Australian Peter Mitchell has written up a description of his efforts to use XDarwin in combination with KDE. In his article, he describes the command line installation steps for running GNOME and KDE using XDarwin as the windowing layer. He describes both the challenges he faced and some suggestions as to the best order in which to install the various components necessary to run GNOME and KDE environments on Mac OS X. Also, the XDarwin project is to switch from XFree86 to X.org.
Peter Mitchell Sets Up XDarwin 4.4 with KDE
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
we have gnome/kde doing everything to look like macos/windows.
Does xdarwin run on x86 machines?
http://www.opendarwin.org
Why does someone want to try KDE/GNOME whatever on top of OS X. You can run X11 programs without any problem. Just install X11 from http://www.apple.com and then use fink to install wanted software. But still I fail to understand why – OS X is lightyears ahead of anything KDE/GNOME can offer.
And if you have Apple hardware why not run OS X? With Linux there is always some problems, something not working etc. since PPC is not “mainstream” Linux platform.
In essence you install these whatever-software or Linux -> As I see it the only added value is terrible headache trying to get everything to work. Nothing else.
Just because you can run Linux/KDE/GNOME on PPC platform doesn’t mean you have to. Especially because there are better alternatives available (OS X).
Maybe because you believe in freedom and Aqua is proprietary software…
Maybe because you can…
> OS X is lightyears ahead of anything KDE/GNOME can offer.
It is? Sorry, I didn’t notice but thanks for stating this fact….
> And if you have Apple hardware why not run OS X? With Linux there is always some problems, something not working etc. since PPC is not “mainstream” Linux platform.
And would you be so kind to tell me what exactly isn’t working on my ibook running linux?
Btw. the article is not about installing linux.
> In essence you install these whatever-software or Linux -> As I see it the only added value is terrible headache trying to get everything to work. Nothing else.
Freedom of choice, no headach with running your favorite tools that might be a terrible headache to get to run with OS X, …
> Just because you can run Linux/KDE/GNOME on PPC platform doesn’t mean you have to. Especially because there are better alternatives available (OS X).
And look my friend, that is probably the reason why nobody said you had to. And once again, just because you like OSX and use OSX, that doesn’t mean that OSX is better. Btw., define better. IMHO better means the tool I like to use and feel more comfortable with and in my case that is not OSX.
What I don’t get is all these ppl who are complety brainwashed into the one-size-fits all mentality.
“OS X is lightyears ahead of anything KDE/GNOME can offer.”
Only if you like the “hands-tied-behind-your-back-we-know-better-than-you” famliar feeling of Mac and increasingly so, Gnome.
“And if you have Apple hardware why not run OS X?”
Maybe because you are more familiar with different systems? Maybe because you want a homogenus operating enironment? Or maybe you like Mac hardware but loathe the patronizing feeling of the system?
“With Linux there is always some problems, something not working etc. since PPC is not “mainstream” Linux platform.”
Or perhaps Apple really don’t like ppl running anything else than MacOS on their systems?
“-> As I see it the only added value is terrible headache trying to get everything to work. Nothing else.”
That you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
“Just because you can run Linux/KDE/GNOME on PPC platform doesn’t mean you have to.”
Let me rephrase that.
Just because you can run OSX on PPC platform doesn’t mean you have to.
“Especially because there are better alternatives available (OS X).”
And that my friend, is a highly subjective opinon.
Personally I can’t see the point in choosing KDE over the Mac Desktop, there are things in KDE that I’d like to see in the Mac Desktop like but overall, I think the Mac Desktop is more slick. Just my opinion.
What I don’t get is paying that much money to install a program that you can download and install for free from a variety of different places (darwinports, fink, Apple.com, opendarwin.org). I mean, installing X is pretty easy, why would you need support?
Also, the dude didn’t go into details about having X and KDE starting up automatically. I’ve read that it’s relatively easy to do…
Well I am in the IT support business (still Windows) and do have 2 Mac’s. (No PC), I really would like to run the popular Linux distro’s in a Virtual Machine. I need to adjust myself for the coming changes in the market place, so keep the good work going so I don’t have to buy an Intel/AMD machine ( Aaaarggh !! ).
This article is about running X fullscreen and KDE on top of that in Mac OS X. The whole point in the article is that you can run your fave Linux apps including whole Desktop Environments without the need to install Linux.
The dude basically had Apt from debian and KDE running on top of Mac OS X. There are dudes that want to have the debian system with the BSD kernel, I think there’s even a project for it. I suppose this is the closest to that project without going through half as much hassle.
Mac hardware is expensive compared to x86 hardware. Besides, the x86 world offers more hardware choice and competition. Mac hardware is great, but overpriced. Why buy ppc if you want to run bsd or linux?
i’m happy running my slack mailserver on x86 and my desktop on winxp/x86. i don’t need mac hardware.
but i’ve seen mac os x and i like it. if i ever but a mac, i’ll run the native os – macos
If you think Macs are expensive, then don’t buy one. If you don’t think Macs are competitive featurewise, then don’t use one. If you think that Linux is problematic, then don’t install it. If you think that Gnome/KDE aren’t as nice as Aqua, then don’t use Gnome/KDE.
But understand this: some people are bound to disagree with you on one are all of those points, because a lot of those points are subjective. If they don’t disagree with you on those points, they may simply wish to experiment and communicate the results of those experiments.
So please leave people alone with this “my crap is better than your crap” nonsense, because we just happen to like our crap just as much and love living in a world with just enough diversity that we are free to do so.
Choice isn’t Dell and IBM. It is Dell and IBM and Apple and many more. Choice isn’t Mac and Windows. It is Mac and Windows and Linux and many more.
Get the point?
“Besides, the x86 world offers more hardware choice and competition”
Consumers don’t want choice. They just get confused by the thousands of different hardware vendors. Until all x86 hardware is made by one vendor, x86 hardware will never succeed on the desktop.
[/sarcasm]
(I’m trying to make a point here)
does this scientist also run usefull programs on it?
[/rant]
What is xdarwin?
It is said to be non-free as in beer, but i thought you can get X11 under macosx for free? (to run lots of software like gimp).
Also:
Apple.xom website said MacOSX *has* X11 support. And it even can be used to run X11 windowmananagers…
http://www.apple.com/macosx/x11/
Please tell me what do i miss.
@Evert:
Apple hardware isn’t really more expensive than x86 hardware. If you go to the apple store and configure a computer to your liking and then go to dell and configure a computer as similar as possible to the Mac, you’ll find that there isn’t much of a difference between them at all. Of course, what makes Macs even more attractive and worth their price is the tight integration between the OS and hardware that just can’t be achieved in the x86 world.
@Ilyak
Apple distributes XFree86, you can download it for free. You can also download XDarwin for free which is also XFree86. Some company linked from the article sells XDarwin with support. You can download XDarwin for free from this page: http://www.xdarwin.org/download/
I much prefer to use KDE’s Konqueror than the Mac Finder which is slower and uglier and certainly less functional.
Konqueror is simply the most powerful file manager in existance. The real question is: why wouldn’t you want to use it on your system if you’re not a noob?
@ dr_gonzo:
mac hardware used to be more expensive, now it’s kind of an urban legend. I don’t know enough to support my earlier statement, so i’ll drop it 🙂
the integration between OS and between hardware parts makes mac attractive, that’s for sure. it’s just not for me – i liked to play with LEGO when i was a kid, and i still like the LEGO mentality in the x86 world
is it me or do i detect fanaticism in many of the responses ?
“Mac hardware is expensive compared to x86 hardware.”
Actually, PC hardware is the same price… sometimes more than Mac hardware when compared spec for spec for that which comes standard on all Macs. With a PC you can buy less and pay less but that does not make it less expensive but rather, more configurable.
“Besides, the x86 world offers more hardware choice and competition.”
Apple uses the same hardware (except for motherboard and processor) as PCs do. Everything would work seamlessly if drivers were developed. It has nothing to do with competition… Apple compeets for the same users. Instead, it has everything to do with lazy developers not createing drivers.
“Mac hardware is great, but overpriced.”
Its not overpriced at all. You may be being forced to buy things you don’t need, but that doesn’t make it overpriced at all, as Mac hardware is typically the same price or less expensive than comperably equipped PCs.
“Why buy ppc if you want to run bsd or linux?”
Because Mac hardware is preferred by many.
“Consumers don’t want choice. They just get confused by the thousands of different hardware vendors. Until all x86 hardware is made by one vendor, x86 hardware will never succeed on the desktop.”
I understand you were (trying) to be sarcastic, but consumers REALLY don’t want choice. They want choice so that they get something that works but what if having one choice provided you with the solution that worked? (I’m not saying that buying Mac allows you with only once choice… it doesn’t and those that say so are wrong), but I just thought it was necessary to shoot a hole in your false argument.
“Mac hardware is expensive compared to x86 hardware.”
Actually, PC hardware is the same price… sometimes more than Mac hardware when compared spec for spec for that which comes standard on all Macs. With a PC you can buy less and pay less but that does not make it less expensive but rather, more configurable.
“Besides, the x86 world offers more hardware choice and competition.”
Apple uses the same hardware (except for motherboard and processor) as PCs do. Everything would work seamlessly if drivers were developed. It has nothing to do with competition… Apple compeets for the same users. Instead, it has everything to do with lazy developers not createing drivers.
“Mac hardware is great, but overpriced.”
Its not overpriced at all. You may be being forced to buy things you don’t need, but that doesn’t make it overpriced at all, as Mac hardware is typically the same price or less expensive than comperably equipped PCs.
“Why buy ppc if you want to run bsd or linux?”
Because Mac hardware is preferred by many.
“What is xdarwin?
It is said to be non-free as in beer”
No, it is free as in beer.
“is it me or do i detect fanaticism in many of the responses ?”
Its just you
“I understand you were (trying) to be sarcastic, but consumers REALLY don’t want choice.”
Ah, so that explains why x86 hardware *did* succeed on the desktop dispite all the choice?
“Ah, so that explains why x86 hardware *did* succeed on the desktop dispite all the choice?”
You are only partially quoting the comment. They way you quoted it makes it misleading. Had you quoted it in full you would have seen that the poster was try to communicate that consumers don’t want choice… they want products that work. Often times choice of many products do this, other times a single product does this.
BTW… circumstance brought x86 hardware to the dominant position it has today… its not the reason’s you are implying.
The computer market was full of choice.
People making expensive purchasing decisions wanted to feel secure in their choices.
They saw IBM as a secure choice.
IBM sold lots of machines.
Other little companies ripped off the machine, and bam, market explosion. The network effect catapulted the PC above all other machines. But it was security of choice that made IBM the target to copy ( technical issues made that copying feasible ).
This applies equally well to other examples. What music format suceeded? CDs. DCC and mini disk failed in the market because people didnt feel that they were secure choices.
much prefer to use KDE’s Konqueror than the Mac Finder which is slower and uglier and certainly less functional.
Konqueror is simply the most powerful file manager in existance. The real question is: why wouldn’t you want to use it on your system if you’re not a noob?
Column mode browsing? I’d love to see a widget like the Cocoa NSBrowser in kdelibs..
I’ve just upgraded to KDE 3.3 on an iBook with the plastik style, and the whole of KDE including Konqueror is looking very, very nice.
I hope you’re not saying all x86 hardware work fine, because a lot of things on the market are crap. Yet dispite that, x86 hardware *did* succeed on the desktop?
Overall OS X is a much nicer enviroment to work in than KDE, I love the way everything is draggable and the system looks very clean and uncluttered in general. Certainly the eye candy is very pleasing. I have X11 up and running and regularly connect to apps on other boxes and run apps locally with Fink, which unsuprisingly works like a dream.
Everything else is really just a consequence of tight hardware/software integration; the amazingly quick standby, configuration that works flawlessly. The actual Powerbook 12″ I’m running it on is heads above anything in the PC world for a similar price (£1100 with 768MB of RAM from crucial and education discount). All the laptops I found at that price were cheap looking Dell plastic jobbies, or tried to cram in 15.1″ screens and huge HDs; I wanted portability.
Having said that, for £300 more you getting into seriously nice Sony Vaio and IBM Thinkpad territory.
However, Konqueror absolutely kicks the pants off Finder, which SERIOUSLY needs a good kick in terms of speed, features and stability. I’m fed up with it freezing if I lose a SMB share to my Linux box for example.
It’s too so simple… Die hard Linux doods will never opt to purchase mac hardware because it’s too expensive? what the flock? where are you shopping?
Well at least here in The S.F. Bay Area – Silicon Valley it’s easy to pickup an older G4 and G3 hardware for next to nothing. I see the point where you can dodle on down to your local computer store and purchase bit’s and pieces and then install Linux. I can pick up a used G4 867 MHz for under 400 bucks including a monitor.
” I can pick up a used G4 867 MHz…”
That’s really the whole point. When people say Macs offer the same value in hardware as pcs do, that Macs are not more expensive, they’re not even taking into account Emacs with their slow (by pc standards) processors, shortage of RAM and 8x DVD-Rom drives. Mac users simply take it on faith that Mac hardware is superior. Where’s the proof of this? There’s none. Instead Apple wants to give you a flat screen monitor even though you might already have a couple of perfectly good monitors at home, or they’ll try and impress you with airport cards or with that fact that Tony Hawk Pro Skater comes with it. No, Macs really aren’t as reasonably priced as pcs, they just hope you be razzle dazzled by OS X’s pretty effects and and sleek white case that thing is housed in.
No, Macs really aren’t as reasonably priced as pcs, they just hope you be razzle dazzled by OS X’s pretty effects and and sleek white case that thing is housed in.
What a load of malarky.
I work with a variety of platforms (SGI, HP-UX, Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris) as part of my work. What the Mac offers is stability, ease of use, a consistent interface, and a minimum of fussing about. It’s a great platform for getting work done. It’s not perfect but it is very nice; Apple has put a lot of attention in to the details.
As to price, when you consider the apps that get bundled in with it it’s not bad. For example, to get microsofts development tools (Visual Studio .Net) I’d have to pay about $500. The Mac comes with it’s development tools (XCode, Interface Builder, etc.) for free. For me, that alone is enought to offset most of the price difference. Oh and it runs Unreal 2004 pretty darn nicely too. And did I mention that all the Linux apps that I know and love run on it too.
Rember what the target audiance of the emac is/was, schools, the idea was to make them cheap all in one units
with reguard to hardware quality, Macs are well built and look good I have never had problems with hardware (non self inflicted ones at least ;-)).
Another thing to remember is the longevity of the hardware, I still use a summer 2000 iMac runniing the latest OS, granted its not a speed deamon, it never was, but it works and works well and is getting FASTER with each new OS release
MacOSX is good. It has neat and advanced UI. And that’s true. But, to me, I’ll rather choose an OS which I can play, tweak, hack, mess, break, customize, change, and etc(v) with.