“We reported a few days ago that we had Linux booting on the Intel-based Macintosh. We have been looking at Linux on this hardware some more, and we are glad to report that we now have a full-fledged Knoppix distribution working, complete with the X Window system. We are releasing the first pictures of Knoppix 4.0 running on a 17-inch iMac Core Duo. The X Window system is shown running at full resolution (rather, fuller resolution – 1472×900 – notice that the bottom right edge of the KDE dock is cut off). Most (but not all) aspects of the hardware seem to work, but we have yet to analyse exactly what doesn’t work and assess how much work it might take to get such things working.”
Good work!
This just speaks volumes about the capacity of those FOSS participants out there. From the portability of Linux, to the ease of Kernel modification, to the spark that lets us do all those cool things so quickly! Well done, guys… go team!
This is really good news and demonstrates the amount of talent in FOSS. I really want a mactel system for the looks but am not too keen on MacOS so with Linux running on it, I can go get one. Hopefully FreeBSD will be ported to it sometime soon.
I’m the owner of a new MacIntel and although I find Tiger a great OS, I feel somehow trapped by the lack of support for multiple OSes. I’m looking fw to installing my favourite debian and whynot a windowz just in case I need to install any win application. Freedom to the user!
Now that hackers were able to make a full distribution run on these machines (meaning, with X and the rest of the stuff) the owners of these new Mactels have gotten a new opportunity to run some software that otherwise they would have to wait, like Windows, for instance. Everybody knows that Microsoft and VMWare both will have to take their time in order to bring their virtualization offers to this “new” platform, but the regular Linux user can just compile QEMU (with KQEMU, to get that extra performance gain) and take advantage of the features of these Intel Core Duo. While there is no evidence whatsoever that these emulators will only require a compile for the time being, I’m sure that their authors or somebody really inclined to do it will perform the changes required to make this a reality really soon. I’m pretty sure that the users that had a reason to run VirtualPC before will appreciate this.
This is not to mention the other goodies like those closed-source x86-only must-haves like Java, Flash, Acrobat and the likes that probably will be available as well (Again, I’m taking a wild guess here…) and one should not forget the rest of the good old FOSS stuff.
Since only Apple and a few other vendors have stepped up in order to update their software as fat binaries and that pretty much everything else will run emulated under Rosetta, an opportunity like this could offer a stop gap for Mac users until the rest of the ISV get their act together on the Apple platform. Of course, this is a possibility that most will not consider until the people behind this don’t work out the hardware issues.
I know that some people here hate the idea of tainting their loved computer with that other Unix OSes (There’s probably something illegal on this… ;-)) but who knows… Some of you might end up liking the penguin! 🙂
Everybody knows that Microsoft and VMWare both will have to take their time in order to bring their virtualization offers to this “new” platform, but the regular Linux user can just compile QEMU (with KQEMU, to get that extra performance gain) and take advantage of the features of these Intel Core Duo.
I think it’s pretty certain that x86 Linux VMware will run on this setup.
Ack. Afaik the Intel Mac is in fact a PC, it has an Intel CPU, it has an regular Intel chipset. The only thing that prevents Windows or regular Linux distros from booting is that it does not have a BIOS, but this new EFI stuff. But when we get around this, a Linux distro that can boot from EFI, we have a full-featured x86-distro right? There might be some drivers missing or so, but in the end it’s just x86!
Tom
Exactly! It’s just x86.
Even better, since it is a fairly consistent set of components (as in graphics, sound, …) which will last for a while across a line of laptops, the few missing drivers will be relatively easy to obtain. It is more of a “stationary target” than trying to support a broad range of bleeding edge desktops.
I ordered myself a Macbook Pro a week or so ago, and this makes me very excited.
You don’t need to run Linux in order to use QEMU on a Mac. There’s a native port available – compiled as a universal binary so it’ll work both on PowerPC Macs and Intel Macs too. One of the ports is known as Q
What an utterly worthless effort.
The tiny number of people who are dumb enough to waste money on the slow,powerhungry,and overpriced Intel Macs can’t possibly be worth the effort.
…to the team of developers!
Linux can boot and work on Mac PC. What’s the real advantage? Why someone will partition/erase newly purchased MAC+intel and try to install Linux on it?
Anyway linux have numerous harware problems in the past and MAC is almost hardware monopoly, two together is deadly nail for average Joe user.
Who is going to write drivers in Linux for my new Mac printer, mac camera, mac scanner etc???
Experts can shade light on practicability of such efforts running Knoppix on Mac PCs
Thanks
What’s the real advantage? Why someone will partition/erase newly purchased MAC+intel and try to install Linux on it?
It’s about choice.
Anyway linux have numerous harware problems in the past and MAC is almost hardware monopoly, two together is deadly nail for average Joe user.
This isn’t aimed at the average Joe, yet. Also, you haven’t used Linux in a while. Hardware support is taking off between the vast array of open source drivers to the drivers actually being distributed by the hardware manufacturers. This is especially true of server hardware. Will Apple release Linux drivers for their Mac-tels? Nope, but there are plenty of hackers out there to take up the slack. And that answers your next question.
Who is going to write drivers in Linux for my new Mac printer, mac camera, mac scanner etc???
See my last response.
Experts can shade light on practicability of such efforts running Knoppix on Mac PCs
The practicality comes in that as the efforts mature, you will see drivers for all of the hardware come about. You will get the flexibility to use Linux on this hardware and all of it’s many functions. You’re being quite short sighted on this.
Linux can boot and work on Mac PC. What’s the real advantage? Why someone will partition/erase newly purchased MAC+intel and try to install Linux on it?
yes !
why do you people bother replying to this guy, he is a troll. look at his rating.
can the mods ban this muppet please ?
can the mods ban this muppet please ?
No, fascists like you should be banned.
If you wanted to use linux, why did you buy a mac? You could have done it a lot cheaper with more powerful hardware off the shelf!
Some things I just don’t get.
This is right up there with water cooled pc’s — these people should go out and rice up their car instead. That way at least the ladies *might* like it.
If you wanted to use linux, why did you buy a mac? You could have done it a lot cheaper with more powerful hardware off the shelf!
The price factor is only valid in the least interesting part of the market. When it comes to desktop computers, you only get the lot cheaper deal if you compare to a dull looking beige box. If you want anything good looking on your desk, you don’t get the price/performance margin. But that’s not really interesting anyway.
The most interesting about other OS on Intel Macs is the laptops, and those are real competitive when it comes to price/performance. They are in the same pricerange as other high end laptops, like the Acer Ferrari. Actually the laptops have been the main point of Linux on Mac even before the Intel switch. If you look at pictures from any Linux tradeshow the last 3 years or so, you’ll see a fair amount of Macs.
I guess it’s because There is just one mac laptop to support, not the flurry of model churned out by Toshiba, Dell and the others
If you wanted to use linux, why did you buy a mac? You could have done it a lot cheaper with more powerful hardware off the shelf!
Some things I just don’t get.
Well, is it too HARD to realize that someone could need to run _both_ OSX and Linux in his life/work ?
Do you know any way of do it without buy 2 boxes ?
Really don’t undertand why every time they talk about linux on mac someone comes out with this stupid question !
1. Trolling. Some people find nothing more entertaining than annoying other people.
2. Why Doesn’t Everyone Accept My Worldviewitis.
3. Don’t sully my Mac, you plebes! Blah blah overpriced luxury sedan.
4. Oh my god this is such a waste of effort. Why aren’t these people posting complaints on the Internet about what other people do with their spare time?!?!?!
4. Oh my god this is such a waste of effort. Why aren’t these people posting complaints on the Internet about what other people do with their spare time?!?!?!
They’re complaining on spare time as well. It’s just another hobby.
Actually dual/multiple booting Mac OSX and linux (or other *nix) could be a geek’s dream come true.
OK, you could do it with the Power Macs, but your choices were quite limited.
OK, you could do it with the Power Macs, but your choices were quite limited.
If you didn’t want to compile your own …
I fear that most people will be disapointed learning that the graphic card on mac will likely be unsupported on linux. ATI don’t want to release 2D specifications thus no open source driver for this card only dumb vesa support which is slow as hell. Moreover fglrx driver won’t support X1xxx chips in a near future…Anyway binary driver sucks…
From cell phones, to mainframes, to intel macs… linux will find a way
Linux is the most adaptable OS out there – it’s on big iron servers, mainframes, superfast super computers, cell phones, PDAs, TiVO boxes, various embedded devices, Macs, PCs, NASA equipment, military hardware, and just about anything any hacker might want to port it to. Heck, it’s even been ported to the Xbox.
All this, and it’s fast, stable, secure, full featured, easy to use, fully supported (through large vendors like Red Hat, desktop distros like Linspire, or small systems integrators), and it’s free (as in beer and freedom).
Really, it’s quite amazing that it’s already been successfully ported to Mactel, something that MS and VMware want to do but haven’t yet, with their large armies of paid developers. All the while the little kernel that could and it’s happy volunteer develpers (well, most kernel dev is done be IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Intel, OSDL, etc paid developers), like these Knoppix, ported Linux quickly to Mactel.
It’s a real life demo (and proof) of the power of open source.
“Really, it’s quite amazing that it’s already been successfully ported to Mactel, something that MS and VMware want to do but haven’t yet, with their large armies of paid developers.”
Got any links for any of that? I haven’t read anything about MS being either interested or disinterested, and some VMware staffers have merely thought having it running on a Mactel would be a good idea. Can you honestly imagine though, that if either company wanted their software running on Mactel that they’d dedicate their entire ‘armies of paid developers’ to the project? No? Me neither.
“Can you honestly imagine though, that if either company wanted their software running on Mactel that they’d dedicate their entire ‘armies of paid developers’ to the project? No? Me neither.”
Why wouldn’t they want their stuff to run on Mactel? Mactel is most certainly a threat to MS to take desktop market share, so it behooves them to have Windows run on that platform. Plus, it’s just more opportunity to sell copies of Windows. Also, VMWare is all about running on different OS’s and hardware. If they didn’t port, it would be a big missed opportunity.
My point was more about your use of the term ‘armies of paid developers’. VMware would be very likely to port IMO, whereas it’s not exactly a definite for MS. MS are looking into developing VirtualPC for Intel-based Macs, but there’s nothing I’ve seen so far that has said MS are interested in having Windows running on an Intel-based Mac natively.
If MS were to release a version, they’d have to be sure that a majority of current Windows apps would run perfectly, otherwise there will be plenty of people kicking and screaming. OSS developers don’t have that requirement.
I don’t know about missing a big opportunity. I don’t think switching to an Intel processor is going to drive sales any more than if they switched to Sparcs. Microsoft had the same motivation to port Windows to run on the PowerPC as it does to port it now. Is it easier now? Sure, because they don’t have to change their compilers. The only thing they have to do is make it so it will boot with the EFI rather than BIOS. The big question is, why would they want to? Apple doesn’t sell a whole lot of systems compared to the vast number of PCs sold. Apple has a very small segment of the market and while they make some in-roads on market share, it will only be temporarily unless they offer something more. This hype may boost sales some, but there aren’t that many people out there willing to convert unless they are technically inclined in some fashion.
As for VMWare, I’m pretty sure their Linux version will run on these systems considering they are x86 processors. Others have said this. They never ported it to Mac OS X before now, but who knows what may lie ahead there.
First you flame anyone claiming a Mac to be more expensive than a Dell, and then you flame anyone wanting to install anything but OSX on a Mac? If Macs are cheaper(and better designed, faster, and better in every other way), why wouldn’t Linux- and *BSD-users want install their OS of choice on them?
But the new Macs are not cheaper, better designed or faster than a high-end PC, they use the same chipsets, same cpus as new Intel-based laptops, and are usually more expensive than the equivalent PC. Thier laptops are competitive with other x86 laptops, but their other systems are usually more expensive.
Thier laptops are competitive with other x86 laptops, but their other systems are usually more expensive.
Only when you use cheap pats. If you actually match the specs out Mac’s have been about the same price wise. You want agood comparison go price out an alienware gaming rig. You might be surprised just how much good hardware costs. Stop thinking Dell, which shorts down on hardware.
I build my own computers, I don’t buy Dells, and I don’t use cheap parts. and since Apple use ATI and Nvidia graphics cards, standard SATA and ATA harddrives, and standard intel MBs and CPUs and chipsets, how could they be using better hardware?
Branded computer is different. The motherboard and casing are different. Other parts may be better than in the market, or just labeled (who knows). I bought used Dell GX-300, and I was really impressed by the casing design: solid, but easy to assemble parts in it.
First you flame anyone claiming a Mac to be more expensive than a Dell, and then you flame anyone wanting to install anything but OSX on a Mac? If Macs are cheaper(and better designed, faster, and better in every other way), why wouldn’t Linux- and *BSD-users want install their OS of choice on them?
BSD-users will not, OSX is basically BSD distro. I’m pretty sure that one reason of buying Mac is they don’t have much time to waste for customizing desktop to look like a Mac.
Edited 2006-02-21 17:48
BSD-users will not, OSX is basically BSD distro
lol, you’re funny.
Not that I plan to put Linux on DH’s new iMac anytime soon, but I am heartened to see this.
I also am looking forward to getting 1 of these Intel iMacs but will wait till several Linuxes and Windows have been booted on it first.
Actually I really want the BeOS/Haiku even more so and am pleased that the the Linux work will enable other OSes to follow eventually. I would expect by next year when the PPCs are gone, that most of the OSes discussed on OSNews to have been ported one way or another, EFI doesn’t seem such a big deal if you have sources to the OS.