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."

Comments

Proof at last!

[oldmac31310]

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

Re:Proof at last!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Proof at last!

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Proof at last!

[MikeBabcock]

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.

Re:Proof at last!

[Vintermann]

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.

Re:Proof at last!

[ilikenwf]

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.

Re:Proof at last!

[tqk]

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.

Linux on Mac?!

[m1ndcrash]

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

Re:Linux on Mac?!

[erp_consultant]

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.

Re:Linux on Mac?!

[JDG1980]

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.

Re:Linux on Mac?!

[Lord Lode]

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.

Re:Linux on Mac?!

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:Linux on Mac?!

[jedidiah]

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.

NEWS Flash!!

[JWW]

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.

Tell me why...

[ak_hepcat]

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?

Translation

[Nexion]

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.

Re:And next

[Amouth]

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

Instead of Linux laptop

[Culture20]

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

Well, speaking as a hipster

[crazyjj]

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.

Re:Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Video RAMM matters more than screen resolution

[shutdown -p now]

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?