Slashdot Mirror
Linux beats Windows to Intel iMac
Ctrl+Alt+De1337 writes "The Mactel-Linux folks have now successfully booted Linux on a 17" Core Duo iMac. They used the elilo bootloader, a modified kernel, and a hacked vesafb to boot from a USB drive. No GUI pictures for now, just white text on a black background. The distro of choice was Gentoo, and instructions and patches are promised this weekend."
You know that one has always been able to run linux on regular old macs for a good decade now yeah?
I've recycled a bunch of old 'colourful' macs that are too crusty for OS/X into nice linux X-terminals and stuff.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
It was a matter of very little time in fact. Linux supports the enhanced firmware loader used by MacOS X even now. Winhoze will not support it before Vista.
Still, unless Intel made the mistake of leaving some of their PC handywork around this will not be enough.
In order to run a mobile Pentium you have to aggressively control its frequency. Otherwise it will fry itself.
The support for this in Linux is heavily dependant on ACPI. AFAIK the Intel Macs are supposed to have ACPI completely taken out and replaced by native power management. So the happiness of "we got Linux to run on this" is likely to be short lived until the smoke starts coming out from the melting plastic on top of the overheated processor. Which will not be long.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Main Page
Mactel-Linux is the effort to adapt the GNU/Linux operating system to Intel-based Apple Macintosh hardware.
This requires changes/additions to at least the following projects:
This site is not about Linux distributions for Intel-Macs, but about developer communication.
Status
Using elilo and a modified Linux kernel, we can boot from a USB hard disk on the 17" iMac Core Duo. We are using the hacked vesafb driver to inherit the bootloader's framebuffer, keyboard and a USB network card work. Gentoo runs and can compile the Linux kernel with a compiler that runs on linux, which was compiled in linux, on a mac running the new intel duo processors.
lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/PM/GMS/940GML and 945GT Express Memory Controller Hub (rev 03)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/PM/GMS/940GML and 945GT Express PCI Express Root Port (rev 03)
00:07.0 Performance counters: Intel Corporation Unknown device 27a3 (rev 03)
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 02)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 02)
00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 2 (rev 02)
00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #1 (rev 02)
00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #2 (rev 02)
00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #3 (rev 02)
00:1d.3 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #4 (rev 02)
00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller (rev 02)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 Mobile PCI Bridge (rev e2)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801GBM (ICH7-M) LPC Interface Bridge (rev 02)
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) IDE Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 82801GBM/GHM (ICH7 Family) Serial ATA Storage Controllers cc=AHCI (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) SMBus Controller (rev 02)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Unknown device 71c5
02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88E8053 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 22)
03:00.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4310 UART (rev 01)
04:03.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Agere Systems FW323 (rev 61)
dmesg click if you want to see it
Instructions and Patches
Coming this weekend.
FAQ
Can I already run Linux on the iMac Core-Duo?
Not quite. The kernel boots, and you can interact with the system on the command line, but that's as much as you can do with it at the moment. If you're a developer, though, that's a starting point.
[edit]
Why Linux? OS X is so great!
Sure OS X is great. But this is fun.
[edit]
Why Linux? Why not Windows?
Windows isn't fun.
[edit]
Why not OS X on non-Apple PCs?
That's way uncool.
[edit]
The Intel-based Macs are standard PCs, aren't they?
They share many characteristics with PCs, yes. Though, their firmware is EFI, not the old 1982 PC-BIOS.
[edit]
Then what took you so long??
There are those that like/need to test stuff in various OS's. Having one box that can do linux/OSX/windows would be convenient.
Currently of course you need to reboot, but once VT comes out on the core duo chips then this will let you use Xen/Vmware to run all three simultaneously on the same hardware at near-full speed.
n.
1.
1. A distant view or prospect , especially one seen through an opening, as between rows of buildings or trees.
2. An avenue or other passage affording such a view.
2. An awareness of a range of time, events, or subjects; a broad mental view: "the deep and sweeping vistas these pioneering critics opened up" (Arthur C. Danto).
As a free bonus, may I present the fabulous Vista Cruiser!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
G5's are only a tad slower than Opeteron's at the same speed. The big difference though is in servers. OS X is a lousy server with extremely poor thread creation. Where as Linux on a G5 rox's.
Now for a desktop/workstation poor thread creation doesn't affect much after booting. Giving OS X an advantage there.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
World's most expensive desktop linux machine
No, I think that dubious honor belongs to this: the IBM IntelliStation A Pro. Take it home today, only $11,779.00.
And that's for a dual-Opteron system with RHEL, it's not one of the big RISC-based AIX workstations. Granted, it does come with 8GB of RAM, Ultra320 SCSI, and a ridiculous display card (3DLabs Wildcat Realizm 800).
Frankly though, I think the Mac looks cooler.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I'm looking at the dmesg listing, and it runs through EFI first...
But then it identifies and runs through the standard ACPI listing. Processors identified, power states, the works.
Not to say you aren't right about needing to throttle the processor, but Apple made it a little easier by using ACPI instead of reinventing the wheel...
Enjoy.
x _running_on_an_intel_imac.html
http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/02/linu
But not all the other distros let you turn features off while doing it.
In a word, Yes. Just like when the first iMac came out and PC makers released clones, you can find LCDs with embedded PCs.
Here's one from Sony. I know it's $2,000, but it looks like it's a lot more than the iMac as features go.
Here's another one: http://www.boldata.com/html/unique.cfm
Here's one that came up on Google ads that I couldn't get to load from work: http://www.lcdpc.com/ I don't have a clue what's on it right now, but judging from the URL I think it's relevant :)
That's all I hit on three Google searches, but seeing as I had no clue what terms to search, I think it's a fair start.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I don't think you run an OS under WINE, after all Wine Is Not an Emulator. Instead WINE allows you to run Windows Binaries under another OS, typically Linux.
DarWINE (an OS X port of WINE) is nearing 1.0 status, I believe. With any luck it will allow Windows games to run under OS X at roughly native speeds.
You sure about that, homeslice?
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
I'll call you on that one - the new iMacs, and even G5s had performance benchmarks that mattered very much for our research group. If you take a look at the page http://www.neuro.mcw.edu/afni_speedo.html , you will see benchmark results for several different types of machines, all running the same analysis on the same set of data. The new iMacs are barely slower than an Athlon 4000 when using a single thread, and even surpasses the old G5s and everything else when using 2 threads. This benchmark tests FP and memory access performance, and let's just say that with the current performance results, people ARE looking into getting more of these newer Macs.
And also keep in mind, when you go to 64-bit and Opteron/Pentium D class machines (as with the old G5s), you're moving up into another machine and price class. For 64-bit and the performance, these machines were VERY much worth it - both the old G5s (performance and larger memory space) and seemingly, the new iMacs (performance).
I tried a few times to compose an answer to that question without being sarcastic, but I couldn't pull it off. In short, yea, pretty much everybody who has spent 2 seconds thinking about Windows on Mac has thought of this idea and/or tried it. I'll just point you to here, here, and here. I'm sorry to be pissy, but the forums where people are actually trying to work on this problem are so cluttered with this "novel" idea that it gets really annoying after a while.
So as not to be a complete rant, I'll explain why this doesn't currently work. The Mac uses the new UGA standard for video cards, and does not support VGA at all. Windows (even Vista) only supports VGA (or UGA with VGA fallback, which Mac doesn't have either). There are also drive partitioning issues, among other problems. Basically, any feature that Apple didn't need for booting MacOS was left out of the EFI, including BIOS-compatibility mode as you noted. No current PC hardware is so legacy-free. However, with a bit of massaging, the Vista install disc does boot, you just can't see anything on the screen. When Vista gets a real UGA driver, we should be able to make quite a bit more progress.
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
I suggest you read the threads on /. about Paladium. Pretty much:
1) TPM chip allows an OS to determine if it is running in an debugger or against raw hardware.
2) Trusted applications load only under trusted OS and get codes from TPM chip to verify they are on the actual machine (and since the OS is running against real hardware).
3) Data is encrypted in ways that only trusted applicationsc an read.
One more point about TPM chip. The chips can have a password they can't read. I.E. the chip can apply a function that it has no way of reporting to an external process.
And don't forget that if you don't want to go without a GUI there are a bunch of Linux/BSD GUIs that use little RAM, such iceWM and (my favorite) fluxbox. Aqua may be very stylish but all that eye candy does use a lot of memory. That's not an entirely anti-Mac staement either - the same can be said for KDE and any window manager that tries to be fancy (and I like KDE for it's customizaility).
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Actually no - did you even read the original article? The article is a set of musings from someone about how they might go about getting Windows to run on the Intel Macs. They have *not* actually got Windows to run on Mac.
Contrary to popular opinion, OSX is not FreeBSD and isn't really very closely related to it. AFAIK, the userland UNIX tools are derived from BSD, but the kernel is Mach and just about everything else is proprietary.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
So I just laugh whenever people talk about one UI (be it Windows or Gnome or KDE or OS X) being so much more consistant and usable than any other UI.
Stop spreading FUD
It's a joke. Lighten up.
Did you look closely at that Sony TV-PC? The screen may be 20", but it has a resolution of only 1366x768. I'd hardly consider that an acceptable computer display for a $2200 computer.
The BOLData ones just look like crap, both visually and in terms of quality.
If you really want the iMac form factor in a "regular PC," I know Dell makes or used to make some decent ones. They still don't compare in overall quality to a Mac, though.
You forget the biggest one (at least my biggest one)...
The inconsistency of the close button. Sometime it quits the application, sometimes it closes the document within the application, sometimes it just makes the application go away, but its not hidden (that's something else) and its not closed.
There are a few other inconsistencies but once you know them its not a big deal, and despite the inconsistencies, I enjoy OS X the most.
PowerLevel.com - A next generation marketplace for virtual items and services
I think you missed something important in your comments, and it's that most of the time it was the inconsistency of the behaviour in every point what annoyed the GP poster. Inconsistency is always an irritation, even if it's relatively small.
Oh and one more thing:
>You know, I wanted focus follows mouse for a long time, but then I realized that if you had
>focus follows mouse, you'd never be able to choose anything in the menus
You have found just another source of irritation for people who prefer to have independent menu bars for each app. And of course, mouse focus (although you've quite handily pointed out why we'll probably never see mouse focus for the Mac).
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Mach is a microkernel that doesn't work by itself. The kernel of OS X, Darwin, is a BSD-derived kernel running on top of Mach. There are a bunch of other kernels, such as GNU HURD, that run on Mach.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.