Apple.slashdot.org features an interesting question by a reader, asking for a bootable “live” Linux CD for the Mac, the way Knoppix and/or Morphix do it on x86 (one CD with KDE and another one with Gnome, plus apps). I would like to urge Yellow Dog Linux, the premier Linux distro for Macs (review), to build such a version, as it would not only help their product marketing-wise, but given the reluctance found in the majority of “normal” Mac users (as opposed to power users) to re-partition their Macs and try other OSes, it should “push” and introduce these users to Linux in an easy and comfortable way. UPDATE: I put up a poll for you, come in and vote for your favorite Mac Linux distro (vote even in case you don’t own a Mac; there is an option for it).
Note: This poll is now closed. Results below.
A good idea most definitely. Then some curious Mac users will be bold enough to see what all this linux fuss is all about without touching osx
What a waste of time. Do you really think Mac users would think Linux runs better? Myself, I have two Linux servers. There both in the other room being used as firewalls and printer servers. Linux as a desktop OS compared to OSX, it’s not even a fair comparison. Whether it’s KDE or Gnome, none of them can hold a flame next to Aqua. X11 is killing Linux and people are finally starting to realize this from what I can see with all the commotion from the X consortium.
(freaking Safari, crashed when typing this, retrying.)
No, we are not mad, neither is a waste of time. I AGREE with you that MacOSX is a better desktop (however it is a slow OS nevertheless). However, Linux’s primary work is being a server and a workstation, not a desktop (no matter how people are trying to pitch Linux to everyone over here).
Thing is, Linux can be a useful OS for many mac users for some uses. And a Live CD helps making these COMFORTABLE to the presense of Linux and the way it works. It is the ultimate marketing tool for both the distros and Liinux itself.
It is a win-win situation for YDL, IMHO. They have only some engineering time to lose, but they can gain a huge number of users. Granded, not all of these users won’t buy now, but it bonds these users to the advancemetns of Linux from time to time, and when the time will come for these users, they will know where they are going.
I would agree with Anonymous. MacOSX does everything Linux can do, plus alot more. Why would someone use Linux instead of MacOSX? I could see it with hobbyists, but not with daily Mac users. Linux cannot even begin to achieve the level of refinement for everyday tasks, refinement that is inherent in MacOSX’s design.
Mac users will upgrade to whatever the latest thing that shipped on their late model machine, because it “just works”. The daily Mac user has no interest in fighting the machine. They could have gotten a much cheaper x86 windows or linux box if they wanted to taste linux.
However, I will say that I think it is a good thing that Linux is supported on Mac. It reinforces the fact that Apple has been very open about their system hw. But I should also mention that I think Linux is a bum deal in my personal opinion — a bunch of programmers _giving_ their services to IBM, Redhat, and etc. while those companies reap more profit than most of these people all combined will ever earn in their daily jobs combined. I think of Linux as a human programmer work harness, like a harness for workhorse
Chip Slush
>MacOSX does everything Linux can do, plus alot more.
Not necessarily.
The big advantage of Linux is being a server (despite what our Linux friends are trying to pitch Linux as).
To do what Linux can do with Mac OS X (see: with smaller overhead), you need Mac OS X Server, an OS *tuned* to be server, something that Linux is inherantly tuned by default. And OSX Server costs $400 AFAIK. Linux will cost you from 0 to $50.
Most people that want to run a server will not run it on a PPC box with YDL or MDK 9.1 installed on it.
There is no advantage to running Linux on a PPC architecture. If you want a server get an X86 machine for dirt cheap and slap Debian stable on it.
I have a hard time imagining someone would give up OSX for Linux.
Strange, I know a number of people who have PPC G2s and old G3s that don’t want to use anymore as Mac OS 9 machines as they have moved to faster G3s and G4s running OSX. THESE machines, CAN function as valuable firewalls, print/fileservers, CVS repositories, small home web servers etc. instead of ending up in the closer or on eBay.
Please use the same subject as the rest of us do when replying.
A lot of Mac users have older Macs which won’t run OSX well, if at all. They might be interested in putting their old systems to use.
Still, what kind of engineering is even required here? Linux sources can be recompiled, Macs can boot off CD, so there is not so much work involved in getting Knoppix or something like that running on a Mac, save a few days of recompilation and different drivers bundled.
Oh, and if you don’t want to go the Linux route, the NetBSD Live CD might be worth checking out.
What speaks in favour of Linux is that it might be easier to set up than NetBSD, whereas NetBSD, in virtue of being a BSD, might seem more familiar to the experienced OSX user.
OTOH, for the server task, they will both face competition from MacOS. MacOS runs rather well on Mac hardware, and will provide services such as Appletalk and Filemaker databases with much less fuss than a free UNIX. For routing, they have a cost advantage over shareware MacOS solutions, but the native route is proportionally easier on the Mac user.
— “To do what Linux can do with Mac OS X (see: with smaller overhead), you need Mac OS X Server, an OS *tuned* to be server, something that Linux is inherantly tuned by default.”
Item #1: Smaller overhead? At the login window on any OS X machine, type in ‘>console’ and hit return. No window server, just good ol’ text. You can have as much overhead as you want.
Item #2: Your average Linux distro is not particularly more tuned to be a server then OS X is IMHO. In fact, Id wager that any OS X machine would be a better Appletalk server then any Linux machine.
Its just a matter of what ‘kind’ of server you want.
Frankly I have only heard three good reasons to install Linux on a mac that can run OS X. One is the simple fact that OS X cannot actually BE Linux. This point was made to me by a Linux developer who owns a mac. After all, its alot easier to develop Linux apps on Linux! Two is for those that require a great deal of consistancy between their macs and PCs. If you want them to look and work the same, Linux is your only option. Three is just curiosity. This is probably why I will try it some day. Maybe. We’ll see.
Linux is certainly my first choice on PCs though.
I should add that this argument is mostly a moot point. If you have an old mac that is not being used (ie in a closet), then why would you want to demo linux? Wouldnt you have absolutely nothing to lose if you instal it? I’m not saying that a demo cd would be useless. I am saying that a demo cd would be mostly useless. If there is a person who would replace OSX with linux, lets just say that it wouldnt be a very inteligent idea (unless they are a dev). In all honesty, if you want to run linux on modern hardware then get a x86 machine. ok i’m going off topic now. err yeah, demo cd = mostly useless.
my opinion, MINE!
What a waste of time.
You are wasting your time to rant about those; it’s people’s choices and prefers. I don’t see anything about ‘force’ in this article.
Do you really think Mac users would think Linux runs better?
Sure, I think FreeBSD runs a lot better than MacOS X and Windows for anything, which it’s a ‘ready’ desktop for me. Are you thinking and choice for us?
Myself, I have two Linux servers. There both in the other room being used as firewalls and printer servers. Linux as a desktop OS compared to OSX, it’s not even a fair comparison.
It’s what all my families will say the same things and I understand because, it’s not easy for them. To me, my FreeBSD with Gnome 2.3.2 blows Windows and MacOS X out of water; it’s very fast on 450Mhz machine and I can do much more what I want to do, choice and etc.
Whether it’s KDE or Gnome, none of them can hold a flame next to Aqua.
Heck, I hate Aqua; it’s bloody slow! EyeCandy? KDE/Gnome can do those, when you can’t change in Aqua. Oh, now I am flaming on Aqua. 😛
I think the idea of having a distro like Knoppix for PowerPC is a great idea.
My old Macs are two SuperMac S900s, a Power Center and a Power Center Pro. All good systems back in the day and all run MacOS9 fine.
I tried installing MacOSX on one of the S900s that was heavily upgraded and it ran but there were a lot of stability issues. The same machine runs Yellow Dog just fine but is not as feature rich IMHO but I am just a Linux newbie so I am not sure how to get everything up and running.
I do think there is life left on the old machines but Yellow Dog runs like a dog unless you have at least 256MB of RAM, 4GB of drive space and a G3. For most of the machines I am not willing to invest that much money. The paying the price of a G3 upgrade will get you an upgrade card. In the X86 world you get a processor, heatsink, and mobo for the same amount of money. Granted we are talking about a Duron, ECS motherboard and a SVC heatsink which is still good hardware.
Then there is the case of running MacOSX versus Linux on PPC hardware. I think if your hardware can handle it then go with MacOSX. PPC Linux does not seem to be as feature rich right out of the box than MacOSX. Then there is the case of middle of the road hardware where it can run MacOSX but it would not be prudent to do so like the first generation iMac or low end PowerBooks and iBooks. Linux in these situations can be a better OS to look into than MacOS9.
their is no such thing as a “G2” it was called the 604 and later 604e just so you know
My Mac is older so, I belong in that crowd. Would I like a demo cd for it? Sure! Its got problems booting Mac OS and I would like to look into that. Is is the software or hardware? If I had such a cd I could find out.
More importantly I happen to know Mac users who like to dual boot from OSX and Linux. Its about choice, its about knowing that they can instal an OS onto ANY computer architecture and be familiar with the OS. 2 people I know prefer Linux on thier Macs over OSX and these are not old machines.
Try before you install is a great thing, and for the Mac users I know who put gentoo on their machines are jealous of the PC crowd having Knoppix to ease the install.
I know, but that was the codename we were calling it when talking about the BeOS PPC port here at home with some friends. The “G2” comes into discussion over here only in regards to BeOS.
I spoke about knoppix on the mac with Klaus Knopper. (the creator of knoppix) He said it was possible. The main difference with the x86 systems is the boot procedure. I didn’t try it because the only systems I’ve got are sparc or x86 based.
I recently installed YDL on my Mac and Gcc compiles slowly than OSX, and x11 runs slowly on it.
There’s no reason to run Linux in Macs: OSX it’s a BSD. In adition, you can use Fink (and FinkComander too). You canmake an apt-get, or simply a ‘click’ to install a package; you can run the entire KDE with Aqua, side by side, you can compile the OpenSource apps (i compiled Gimp 1.3.x); you will have the same problems compilling code under OSX or Linux: library dependencies, code not available for PPC, etc.
Running Linux in a Mac is a waste of time, you have the best of *nix and the best of Mac. I installed it, but i fastly uninstalled it.
” I recently installed YDL on my Mac and Gcc compiles slowly than OSX, and x11 runs slowly on it. ”
You might need to enable DMA, unless you have a SCSI hard-drive
“Running Linux in a Mac is a waste of time”
FOR YOU. Many people would find it quite useful. Hell, I’d buy an old Mac from a mac-nut friend of mine just to play with this mac-knoppix.
Erm, why is it stupid to have the option to run Linux on a Mac but not Linux on PC? Having a live cd will make advocating easier. It’s all about choice ,no?
Why is the assumption made that every Macintosh owner is running MacOS X?
Yes, OS X certainly would/could be a more suitable operating system for a modern Macintosh (Better hardware support in general than Linux obviously), and, yes, it’s elegant, flashy etc. But what makes you think _all_ Macintosh users have a fast PowerPC with an extremely large amount of memory (good video card too I suppose) running MacOS X. A lot of people still use OS 8/9 on oldworld PPC’s where Linux might provide equal or greater functionality, stability and speed than MacOS.
But, I could go on for hours ;P eg. “Why does everyone assume Macintosh means PPC?! M68k is the shiznit!”
Yes, OS X certainly would/could be a more suitable operating system for a modern Macintosh (Better hardware support in general than Linux obviously), and, yes, it’s elegant, flashy etc. But what makes you think _all_ Macintosh users have a fast PowerPC with an extremely large amount of memory (good video card too I suppose) running MacOS X. A lot of people still use OS 8/9 on oldworld PPC’s where Linux might provide equal or greater functionality, stability and speed than MacOS.
I don’t think that Linux would provide all of that at the same time. Pick one. If Linux runs faster than classic MacOS, it isn’t your father’s Linux, that’s for certain. More stable, that is more probable. Protected memory can be quite useful at times. Functionality? Well, now you’ve come up with something. There is some UNIX functionality in a closet Linux which could complement a desktop Mac. Routing is one such thing, testing of CGI scripts for uploading to a UNIX-based hosting environment is another. However, some of the more typical server tasks in a Mac environment are actually best served using MacOS, or another Apple endorsed OS. Localtalk routing is only possible using MacOS or stand-alone hardware, Appletalk file and printer sharing is best handled by MacOS in most cases, and WebStar will serve your web pages from your broadband connection.
Still, there are Mac users who are curious about Linux (or even BSD), and they would probably like a sampler CD.
But, I could go on for hours ;P eg. “Why does everyone assume Macintosh means PPC?! M68k is the shiznit!”
True, I run NetBSD on an LC475 at home. 😉
If you like to use OS9 (Classic) Apps (like Quark) it could be, that you need sometimes to use Mac-On-Linux (MOL) to boot it, because newer Macs won’t boot it directly.
If you have an old Hardware, it can act as an Internet-Gateway-Firewall, PrintServer, FileServer (appletalk, nfs, samba), email-server, and so on.
Some Apps are not avaible for OSX, but its avaible for Linux, for example HBCI-Lib (HomeBankingComputerInterface, popular in germany) togehter with GNUCash. Yes, you can try download it via fink and compile by yourself. Should run with X11,…, also on OSX (X11 rootless for example). But it will be slow.
So comparing the UIs (and I look just on KDE, which I use) to OSX, I would prefer KDE (3.1.x) because :
– consistent and easy way of drag&drop
– easy filepicker, much more easy then within OSX
– no colorfull Ball of Waits
– links are links, not just finder aliases
– kmail is far advanced comparing to osx mail
– consistend look&feel, and : choosable
– much more intuitv then OSX
– no sensless doublecklicks
– no sensles ape-fingers like apple-i
– choosable attributes to see (I mean, you can edit what you like to see as a preview)
– convienient and easy file Handling (links/alias without
holding a key down and moving mouse)
– modern Layout
– fast
– a unbelievabe couple of Applications
– and, not to forget, nice.
After all, I use SuSE Linux 7.3 PPC Edition (KDE, KOffice, GNUCash, Cups, netatalk, a.s.o) and gentoo.
Its faster then OSX on a G4 400 Sawtooth. Reliable, flexibe, free.
And : I can have KDE on all my favorite Plattforms I have to use : PPC, Sparc, intel/amd, and so.
OSX runs just on Macs (and via MOL on the expansive AmigaOne and Pegasos).
Personay, I see no reasons to use OSX on a PPC. Its slow, its not realy freedom of choice, security fixes are oftenly delayed (apache, ssh) compared to Linux, the gui is not intuitive, it seems to be the old NeXt in a new shape. The only reason for OSX are possibly some Applications, but I guess you can find them also on Windows.
kind regards,
frank
However, I will say that I think it is a good thing that Linux is supported on Mac. It reinforces the fact that Apple has been very open about their system hw.
What a stupid troll. Do you have any idea of the fights people had to go through to get Linux running on the Mac? The published documentation is incomplete and buggy, most of the work involved reverse engineering proprietary Mac chips. It’s easier now Macs use a lot more PC hardware of course.
I mean, it’s people like Chip Slush who give Mac users such a bad name. Get a life.
I do run Yellow Dog Linux on an iBook, but I should also vote “Other” since I run Red Hat Linux 9 on my PowerBook 12 using Virtual PC.
No real point, other than sometimes checking on a little compatibility question. It’s fairly slow. I strongly agree that there is very little you can do on Linux that you can’t do on OS X, and there are a lot of things you can do on OS X that you can’t do on Linux.
It’s more fun to run Windows XP on a Mac. Bring it up full screen and freak your friends out!
(Plus, the only way I really feel comfortable running Windows XP is with Virtual PC refusing it any access to the network!)
Would not it have been better if you had left out the “I have not Mac” option from the poll? I mean, YDL or anyone isn’t really going to do anything when they see that only a couple of people are interested in such a CD at all. Or are they?
If Linux is a server OS (which I agree to), what would a Mac user do with it? I cannot image anyone sane go out and buy a fancy G4 to use as a server. The hardware is _that_ inappropriate in a 100 ways that I don’t even want to start over it and I think I don’t have to either… And the three people who have a Mac rack server who would want to evaluate may be reffered to a PC to check out Linux instead of undergoing the work to create a Live-eval CD for them. Then again, if they need it so desparately, they might as well swap drives for a test-run…. Jesus, what a waste of time. The average Maccie doesn’t even see/use/knows about the potential of Mac OS — what would they do with Linux..?!
< I do run Yellow Dog Linux on an iBook, but I should also <vote “Other” since I run Red Hat Linux 9 on my PowerBook 12 <using Virtual PC.
<No real point, other than sometimes checking on a little <compatibility question. It’s fairly slow. I strongly agree <that there is very little you can do on Linux that you <can’t do on OS X, and there are a lot of things you can do <on OS X that you can’t do on Linux.
I believe, that RedHat on the PC-Emulation Virtual PC is slow.
What can you do on OSX which you cant do with YDL 3.0 ?
Or, its because some Applications are not avaible on YDL ?
What, if so, if they would be avaible ?
And : could it be, that these apps are avaiable for windows too ?
Whats the point ? where is the beef ?
That the kind problem that I have : I just make the follwing as an example:
Its not very much you can do on OSX, but you can do a lot of things with Linux, where OSX just can’t dream of, because its dedicated to 2 user groupbs : grafical-artists and teachers. The Rest of us needs a professionell system.
this is exact the same quality as :
<I strongly agree that there is very little you can do on <Linux that you can’t do on OS X, and there are a lot of <things you can do on OS X that you can’t do on Linux.
You got the point ?
kind rgds,
frank
I see this over and over, and I don’t understand it.
Why would I replace an excellent *nix based system with a perfect GUI with something that has a sub-par (when compared to Aqua) GUI??
I mean, if I want to run Linux apps, I use Fink. This allows me to run commercial applications that rock, as well as the open source applications. If I go all Linux I can’t run Mail, I can’t run Safari, I can’t run Photoshop, I can’t run iMovie/Final Cut Pro, I can’t run stuff for my camera that converts from RAW mode to JPG/TIFF easily.
I just don’t get it, why dump this?
And before you start going off on me thinking this is just flamebait. I’m an RHCE and I run mutliple Linux machines in my home as a file server and a Firewall. I install/configure/sell linux servers all week long during my regular life and I’ve even run Linux on a desktop as my primary workstation for almost half a year. I respect linux very much, but I do not see it replacing my desktop operating system at this time.
What can you do on OSX which you cant do with YDL 3.0 ?
Or, its because some Applications are not avaible on YDL ?
It’s not only that alot of applications run on osx, but not on linux, those applications also largely follow the aqua guideluines. Which results in a higher productivity and lower annoyance-level. It’s just alot more user-friendly.
What, if so, if they would be avaible ?
Your question “what if in a couple of years those applications are available in YDL” is somewhat irrelevant. They are not available now.
Maybe in 5 years YDL will support those applications. Have new features, and a more userfriendly face.
But maybe in 5 years there will also be new applications for macosx. More new features, even more friendly to the user.
The same will go for windows, or any os. You should never assume that only one operating system is going to keep improving, and the other operating systems will just sit there and do nothing.
And : could it be, that these apps are avaiable for windows too ?
Some of the applications that are not available for linux, are indeed available for macosx and windows. But, some of the applications that are available on linux and macosx, are not available on windows. (or are a pain in the but to install on windows). So in alot of cases you need a windows and a linux system (dualboot on one system, or single boot on two systems), where you could replace both with a single macosx system.
Gentoo has a live cd for the Mac but it mostly useless. It boots into a very minimal Linux distro with no userland apps. Like, duh, Gentoo.
We have YDL 3.0 on our iBook and we’ve decided to keep it there (we also have a 12″ PowerBook.
If we were talking about YDL 2.3, I would probably agree with most poeple that Linux on a Mac would just be a hobby OS. However, version 3 is a radical change. They’re using anaconda which makes installation a breeze. Even automatic partitioning, which 2.3 didn’t have.
2.3 was very slow and often there were applications that just wouldn’t work. It was very buggy and didn’t look so hot either.
YDL 3.0 is the perfect G3 (and early G4) OS for Mac. YDL is *much* faster than OS X on these types of Macs. The big bugs are gone, installation is a snap, it really looks good and is very fast. You people saying it’s slow – you must be using 2.3 or you wouldn’t say this. AirPort is easy to set up and apt-get is so easy to do it’s pathetic. Anybody can do it.
Also, the manual is unique. It is excellent because it draws parallels between the Mac way of doing things and the Linux way. It’s a great resource. On top of that, YDL’s website and support are outstanding.
Anyway, to get to the point, yes, I agree with Eugenia. YDL should make a live CD. All those G3’s out there!!
I voted for “other” because of my performa running
Linux 68k
Well, I own a G4 550 TiBook with 512mb RAM. I have OS9 and OSX.1 in one partition and YDL 3.0 in the remaining 10gigs of my 20gig HD. I have changed the default boot to YDL and rarely need to boot back into OSX (except to watch DVD’s) I’m probably going to remove OS9 since it’s just wasted space. My YDL installation was simple, configuration was not difficult, support is great when it is, I prefer OpenOffice 1.1 on Linux far better than MacOffice, Appleworks, or trying to run OOo in x11.
YDL does everything I need it to do. Evolution is great, Galeon is wonderful (only big gripe is total lack of Linux PPC plugins for Flash), QuantaPlus or Bluefish are great for HTML editing and GIMP is fantastic. My TiBook runs many times faster than with OSX and about the same as OS9 (without the crashes) So, let the people decide! Besides, I can easily run OSX.x or OS9 with MOL from their native partitions and have the best of all THREE worlds.
/smk
=========================
“A Windows professional using a Mac running Linux”
Is Gentoo! I love this thing!
I was looking for one for a friend for ages and got nowhere, is there a NetBSD one? Where can I get it if there is?
Basically the friend wants to do C assignments at home, but neither she nor myself can get our heads around the MPW (she’s got MacOS 9.2)
Actually, that’s not entirely right either. Old Macs certainly were heavy on the proprietary boot code. However, since the iMac and the New World Macs, Apple has been using OpenFirmware, an open standard for booting the PPC platform, which is also used by IBM and most other PPC producers.
So while booting Linux on old Macs is indeed arcane and requires some reverse-engineering, booting on new Macs is in fact fairly trivial, since they use a standardized boot procedure.
I’ve briefly read over the comments here and I have noticed several people mention that Mac OS X has several more advanced features than Linux, mainly the GUI. I don’t think these people have actually used Mac OS X. Instead I believe they are the type, like I once was, who would visit apple.com/mac every day just to drool over Apple’s PR garbage. If you have never used an OS then you have no business professing the usability features of said OS. Instead you’re arguements are all just re-interations of Apples foundless PR claims.
Having used Mac OS X for two years now on an apple ibook2 which came with OS X, I can honestly say I find modern Free Desktops to be much more sophisticated, intuitive, and usefull than the Aqua desktop. Yes I do realize that my hardware is not the best for this monster of an OS. Knowing this is the case makes my further want nothing to do with it. Apple is very vigilante in this regard. They don’t offer real solutions to people with outdated hardware, etc… Instead they insit that their customer buy the latest and greatest.
I know that I still run OS X when I should be dual booting to my debian PPC partition more often, but the fact still remains; don’t simply regurgitate to everyone Apples PR bullshit and stop jerking off at the Aqua screenshots. Until you have actually used it on anything less than a G4 with minimum 32M video card, don’t tell me how it makes life usable and easy. Also, what about all those schools that have old macs. What are they to do, just buy ALL new ones with YOUR tax dollars. That’s ridiculous. They should be running free software. Period.
just buy ALL new ones with YOUR tax dollars. That’s ridiculous. They should be running free software. Period.
If its my school system they buy Macs instead of PCs. I don’t have a problem with that.
“There is no advantage to running Linux on a PPC architecture.”
Go to Packetstorm or Rootkits ‘r’ Us
(whatever) and count how many auto rooters there are for x86, now (linux) PPC.
Rinse, repeat.
http://www.cs.uwa.edu.au/undergraduate/units/231.317/p484-stoll.pdf
Apple needs a silver bullet, a poison pill to deal with these idiots.
http://www.thirdpig.com/brickserver.htm
As it is… ^ this ^ is the only game in town.
http://www.thirdpig.com/whitepaper.zip
Welcome to the lunatic fringe.
Where do YOU want to be rooted today?
😉
For what it’s worth, I’m getting an old iBook from my sister soon. Tangerine iBook / 300MHz, armed with 96MB ram. The only way I could make any reasonable use of it is Linux.
First use hardware that is expensive, then use operating system which is dirt cheap.
Come On!!!! If you want to use Linux, use it on x86 base hardware. It will be a much better option.
I see this over and over, and I don’t understand it.
It’s really simple… Because, nobody has the same personal prefers. Therefore, there’s nothing for you need to be understand if you dislike Linux and when someone like Linux.
Why would I replace an excellent *nix based system with a perfect GUI with something that has a sub-par (when compared to Aqua) GUI?
You think, it’s a perfect GUI.. It’s fine with me, but I hate Aqua and it’s not a perfect GUI. A lot of WM in Linux are skinable and they all are able to have look same as Aqua as well.
If I go all Linux I can’t run Mail, I can’t run Safari, I can’t run Photoshop, I can’t run iMovie/Final Cut Pro, I can’t run stuff for my camera that converts from RAW mode to JPG/TIFF easily.
You can’t run mail, uh? There are so many email clients out there! Safari? There have so many good/better browsers without Safari. Photoshop, iMovie and etc, I don’t need them.
I just don’t get it, why dump this?
I just don’t get it, why people keep fight over what others should choice.
And before you start going off on me thinking this is just flamebait. I’m an RHCE and I run mutliple Linux machines in my home as a file server and a Firewall. I install/configure/sell linux servers all week long during my regular life and I’ve even run Linux on a desktop as my primary workstation for almost half a year. I respect linux very much, but I do not see it replacing my desktop operating system at this time.
It’s a replace desktop to me, already. Because, it has everything what I need. If it’s not to you, so it’s not a ready desktop for you. It’s plain simple and let others use Linux to replace other OSs, which don’t waste your time to agrue.
You are not getting my point.
First of all have u asked a person who owns iMac that Why he bought iMac from Apple instead of buying a PC at lesser price?. The main reason is Mac OS X.Its attractive aqua interface and its ease of use. IF that person doesn’t like Mac OS X and installs Linux on PPC arch. then what the whole point of buying iMac?. I think its just waste of money.
That wasn’t my point Chris. Schools have to make hardware last as long as possible. While macs may have been longer lasting before, with the introduction of OS X a huge hardware Gap has been created. It’s almost required to get a G4 to run OS X in any sort of procuctive non-anurism inducing environment. Therefore, the most cost effective solution would be to install linux on these machines, rather than purchase new.
Also we should remember the type of market that macs are geared to: musicians, graphic artists, and rich people. Do you watch MTV cribs? What type of computers do all the stars have? Macs! Being a mac owner (who doesn’t fit the conventional market) the closest Apple Store to me is several hours in Arlington VA, a very high income area. Naturally idiots, these people throw away and sell macs like snot rags, which means their are a lot of old macs lieing around on places like ebay for cheap. That’s the one reason I like macs for linux etc… If I can pick up a 68k at a yardsale for $15 and turn it into a router, so be it! Let the idiots have their xserves!
The main reason is Mac OS X.Its attractive aqua interface and its ease of use
Well, not only that offcourse. My main motivation was because it combines a first-class desktop environment with Unix. You can easily develop perl and bourne shell scripts in vim while running a macromedia fireworks in the background.
With linux you have a unix but with a pretty weak desktop environment (few good applications, lack of integration and consistency especially if your mixing programs with different gui toolkits, lack of polish and ease of use).
Windows only provides the desktop environment, without the unix, which is even more annoying. Yeah, you can fool arround with cygwin, but it’s bloody annoying, and lacks integration with the rest of the system.
Macosx gives you the best of both worlds, and that’s why it is worth every penny
I think a live cd is a great idea. Many Macintosh users use Apple because it is an alternative to what the majority uses, but it is not complicated to use. With a live cd, they can see what other alternatives are availible. It may seem like most mac users do not want things complicated and they may be so, but they have a small user base. The user base is continuing to grow (being optimistic).
As for me, I tried PPC Linux back on my old starmax an ws trying to learn it when my hard drive failed, it was unrelated. Once I got a new computer, linux has not been an option due to my graphics card. Now my graphics card will work but has no acceleration support, so a live cd would be great because I could see if linux will work in an unnaccelerated environment.
Hey dont get mad at me? I am just telling my point of view.
IS that wrong?. I know Mac OS X has underpinning body of Freebsd. I also know that it provides better integration with apple hardware bcos s/w and h/w is made by the same company. And for your kind information i use WinXP and Redhat linux 9.0 under Vmware. I never use gnome and kde. I use only console with shell. And using Redhat linux shell i believe that the power of unix commands is thousand times better than GUI . In UNIX a single command can accomplished ur objective which would take few clicks in Windows. Even about multitasking, a unix box handles much better than windows.
My point is Apple created their own harware and software. U said that Apple hardware is better than Windows. It last longer. Agreed!. Apple has a small segment in Market for their PPC base Mac’s. They created Mac OS X for one reasons to remove the fear assosiated with Unix by my people. second thing is that Apple targetted two type of audience one is New to the OS and the other is advanced user of OS’s.
who know unix . The new person will use the os only to use internet, browse web page, check mail,use word processor,try game, listen to music, watch movies, the advance person other than these thing would do exactly what u are doing in Unix. Apple is trying to bridge the gape between new person and advance, which i think apple has done well. It is constantly updating its system and most important thing is always listing to the users complains
and addressing it in its update. Is it right to dump innovative OS which has served million for its beautiful aqua yet powerful unix shell?
As for all the advance user of OSes i would say dump all Window OS on x86 and use Linux!!
To the guy who said that one can´t have a lot of Apple-only apps and mentioned Safari, I´d like to tell ya that Safari uses the same HTML renderer of Konqueror, KHTML. Konqueror even offers multitab browsing (starting from KDE 3.1) and is fully skinnable.
Because of GPL, Apple has comitted back all the improvements they did for their own needs in Safari. This way, everybody wins: Apple gets their native browser and Konqi gets better with Apple improvements.
So, you don´t have to worry at all about your web experience… 🙂
DeadFish Man
Use of linux is not only a question of price. Free in linux means freedom. Mac OS X runs on top of Darwin but it doesn’t mean that Mac OS X is opensource or a free (as freedom). Mac OS X’s development is controlled by a company, not by your users. Ok, it is much better than Windows because of Unix roots, but Mac OS X is not free as freedom and it is not free as zero price (you have to pay for it).
If you don’t care to use proprietary hardware with proprietary operating system and many pirated applications (a typical home user don’t have money to buy all the “wonderfull” programs he uses), stay with Apple’s hardware and software…
You are not getting my point.
Nonsense, you don’t see the point. It’s all about the choices and personal prefers.
First of all have u asked a person who owns iMac that Why he bought iMac from Apple instead of buying a PC at lesser price? […] IF that person doesn’t like Mac OS X and installs Linux on PPC arch. then what the whole point of buying iMac?. I think its just waste of money.
So what? Why do people the Porsche instead Chevy or even bicycle? As you see, people can afford stuff and they choice what they want to have. You have no point here and you are wasting your time to rant/argue about it, which you are a communist. If they like PPC better and want to use Linux. Therefore, let them be and don’t troll/bother to them.
My brother own a TiBook (600Mhz?) and have YellowDog installed instead MacOS X, because TiBook is a sexy machine.
Someone said that OSX cannot run a server. Sorry but this is untrue I have an old Beige G3 running OSX 10.1 CLIENT as a server. Runs BIND APACHE MySQL PHP as well as an FTP server.
Here are the domains
http://www.maccomputers.com
http://www.cyberracers.net
http://www.9th-lag.com
http://www.lanpartyworld
The first reason to use a free OS on Apple stuff is return on investment : isn’t it a waste of money to buy a fancy computer and, five years later, to list it on Ebay because it can’t run the newest MacOS version ?
The second reason, related to the first, is that Apple hasn’t committed itself to providing backward compatibility with each new release of their software (granted, they are not the only company to do so).
The third reason is the opportunity to use the latest refinements that kernel developers come up with. An example (though far fetched): I wonder if those who still have System 7.5 computers can integrate them into an IPv6 network ?
The fourth reason is the fact that in a business environment, we never know what we will stumble upon. We are not sure we’ll have to deal with a single platform.
The fifth reason : what about curiosity ? Aren’t computer users interested in acquiring new knowledge anymore ?
I’ve just done several knx-hdinstall installs (extra credit asignment in my OS class was to write an idiot proof install guide). One of ways Knoppix gets acceptable performance (or so I hear, I didn’t dive down to examine it myself) is by using swap space on FAT partitions.
I know Debian on PPC does doesn’t support writing to HFS+. (I have been playing with cdparanoia this weekend, but I have to determine the best way to get the ripped tracks from Debian to iTunes. I’m hoping I can mount my UFS partition in Linux.) Maybe Yellow Dog does, but I’m not really willing to use another RPM based system, never mind actually pay for one.
So I guess the question to me comes down to, how much of Knoppix doesn’t exist for PPC? Porting Knoppix should be much easier than reinventing the disk.
So, reading the whole thread one comes to the conclusion that the Ladies and Gentlemen posters agree to disagree.
Comment posted using:
– Konqueror / KDE 3.1,
– Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk (Mandrake 9.1 Bamboo),
– Power Macintosh 9500 (256 MB of Memory, ppc 604e @ 200 Mhz)
If you have a Mac that that won’t run OS X but want to develop for *nix, MachTen is an option. Nobody mentioned MkLinux (I think, after forty comments I start skimming), but it works well on the general Goodwill $19.99 60X PPC Mac. I personally don’t see a reason for bootable live systems like Knoppix, ERD Commander, DemoLinux etc. unless you are trying to hijack a cybercafe or library machine or administer a corporate desktop which are generally not Macs anyway Knoppix is pretty cool but I really don’t see any point more than “Because it is there.” If you want to run a different OS without affecting you current installation, just get out a friggin screwdriver and stick in another dime-a-dozen hard drive for cryin’ out loud.
huh, huh, he said “fancy computer” again.
http://www.macopinion.com/columns/engine/00/10/29/talk/1.html
I can’t wait for the next “Apple vs the world rumble”
And now a word from a sponsor:
http://www.cut-and-paste.com/
🙂
Uh, OSX won’t even run on my G3/233 at an acceptable speed. I used to run LinuxPPC on this box fine (it predated YDL)… I use MacOS 9 currently, but am probably going to switch to Linux soon..
OSX is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY too slow, even in console. I don’t know where the overhead comes from, but it’s there.
having something like Knoppix:Mac would be a good idea.
But I can hear the screaming in advance :
hey, my printer won’t be recognized
and what about my expensive ieee1394 hardware ? it doesn’t work !
and the scanner, and photopshop, and quark, and this, and that…
so, why doing a port of Knoppix ? for data-safe possibilities (in germany the police use knoppix to explore the disks if they are protected by password or whatever), for recreation of a system ? Nice idea, but hfs+ is in a very beginning state.
The question is : who would use it ? OSX – Fans will find all their cut and dried opinions and the will return to OSX.
the linux – guys ? they don’t need it, they have still linux on their boxes ?
I see no market for it, I see no demand.
rgds,
Frank
Initially, I bought an iMac to run Linux on. OS 9 just didn’t cut it for a UNIX guy like myself, but I liked the look of the iMac, and I knew I could run Linux on it. I started out with LinuxPPC but later used Debian.
When OS X came out, I decided to plunk down $120 to buy version 10.1 of the product. Definitely neat stuff, but pretty slow on my iMac with 256MB of RAM.
Then 10.2 Jaguar came out, and Jobs wanted another $120 of my money. Mind you, I had just put paid that amount just 5 or 6 months earlier. I continued to use 10.1, but as more and more applications would work on 10.2 only, I became more frustrated. I was also perturbed that Emacs, my most used app, didn’t work that well under Carbon. So I switched back to Linux.
I still use OS X for some tasks, but 80% of the time I boot into my Linux partition.