYS and Fluent and all the other things that won't run on the Mac. Fortunately, I can run MATLAB on the mac side of things with the rest of my life, but when I need to design or simulate something, I have to use Win32. It'd be nice not to have to use a separate machine for that.

    Dual-booting isn't a fad for some of us, it's what we have to do if we want to be able to use the Mac and still get work done.

    --
    -twb