Slashdot Log In
Linux beats Windows to Intel iMac
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Feb 16, 2006 04:15 PM
from the because-you-can dept.
from the because-you-can dept.
Ctrl+Alt+De1337 writes "The Mactel-Linux folks have now successfully booted Linux on a 17" Core Duo iMac. They used the elilo bootloader, a modified kernel, and a hacked vesafb to boot from a USB drive. No GUI pictures for now, just white text on a black background. The distro of choice was Gentoo, and instructions and patches are promised this weekend."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
No, I think that dubious honor belongs to this: the IBM IntelliStation A Pro [ibm.com]. Take it home today, only $11,779.00.
And that's for a dual-Opteron system with RHEL, it's not one of the big RISC-based AIX workstations. Granted, it does come with 8GB of RAM, Ultra320 SCSI, and a ridiculous display card (3DLabs Wildcat Realizm 800).
Frankly though, I think the Mac looks cooler.
Parent
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:4, Insightful)
What we need now is some solid Linux benchmarks on both systems. I'd wager that the PC would outperform the Mac on a price-for-performance scale. It would probably win overall, just because AMD has a better CPU on the market than Intel.
Of course, it all really depends on what you want to do with your system. Different architectures emphasize different things.
Parent
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:4, Informative)
Now for a desktop/workstation poor thread creation doesn't affect much after booting. Giving OS X an advantage there.
Parent
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:4, Insightful)
No Viruses
No Noise
No Hassle
oh... and they're pretty.
They fit into the affordable luxary category, a lot like the iPod. If all you want is FIPS and MIPS, then you buy an AMD box, with water cooling and a heat sink as big as your car. Hell, why not go the whole hog and kit it out with LEDs to make it 'classy'.
Mac's are the Rolls Royce of computing, not the Ferrari. When it comes to the choice between comfort or performance, they choose comfort - but they still stick a big ol' engine in, because, let's face it, you paid for it. AMDs are the suped up Honda. Sure they get better 0-60, and are cheaper to 'upgrade', but you're still left driving a car that looks like a Honda.
If you're demanding performance specs, then either you are genuinly somebody who needs that performance (a dying breed) or your are a relic from the 1990's. Processor performance is no longer the most important factor in a desktop computer, we're still waiting for IO and memory to catch up.
Parent
Re:FUD ALERT (Score:5, Informative)
In a word, Yes. Just like when the first iMac came out and PC makers released clones, you can find LCDs with embedded PCs.
Here's one from Sony. [sonystyle.com] I know it's $2,000, but it looks like it's a lot more than the iMac as features go.
Here's another one: http://www.boldata.com/html/unique.cfm [boldata.com]
Here's one that came up on Google ads that I couldn't get to load from work: http://www.lcdpc.com/ [lcdpc.com] I don't have a clue what's on it right now, but judging from the URL I think it's relevant :)
That's all I hit on three Google searches, but seeing as I had no clue what terms to search, I think it's a fair start.
Parent
Re:Gotta love the old Slashdot hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
The only difference is the OS referred to in each statement - they are otherwise identical. So tell us how the difference between the OSes referred to completely changes the meaning.
Um, because they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT operating systems? You're basically saying "they're the same, except for the fact that they refer to different things and hence two completely different scenarios".
By your logic, the following two sentences are also the same, and rating them differently would also constitute hypocrisy:
(1) Alan Greenman as chairman of the fed? Good idea.
(2) Osama bin Laden as chairman of the fed? Good idea.
To use your words: 'The only difference is the person referred to in each statement - they are otherwise identical.' Come on. These are two totally different scenarios.
All operating systems are not created equal; 99% of "oh woe slashdot hypocrisy" posts are based on a flawed implication that all operating systems are actually equal and that considering any one "better" or even different to another must constitute an ideological bias.
Perhaps you might want to explain why Linux and Windows should be regarded as equivalent in the above statement, because it is not obvious as it stands, and without such an explanation there is no evidence of hypocrisy. Surely there must be some relevant common denominator other than "they are both operating systems". (I mean, in my example, "they are both people" too.) OS X is an operating system too. Why not "OS X on a mac? That's just expensive hardware"? What are the aspects that Windows and Linux have in common that OS X lacks?
I notice you also neglected to respond to my other point, that it was probably two totally different sets of people doing the moderating. There is no "slashdot" entity that goes around moderating (or making) posts, as has been pointed out many many times before here. This is a community of thousands of different people. That kind of makes all the other arguments moot.
Parent
Oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait... never mind.
Parent
Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Interesting)
I can answer that- Because this is an important step into something we have all been interested in, i.e. whether or not we can boot something other than an apple os onto an intel mac...
A thousand mile journey begins with a single step, and all that jazz...
Parent
Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Informative)
So I just laugh whenever people talk about one UI (be it Windows or Gnome or KDE or OS X) being so much more consistant and usable than any other UI.
Parent
Re:Oh boy! (Score:4, Insightful)
* Inconsistant PageUp/PageDown use. Some programs move the cursor, some just move the screen. Very annoying when only the page moves. Now if all aps standardized even on the annoying behavior at least we'd be consistant.
How does the app know whether you just want to "look" a few pages up or down (and not lose the location where your cursor aka your current work position is), or actually "move" there? I personally hate when the cursor moves because there's no guarantee you know where it lands- and half the time I wanted to "remain where I was". But I'm a heavy mouser I guess.
* Home/End keys. If you understand the logic, it's not bad. Command-left_arrow and command-right_arrow do the trick. But if you go in and change your OS X keybindings to restore normal windows/linux home/end behavior, you only get very spotty coverage with some apps honoring the keybindings, some not.
Might be a difference between Cocoa and Carbon apps. This is just a legacy Mac thing. Since I'm a legacy Mac guy though, I've never gotten used to using the home/end keys to begin with though
* Click to focus a window absorbs that click. But not always. Depends on the app. Really slows you down if you use dual-monitors and have lots of windows spread between them.
My habit that I guess makes this not bother me is that whenever I want to bring a window to the front I click in a "non-busy" part of it. Then it doesn't matter whether the click is absorbed or not, but yes, you would still have to click where you actually want to "go". I didn't know one extra click actually bothered people. though.
* Scroll wheel can only affect a focused windows. This means you can't have your browser slightly underneath your program editor and scroll up and down through API docs without clicking away from the editor window. This one is pretty close to being a show-stopper for me. Combined with the previous problem with the focus these leads to some serious impedence of work. In essence the UI fails in this aspect because it doesn't get out of the way and let you work. Instead it is in your face.
I don't quite understand. If you arrange the windows in a non-overlapping way, it's an alt-tab to change the focus. Not very expensive to do alt-tab, roll wheel, alt-tab back. There is a UI convention that says that the frontmost window should receive all events.
You know, I wanted focus follows mouse for a long time, but then I realized that if you had focus follows mouse, you'd never be able to choose anything in the menus, unless you dragged the window to the top of the screen first to make sure it was the topmost window on your way to the menubar. So not only would you have to have focus follows mouse, but also menus tied to individual apps instead of globally. Forget about it.
Parent
Re:Oh boy! (Score:4, Informative)
Oh and one more thing:
>You know, I wanted focus follows mouse for a long time, but then I realized that if you had
>focus follows mouse, you'd never be able to choose anything in the menus
You have found just another source of irritation for people who prefer to have independent menu bars for each app. And of course, mouse focus (although you've quite handily pointed out why we'll probably never see mouse focus for the Mac).
Parent
Saves memory (Score:5, Funny)
The worst thing is that I'm actually going to college with people that have that very same dinosaur mentality that I just spoofed. Then again, a little fancy ASM code in all of the C++ flying around really could speed things up, but I just have more of a preference towards ASM over higher level stuff.
Parent
Re:Saves memory (Score:5, Funny)
Black on white. Two colors: ONE BIT DISPLAYS!
Parent
Re:Saves memory (Score:5, Funny)
A friend I went to university was recently boasting about his latest hardware acquisition - a colossal Apple monitor (I'm pretty sure it was the 30in Cinema display) and an appropriately speedy graphics card for his PC to drive it.
He uploaded a photo. He runs nothing but Xterms, tiled across the display thanks to some ultra-primitive window manager.
I nearly flew across the Atlantic in order to beat him to death with my prehistoric gaming CRT...
Parent
i wasn't aware there was a competition (Score:4, Funny)
Re:i wasn't aware there was a competition (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly its obvious this will show computer users worldwide that OSX' graphical user interface is far superior to the Linux' shell, thus making them buy Apple boxen.
Netcraft confirms it: Linux is dead.
Parent
Also, this proves once and for all... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:no it doesn't... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Also, this proves once and for all... (Score:4, Informative)
1) TPM chip allows an OS to determine if it is running in an debugger or against raw hardware.
2) Trusted applications load only under trusted OS and get codes from TPM chip to verify they are on the actual machine (and since the OS is running against real hardware).
3) Data is encrypted in ways that only trusted applicationsc an read.
One more point about TPM chip. The chips can have a password they can't read. I.E. the chip can apply a function that it has no way of reporting to an external process.
Parent
Windows Vista still in the running (Score:4, Funny)
Why the delay... (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, now I feel depressed.... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not even smart enough to get Gentoo booting off my PC!
Call CNN! (Score:5, Funny)
Linux on iMac - so what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux on iMac - so what? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Before anyone asks... (Score:3, Funny)
The answer is "because you can".
does it brick it? (Score:3, Insightful)
NetBSD? (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
Main Page
Mactel-Linux is the effort to adapt the GNU/Linux operating system to Intel-based Apple Macintosh hardware.
This requires changes/additions to at least the following projects:
This site is not about Linux distributions for Intel-Macs, but about developer communication.
Status
Using elilo and a modified Linux kernel, we can boot from a USB hard disk on the 17" iMac Core Duo. We are using the hacked vesafb driver to inherit the bootloader's framebuffer, keyboard and a USB network card work. Gentoo runs and can compile the Linux kernel with a compiler that runs on linux, which was compiled in linux, on a mac running the new intel duo processors.
lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/PM/GMS/940GML and 945GT Express Memory Controller Hub (rev 03)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/PM/GMS/940GML and 945GT Express PCI Express Root Port (rev 03)
00:07.0 Performance counters: Intel Corporation Unknown device 27a3 (rev 03)
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 02)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 02)
00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 2 (rev 02)
00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #1 (rev 02)
00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #2 (rev 02)
00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #3 (rev 02)
00:1d.3 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #4 (rev 02)
00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller (rev 02)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 Mobile PCI Bridge (rev e2)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801GBM (ICH7-M) LPC Interface Bridge (rev 02)
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) IDE Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 82801GBM/GHM (ICH7 Family) Serial ATA Storage Controllers cc=AHCI (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) SMBus Controller (rev 02)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Unknown device 71c5
02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88E8053 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 22)
03:00.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4310 UART (rev 01)
04:03.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Agere Systems FW323 (rev 61)
dmesg click if you want to see it [nyud.net]
Instructions and Patches
Coming this weekend.
FAQ
Can I already run Linux on the iMac Core-Duo?
Not quite. The kernel boots, and you can interact with the system on the command line, but that's as much as you can do with it at the moment. If you're a developer, though, that's a starting point.
[edit]
Why Linux? OS X is so great!
Sure OS X is great. But this is fun.
[edit]
Why Linux? Why not Windows?
Windows isn't fun.
[edit]
Why not OS X on non-Apple PCs?
That's way uncool.
[edit]
The Intel-based Macs are standard PCs, aren't they?
They share many characteristics with PCs, yes. Though, their firmware is EFI, not the old 1982 PC-BIOS.
[edit]
Then what took you so long??
In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
With Linux Comes Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
It boots from a USB drive! (Score:4, Interesting)
But maybe I'm the only one crazy enough to imagine having a drive with bootable partitions of Windows, Linux, "LinuxIntelMac", LinuxPPC, and Mac OS X, and being able to carry around my entire computing environment without carrying any computer hardware with me. Put it on a 2.5" notebook drive in a small USB 2.0/Firewire drive enclosure and it will fit in a shirt pocket. Notebook drives go up to 120GB and 7200rpm these days too, so it's not like it would be slow. Wherever you go, you're home. I've even seen some drive enclosures with integrated fingerprint readers. The whole disk is encrypted so you wouldn't have to worry about losing information if it's stolen. Keep an identical drive in a computer at home and you can probably even keep a backup of the entire multi-OS drive with something like dd.
Someday I'm going to actually turn this from a pipe dream into a reality, just you wait.
Re:Nice - this is what I was looking for (Score:3, Informative)
You know that one has always been able to run linux on regular old macs for a good decade now yeah?
I've recycled a bunch of old 'colourful' macs that are too crusty for OS/X into nice linux X-terminals and stuff.
Re:Nice - this is what I was looking for (Score:3, Informative)
Still, unless Intel made the mistake of leaving some of their PC handywork around this will not be enough.
In order to run a mobile Pentium you have to aggressively control its frequency. Otherwise it will fry itself.
The support for this in Linux is heavily dependant on ACPI. AFAIK the Intel Macs are supposed to have ACPI completely taken out and replaced
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have to ask, then this isn't for you. (Hint: People probably said the same thing about Linux 1.0)
Re:+1 obvious (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Windows on iMac? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do this? (Score:4, Informative)
Currently of course you need to reboot, but once VT comes out on the core duo chips then this will let you use Xen/Vmware to run all three simultaneously on the same hardware at near-full speed.
Parent
Re:Why do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I like to be able to dual-boot into linux for those Linux apps like Gnucash, which Intuit would like to charge me an arm and a leg for. I could use Gnucash in Mac, but the setup is overly hard (even with Fink and Fink commander) and then half the things don't work right, like printing without me spending half-a-day trying to figure it out. In ubuntu, I can just apt-get and forget it most of the time. I need to get work done, not configure my PC.
I don't need to run Windows, but I'd imagine some people are in a similiar situation with a must have program.
The nice thing with Macintel is that perhaps someone can get Windows/Linux may run on top MacOSX (like Inferno for various operating system), no rebooting or anything.
But 90% of the time, I work in OSX anyway.
Parent
Re:Why do this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because Apple laptops are prettier and have more features than similarly priced laptops from Dell, HP, Toshiba and IBM. I'd pay more for an Apple though luckily I don't have to; they cost roughly the same.
Because Linux is a better system than OS X. Although I appreciate that some of you are infatuated with the sparkly lights and whizzy animations in OS X, I tire quickly of such things and prefer the practical productivity of Linux. I like my Fullscreen button for every application (proper fullscreen, not the half-arsed attempt in OS X). I like automatic security updates for all the software on my machine. I like the fact that Linux is faster on the same hardware (subjectively and objectively it is faster). I like the fact that my servers and my laptop run the same software - even the same Linux distribution - so I don't have to "change gears" in my network. I like the fact that I'm not bound to the shaky future of a single company; Linux will always be around even if my particular distro goes under.
I also like the fact that my Linux distro cost $7 for 6 compact discs, it included every piece of software I needed including the office suite, and upgrades are free. MacOS X is surrounded by shareware vultures for trivial items - like $29.99 for what is effectively an untar utility for DMG files. No thanks. I left all that nonsense behind when I dumped MS-DOS 3 and I've no intention of going back to that particular hell.
PS: I also like the 1-second sleep, better battery life, and slick windowing system in OS X, but I don't like them enough to give up all the benefits of Linux.
Parent
Re:Modified kernel? (Score:5, Funny)
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddddddddddd
Parent
Re:Modified kernel? (Score:5, Informative)
I tried a few times to compose an answer to that question without being sarcastic, but I couldn't pull it off. In short, yea, pretty much everybody who has spent 2 seconds thinking about Windows on Mac has thought of this idea and/or tried it. I'll just point you to here [onmac.net], here [osx86project.org], and here [journalspace.com]. I'm sorry to be pissy, but the forums where people are actually trying to work on this problem are so cluttered with this "novel" idea that it gets really annoying after a while.
So as not to be a complete rant, I'll explain why this doesn't currently work. The Mac uses the new UGA standard for video cards, and does not support VGA at all. Windows (even Vista) only supports VGA (or UGA with VGA fallback, which Mac doesn't have either). There are also drive partitioning issues, among other problems. Basically, any feature that Apple didn't need for booting MacOS was left out of the EFI, including BIOS-compatibility mode as you noted. No current PC hardware is so legacy-free. However, with a bit of massaging, the Vista install disc does boot, you just can't see anything on the screen. When Vista gets a real UGA driver, we should be able to make quite a bit more progress.
Parent
Re:oblig (Score:5, Funny)
Intel beats YOU.
Seeing a 5-digit UID post this is a bit like watching one's respected grandfather get drunk at a town-hall meeting and puke all over the podium.
Parent
Re:Honestly, did anyone think Windows would be fir (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple lost identity after dumping Power (Score:4, Interesting)
I miss the PowerPC too, and if somebody came out with a G5 notebook with OS X, I'd buy one of those in a heartbeat. I'm not too fond of the Intel switch, either, due to the same reasons (even though I would buy a PowerBook Core Duo^W^W^W MacBook Pro if I had the money). However, Apple still has OS X. OpenBSD and OS X are two different beasts (even though OS X is a BSD derivative) OpenBSD is a standard Unix derivative that is designed for security. (I am personally a FreeBSD and Windows user). OS X is a Unix derivative designed so that way nobody would know it was Unix until somebody opened the Terminal. The Mac OS has always had a wonderful interface (OS 8 and 9 are still very usable and had wonderful applications, albeit a bit unstable), and OS X improves on it by a mile. There is also a lot of support for important proprietary software whose OSS equivalents still have some improvement or nonexistant (e.g, Photoshop, MS Office, Java [yes, it works in BSD, but not without spending a good half of a day compiling, and forget Java on an non-x86 platform in BSD], certain software required for work/school, etc). OpenBSD is a fine OS (especially for security and for CS majors), but it isn't a hallmark of usability. (I can say the same with OS X; OS X doesn't focus on security as much as OpenBSD does, and sometimes OS X is suspectible to little but annoying security issue that OpenBSD patched up years before)
Of OS X was merely BSD with lipstick, then why are so many PC users are willing to either pirate OS X or buy it for $129 and break EULAs and even the DMCA to install OS X on their vanilla PCs? For those who don't feel like cracking DRM, why are they using emulators like PearPC to run OS X that only run OS X at the speed of an old Power Mac 8600? Heck, we still have Rhapsody and NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP users. Turns out that the lipstick makes a huge difference. Put it like this, if you had a choice between asking somebody out who is very intelligent and nice, versus somebody who was not only very intelligent and nice, but also so beautiful or handsome that you dropped everything that you were carrying when you saw her or him, who would you ask out? There are many people at the Apple store shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars itching to have their hands on a white or aluminum object running BSD with lipstick, because that lipstick makes BSD easy to use and supports all of the applications that they need. Heck, I'd buy OS X on my PC if Apple decided to release OS X on vanilla PCs (but that will never happen, so I'm content with sticking to FreeBSD for my Unix stuff and Windows XP for compatibility with the outside world, until I switch to the Mac. Besides, my fastest machine is a 950MHz Duron; OS X for x86 requires SSE2).
So yes, Apple lost the PowerPC (which was a great chip, it was just the G4's performance stagnated over the past year or two), but Apple still has the Mac. As long as Apple still continues to sell Macs (even if those Macs are just PCs with pretty cases and BSD-with-lipstick), then people will still demand them, and I will still lust for them ;)
Parent
Re:Apple lost identity after dumping Power (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, iTunes is about the only thing you WOULDN'T have to live without, since there have been several stabs at getting the Windows version workable on Linux. Everything else in the Mac experience is missing.
To suggest Mac OS X is anything remotely similar to "BSD + some apps" is profoundly retarded and disingenious.
The value IBM was adding to Apple's Mac platform evaporated when Apple's PPC partners decided the desktop wasn't anything they cared about. That occured around 2000, when Microsoft completely abandoned NT's cross platform strategy plans. PPC has been on life support and in denial since PPC lost out on every desktop apart from Apple's. Since then, Apple has been leading Mac OS X development away from 68K/PPC dependance and toward a place where they could jump on the only viable platform for desktop PCs.
You can cry for PPC, but there isn't any way that Apple could continue to develop a processor platform entirely independant from the rest of the desktop PC world and remain competitive with the economies of scale enjoyed by Intel/AMD, particularly after its PPC partners gave up.
--
Linux is a very useful tool for many jobs, but its versatility is actually a major barrier for anyone trying to deploy it on the desktop. Everything is splintered to fit various different needs. Commonality and standarization is the value Apple adds with their products; the processor and underlying core OS are mere elements.
Apple can jump to Intel because they control the whole Mac world. Microsoft couldn't manage to keep Windows 2000 up on Alpha, PowerPC or MIPS because they shared control of the PC world with manufacturers.
Similarly, while Apple benefits from solid BSD foundation code, they could theoretically adapt Mac OS X Cocoa frameworks to live on top of Windows (as OSE was), Solaris or Linux (yes I realize that would not be very practical). But the point is, Apple's core competency was not PPC+BSD. It is the "Mac experience," which has little to do with individual components that might be in a Mac.
Parent