thelinuxlink.net

It seems that Linux is already ready f0r the MacTel with EFI, this s0unds really g00d as it resp0nded much faster than vistawh0?

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5570184378.html

Personally I think it's great that Linux can run the new Macs, because it is yet another choice (I'm fed with up saying "alternative") if people buy one of them and don't like OS X, then they just go get SUSE, Mandriva or Fedora or some other slick/easy to use (You probably bought a Mac for ease of use right? I don't think hardcore UNIX gurus use them that much) and try 'em out, there are so many choices in the free- and open source software worlds these days that the majority of people are bound to like at least one a little bit.

That was my personal opinion, but I don't think it really matters that much if Linux can or can't run on the new Intel-based Macs, mainly because people who buy them are either so inexperienced that they can't download Linux, or go buy a retail copy of Linspire or SUSE at Fry's, that they need a machine that's ready to go and secure (I still think that Darwin is the "victim of rape" of the BSDs). In general, why do you buy a Mac? You buy it because of the operating system, and in a few cases because you like the look of the hardware, so why throw it out unless you dislike it and feel you made the wrong by not getting a cheap-ass Dell desktop machine.

why is anybody surprised? linux has run on i386 since, well, forever. And what if it didn't? i386 laptops/desktops are not rare.

thetza wrote:why is anybody surprised? linux has run on i386 since, well, forever. And what if it didn't? i386 laptops/desktops are not rare.

They are using a different bootloader so Linux wouldn't be able to normally run on the new Mac Intels but they can thanks to ELILO

thetza wrote:why is anybody surprised? linux has run on i386 since, well, forever. And what if it didn't? i386 laptops/desktops are not rare.

Because is a new implementation, so just like wi-fi's winmodems and any other hate stories with Linux, I really wish we didnt have problems with some hardware at the mobo level like EFI

Tsuroerusu wrote:I don't think hardcore UNIX gurus use them that much

I don't agree with that. For Unix geeks, the whole appeal of the Mac is that you get a gorgeous GUI environment, and basically FreeBSD underneathe it with a working ports system via DarwinPorts.

Wally Balljacker wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote:I don't think hardcore UNIX gurus use them that much

I don't agree with that. For Unix geeks, the whole appeal of the Mac is that you get a gorgeous GUI environment, and basically FreeBSD underneathe it with a working ports system via DarwinPorts.

I dont agree with that, most of my friends with macs and I know a lot is because they want a superior hardware (or a shiny shell) with their linux boxes.

I dont know any of my friends using OSX for a development enviroment. The darwin ports are not very mature and sometimees it makes more errors than what.

A lot of geeks also are not really that impress with GUI's why u think we use XFCE or fluxbox.

Wally Balljacker wrote:I don't agree with that. For Unix geeks, the whole appeal of the Mac is that you get a gorgeous GUI environment, and basically FreeBSD underneathe it with a working ports system via DarwinPorts.

Well, from what I've seen, the simplicity and clean nature of FreeBSD is certainly gone in OS X, if we talk about hardcore UNIX geeks 70' style, I really really don't belive they would use OS X, and I've tried installing DarwinPorts, and it's a BIG pain in the ass, as Steven Vaughan-Nichols said:

"On the Linux/UNIX side, you've always had people who want the maximum possible amount of power, over their desktop. They want to be able to tweak and twist.. not just the physical apperance, but every process that goes on behind there to get the maximum amount of goodness from that machine, and that has always been the push of UNIX and now Linux. On the other side of that coin, are the Mac people, and they have always been amount making the desktop as intergrated and as cleanly meshed together as possible, so that it is a seemless whole, those are two very different approaches and, I can, for whatever reason, appreciate both, but people who tend to really be hardcore about Linux, or UNIX, tend to tell me exactly what you did, they don't see what's so special about OS X, and the reverse of that is the OS X people, have trouble understanding, why the Linux people get so excited about the latest twist in KDE, or GNOME, or what have you. It's really a matter of where you're coming from, if you want a desktop where the applications and desktop are just, one smooth <missed word> where everything just sort of links together so transperantly that you aren't even aware that they're linking together, you'll be very happy for Mac, on the other hand if you wanna get your hands in there, and really make sure that one application that you're running, runs as best as humanly possible then you don't want the Mac you want a UNIX machine. I should add though, of course you can get deeper into the Mac, and do those kinds of things too, but they don't make it easy, because that's not the direction they're were going into, you really have to be a real BSD, Mach-kernel, Mac expert at a level much higher than a Linux expert normally would be, to get the same sort of performance benefits, that a Linux user can get from the same box."

I have tried using the terminal on OS X on a friend's laptop, and let me tell you, it looks a lot more complicated than the first time I did "ls" in my home directory on Linux, a lot of Linux/UNIX people has always agreed a lot with the "KiSS" philosophy and I really don't see Apple as one of those people.

I know at least 20 people who use macs (lappys, generally) because they are unixy goodness with a nice gui on top. Several of that group ran linux for quite a while but got tired of the lack of support available of it. Now that they've gotten used to OSX, they're happy using it and see no reason to switch back to linux.

Bottom line: the unix is there, and very real - it's not some BS unix fakeroo or anything - so is X if you want it. On top of that unix is a powerful graphical environment, whether you personally like how it looks/behaves, it kicks the shit out of anything linux/bsd has to offer right now. It also has vendor support - your hardware and software are both supported - whether or not this "support" is worth a squirt is debatable, but it's there. 3rd parties actually develop known software for the Mac because people will *buy* it. Developing pay-to-play for linux is a dead end street mostly. Most people don't give a rat's ass about "community" or "freedom" - they want an environment that does and will continue to do what they need.

Snarkout wrote:I know at least 20 people who use macs (lappys, generally) because they are unixy goodness with a nice gui on top. Several of that group ran linux for quite a while but got tired of the lack of support available of it. Now that they've gotten used to OSX, they're happy using it and see no reason to switch back to linux.

Their computers. their chice.

Snarkout wrote:Bottom line: the unix is there, and very real - it's not some BS unix fakeroo or anything - so is X if you want it.

Well, let me assure you, the overhead that the micro kernel design puts onto the system makes OS X total crap for servers, if you put Linux on the same box it will stomp the performance of OS X, a cheaper Opteron server 0wnz it's ass. For servers, OS X is not a good solution, and if you don't believe me, head on over to anandtech.com and check out some benchmarks of Apache, MySQL and stuff.

Snarkout wrote:On top of that unix is a powerful graphical environment, whether you personally like how it looks/behaves, it kicks the shat out of anything linux/bsd has to offer right now.

So basicly what you're saying is that Mac is better tham anything else and Steve Jobs will soon rule the world right? The litterally years of hard work the KDE and GNOME people has done is shit and Mac is the best for every person on this earth right?

Snarkout wrote:It also has vendor support - your hardware and software are both supported - whether or not this "support" is worth a squirt is debatable, but it's there.

And Linux doesn't have vendor support? If you don't consider IBM, Oracle, HP, Sun, Intel, AMD and Dell vendors that's up to you.

Snarkout wrote:3rd parties actually develop known software for the Mac because people will *buy* it.

http://www.novell.com/partnerguide/section/445.html
That's a a huge list of commercial apps certified for use with SUSE Linux, and there are a lot more software out there from commercial vendors.

Snarkout wrote:Developing pay-to-play for linux is a dead end street mostly.

Well with that attitude we'll never get anymore games for Linux, if id software and Epic had that attitude, they wouldn't have developed Quake, Unreal Tournament, Doom.... for Linux. id software actually ended up earning money by supporting Linux, go ahead and ask them if you want, when the Linux version of Quake 3 came out, the sales of it made id software a few extra bucks.

Snarkout wrote:Most people don't give a rat's ass about "community" or "freedom" - they want an environment that does and will continue to do what they need.

Well, take a look at these discoveries:

http://www.grc.com/wmf/wmf.htm
http://www.sysinternals.com/Blog/

There you have a perfect example of why closed proprietary software development is not a good idea, I know for a fact that Apple is embedding DRM crap into the next version of OS X, and that is something I can curse the hell out of Apple for doing, it should be the user's choice if he or she wants to accept DRM, but I sure don't! I hate DRM! Which is why I like what I see FSF doing with the next version of DRM, by basicly not allowing GPL'ed software to be used in DRM systems. And NO ONE would be allowed to embed DRM into the Linux kernel without people taking it right out. And this is a practical advantage which the open source movement promotes.

If I were to move to the US, I would simply deny to leave my mum with a closed, proprietary operating system, because I can only trust that the vendor does the right thing and I can't know for sure if they do. If Novell tried to put shitty DRM crap into SUSE Linux it would be taken right out, and Novell would be given a huge kick to the balls and disliked by anyone is the free software and open source communities.

With free software I can know for sure what I'm using, and if you explain to people like my mum, a lot people would actually say "Hmmm, you're right" because the only person you really can trust in this world is yourself, so YOU can go look at the sourcecode and see if there's anything inappropiate in there, and if there is, take it right out.

Dude. I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

Now take a deep breath.

I use linux. Remember?

Please think about this while you are speaking to me in a condescending tone. You have gone out of your way to attack points I make (for another community fwiw) in a completely absurd manner. If you are going to dissect a post point by point, at least try to address those points. Half of what you've posted after my points is total non-sequitur BS. Refuting my point that aqua beats the pants off x with "SO YOU THINK KDE AND GNOME ARE TEH SUX?!!?!" is ridiculous. One is a desktop environment, the other is an engine. Refuting my point (that is widely acknowledged FWIW) that linux users tend to refuse to pay for software with a statement about my attitude affecting the sales of quake also makes no sense. Refuting my factual statement that several people I know who work in real jobs doing scientific work because mac laptops have the power of unix inside them and do not require hours of configuration with "OSX SUX AS TEH SERV0R!!!" is disingenuous at best.

Honestly, IMO, your post would fit right in on osnews or slashdot, where you could have hours enjoying conversations similar to yours with a genuine macintosh zealot on the other end of the intarweb from you. But, as I said, I'm not going to bother refuting your post.

You win.

Snarkout wrote:You win.

Thank you very much!

Just as a note: I own legitimate copies of Quake 3, Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004.

Hardcore Opensource advocates will not buy commercial software however everyone else will so the more popular linux gets the more people will buy commercial software. As for me I have recently bought Quake 4 as there is no good equivalent for Linux but I havn't needed to buy anything else yet because there have been good opensource alternatives. (And just foir the record I never bought software when I was running windows except a game or two)

CptnObvious999 wrote:Hardcore Opensource advocates will not buy commercial software however everyone else will so the more popular linux gets the more people will buy commercial software.

Dude, commercial software isn't the same as proprietary software!
Free- and open source software can be just as commercial as stuff you buy at Fry's can, for example isn't Red Hat Enterprise commercial? Yes it is costs a hell of a lot of money! But is it proprietary? NO!!! It's very very open.
Richard Stallman doesn't refuse to buy anything, he just refuses to buy or use proprietary software, when he started the Free Software movement he had the idea that there were room in it for business to be done.
I think the use of "commercial" as "proprietary" is very false, because there are lots of commercial free/open software!!!

CptnObvious999 wrote:As for me I have recently bought Quake 4 as there is no good equivalent for Linux but I havn't needed to buy anything else yet because there have been good opensource alternatives.

Well there you go, you don't have anything against buying stuff, so the thing about Linux users never buying stuff is not true, I've seriously considered saving up for a copy of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server.

CptnObvious999 wrote:(And just foir the record I never bought software when I was running windows except a game or two)

I only bought antivirus and games.


Also if you're a Linux user and plays games on a gaming console, you probably buy games for it, and isn't that software in one way or another?

I think this thing about Linux users not wanting to pay for anything is ridiculous!

Tsuroerusu wrote:

CptnObvious999 wrote:Hardcore Opensource advocates will not buy commercial software however everyone else will so the more popular linux gets the more people will buy commercial software.

Dude, commercial software isn't the same as proprietary software!
Free- and open source software can be just as commercial as stuff you buy at Fry's can, for example isn't Red Hat Enterprise commercial? Yes it is costs a hell of a lot of money! But is it proprietary? NO!!! It's very very open.
Richard Stallman doesn't refuse to buy anything, he just refuses to buy or use proprietary software, when he started the Free Software movement he had the idea that there were room in it for business to be done.
I think the use of "commercial" as "proprietary" is very false, because there are lots of commercial free/open software!!!

I was saying how most opensource advocates are "spoiled" because we don't have to pay for much software so anything that costs money is less likely to be bought by open source advocates.