Slashdot Mirror
Why Run Linux On Macs?
jones_supa writes Apple has always had attractive and stylish hardware, but there are always some customers opting to run Linux instead of OS X on their Macs. But why? One might think that a polished commercial desktop offering designed for that specific lineup of computers might have less rough edges than a free open source one. Actually there's plenty of motivations to choose otherwise. A redditor asked about this trend and got some very interesting answers. What are your reasons?
Power Mac G4: Debian 8 runs like a champ. The latest Mac OS won't even install.
The best question is "Why buy a Mac to run Linux", and the answer is conspicuous consumption. To show that you can.
If you already have the Mac, OS-X vs Linux is usually just a matter of personal preference. They both do the job.
However, the Apple trackpads are limited to two fingered use on non-Apple operating systems through the use of crippled drivers and therefore something like a Logitech T650 is far superior when using a non-Apple OS.
Wrong. At least on my 2009 MB Pro 3- and 4-finger touch has been working out of the box on Ubuntu for many years.
To answer the question from TFS, I can only echo what others already wrote. When I purchased this laptop, the MB Pro had by far the nicest product design for my needs, and the PC laptops I found in the same price range did not come close: Full-body aluminium instead of plastic, smooth outer shell instead of little knobs and slits everywhere (important, e.g., when having to remove the laptop from the bag at airport security check), low-key LEDs instead of a blinking christmas tree telling me useless stuff like my wifi working (I know, no need to blink for every packet!!!) but require the use of tape when you want to watch a movie.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
PCs are a ton cheaper and in most cases just as good.
Nothing compare to the Air or the 5k iMac.
In laptops? The Dell XPS 13 competes with the Macbook Air. Similar config is $150 more than a MBAir. It does have better screen resolution.
The Lenovo X1 Carbon costs more too. (Lots more if you get the high res screen.)
In all-in-ones, the Dell XPS 27" w/ 16GB ram is $2599. The 5k iMac w/ 16GB RAM is $2699. That isn't "a ton cheaper" in my book.
And sure, you can buy crap systems for less. People who are buying Macbook Air and 5k iMacs aren't shopping against the crap systems. Apple tax? What Apple tax? (Yeah, haters gonna hate. Mod me down, I don't give a crap.)
Yeah, and how many apps in Ubuntu understand and use it?
None apart from Unity itself as far as I am aware of, but the claim I responded to was "However, the Apple trackpads are limited to two fingered use on non-Apple operating systems through the use of crippled drivers".
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Well Mac OS X doesn't kill applications when you press the "close" button, it only kills/detaches/hides/whatever the window
So I think what he thinks is residual inactive memory is probably used memory from any "closed" application.
Actually, there's some weird stuff going on in Yosemite.
1) They now name the per-page webkit processes with the url of the page. So if you look at your processes, you can see which pages are hogging CPU and/or RAM. You'll also see that in many cases, long after you close a page, the process is still running.
2) Starting way back, I noticed that when you close a document in Preview, the file is still kept open by preview. But in Yosemite it's worse, fucking *quit* Preview, then run lsof, and you'll see the files still open in some preview process.
Also, an unused application with all windows closed should not slow down the machine. Prior to Mavericks I would have stated "will not", but now I have to say "should not, but may well do so, considering how badly Apple seems to have fucked up the performance of virtual memory."
I've found two reasons for this in the more than a decade since I got my first PowerBook. There's two things: there's always a few hardware features that come at a premium, and the mac stuff has some hardware niceties that I like regardless of what OS I'm running.
Everything comes and goes in cycles, feature parity is always shifting around.
For example, when I got my first G4, comparable PC laptops didn't have:
- bluetooth
- firewire
- target disk mode
- a widescreen IPS display
- gigabit ethernet
without getting really expensive.
When I got my first intel mac it was:
- dual link DVI
- a backlit keyboard
- a builtin camera
On my current macboor pro, which I bought about two years ago it was:
- thunderbolt and the ability to drive an insane number of displays
- that screen, when the first retina came out, that screen was unmatched
Laptops that had all these features have always come in at similar costs. There's sort of an 80/20 rule in play, and Apple just doesn't bother too much with things below the 80, but this seems to change a little more every year.
Also, I really love how my current MBP plugs into my display. One cable for power, USB, and display. The thunderbolt displays are basically a solid docking station.
If you dig the hardware and want some premium features (usually really current IO options) the cost makes sense to me.