Slashdot Mirror


Linux Is a Lemon On the Retina MacBook Pro

An anonymous reader writes "It turns out that Linux doesn't work too well on the Apple Retina MacBook Pro. Among the problems are needing special boot parameters to simply boot the Linux kernel, graphics drivers not working, no hybrid graphics support, WiFi requiring special firmware, Thunderbolt troubles, GNOME/Unity/KDE not being optimized for retina displays, and other snafus, including 20% greater power consumption with Linux over OS X. According to Michael Larabel, it will likely not be until early next year when most of the problems are ironed out for a clean 'out of the box' Linux experience on the Retina MacBook Pro."

120 of 780 comments (clear)

  1. Proof at last! by oldmac31310 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This proves it for once and for all. Apple is evil!!! What?

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
    1. Re:Proof at last! by Krojack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      woooooooosh..

      Did you hear that?

    2. Re:Proof at last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well for my anecdotal hyperbole it sounds like every Windows installation I've ever done. Seems I need to download the network card drivers and change the display setting from VGA in a box that doesn't fit in VGA. Seriously, installing an operating system is never a piece of cake unless you have an OS image that is specific to the hardware you're installing it to. In that case it's always a piece of cake regardless of which OS it is.

    3. Re:Proof at last! by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's been a while since you tried Linux, hasn't it? If not, you've chosen the wrong distro, which is what I suspect happened here (haven't RTFA yet). It's been five years since I've had any such issues.

      That's the thing -- there is no Linux, there are a lot of Linuxes. For an example, in another thread a while ago someone was complaining that he couldn't play MP3s on his Linux box... of course not, he was running Red Hat.

      OK, I'm back, just read the iApple ad (RTFA in this case means "read the fucking ad"). There's nothing there but pretty pictures of the macbook, descriptions of what a fine piece of equipment it is, and just says "Linux" without saying what distro, how he tried to install it, etc.

      In short, TFA is bullshit. Tell me what distro you're trying to run! What drivers are lacking. If you've ever installed any OS on any computer.

    4. Re:Proof at last! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Linux has shipped with more hardware support out of the box than Windows for ages now. You just don't care that you have to download Windows drivers for hardware because its normal to you.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:Proof at last! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "I don't think so, since this sounds like every linux installation I've ever done."

      So you tried one obscure Linux distribution in 1997 then?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:Proof at last! by Vintermann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Installing Ubuntu has been a piece of cake on every system I've done it on over the years.

      When I was asked by some friends to assist with a Windows installation, I was very surprised at how much manual work it was (getting the wireless drivers to work, for instance - that used to be a problem on Linux around 2003).

      It's no surprise Ubuntu is easier to install than Windows, because Microsoft would much rather you have the OEM do it for you.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    7. Re:Proof at last! by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You just don't care that you have to download Windows drivers for hardware because its normal to you

      Which kind of takes away the advantage of support out of the box.

      This is one of those points where it's only the marginal cases that matter. Whether I need to download drivers to reach the full potential of my video card or they come pre installed is of minimal importance, because there are only basically 3 video card makers and I either can find them easily, or I need someone else to manage my computer for me no matter what, because I can't find www.nvidia.com, click the drivers, GPU drivers, then auto detect buttons, I'm not capable of managing my own computer, windows or linux.

      On the other hand, if I have some bizarro SATA controller on my MOBO or a video card from SIS or matrox or one of the other boutique guys or some other random weird crap on my computer I'm still probably going to have to find drivers for something, and it's a pain in the arse because you may have to navigate some taiwanese website looking for some numbers in the hopes that they will point you to the right driver. And that's about equally bad for both linux and windows, assuming you can find drivers at all, and assuming they would do anything on linux if you needed them.

      Which takes us to why Linux doesn't work on a retina macbook. The APIC intel mobo thing seems like that's actually a linux bug, whatever they happen, I'm not going to rail on the Linux dev guys about it. But the rest of it seems to be all the marginal case stuff, some custom apple thunderbolt part that you need to get working so you can transfer over files to support some other custom apple part (or at least very new part that is currently only supported by apple). No one ever seriously thought a 2880x 1800 display was going to exist (same ratios at 1440x900 but 4x the pixels), so it works like shit, the wifi is probably some custom part, so it doesn't work, the GPU switching thing is relatively new, so it's hard to say if that's a newness problem or a custom Apple way of GPU switching problem. For windows you're stuck waiting for Apple to release a driver kit (although the retina display thing can be solved through nvidia's website), and everything else is about as bad as linux. In both cases you're waiting on someone else to solve the problem for you as an end user. On linux you're waiting for someone to basically reverse engineer the parts, on Windows you're waiting for Apple to release a boot camp disk or money to change hands and Microsoft to write their own.

      So sure, Linux has more support out of the box, but if it doesn't support the marginal case stuff that's hard for me to find fixes for then it's not getting me a whole lot over windows (at least in terms of driver support). As is well exemplified by the macbook retina display, which is basically a series of edge cases linux doesn't support yet, and neither does microsoft. That's probably Apple being assholes more than the fault of the other two, but either way, the linux setup experience isn't winning out over windows.

    8. Re:Proof at last! by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      I had a computer back in the day, a good Pentium 3 with a standard Intel motherboard and nothing too fancy at all.

      Windows XP out of the box had no: Network, video, usb, audio, or anything except basic video, keyboard, mouse and cdrom.
      To get it to work you'd have to download the drivers off the net, burn them to a CD on another computer then pop the cd in.
      The computer was a couple of years older than XP too!

    9. Re:Proof at last! by ilikenwf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where is the "find drivers" button? Or right its called "Google your damned ass off" and you had BETTER know the exact make/rev/model of driver you need and pray to a statue of RMS someone has one. Even if they DO have one you better have enough skillz to be able to tweak that sucker, because it'll no doubt be written for make f, rev g, firmware h and you'll have make F, rev I, firmware j and the picky bastard just won't work.

      It's not 1997 anymore...the kernel has 99% of the drivers you'll need, unless you need a proprietary one or something that's up for inclusion in the kernel that hasn't made it into the stable version yet.

    10. Re:Proof at last! by tibman · · Score: 2

      The best part is where you spend hours installing all the updates.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    11. Re:Proof at last! by tqk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Installing Ubuntu has been a piece of cake on every system I've done it on over the years.

      You haven't been trying hard enough. I love Linux, and the *BSDs, but we're always going to find ourselves chasing hardware support since the manufacturers (well, many) couldn't care less about supporting us and they love to stick us with so far unsupported (by the devs) proprietary stuff. Even if you stick to older hardware to give the devs a chance to do something with that crap, some systems will inevitably fall through the cracks. I'm mostly talking about laptops in my case. In my experience, first it was video that could only barely (if at all) do X, then Winmodems (bleah!), then network interfaces, then sound, now WiFi. It doesn't much help when curveballs like PulseAudio get tossed in at the last minute. My HP dv4 AMD 64 bit Turion machine still won't do sound (using Debian testing), while my 32 bit Gateway AMD Sempron does *everything* swimmingly (running Debian stable).

      I just spent a weekend trying distro after distro trying to find one that even detected the internal wifi in an Inspiron 1525. Finally, LinuxMint did. Woohoo! Unfortunately, it refuses to connect to my parents wifi router, while it has no trouble with my sister's. Needs research, and a wired connection (which isn't easy to do these days, damnit); pain in the butt. Sucks to be us sometimes, dependent upon hardware support.

      Don't get me wrong, it's a lot better now than it used to be and live CDs/DVDs make the process a lot easier than it used to be, but there'll always be rotten boxes that refuse to play nice. Still better than banging your head on Win* and Mac, though.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Proof at last! by complete+loony · · Score: 2

      Here's another link explaining some of the issues with getting thunderbolt to work.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    13. Re:Proof at last! by tqk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now lets compare this to Linux: Where is the "find drivers" button? Or right its called "Google your damned ass off" ...

      No, at least in LinuxMint it's the "Find Proprietary Drivers" icon.

      If you haven't even tried to run a LiveCD in a decade, why would you consider yourself qualified to criticize it?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Proof at last! by ooshna · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You haven't installed Windows 7 have you? As surprising as it might sound Windows 7 is actually really good at installing the drivers for most hardware OOB even wireless cards then when you run windows update the first time it will almost always find and install the missing drivers. I've only had one or two weird pieces of hardware it couldn't find drivers for and one of those was because they didn't make a 64bit driver for it.

    15. Re:Proof at last! by tqk · · Score: 2

      Yes, I know that manufacturers don't open specs and write Windows-only drivers. I know it's not Linux's fault.

      At least once it is supported, it generally stays supported. Unlike the others that rip out support for old hardware that's no longer bleeding edge.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Proof at last! by Smauler · · Score: 2

      As proof : Vista crashes to blue screen on my motherboard (nvidia) with 4gb of ram or above, on install. No warning errors, not a helpful blue screen (though you can't hold it either, because it's on install), it just blue screens and reboots. The solution is to install with 2gb, apply the hotfix (or SP1 and/or 2), put your other ram in, then reboot. Dunno what the solution would be if you only have 4gb sticks. This was not an isolated case - everyone with nvidia and 4gb of RAM had this bug.

      That being said, after that hurdle was overcome, Vista has been great for me.

    17. Re:Proof at last! by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not 1997 anymore...the kernel has 99% of the drivers you'll need, unless you need a proprietary one or something that's up for inclusion in the kernel that hasn't made it into the stable version yet.

      Or unless you want to do something really bizarre like using wifi to connect to a network...

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    18. Re:Proof at last! by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Funny

      If they say "linux" without specifying a distro, obviously, they must be talking about LFS. That's going to be tricky no matter what hardware you try to put it on, and it's certainly not going to "just work" right out of the box...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    19. Re:Proof at last! by denilson3 · · Score: 2

      Windows 8 seems a lot quicker at this. Now if only metro wasnt such a disaster on the desktop.

    20. Re:Proof at last! by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      In my experience, first it was video that could only barely (if at all) do X, then Winmodems (bleah!), then network interfaces, then sound, now WiFi.

      That was my order of troubles also (well, except for sound. Sound?), it's just that the last step of it happened 5-7 years ago.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    21. Re:Proof at last! by darkpixel2k · · Score: 4, Funny

      woooooooosh..

      Did you hear that?

      No, my sound card doesn't work under Linux.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  2. Linux on Mac?! by m1ndcrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why in the world would you even try to do it? What is the goal of this endeavour?

    1. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Look, sometimes you just want to stick a Chevy four-banger in your Ferrari. It's not rational, it's just linux.

    2. Re:Linux on Mac?! by erp_consultant · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually I installed a dual boot of OSX and Ubuntu on my later model iMac. Not only does Ubuntu run flawlessly it's really fast. I was surprised to see that everything worked right out of the box, including the webcam, sound and wifi. Sometimes I have to test my software on a native Linux distribution so it helps to have the dual boot option. Sure I could run it in a VM but this is a bit more of a pure solution.

    3. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because Mountain Lion isn't THAT much of an upgrade over Lion, and whatever comes after (HouseCat?) will probably be more IOS-like—i.e., sucky on a laptop.

      Until/unless Apple de-fscks itself, the upgrade path will be via Linux on Mac.

      --
      Yeah, right.
    4. Re:Linux on Mac?! by cod3r_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1 person trying it.. 1 person working on it.. 1 person reporting it. Many people reading about it and scratching their heads.

    5. Re:Linux on Mac?! by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Why in the world would you even try to do it? What is the goal of this endeavour?

      It's a game .. seeing how many pieces of hardware we can run Linux on. There's always the question, is it the suitability of the OS or the hardware which is the chief difficulty. I'd say with problems prying into how the Mac is made and what tricks you have to overcome, it's not a particularly good choice (particularly as there may be small deviations during the production, which you won't know about, until you trip on them.)

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Linux on Mac?! by tgd · · Score: 2

      Oh damn it. What's the odds I posted nearly the identical example?

      At least I was man enought to take the Karma hit!

    7. Re:Linux on Mac?! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do it with a macbook air.

      The hardware is nice, but OSX is terrible.

    8. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Name one other laptop that has a screen with that high a resolution. They don't currently exist.

    9. Re:Linux on Mac?! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just think how much more smug you are when you're running free software on over-priced hardware. It's a smug upgrade!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is true. I have sent a great number of emails to Lenovo complaining that they no longer produce a laptop worth buying because the screen resolutions of the new ones are not as good as the old ones.

      Their response is to send me emails of models with even worse resolution!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    11. Re:Linux on Mac?! by hobarrera · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why not? It's the only notebook with a display capable of 2,880×1,800, so if you want a notebook with a resolution higher than 1080p, its your only choice.

      The hardware specs of a Macbook Pro "Retina" are quite unique, so there's plenty of other reasons you'd want this particular model just for hardware.

      Where I live, a Macbook Air is the only choice for something similar to an "ultrabook". Everything else weighs twice as much, and includes crap I don't want, like huge HDDs or optical drives. So even if I dislike Apple's software, their hardware is really the only choice for me.

    12. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Say what you will about Apple, they are the trend setters. Think about the ultralight laptops, tablets, etc. Other vendors chase them. So you might just get your Lenovo with a nicer display now that Apple fielded these.

    13. Re:Linux on Mac?! by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      Because the bastards won't let me upgrade my hardware to OS 10.8 ("too old" they claim). Well maybe Apple is into planned obsolescene of good hardware, but Microsoft and Linux aren't. I have not done it yet but could install either of these OSes since Apple no longer thinks I'm worthy of support. (And yes this is another reason Apple is a "luxury" brand like Lexus or Acura.... high initial cost, plus short OS lifespan == high cost of ownership).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    14. Re:Linux on Mac?! by bhtooefr · · Score: 2

      It's not your only choice, it's just your only choice that's currently available.

      Plenty of 1920x1200 options if you go back to Core 2, a few at Nehalem, and a couple at Sandy Bridge. (Some of those in the Core 2 and Nehalem days are even 15".)

      Also, if you go back to Core 2, and don't mind some frankensteining, you can get an IDTech IAQX10, IAQX10N, or IAQX10S panel, a ThinkPad T60 or T60p, and a T61p 14.1" 4:3 motherboard, heatsink, Socket P CPU, and PCMCIA slot assembly, and put them all together. Need to reflash the panel's EDID ROM, and file some stuff away from the chassis, but the end result is up to the following:

      2048x1536 IPS display
      2.6 GHz Core 2 Duo Penryn
      Quadro FX 570M (but crippled, and 128 MiB VRAM only)
      8 GiB RAM
      Whatever SSD you want, but IIRC it's constrained to SATA 2 speeds (maybe SATA 1, actually)

      With less frankensteining, you can run the T60p board, and get up to the following:

      2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Merom
      FireGL V5250
      3 GiB RAM
      Whatever SSD you want at SATA 1 speeds

      And, with zero frankensteining, you can find an ultra-rare config of the ThinkPad R50p, which means up to (I think):

      1.7 GHz Pentium M
      Radeon 9200 or so IIRC
      I think 2 GiB RAM?
      Whatever PATA SSD you can find

      The T61p/T60p frankenstein is what I ran before getting a MacBook Pro Retina, I'm a bit of a pixel whore.

    15. Re:Linux on Mac?! by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just think how much more smug you are when you're running free software on over-priced hardware

      I would be very interested to know where I can get a laptop with a 2880x1800 display panel for cheaper than Apple is charging. I am not aware of any others. It's a judgment call whether this is worth the money, as it is definitely a premium-priced product, but you are paying for actual hardware specs, not just snob appeal.

    16. Re:Linux on Mac?! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      The hardware is nice, but OSX is terrible.

      Oh boy, you did it now.

      If I don't see you in a few days, I'll send a search party out to look for your karma.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Linux on Mac?! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't care.

      OSX screws up just too much. The whole interface is dumbed way down, it is not configurable to any real degree and it is missing lots of normal features. One of the first that springs to mind is having one wallpaper across more than one monitor. Instead I have to cut the image up into two then place one on each screen.

    18. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Lord+Lode · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The interesting thing is, this is the first time Apple sets a trend that I (who is not your average consumer) actually want: high resolution screens.

    19. Re:Linux on Mac?! by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you like having middle click copy past, functional number pad in vim, or focus follows mouse OSX is not the right choice.

      I tried to use it, I paid for software to enable focus follows mouse. I tried to find a decent terminal app, I tried to find replacements for all I needed. OSX is just really meant to be for one kind fo user and that is not me.

    20. Re:Linux on Mac?! by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You must be too young to remember the days before the HDTV market killed hi-res displays. On laptops especially, the extra screen real-estate is awesome since going multi-head isn't an option. And I would personally much rather have a single 27" 4k monitor, than a 4x20" multi-head setup.

    21. Re:Linux on Mac?! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why use vnc? Why not just tunnel X over SSH?
      Or just use ssh the normal way.

    22. Re:Linux on Mac?! by aztracker1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For me the largest frustration, is the number of applications *only* available via the MacStore, and how cumbersome the MacStore is itself. Not to mention, the default setting for 10.8 (Mountain Lion) was to only allow app installs from "known" developers on the MacStore. The first few apps I installed were non-mac-store apps, and the new sandbox doesn't work for many developer oriented apps. One of the reasons I went mac for a laptop was relatively seamless software options, and it's less so imho now than before. Homebrew/MacPorts goes a long way, but just the same, at this point would nearly rather be on Mint/Debian/Ubuntu. If the next OSX release is *any* worse, I'm definitely going Linux.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    23. Re:Linux on Mac?! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Linux is fine as a "normal desktop OS". The problem here is redefining "normal desktop" to mean grandmas that really should just get an iPad. A GUI does not negate the possibility of power users. There are plenty of GUI power users and they tend to get annoyed but Apple's allegedly superior product.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    24. Re:Linux on Mac?! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Windows is only the standard for a secretary's terminal and games.

      Beyond that, you need something a little more serious than Windows.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    25. Re:Linux on Mac?! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lots of software is actually not available, what is I have to compile myself.

      OSX has more pay for software, far less FREE software. I mostly use FREE software.

      OSX was commercial UNIX, it is not now. Not that it being commercial UNIX is something I care about.

      Here are my major issues:

      Lack of configurability.

      Lack of Focus Follows Mouse. Zoom2 fixes that mostly.

      Lack of middle click paste.

      Breaks numpad for vim.

      All the command line flags are BSD style instead of the GNU way I know and love.

      Bad multimonitor support. Does not use one wallpaper nor do the menu bars appear on both monitors.

      Print screen does not work, instead you get some sort of 4 key combo. That sure is intuitive!

      The OS comes with nothing, windows does this too. I would much rather have a compiler and tools installed out of the box that itunes. Would take up less space too.

      Asking anything on an OSX forum gets you "Why would do try to do that? It is not the one true way THE JOBS has given us!"

      The biggest issue is really the lack of configuration options. Most of this stuff should be a checkbox but is not.

    26. Re:Linux on Mac?! by rexkbh2100 · · Score: 2

      You DO IT with a macbook air? Which port do you use? Hopefully not firewire...any sort of transfer would be over too quickly! Then again it's not the size of the file that counts, but whether the bits get corrupted... Or do you just negotiate protocols wirelessly? "The hardware is nice, but OSX is terrible." Well that's just typical, only interested in the body, NO consideration for the person! :) Sorry can't help it

    27. Re:Linux on Mac?! by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Why in the world would you even try to do it? What is the goal of this endeavour?

      If you came here asking a question like that, you MUST be new here...

      If we didn't approach most endeavors in the *NIX world with a "why not, let's see what happens" attitude, there probably wouldn't be a single *NIX box running a GUI yet.

    28. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Well, it does sound more productive than making Linux run on your toaster...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    29. Re:Linux on Mac?! by ratbag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've got the world waiting to hear about how "OSX screws up just too much" and the first thing that you choose to share is that you can't have the same wallpaper spread between two monitors. I don't normally like snarkiness but it must really be tough being you, what with the massive annoyances you have to deal with. Sheesh.

      Still, it's your choice to jettison the reliability, consistency, elegance, support and put Linux on the machine because you can't spread wallpaper across monitors. Meanwhile some of the rest of us have applications or content on screen and tend not to bother with wallpaper.

      Like I say, I'm not normally a fan of snarkiness, but today's been a real doozy of a day for idiotic comments, from people accepting the "UK threatens to storm the Ecuador embassy" line from Ecuador, through to people complaining about a change of connector (in a story from the frikking Daily Mail of all places), through to a piece about how Linux doesn't run well on a machine specifically designed to run a different OS.

    30. Re:Linux on Mac?! by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jettison support? I run Linux on Macs because Linux has had better driver support for things like capture cards and 3rd party remotes and more complete support for things like video acceleration.

      This MBP is one of the few exception when it comes to "support"

      Apple reliability is overrated. So is Apple consistency.

      "Elegance" is just subjective nonsense.

      The problem with Apple is that things quickly go bad when you use it any manner remotely creative. It has an even worse group think than Windows. With Macs you will get shouted down for trying things that seem mundane on Linux or Windows.

      apt-get is a killer feature and blows Apple variants out of the water when it comes to "elegance".

      The main advantage of Macs is that you can "buy stuff" for it and Windows has a much bigger advantage in that regard.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    31. Re:Linux on Mac?! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Is it? I've no love lost for Apple, but there are many little things they've done right, some of which were widely copied. Large "glass" laptop touchpads are one example
      (granted, Trackpoint is still superior in general).

    32. Re:Linux on Mac?! by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lets be clear (pun intended): higher DPI screens. Resolution is only half the battle. What good is 1680x1050 if it's on a 30' screen? Much better on a 15" I'd say.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    33. Re:Linux on Mac?! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Because Mountain Lion isn't THAT much of an upgrade over Lion, and whatever comes after (HouseCat?) will probably be more IOS-like--i.e., sucky on a laptop.

      I don't see Liger anywhere on that comic.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    34. Re:Linux on Mac?! by RocketRabbit · · Score: 2

      You didn't want to take advantage of the other trends they set? Like longer battery life and thinner, lighter computers? Like nice trackpads?

    35. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Informative

      Over fast connections X over ssh is faster than VNC. On the other, hand VNC is (barely, and not for any practical purposes) usable on connections that are so slow, X can't work over them without minutes of redraw delays.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    36. Re:Linux on Mac?! by aussersterne · · Score: 2

      This is not to suggest that you *ought* to do this (time is valuable, particularly for working professionals), but it is possible to get much of the free software and even the GNU command line environment for Mac OS. I do it via MacPorts though I know there are other alternatives as well.

      When I was contemplating the switch from Linux it took me about two months to become convinced that I could be satisfied with it. Most important factors were some critical free software standards, a GNU environment, a decent terminal, and better focus and window management.

      I settled on iTerm which is actually a damn fine terminal for my purposes, better than either the GNOME or KDE offerings for my day-to-day use, but it took me a while to find it, and I didn't like any of the alternatives.

      MacPorts brought the GNU environment and utilities, applications like ImageMagick and graphical Emacs (which I used extensively in Linux but has actually fallen by the wayside in my Mac use, supplanted by Sublime Text) and a number of other standards.

      The focus and window management issues were solved with apps, as you point out (Divvy deserves a special mention here as an app with great configurability but without making it unmanageable).

      Appearance configurability (things like the dock and icons) were a bugaboo at first but it turns out that many applications store their graphics as PNG files and you can just drop replacements in. Not ideal, but not much different from what I always ended up doing in Linux, with the benefit that I've only had to do it once in most cases, as opposed to having to do it with every application or desktop element point release in Linux, and the file names and positions seem not to be subject to so much churn on the Mac.

      The multimonitor support I agree with—I don't like the way it's done. On the other hand, it is *predictable* and stable within the bounds of what can be done, which never happened to me on Linux (not only did I invariably find myself getting into the guts and scripting it myself in a kludgy way, but once again every other point release would leave me with a mess that I'd have to clean up at the console because graphics would fail to start because my script had been rendered incompatible in some way).

      The development environment is a valid gripe but a small one. XCode is easy enough to get ahold of, and gcc is also there with minimal fuss.

      My experience of switching has been that once the initial two-month learning curve was over:

      (1) All of my existing scripts worked
      (2) My development environment was surprisingly easy to bootstrap
      (3) The command line feels just like my old Linux command line did
      (4) There are a few niggles in the UI that I don't like, but they're not major
      (5) My desktop is sufficiently visually and workflow customized for my needs and has remained so without effort
      (6) I spent little to no time now on system administration for my own system (compared with 20% of my work time in Linux, with unpredictable breakages)

      One thing that I still haven't mastered:

      Mac cursor movement by keyboard with the same level of proficiency I had in Linux/Windows. But, against the tradeoff of that 20% I think I'm still far more productive and feel (frustratedly) interrupted by my system much less.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    37. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Noughmad · · Score: 2

      Actually, it does. I have a KDE desktop set up in this way:

        - I'm using a menubar widget in a panel at the top of the screen. It looks just like the top toolbar in OSX, except it's Plasma themed.
        - If the current window is not fullscreen, moving the mouse over another one does not change the focus, so I can reach the menubar.
        - If I roll the mouse wheel while doing so, the window under the mouse scrolls, not the active one.

      Basically, I get the main benefit of focus-follows-mouse (scrolling), without the side effect of changing the menubar. Note that this is KDE's default behavior (obviously I had to add the menubar widget myself), so it doesn't require any editing of config files.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    38. Re:Linux on Mac?! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      You've got the world waiting to hear about how "OSX screws up just too much" and the first thing that you choose to share is that you can't have the same wallpaper spread between two monitors.

      Yeah, I'm with you on that one. It's kind of a bizarre complaint, given that there's so much else wrong with OSX compared to Linux.

      Still, it's your choice to jettison the reliability, consistency, elegance, support and put Linux

      The what, what, what and what? Are you talking about the same OSX and same Linux?

      Thise are all terrible on OSX.

      Meanwhile some of the rest of us have applications or content on screen and tend not to bother with wallpaper.

      Well yes, I agree with that.

      through to a piece about how Linux doesn't run well on a machine specifically designed to run a different OS.

      lolwut? The MBP retina is pretty normal Intel hardware. The main thing unusual about it is that it's one of the first laptops with out the current latest generation of everything. Given that linux is excellent on so many platforms it is surprising that it doesn't run well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    39. Re:Linux on Mac?! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      A 15 inch screen simply doesn't need a resolution like that. My laptop has a larger screen than any MBP and it doesn't look any more jagged or rough than it did before the new Apple laptops came out. I mean, who prioritizes the number of pixels on their display over everything else, including the actual size of the display? Which jobs require a huge number of pixels for you to work efficiently, and is every MBP buyer who points out the resolution employed in one of those fields? No, they're not. They don't need that resolution, it doesn't serve any practical purpose for them other than bragging rights. That's called snob appeal.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    40. Re:Linux on Mac?! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MacPorts brought the GNU environment and utilities

      Ick.

      I tried fink and I tried Macports. I've also tried real ports on both Free and Open BSD. Somehow, the OSX ones always seemed really brittle and upgrades would fail frequently. The trouble is that you would find some package that you needed, try to install it, end up in some kind of hell, rm -r the tree and then wait overnight for everything to build again.

      Basically, compared to any of tha major Linux distributions, and the ports tree on the BSDs, getting random OSS software installed on a mac is like pulling teeth.

      XCode is easy enough to get ahold of, and gcc is also there with minimal fuss.

      Some hideous, ancient and mangled version of GCC. I run a couple of OSS libraries, and the Mac support has been a bit painful at times. Not anything like as painful as Windows, to be sure, but by the standards of unixy systems, awkward.

      Also, GCC has been improving a lot lately, so being a couple ov versions behing is a hinderance.

      I spent little to no time now on system administration for my own system (compared with 20% of my work time in Linux, with unpredictable breakages

      That sounds like hyperbole to me. That's one entire day per week. Unless you're doing some weird shit, once set up, a decent Linux distro will basically run for ever or until the hard disk dies, which ever comes first. Even Arch with its crazy roling upgrades amazingly just works pretty much all the time.

      Linux is used heavily for things like servers, HPC, embedded stuff and so on where uptime is important and it can stay on for years. If you're having stuff randomly break to the point where it's taking up 20% of your time administering the thing, then you must be doing something very, very wrong.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    41. Re:Linux on Mac?! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      You think he'll get modded down on slashdot for being critical of something Apple does?!

      It'll take a few days to mobilize the Fanboi Trike Force, but yes, he will get downmods, and most likely will have comments he made from other articles downmodded as well.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    42. Re:Linux on Mac?! by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole GUI trend, the built-in-pointing-device trend, the keyboard-set-back-next-to-the-screen trend.... Apple has introduced a lot of design features (especially on laptops) which have since become standard and are now taken for granted. You may not like them all, but the notion that you don't like any of them is a bit preposterous.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    43. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Kergan · · Score: 2

      What good is a 2880x1800 display with only 1GB of graphics memory?

      Displaying fonts and graphics at double resolution with sub-pixel antialiasing.

    44. Re:Linux on Mac?! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Odd; I've had no problems implementing middle click copy/paste using the default install, nor have I had a problem with my number pad in vim (until I started using a keyboard with no number pad xP --Fn-NP just doesn't cut it, so I had to update my vimrc to move the functions to other keys). Decent terminal apps: other than Terminal.app (which is definitely sub-par in some areas and superior in others), there's a number found here: http://www.macupdate.com/find/mac/terminal%20emulator -- of which MacTerm is the best. There's also Konsole, which runs just fine (as does most of the KDE environment, complete with focus follows mouse).

      Personally, I always found FFM a bad idea, and haven't missed it; but then, I use my keyboard to change focus and do what I want, and don't want my mouse to be randomly messing with where my keyboard focus is going.

      OS X defaults definitely target one kind of user, and there's a learning curve if you're coming from a Linux background. If you're coming from a BSD background, the transition is significantly smoother, as almost everything can be implemented in the same way if you want to.

      That said, there's nothing wrong with OS X not being for you... there's lots of other OSes that run just fine on Mac hardware -- it appears with the exception of whatever distribution of Linux the story author used when it comes to the new MacBook Pro.

    45. Re:Linux on Mac?! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      If you are just going to script, why bother with a GUI at all?

  3. Hardly newsworthy by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Informative

    Linux doesn't exactly have a reputation for working well on brand-new hardware. The new MacBooks only came out a couple months ago, give Linux some time!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Hardly newsworthy by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On PC hardware, it has been running a LOT better than before. That said, it's still essentially true -- nothing works out of the box unless it is like 3+ years old.

      With all that said, Apple goes out of its was to "think different" so that its hardware is more exclusive and more likely to be running Mac OS X... but only Mac OS X version 10."latest" because they are dropping support for hardware older than X years. (Where X is a number between 2 and 5) So anyone with ideas of installing anything other than pure Apple Mac OS X on it will be faced with some challenges.

    2. Re:Hardly newsworthy by jrminter · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is one thing to have an older MacBook and think about moving to a Linux distro when the current OS no longer supports your hardware, but unless you are a hobbyist who get pleasure from tinkering and wants to see "if I can...", it seems like a waste of time and money. Note that I am writing this on a 2009 MacBook Pro with Mountain Lion but I also use Linux for many aspects of my work. If I wanted a Linux laptop to just "get my work done," I would look carefully at one of these: http://zareason.com/shop/Laptops/ The key is to let your supplier work out the hardware details. That is part of why one buys from a given supplier. We are all free to tinker to our hearts content, but if our objective is to use the system to do something useful, it is typically more productive to get something that works on the OS of choice. This is hardly a new concept...

    3. Re:Hardly newsworthy by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2

      Just how long do you expect something to be supported? Especially given how Microsoft's expertise in legacy support has done nothing but cause problems for 3rd parties and themselves.

  4. NEWS Flash!! by JWW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linux doesn't work completely on brand new hardware!!

    This is totally shocking to me. This has only been a problem since the 90's.

    1. Re:NEWS Flash!! by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly... I wonder how well OS X worked the first time Apple ran it on this hardware. I bet it didn't even boot.

      I know you're joking, but the corollary here would actually be how good OS X would work on hardware tuned specifically for Linux. The answer to that would likely be "very poorly" as well.

    2. Re:NEWS Flash!! by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the real news is that Linux does as well as it does on new hardware that is designed and tested for other OSes. A good sidebar is how quickly any deficiencies get fixed up.

  5. And next by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's trash linux a little more by complaining how this Ubuntu DVD fails to load on this sundial. There you have it, linux can't even run on one of the most primitive time-keeping devices. It must suck.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:And next by Amouth · · Score: 5, Funny

      That isn't linux's fault, it's Ubuntu's. Slackware will run just fine on your sundial.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:And next by angryfirelord · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, I'm sure NetBSD support it.

    3. Re:And next by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      My NetBSD install CD caught fire in my toaster. Still waiting for a patch.

    4. Re:And next by TheSpoom · · Score: 2

      Pffft, Slackware. I run Gentoo on my sundial. Now it tells time 377.4% faster.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  6. Tell me why... by ak_hepcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is so shocking to think that an operating system doesn't work well on hardware for which no drivers have yet been written?

    And yes, folks have been working on this. It's all up on the G+.

    But seriously, until somebody is paid to write the drivers prior to hardware release, why expect it to work?

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
  7. You spent $3000 on a laptop to run linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You spent $3000 on a laptop to run linux. You are a strange person.

  8. Fusion is your Friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why waste so much time/effort with a BOS install? Run it in VMware Fusion full-screen like I do. Pick your battles, my friends.

    1. Re:Fusion is your Friend by neoshroom · · Score: 2

      Even better run it in the new VMWare Fusion Tech Preview, which includes 3D support for Linux and is free till October.

      http://communities.vmware.com/community/vmtn/beta/fusiontp2012

      __

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    2. Re:Fusion is your Friend by RocketRabbit · · Score: 2

      Even better just use VirtualBox, which is free as in beer, and has 3D support for Linux.

  9. Re:Not just the retina macbook pro by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But also all devices made by Samsung, LG, and HT....

    But saying that doesn't draw any attention - mentioning Apple does. It's like when people talk about Foxconn. Nobody mentions they make stuff for HP, Dell, Lenovo, and others - they only mention the Apple connection.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  10. Translation by Nexion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't buy a Mac.

    Don't get me wrong fan boys... Apple does make good gear, and it isn't Apple's fault it doesn't run Linux all that well on this particular device. However despite having a good operating system for a workstation I'm just not a big fan of OSX at home. I use Linux primarily at work and I am quite happy with it. Given the choice between Windows and OSX at work it will be OSX every time. However, I DO have a better choice in workstation OS that more closely mirrors our production servers on which to develop software.

    I also don't care much for Apple as a company. I find Microsoft more trustworthy, and that really does say quite a bit.

    It would be nice if Apple contributed to Linux. I know that is asking a lot of them as they throughly enjoy tieing two products together by virtue of license and copyright law. It is something they are unfortunately unlikely to change and as a result I try to avoid purchasing their hardware. Much like I will try to avoid any "secure boot" BIOS gear in the future.

    1. Re:Translation by bored_engineer · · Score: 2

      They do contribute to common bits, such as Cups. After a lot of yelling, they contributed webkit improvements to khtml. They also released a caldav server under the apache license.

    2. Re:Translation by jbolden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It would be nice if Apple contributed to Linux.

      They do. Their most notable contribution was all the work on the PPC version of gcc which is the reason Linux runs so well on XBox.

      Most of their major open source projects do run on Linux today though: http://www.macosforge.org/

    3. Re:Translation by Nexion · · Score: 2

      To both bored_engineer and you I would like to say that I stand corrected.

      However I think the PPC and caldav efforts seem a bit self serving at first glance, but I am quite thankful to any company who contributes to OSS.

      I guess I was hinting at anything they might have contributed to make Linux run well on this new device prior to release. Yes, I'm quite aware that would be angelic of Apple to do so, and it is way over the top to ask them to do so. Does anyone know if they made information availible to the community to facilitate non-Apple OSS developers attempting to write nessisary drivers for this new device? Even that would be highly commendable.

  11. What a shame by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's too bad, 'cause, like most people, I was looking forward to buying overpriced hardware bundled with an expensive operating system and then just running free open source software on it instead.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:What a shame by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is if you aren't legally allowed to run it on anything other than Mac hardware. The $20 you pay is technically the upgrade price since the actual price has been rolled into the cost of the hardware.

  12. I would have to start with "Why?" by MadCow42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have the new Retina MBP... and it's a fantastic machine. But WHY would you buy it just to install Linux on it anyway? It's a very expensive computer for that - you can get other laptops with similar specs (other than the display, yes) for a lot less. In almost all cases I'd suspect that people want to use both OSX and Linux - and in that case, I'd highly suggest running Linux in a virtual machine anyway (Parallels/VMWare).

    Sure it'd be nice to have a pure dual boot for Linux, but until drivers are written and fine tuned for that specific platform it will do just fine.

    I use Parallels for that, and for running WinXP (believe it or not) for one old app I need. The new MBP is so fast that I can cold-boot WinXP in 3 seconds! - making it a breeze to get to the one app I need when I need it.

    MadCow.

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    1. Re:I would have to start with "Why?" by stor · · Score: 2

      > I have the new Retina MBP... and it's a fantastic machine. But WHY would you buy it just to install Linux on it anyway?

      Ultra-res xterminals.

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  13. Re:Why run Linux on a MacBook by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The same reason you would run Windows on a MacBook. If the thing that matters most to you is the screen there are precious few other options in the market, even if you ignore the high resolution. Just finding an IPS laptop that has basic features and doesn't require a furniture dolly to move is hard to find. Also, if you work in both OSX and Linux environments, you are going to want a MacBook. The cases are not numerous, but they're out there.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  14. Instead of Linux laptop by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Package contained a retina MacBook pro. Would not buy again.

  15. Re:In other shocking news: by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2

    How well does it run Windows 7 with Boot Camp?

  16. Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple currently has the high resolution screens. Too bad you can only get 1GB of video RAM on the MacBook Pros though. What is the point of having such a high resolution screen if you run out of VRAM for textures etc? I'm thinking about a Retina Mac to replace my existing Mac but at the lack of video ramm is putting me off.

    Why does this matter? Because I'm developing a cross-platform OpenGL flight simulator and I would like to have plenty of Video Ram to go around (many flight sim gamers have very high end Windows rigs with 2-4GB of Video RAM, and this is my target [TBH, I don't care about those who want to game on less capable hardware - profit limiting I know, but I'm writing the sim for myself first and foremost and I have great hardware that is poorly utilized by many mainstream games]).

    So, my point is while Apple has a lovely display resolution that will probably soon be matched by others. Other laptop manufacturers (eg. HP) produce machines with 2 GB of Video RAM, which is unlikely to be matched by Apple (none of their latops have more than 1 GB of RAM, Apple don't seem to be interested in trely powerful users of laptops - I guess that's what they have the Mac Pro for - but it doesn't help folks like me).

    1. Re:Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      TBH, I don't care about those who want to game on less capable hardware

      Then why are you concerned about using a Macbook?

      If all they're going to offer with the super-duper Retina display is 1gb RAM, then just ignore the platform. Who's going to play flight simulator on a Macbook?

      Now if you were developing an anal sex simulator, then you'd want to make sure it ran on Apple hardware.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First you say ...

      TBH, I don't care about those who want to game on less capable hardware - profit limiting I know, but I'm writing the sim for myself first and foremost and I have great hardware that is poorly utilized by many mainstream games

      And then you say ...

      Apple don't seem to be interested in trely powerful users of laptops - I guess that's what they have the Mac Pro for - but it doesn't help folks like me

      So, it's ok if you want to ignore people with smaller systems, but it's a bad thing that Apple isn't interested in selling niche devices to people like you?

      They're not interested in chasing "trely powerful users of laptops" -- they're interested in chasing as many people as possible. You likely represent a tiny fraction of the market.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now if you were developing an anal sex simulator, then you'd want to make sure it ran on Apple hardware.

      You can't, at least not with iOS - remember that clause in developer license agreement that forbids products directly competing with ones offered by Apple?

    4. Re:Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, my point is while Apple has a lovely display resolution that will probably soon be matched by others. Other laptop manufacturers (eg. HP) produce machines with 2 GB of Video RAM, which is unlikely to be matched by Apple (none of their latops have more than 1 GB of RAM, Apple don't seem to be interested in trely powerful users of laptops - I guess that's what they have the Mac Pro for - but it doesn't help folks like me).

      In most cases, higher quantities of VRAM tend to be a part of beefier graphic chipsets. In basically every one of *those* cases, beefier GPUs sit on the same motherboard as beefier CPUs. In every one of *those* units, you end up with extra runs of copper and beefier fan motors to keep them cool. Add all of that together, and you end up with a laptop that is powerful, but is large, heavy, and lacks battery life. There's definitely a market for this; Alienware, Origin, and Falcon Northwest all pay their bills based on catering to that market. HP has a wide enough product line that they can throw enough Jell-O at basically any wall and some of it will ultimately stick.

      Apple, on the other hand, seems to have no desire to cater to people who are alright with a laptop that has only an hour of battery life and weighs 7 pounds. My best guess is that they feel that even having a monster-sized performance laptop would be impossible to make appear sexy, but I'm certain the Apple folk are aware of the Alienware/Origin market and have chosen not to attempt to cater to them. I've yet to meet a Macbook user who expressed unhappiness with their older graphics chipset, or one who was sufficiently unhappy as to express willingness to sacrifice half of their 2.5-hour battery life for the added performance. Ratcheting back the resolution and easing the antialiasing to 2X will get acceptable performance from most games Mac users are likely to play. After Effects comps of any consequence are generally rendered overnight, when the difference between 4 hour render times and 6 hour render times are effectively meaningless. Now granted, I have an Origin monster of a laptop that gets less than an hour of battery life and I'm okay with that, but getting acceptable performance by bumping down graphics detail is a lot easier to do than squeaking out extra battery life when you have a CPU/GPU that eats through it very quickly.

    5. Re:Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      > Apple, on the other hand, seems to have no desire to cater to people who are alright with a laptop that has only an hour of battery life and weighs 7 pounds
      Actually I have a late 2008 17" MacBook Pro. It gets 7 hours on one chipset and about half that on another chipset. Apple ditching the power segment is very, very recent. This is why I made my post, what is the point of upping the resolution to a beautiful Retina display if the VRAM is not upped as well?

      With regard to battery life. Apple has the option that others do, and Apple itself has already done in my existing Macbook - have a low power graphics chipset for lightweight uses and a decent graphics chipset for those that don't want to wait overnight to get shit done and a battery life of an hour is fine (like me).

      Yes, I may be a niche user. It used to be Apple hardware was the choice of this niche. Now they have dropped the performance crown and I'll probably upgrade to an Elitebook with lots of Video Ram (and probably by the time I get one, a Retina display too). I'll miss OS X for sure, but since I've been using Linux for nearly two decades I'm sure I can 'hold my breath long enough' to go back.

      So, IMHO Apple were not clever to increase their Retina display while not having a corresponding increase in Video Ram.

    6. Re:Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution by glitch0 · · Score: 2

      Just one correction. Mac laptops get 7 hours of battery life browsing the web (wifi on). And if you're doing something more CPU intensive you can still expect to get a minimum of 4 hours. So it's not just 1 hour of battery life vs 2.5 hours battery of life, it's 1 hours of battery life vs at least 4 hours of battery life. And that's 4 hours with the CPU pegged, usually much more since most of the time the CPU isn't pegged for long periods unless you're rendering or something.

      --
      -Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
  17. Re:This Just In: by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is flamebait because it makes blatantly false statement the Retina MBP is not in any sense "locked down." Apple does not block installation of 3rd party or open source software or operating systems on any of its desktop or laptop computers. So its merely a matter of an open source OS not yet having been tweaked to run perfectly on a new, and somewhat different, hardware design.

  18. Matt Garrett has Fedora running on one by Medievalist · · Score: 3, Informative

    See his blog post -

    http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/15948.html

    As for "why try to do it?" - well, probably because liking Apple hardware and high-res displays does not automatically create a liking for XNU/Darwin. Some people prefer Open Source.

  19. Well, speaking as a hipster by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why in the world would you even try to do it? What is the goal of this endeavour?

    When I first got into Mac, it was still a rare thing. And so that made me better than everyone else. I got to look down on PC users and call everyone who came after me poseurs. Then, as Mac's became more and more popular, I started noticing that EVERYONE was carrying them. I even saw people using them in Starbuck's, for Christ's sake (as I passed by the window on my way to an indie coffee shop that you've probably never heard of).

    This forced me to do something to set myself once more off from the pack, so that I might reaffirm my moral and intellectual superiority. Obviously, I couldn't go to Windows. So naturally I turned to Linux, and an obscure distro than only a few of us know about (if you have to ask which one, don't bother).

    It was perfect. Now when people saw I was using a Mac and asked me about it, I could tell them "Yeah, it's a Mac, but not the kind YOU'RE using" and blow off any subsequent questions with "I could tell you more, but you wouldn't get it." Once more, I was whole!

    I would talk more about it, but I've got to get to a Semertian Poetry reading. Not that I expect you to know what Semertian Poetry is.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  20. Still by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a captivatingly sharp image of a walled garden topped with razor wire! Look at it glisten in the sunlight coming through the walls of our crystal cathedral!

  21. Re:Why run Linux on a MacBook by hobarrera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could you please link to a cheap non-apple laptop with a 2880x1800 display? Thanks!

  22. Mistaken Claims by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    whatever comes after (HouseCat?) will probably be more IOS-likeâ"i.e., sucky on a laptop.

    People have been saying that for years, even though Apple has repeatedly said that a desktop OS is different than a mobile device OS and held to that statement through a number of OS releases.

    Meanwhile Microsoft is the only company that has gone ahead and said "no, both platforms should run the same OS".

    You can always install Linux later IF Apple turns that way as well.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Mistaken Claims by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After a week with Mountain Lion, I'm actually leaning that way for my Macbook Pro next OS release... It was somewhat of a painful experience for me, doing a relatively clean install, then getting the core apps I want installed. I do a lot of my actual work in VMs, and the host OS is really starting to cramp my style so to speak.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    2. Re:Mistaken Claims by Candyban · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile Microsoft is the only company that has gone ahead and said "no, both platforms should run the same OS".
      You can always install Linux later IF Apple turns that way as well.

      Seems some Linux distros are going that way too. Yes, I am looking at you Ubuntu.

    3. Re:Mistaken Claims by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      eople have been saying that for years, even though Apple has repeatedly said that a desktop OS is different than a mobile device OS and held to that statement through a number of OS releases.

      Meanwhile Microsoft is the only company that has gone ahead and said "no, both platforms should run the same OS".

      This is an oversimplified description. In truth, there are not two platforms here, but three: desktops, tablets and smartphones. Apple lumps tablets and smartphones together under "mobile". Microsoft rather bets that tablets are (or should be) closer to desktops in capabilities, rather than to phones. Hence why Win8 is targeting desktops & tablets, and WP8 (which, while using the same kernel, is a different OS) is targeting phones - and their UI is also different in many ways, if you look beyond square tiles on the home screen.

    4. Re:Mistaken Claims by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile Microsoft is the only company that has gone ahead and said "no, both platforms should run the same OS".

      You can always install Linux later IF Apple turns that way as well.

      Seems some Linux distros are going that way too. Yes, I am looking at you Ubuntu.

      Thankfully we have Linux Mint, which at the end of the day is Ubuntu-but-not-stupid.

  23. No, it is enabled all the time... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Oh, so that's why you have to use 3rd party "hacks" to enable native 2880x1800

    Wrong, the OS is running at 2880x1800 all the time.

    The hacks are all about turning on use of the higher resolution for apps that have not provided graphics for the higher res, so the text will look better. By default so OS X does not mess with the look of an app, it will keep the whole app running at the older resolution and simply scale up the display.

    All of the system apps (like Mail and Safari) of course support native 2880x1800, and all the other apps really have to do is re-compile (it's optional to add higher resolution image assets, though of course a good idea).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  24. but... by alienzed · · Score: 2

    Mac OS X is Unix, and then there's virtualization, why even bother getting Linux native to a Mac anymore?

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  25. Re:As long as your hardware is common and old by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Informative

    I install over 20 Dell servers a year running CentOS. I've never needed a single driver update. All of them are fully supported. Dell manufactures their servers specifically to be Linux supported.

    cf. http://linux.dell.com/

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  26. Linux Is a Lemon by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 2

    Fixed that for you.

  27. Why? by SilverJets · · Score: 2

    Other than proving it can be done, why would you drop that amount of money on a retina display macbook pro and then install linux on it? OS X is already *nix and has a much, much cleaner and better looking gui than anything available for linux.

  28. Windows not 100% either on that hardware. by metalmonkey · · Score: 2

    Intel Thunderbolt drivers are particularly poor - not supporting hot-plug in windows yet.
    This is not really a problem with the hardware itself just Intel/Microsofts priorities are not aimed on thunderbold, considering it isn't on that much hardware at the moment.

    How would you then expect that it will work immediatly on linux - where typically the developers don't get pre-release hardware or even specs.