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."
Let's face it, OSX being BSD means theres already a bootloader for the Mactel that will handle Linux. Didn't take much to make the jump.
This is less ignorant than the usual "OS X is FreeBSD, so you can recompile Microsoft Office for Lunix!" that we usually get, but -- no, that's not necessarily true, either that Linux should work or that Windows shouldn't.
If you have to ask, then this isn't for you. (Hint: People probably said the same thing about Linux 1.0)
http://outcampaign.org/
I know a Mac-head who thinks Linux is cool. It wouldn't surprise me if he dual-booted Debian on his Mac, just to play with it.
http://outcampaign.org/
I'm not bricking my new Mac trying to run linux, I just have a horrible image of waiting on the phone with Apples tech support and them going 'no its not under waranty'.
I thought that distinction belongs to Sun SPARC boxes running Linux.
Then again, a little fancy ASM code in all of the C++ flying around really could speed things up
Great, a micro optimizer in training. Just what the industry needed.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Sure, they could change *anything* in a future product.
;-)
But Apple knows it's important for people to be boot and develop with other OSes, such as Linux and BSD variants, Darwin, and so on. This is how it's been on Macs as long as they've existed.
And since Trusted Computing is a direction the entire industry is moving, and since Apple has already made direct, explicit statements that they aren't doing anything to prevent any other OSes from booting, Apple is by no means unique here, with respect to TPM adoption. Just early.
Like Apple is with all new technologies.
Linux is free*. That is reason enough. *free = liberty, freedom, etc.
It's sad that it's entirely possible that there's a Windows instance running on Intel Mac HW, somewhere behind closed Microsoft lab doors. OSS isn't just "open" when the source code is available for public download. The open project, the details of which are transparent and public, is another strong advantage. Particularly in the public relations arena, where the public claim is the prize, regardless of the real facts.
--
make install -not war
Of course, with Linux, comes Windows. In the form of emulating it using VMWare (which isn't supported on Mac OS X natively yet), and also with Wine (true, this isn't real Windows - but it satisfies people's needs to run some Windows programs).
Huh? The Mac's aren't early to using TPM. IBM laptops have had them for the last several years. In fact IBM said "Over 16 mllion IBM trusted clients have been shipped with Atmel TPM as of June 25, 2004"
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
World's most expensive desktop linux machine
So... Linux can't run on anything that costs more than $1299 (LCD monitor included)?
why?
It seems to me that the only good reason to pay those bloated prices for Apple hardware is that you get to run OS/X.
I haven't seen much about the performance of the new Intel Macs, but I know the old G5s couldn't keep up with a comparably-priced PC. One advantage the PC has is that its competitive hardware market keeps prices lower.
What we need now is some solid Linux benchmarks on both systems. I'd wager that the PC would outperform the Mac on a price-for-performance scale. It would probably win overall, just because AMD has a better CPU on the market than Intel.
Of course, it all really depends on what you want to do with your system. Different architectures emphasize different things.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Yes, i know that mentality all too well. (I just graduated in CS last year)
My friends and I jokingly called it the 'Shave with a Rock' mentality. "Electric shaver?! Ha! What are you, a chick? You're not hardcore unless you shave with a rock."
Can you believe some of these guys would even scoff at using XCode of Visual Studio. I halfway expected to see 'GCC h4RDc0R' tattooed across their knuckles or something...
Han shot first.
And certainly there's no need for hammers anymore now that we have advanced robots that can build cars.
A good tool is a good tool. I'd never use text-mode to browse the web (except for kicks). GUI is great for some things. CLI is great for other things. Sometimes a GUI is just too clunky, but sometimes a CLI is too confusing or difficult to get to work right. Use the right tool for the job. No need to be locked into one or the other.
Because the hardware's nice but linux is a better OS? I have a powerbook, it runs Debian Linux PPC near enough full-time. Mac OS X is cloying and sluggish and UGLY (yes, I DO think it's ugly! Tough. People are different) so I just avoid it, but the laptop itself is nice, and lighter and has longer battery life than an x86 box, and runs linux ppc pretty much perfectly.
I wouldn't ever use Mac OS X by choice, unless the only other choice was windows.
*Sigh*
They're the first mainstream consumer vendor doing it in the mainstream consumer marketplace.
Just like 802.11, USB, DVD writers, 64-bit processors, an online music store and a whole laundry list of other services and technologies.
You can argue Apple wasn't the "first" in any of these areas and be strictly correct.
But they were the first to do it in a widespread fashion in the consumer marketplace with a broad scope.
I like to be able to dual-boot into linux for those Linux apps like Gnucash, which Intuit would like to charge me an arm and a leg for. I could use Gnucash in Mac, but the setup is overly hard (even with Fink and Fink commander) and then half the things don't work right, like printing without me spending half-a-day trying to figure it out. In ubuntu, I can just apt-get and forget it most of the time. I need to get work done, not configure my PC.
I don't need to run Windows, but I'd imagine some people are in a similiar situation with a must have program.
The nice thing with Macintel is that perhaps someone can get Windows/Linux may run on top MacOSX (like Inferno for various operating system), no rebooting or anything.
But 90% of the time, I work in OSX anyway.
Hey genius, it never occured to you that some people prefer Linux? Some of those people also like Apple hardware.
Not everone has wet dreams about OSX.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really give a shit about the Power architecture. Yeah, maybe it has some theoretical advantages for compiler writers and people doing vast amounts of scientific computation. But for ordinary users? Who even notices?
I bought a Mac for OS X. OS X is what's unique about Apples, not the chips that run it.
Anyone who says you can build an Apple on your own by installing a free Unix on a Dell just doesn't get why people buy them. Mac OS X is desktop Unix done right. It is easy to install, set up, configure and use. It's the most widely-supported, widely-installed desktop Unix that has ever existed. And there is practically nothing you can do in Linux that I can't do in OS X.
This space intentionally left blank.
> I would like to hear from those who find this useful because I don't get the point yet.
One reason is to increase the hardware diversity available to Linux. If we can run on enough different hardware we can survive when Microsoft closes the traditional PC platform down to a glorified Xbox. Granted that Apple will probably beat Bill to that step but we might at least be able to make a co-existance deal with His Steveness.
Plus this might have some potential in and of itself. Think about it. Mac on Linux gives you Mac and Linux apps side by side. This is an Intel box so Wine, Crossover Office, VMWare and eventually Xen all provide ways to get Windows apps into the mix.
Democrat delenda est
10Brett-T
Oh, bother.
Not trying to flame here but I just don't get why everyone wants to install Linux and Windows on expensive Mac hardware.
Because some of us like Macs AND Linux AND Windows. And some of us NEED Macs, and Linux and Windows. And carrying 2 laptops around is a pain in the ass, and one expensive mac is still cheaper than that same mac plus a windows laptop.
Few people doing this wan't to put OS X away and never use it, but they can't afford or do not wish to put all their other OSes away and never use them either.
Now OS-X on commodity hardware, that's something to get excited about.
Ironically that is actually less useful to those of us who want a Mac and Mac OS X but can't leave PC hardware completely behind.
Its less useful because
a) some of us actually PREFER the Mac hardware, and want to use a Macbook Pro over some garish "commodity hardware" laptop.
b) we want to use OS X on a supported platform, not some community hack-fest. Think IT professionals and tech types in particular or evironments where OS X is their preferred primary OS, not a hobby project, that works when it works, and breaks everytime Apple patches.
I for example prefer OS X. I use it as my primary OS. And I would use a legally purchased and fully Apple supported MacBook Pro with OS X exclusively if I could. However, one task that I regularly perform involves flashing the firmware of devices using vendor supplied software. This software is terrible and does not run reliably under Virtual PC. So I need to drag a windows box around too just to run this software. If I could get Windows to boot on a MacBook, that would be a godsend. I could have my laptop and OS of choice, without having to drag around a windows box.
I also enjoy a number of windows only games. Currently I have a PC for those. I'd rather get a "MacTower Pro" and boot windows when i want to play a game instead of having two towers and a KVM under my desk.
I find it boggling that people keep repeating that they don't understand why people want windows/linux on intel Macs. Its not that hard to understand.
MacOS X uses the Mach Kernel, so the initial booting environment is completely different from FreeBSD. You are getting way to hung up on the "MacOS X uses FreeBSD" thing.
"Build something idiot proof, and someone will build a better idiot" - Samuel Clemens
This reallly makes you wonder about what sort of product they really have left.
OS X and consumer and professional applications optimized for it.
Apple lost their identity after they dumped the Power architecture.
The number of people buying Macs because of the PPC architecture is/was vanishingly close to zero.
Now you can build their product on your own by order a Dell and installing openBSD.
Not remotely accurate. OS X is much more than a skin over BSD.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Windows on a mac? That's just expensive hardware. +5 Insightful
Linux on a mac? That's just expensive hardware. -1 Troll
And likewise, Darwin may be based on BSD, but it sure as hell ain't BSD anymore.
Of course, my mom can't really go out and get a Dell, build a Linux kernel on it, and assemble an array of FOSS programs that work anything remotely like Mail/Safari/iLife. Heck, I couldn't be bothered to set that up, and I sure as heck wouldn't want to try maintaining/administrating it for my mom in another state.
In fact, iTunes is about the only thing you WOULDN'T have to live without, since there have been several stabs at getting the Windows version workable on Linux. Everything else in the Mac experience is missing.
To suggest Mac OS X is anything remotely similar to "BSD + some apps" is profoundly retarded and disingenious.
The value IBM was adding to Apple's Mac platform evaporated when Apple's PPC partners decided the desktop wasn't anything they cared about. That occured around 2000, when Microsoft completely abandoned NT's cross platform strategy plans. PPC has been on life support and in denial since PPC lost out on every desktop apart from Apple's. Since then, Apple has been leading Mac OS X development away from 68K/PPC dependance and toward a place where they could jump on the only viable platform for desktop PCs.
You can cry for PPC, but there isn't any way that Apple could continue to develop a processor platform entirely independant from the rest of the desktop PC world and remain competitive with the economies of scale enjoyed by Intel/AMD, particularly after its PPC partners gave up.
--
Linux is a very useful tool for many jobs, but its versatility is actually a major barrier for anyone trying to deploy it on the desktop. Everything is splintered to fit various different needs. Commonality and standarization is the value Apple adds with their products; the processor and underlying core OS are mere elements.
Apple can jump to Intel because they control the whole Mac world. Microsoft couldn't manage to keep Windows 2000 up on Alpha, PowerPC or MIPS because they shared control of the PC world with manufacturers.
Similarly, while Apple benefits from solid BSD foundation code, they could theoretically adapt Mac OS X Cocoa frameworks to live on top of Windows (as OSE was), Solaris or Linux (yes I realize that would not be very practical). But the point is, Apple's core competency was not PPC+BSD. It is the "Mac experience," which has little to do with individual components that might be in a Mac.
um... at the hardware level I'd disagree with you... the tpm starts first, and can be used for an interactive attestation based POST (the documentation suggests this boot order, I've read it a few times now) and subsequently interactive hardware initialization. from my understanding of boot orders, this is BEFORE the OS loads, so where's the driver? the real truth is that there are best practices which state that the customer (buyer) should have opt in/out and trust verification tools to ensure the tpm is set up in keeping with the security context of where the machine is being used. in an enterprise, tpm can be a great one stop audit exposure killing tool, in a home users machine it could be a scary privacy mess.
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
You are hallucinating.
1. Business purchasers are consumers. Deal with it. IBM has millions of TPM systems deployed with software that actually makes use of the TPM module. Using your definition, educational institutions and the publishing industry are also not "mainstream consumers." Frankly, you're also ignoring the large numbers of individuals that buy IBM laptops because they're high quality and nigh indestructible.
2. The number of Windows based systems with installed TPM modules dwarfs anything that Apple has shipped in the last few months, even if you exclude IBM. Dell sells them. Fujitsu sells them (E8000, S7000, P1500, ST50XX. B6000, T4000). (Here's a whole list of manufacturers that have shipped TPM modules in Windows based machines.
3. Really, knock off the drugs. Intel invented USB. Intel pushed USB. Intel rammed USB down every whitebox manufacturer's throat well before Apple introduced its USB keyboards and mouse with those candy colored iMacs in January 2002. I have Microsoft USB keyboards that are older than that. Roundup of USB optical mice from August 2000.
Now that I've addressed the specific points therein, I'd appreciate external references to things that give sales numbers, introduction dates, and other points that prove that Apple got either of those technologies on the market before Windows PC suppliers. Otherwise, have a nice day, and seek counseling.
Those screens are the end of the Gentoo Stage 1 install. Tomorrow they will very likely have xorg compiled and a window manager of some sort running.
I have a theory about why one could initially be +5 and another could be -1.
Now, you see, people who click on "Linux beats Windows to Intel iMac" will likely be more often than not predisposed towards using Linux. However, people who click on "Windows should someday run on the new iMac" are more likely to be predisposed towards using Windows.
Now here's where things get complicated. You see, it can be said that Windows users will be statistically more prone to helping spread falsities and half-truths about other operating systems compared to someone who has used a number of operating systems, in this case including Linux.
Now, Because of these situations, as well as the fact that moderators are chosen from a pool of over 500,000 individuals rather than a single hive mind, it can be forgiven that two messages in two different threads have two different, polar opposite, moderations.
It's been a long time.
Oh, and if you want to read up on elilo, check this out:
http://elilo.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/blosxom
Difference between lilo and elilo: lilo boots from legacy BIOS machines, elilo boots from EFI machines.
I've never noticed most of these (perhaps because I've been using Macs since, oh, '84), but these are interesting observations.
;) Command-arrows I've known forever.
* Inconsistant PageUp/PageDown use. Some programs move the cursor, some just move the screen. Very annoying when only the page moves. Now if all aps standardized even on the annoying behavior at least we'd be consistant.
How does the app know whether you just want to "look" a few pages up or down (and not lose the location where your cursor aka your current work position is), or actually "move" there? I personally hate when the cursor moves because there's no guarantee you know where it lands- and half the time I wanted to "remain where I was". But I'm a heavy mouser I guess.
* Home/End keys. If you understand the logic, it's not bad. Command-left_arrow and command-right_arrow do the trick. But if you go in and change your OS X keybindings to restore normal windows/linux home/end behavior, you only get very spotty coverage with some apps honoring the keybindings, some not.
Might be a difference between Cocoa and Carbon apps. This is just a legacy Mac thing. Since I'm a legacy Mac guy though, I've never gotten used to using the home/end keys to begin with though
* Click to focus a window absorbs that click. But not always. Depends on the app. Really slows you down if you use dual-monitors and have lots of windows spread between them.
My habit that I guess makes this not bother me is that whenever I want to bring a window to the front I click in a "non-busy" part of it. Then it doesn't matter whether the click is absorbed or not, but yes, you would still have to click where you actually want to "go". I didn't know one extra click actually bothered people. though.
* Scroll wheel can only affect a focused windows. This means you can't have your browser slightly underneath your program editor and scroll up and down through API docs without clicking away from the editor window. This one is pretty close to being a show-stopper for me. Combined with the previous problem with the focus these leads to some serious impedence of work. In essence the UI fails in this aspect because it doesn't get out of the way and let you work. Instead it is in your face.
I don't quite understand. If you arrange the windows in a non-overlapping way, it's an alt-tab to change the focus. Not very expensive to do alt-tab, roll wheel, alt-tab back. There is a UI convention that says that the frontmost window should receive all events.
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, unless you dragged the window to the top of the screen first to make sure it was the topmost window on your way to the menubar. So not only would you have to have focus follows mouse, but also menus tied to individual apps instead of globally. Forget about it.
For mac users the key buying points are:
No Viruses
No Noise
No Hassle
oh... and they're pretty.
They fit into the affordable luxary category, a lot like the iPod. If all you want is FIPS and MIPS, then you buy an AMD box, with water cooling and a heat sink as big as your car. Hell, why not go the whole hog and kit it out with LEDs to make it 'classy'.
Mac's are the Rolls Royce of computing, not the Ferrari. When it comes to the choice between comfort or performance, they choose comfort - but they still stick a big ol' engine in, because, let's face it, you paid for it. AMDs are the suped up Honda. Sure they get better 0-60, and are cheaper to 'upgrade', but you're still left driving a car that looks like a Honda.
If you're demanding performance specs, then either you are genuinly somebody who needs that performance (a dying breed) or your are a relic from the 1990's. Processor performance is no longer the most important factor in a desktop computer, we're still waiting for IO and memory to catch up.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!