Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses Software Linux

New Patches Let iMac G5 Boot Linux 105

Posted by timothy from the limited-functionality dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Apple enthusiasts and Linux geeks allied and the result is the announcement of a set of patches (still in test stage) that allows iMac G5 owners to (at least) boot Linux on their toys."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Patches Let iMac G5 Boot Linux More

New Patches Let iMac G5 Boot Linux

Comments Filter:
  • I don't have an iMac, so this doesn't really affect me. Still, it is another symbolic victory for Linux, and hopefully many more will come. Perhaps this will help Linux market share rise above Macs?

  • Redundant… (Score:5, Insightful)

    by david-bo ( 578532 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @06:33PM (#11068426)
    It is redundant to argue either:

    1. There is no need for linux when you have Mac OS X. With its Unix-underpinnings yoiu can do basically everything on Mac OS X that you can use linux for.

    2. Some people like Apple hardware (even though it might be more expensive compared to x86) but for (e.g.) political reasons prefer to use linux.

    Read my lips. This is redundant. These arguments has been posted thousands of times at Slahsdot's Apple-section.

    Please moderators. Take this into consideration when you moderate. I am tired of people telling the world that 'I can use Photoshop and Word on the same OS/computer as I write shell scripts and run Apache' and I am even more tired of when these postings are moderated insightful.

    They are no more insightful than someone explaining that if you spend the same money you would get a faster computer today compared with a year ago.
    • You mean I can run a native version of OpenOffice.org on my Mac without dealing with X11? Where do I get it?

      And before you ask; yes, I've tried NeoOffice and NeoOffice/J, and neither of them work acceptably.

      • What's your point?

        Can you run a native version of OpenOffice.org on Linux without dealing with X11?

        • Re:Redundant… (Score:2, Interesting)

          by NardofDoom ( 821951 )
          In order to run OpenOffice.org on a Mac, you have to first have X11 installed, then install it with Fink, then start up X11, then run soffice. To open a document you have to do all the above and then select "Open" then navigate to the document you want to open.

          On Linux, you can double-click documents and they'll open.

          So the native version of OS X, the kind you can install from a binary and double-click documents to open them, DOES NOT EXIST.

          • Word docs, etc. open just fine with double-clicking on my Mac.

            Look for an app called Start OpenOffice.org that comes with the Mac package. It works great.

          • Re:Redundant (Score:5, Informative)

            by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @01:26PM (#11073395) Journal
            What was the last time you used OO on a mac?

            Yes, you have to have X11 installed, but all those other steps are long gone. No need for fink, no need to explicitly start X11 etc etc. Double clicking a document to open it also works just fine.
          • 1) You can start any program (including the rootless X server) by default:
            System Preferences (on the dock) -> Accounts -> (your account) -> Startup Items

            2) Any file can be associated with the open command if you switch the bar at the top from "show recommended" to "show all"
            __________

            So in other words the standard OpenOffice binary does support double clicking to open documents provided you tell OSX that's what you want to do using the standard tools to do so.
      • You mean I can run a native version of OpenOffice.org on my Mac without dealing with X11? Where do I get it?

        Well, if you are willing to pay, and don't mind having to put up with software that is way better than OpenOffice, you can get Microsoft Office 2004. :-)

    • No reason to use Linux? Come on!

      MacOS X is horribly non-free. Sure, the kernel is open source, and so are most of the userland unix-things, but that's about it.

      Apart from that, MacOS requires 5 fucking gigabytes of disk space to install. Compare to e.g. Debian, which requires about 150 meg.

      I know what I prefer.
      • The disk space issue would be a concern if HDs weren't as cheap as water now. You can buy a 20 gig HD for $25. We live in a digital media world dealing with mulit-megapixel pictures, MP3,WAV,AAC sound files, and MPEG movies. Sure, you can build a sytem with a 150 meg OS. Chances are those system files will be sitting next to your multi-media documents which span gigabytes. CD
        • ...and?

          If I install a 150MB OS plus a 3MB media player, I can use the rest of the hard disk for media files.

          If I install a 5G OS instead, that leaves almost 5G less space for media files. Do you know how many .ogg files fit in 5G of disk space?
          • So let me get this straight: 150 MB OS 3 MB Player The remaining space all for media files. If that's the case, why get an G5 Mac when you can simply get an iPod? Costs much less and is way smaller, too. CD
            • You're the one who brought up the multimedia file example :-)

              That said, yes, I do think it's important for an operating system not to take too much space, even if disk space costs nothing these days. The more disk space is used up by the OS, the less space you have for other things. Useful things.

              An operating system is necessary bloat. It shouldn't be too bloaty.
            • I installed OSX 10.3.4 on an iBook last night for my mother. If you unselect the stuff you don't need (All of the language tranlations and printer drivers for example) I think the total install was 1.2GB or so.. I'm not sure where you're getting 5GB from.

  • I don't mean to troll or hurt anyone's feelings :) But the obivious question; what are the advantages of running Linux on Mac hardware?

    As far as I've read, Linux can be run on iBooks but the hardware support is seriously lacking, which disables some important functions like power saving.. I doubt that Apple has yet documents available on controlling G5's fan system, enabling driver writing?

    Again, as far as I've read different articles and reviews about OS X, it seems like heaven on earth for most Linux us

    • As a linux user, I had to use MacOSX ay my aunts house while house sitting. I hate the interface. It only servered to get in my way. It was very pro doing one thing at a time, and made it very difficult to multi task.

      Of course being a linux user, I'd also prefer cheaper ahrdware, so unless you already had PPC hardware, I'm not sure why people would buy soem to put Linux on when x86 is here and cheaper.
      • If you hate Aqua, don't use it. Apple includes x11 [apple.com] with the OS so take a few seconds to install your window manager of choice and you'll feel right at home.
        • Yeah? Sounds like a great idea. How about when your friends stop by and switch you over to Litestep or Enlightenment?

          I'm sure you'll love it -- after all, because they hate the interface you use, it should be changed! ;)

          The better advice being, buy a cheap laptop and hate away; but only change your own stuff.

          Mind you, I may just be bitter from having people install stuff on my boxes. Now I don't let anyone near 'em. Problem resolved.
        • Hey that would be great because I also hate Aque, although I'm verty fond of my little iMac. But if I install, for instance, fvwm, am I still able to use the Finder and other typical Mac-stuff?

          • Hey that would be great because I also hate Aque, although I'm verty fond of my little iMac. But if I install, for instance, fvwm, am I still able to use the Finder and other typical Mac-stuff?

            Yes.

            You can run X11 in two different modes on MacOS X - full-screen or rootless. If you run it full-screen, you can switch from X11 to Aqua and back with a simple keyboard or mouse command. I surf with Safari and use iTunes and the Apple DVD player, but all my work is done purely on the X11 side, which just looks

            • Thanks for the info, I will certainly try it. I did put Linux on my iMac, but I found that some things didn't really work as good as with Linux on a PC so I put OSX back on the 'Mac. I really love the way you can have the best of both words with OSX; it is a really well thought-out system (although with a few minor inconveniences, but nothing is ever perfect).
      • Of course being entrenched on doing things the Linux way and then using Mac OS X the first time for a few hours without any introduction whatsoever you are predetermined to give us an unbiased report on usability.

        It's always nice to see great journalism like this on Slashdot.

        P.S.:
        It's hard to find anything cheaper AND better than the current iBooks or even PowerBooks (you can always get less for less mony, though)

    • Re:Real advantages over using Linux on Macs? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mibus ( 26291 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @08:57PM (#11069271) Homepage
      But the obivious question; what are the advantages of running Linux on Mac hardware?
      It's nice hardware, and I got my iBook for a better price than I could find an equivalent x86 laptop for.

      I got firewire, long battery life, 12" screen (I wanted something small I could lug around easily), as much RAM and HDD, all for less than the closest x86 laptop. It's also hellishly attractive. :-)

      Oh, and the suspend/resume stuff is far faster than on all of the Linux/x86 laptops I've seen.

      As far as I've read, Linux can be run on iBooks but the hardware support is seriously lacking, which disables some important functions like power saving..

      Only the latest iBooks have "seriously lacking" hardware support, and even that is close to being fixed. (IIRC the latest benh kernels can enable power-saving).

      My iBook was bought at the start of last year.

      After 12 months on OSX I decided to switch back to Debian, mostly just because I prefer GNOME, and it was what I used everywhere else. It also gave a much-desired speed boost :)

      The only thing that doesn't work is the modem, and that's just because it's a software modem and I don't want to use the (buggy, non-open-source) driver.

      Overall, it was worth it, the biggest thing I lost was the ability to use WINE to play Windows games!
    • I use Linux on a Mac, for several reasons:

      Apple makes REALLY solid workstation/server-class desktops. My G3 circa 1999 has 64-bit PCI slots, shipped with Ultra2Wide SCSI hardware, and a 66MHz PCI slot (double-speed). You can't find reasonably-priced PC hardware like that, it's just not available.

      Now we all know that OS X is really cool, but it packs some serious overhead for the graphics and sound systems, and while it's perfectly acceptable for a desktop OS (or a server if you're running it on newer meta
      • I'm curious. Since portage is mainly BSD ports "ported" to Linux and Darwinports is a BSD port system.... What are you finding useless about it?

        • Alright, so far I've been frustrated by packages that don't build, and packages that require dependencies that could easily be satisfied by 'native' OS X stuff, but instead require the building of strings of dependencies that seem unnescessary.

          for some things, portage on OS X is great, CLI tools seem to work (and look) fantastic. I still get a lot of collissions when trying to install stuff though. I hope it gets better, and that I get better at understanding the direction it's moving so I can test and sub
          • I meant darwinports not portage. In other words:

            Darwinports is a BSD ports system
            LInux portage is a port of BSD ports system to Linux
            Gentoo for OSX portage is a port of the Gentoo portage (i.e. linux system) to OSX

            I.E. its a double port of the BSD ports system. What I'm trying to figure out is if you like portage then what is missing with darwinports. For example you talked about firefox (which doesn't seem available at all) but:
            port install mozilla -- X11 for OSX
            port install mozilla +aqua -- aqua ver
    • I've run linux on my powerbook and there actually is hardware support for most of the powerbook's features. There's sleep mode support (for when you close the display), trackpad support, display support (for running X), LED support (you can have it blink with disk activity), PCMCIA support, and support for all of the ports on the back.

      You've gotta remember that linux is NOT OSX. Just because OSX has a Unix (BSD) subsystem doesn't make it the same as linux. If you're programming in OSX and using certain Uni
    • As far as I've read, Linux can be run on iBooks but the hardware support is seriously lacking, which disables some important functions like power saving...

      This now works with a patch from BenH [crashing.org], probably going into 2.6.11 (not a typo).

      I doubt that Apple has yet documents available on controlling G5's fan system, enabling driver writing?

      It works since a long time [bkbits.net].
    • The answers are simple, Linux has a much better hardware support for third party hardware, not everybody likes osx, some stuff like doing plain X is much better in Linux, using the thing as a server does not fource you to load a gui. There are myriads of other reasons, but those instantly come to my mind.

  • Screw G5 or X86.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @06:41PM (#11068477)
    I'd like to see somebody come up with a dual-cpu monstrosity using hyperconnect or such, and link a G5 and an X86 together.

    Even slicker is to use the old neXt packed binaries and compile for both X86 AND G5. I figure Jobs came up with it, why not use it ;-)

    And why do this? Best of both worlds. There's a lot of software that is only MS NT X86 binary structure.. this beast could run it.

    oh, and this beast could bootstrap all those X86-only pci cards that you cant use in the Mac.
    • Ummm... No. First off, those "x86-only" PCI cards depend on PC-BIOS. Apple and Sun use Open Firmware. It doesn't have anything to do with the instruction set of the CPU.

      Second, if there was a hybrid G5-P4 or whatever, if it wasn't running Windows, it wouldn't run Windows apps, except through something like WINE. WINE is great, but not so great that I would bet the farm on it, especially in an exotic hybrid box, where most of your users will want to run fairly intense apps like SoftImage and such, or 3

      • First off, those "x86-only" PCI cards depend on PC-BIOS. Apple and Sun use Open Firmware. It doesn't have anything to do with the instruction set of the CPU.

        Correct, but note that Alpha-based TURBOChannel machines apparently had a MIPS emulator in the firmware, to handle the MIPS machine language firmware on TURBOChannel cards; it presumably also emulated whatever environment that firmware depended on, if there was any such environment. It might be possible to do the same for non-x86 machines and PCI card

    • SCO (Score:2)

      by jbolden ( 176878 )
      God I hate to say this...

      The x86 vendor that went in hybrid CPU directions was SCO (now this was in the early 90's when SCO was in the business of making operating systems not suing people). They did some excellent work on hybrid 486/i860 systems.

      But those CPU's were different enough that there were big advantages (i860 could barely multitask but was built from the ground up for vector math....) What do you see as the advantage the x86 brings to the G5 or vice versa to make it worth the management cost?
      • ---But those CPU's were different enough that there were big advantages (i860 could barely multitask but was built from the ground up for vector math....) What do you see as the advantage the x86 brings to the G5 or vice versa to make it worth the management cost?

        Actually, I think the fact that there's just soo much non-portable binary software on the X86 (mainly in windows). To run 2 cpu's with portability between them, and teh ability to run otherwise binaries I could see as a very valuable hardware proj
        • And it would be. The only problem is that Microsoft would need to a partner in that effort to get a Windows sub system running on OSX. That might actually go for it but remember you'd be paying full price for a copy of Windows and full price + (because of the complex motherboard) for the x86 chip.

          • ---And it would be. The only problem is that Microsoft would need to a partner in that effort to get a Windows sub system running on OSX.

            For certain reasons, I doubt that. I can see a blend from the WINE projects and individualised hacking. For an example, LK-2.6 can natively read and overwrite files, but not create new ones, or increase the size of files.

            To counteract that, somebody wrote a NTFS.drv => ntfs native kernelmode driver. This resulted in full read/write operation that Windows usually uses,
            • Maybe you can push a wine solution (particularly if you can run pure microsoft .dll since you are assuming a legal license). OK I'd agree that strategy works for apple (though I still think its far far easier with Microsoft's help and after all they aren't in the hardware business so....).
            • Being that I don't know a whole lot about computer or OS architecture, I may be entirely wrong, but...

              Couldn't you shove wine off onto the x86 processor, and all the rest onto the G5? Because you wouldn't have an OS and God knows what else running on the x86, wine would be a lot faster than on a real PC... no? Or have I no idea what I'm talking about?
              • Well, for one "Wine Is Not an Emulator" ;-) WINE is a translator from X86 Windows API to X86 X-api. It cannot translate ANY assembly instruction.

                Actually the problem would reside on how the busses are determined. My idea would be to run Windows on the X86, but then you'd have to make windows understand it's a host OS (not going to happen) on a XEN-like system manager. You'd end up with memory contention and sporadic bus function.

                The possible answer is to run something you can hack (linux, BSD) and have it

  • Why? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gklinger ( 571901 )
    Other than the obligatory references to climbing mountains because they're there, why would anyone want to run Linux on a G5? OS X is just as UNIX-like as Linux and with projects like Fink and DarwinPorts [opendarwin.org] most software familiar to Linux users is available under OS X. Case in point, last night I read a story about BZFlag so I downloaded it and had it running in under 5 minutes. And please, don't dismiss the question (or me) by saying I'm anti-Linux because I'm not. My old but beloved Sparc LX running Solaris
    • Oops. Forgot some quotation marks there so if you're too lazy to check Google, you can find Fink here [sourceforge.net].

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )
      well.. but isn't that like saying that if netbsd is ported to some platform there's absolutely no point in porting linux to it.

      maybe.. just maybe.. some people prefer linux to os x.
      • Like whom, and why? And please, let's not even bother hearing answers like "Mac OS X is ugly" or "Linux is what I'm used to." Let's talk about real reasons, not closed-minded foolishness.
        • some specific application of theirs? maybe they want the same feel over multiple platforms?

          maybe they just wanted to run linux on a g5 cpu in the first place when they were shopping for a computer to have the features to fit their needs. when you run linux you can have such freedoms when choosing platform.

          what's foolish about that - buying the best looking hardware with the price tag that happens to suit them for a job that the hardware can do. ..and some people do think that osx architechture is weird/c
        • Me. Because of Portage.

          There! I just started a war between Mac zealots and Gentoo zealots. The End is coming.

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 59Bassman ( 749855 ) on Sunday December 12, 2004 @10:52PM (#11069734) Journal
      I can tell you one reason that I've messed with Yellow Dog Linux on a G5.

      I've been doing a bit of clustering, and have been using the OSCAR system for building clusters. OSCAR is build using RPM-based distros (primarily RedHat). There are some folks porting OSCAR to Debian, but it's not there yet. Apple's got some pretty good tools that can be used for clustering, but nothing I've been able to get my hands on yet does all the stuff OSCAR does.

      So since YDL is an RPM-based distro, there is a hope that OSCAR could be used with YDL. It doesn't work now, but it would probably be easier to do than try to port everything over to OS X right off the bat.

      Now I will say I didn't like YDL on the G5 AT ALL. I told a co-worker it was like being a kid and taking apart your favorite Tonka truck to "improve" it. I ended up with something different, but I really wanted my old truck back. Also, there are some things that OS X is slower than Linux for (eg - run openssl speed on a dual G5 vs. a single Xeon - the Xeon will be multiple times as fast).

      OS X is a fantastic operating system. The developers package is incredible, Fink rocks, and having X11 inside is cool as heck. I'm saving up to buy a G5 for my next personal machine. However, it's not perfect (no OS is). I can fully understand folks wanting to get a working Linux install running on Apple hardware.

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

        by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:11PM (#11075778)
        run openssl speed on a dual G5 vs. a single Xeon - the Xeon will be multiple times as fast

        In all fairness, openssl has many hand written assembler routines for x86.
        • Which I have since learned. My apologies for spreading FUD. I was shocked at the difference, and it really had me questioning why the OS X system was so slow when all I'd heard was good things. I wonder if there's any way to re-compile openssl without that assembler code in any way that might speed up the G5's performance?

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:24AM (#11070444)
      Other than the obligatory references to climbing mountains because they're there, why would anyone want to run Linux on a G5?

      Because Linux runs circles around OSX in terms of speed. Especially for servers. OSX's file IO and network IO in particular have too much overhead.

      The same holds true for the desktop. Linux is much snappier on the desktop than OSX.

      • Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by dr. chuck bunsen ( 762090 )
        I don't buy that for a second, and niether will anyone running OS X and linux side by side. I just put together a AMD64 3400+ with 3 gigs of RAM nvidia 6800 etc. etc., I run dual boot Fedora, SUSE. Right now I type this message on a 1.2 G4 Powerbook. The Powerbook has a much "speedier" interface than my linux box. In fact it kind of makes me mad to think about how much I'm always waiting around for Gnome.
    • I'm a Debian GNU/Linux user. Whether my hardware is PowerPC, i386, m68k, or s390, that doesn't matter; I run the same operating system.

      That's nice, because it allows me to switch to different hardware without having to learn a new user interface or operating system.

      I recently bought a 12" PowerBook G4. Obviously I installed Debian on the thing, otherwise there wouldn't be a point.
  • A battleship's engine under the hood of a Rolls Royce.
    • Unless you're in Great Britain, where all warships will run Windows ;-)
    • Since OS X is BSD UNIX one could say that the battleship engine was already there in the first place. Hmmm...

      SUPER DEATH PUSH REPLY!

  • Fedora Core 3 testing for PPC could use this? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Sunday December 12, 2004 @07:16PM (#11068697) Homepage

    I recently read Colin Charles' blog and came across his announcement of FC3 for PPC is in testing [fedoraproject.org]. He notes [bytebot.net] that "the release is known to not boot on G5's, and we are working on re-building another tree, which we can push out soon", would this new Linux kernel patch help with this?

  • well, i have 2 macs on my desk, and have 2 powerbooks current. I run 2 mac clusters and bought another one this week. All currently have os x.

    However, there is a good reason to run linux. OS X is (currently) a 32 bit OS. Many of the apps can't see all the memory. PPC linux is 64 bit.

    that having been said, I'm only just now finding a need :)

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close