Slashdot Log In
How to Install Debian on Mac mini
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:17 PM
from the because-you-can dept.
from the because-you-can dept.
wikinerd writes "After the hype about Mac mini, a Linux consultant wrote a detailed guide on how to install Debian on Mac mini. The whole procedure takes about an hour, but you will need to erase the hard disk and learn to live without the AirPort Extreme, since it's unsupported. The guide also explains how you can dual-boot with Mac OS X and Debian and gives you ideas on how to set up your partitions."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
How to Install Debian on Mac mini
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 527 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.idobi.com/)
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://jjjiii.livejournal.com/)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, could someone explain to me why similar remarks about Windows aren't modded up on stories about x86 hardware? What about all the other proprietary UNIX-like operating systems in addition to OS X. Why doesn't every Linux story have a modded up comment about HP-UX, Solaris, Irix and others asking "why use Linux?". What's so special about OS X? Sure, it's a nice OS but in no way is it equal or better than Linux in every possible aspect and for everyone.
Linux has many things going for it that OS X does not. And even if it didn't, some people would use it just for the freedom [gnu.org]. I personally have an iBook running Ubuntu and my sister is dual booting Fedora & OS X. I also have a friend using debian exclusively on his iBook for many years.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that absurd? It's no worse than buying a PC to run Windows.
"Why not just buy a Shuttle XPC instead?"
Because for the same price as the Mac, you'll get a shuttle PC without a motherboard, CPU, memory, disk, or drives. An actual working Shuttle PC, built, to similar specifications will be about $950
"By not using OS X, you negate the main factor behind buying a Mac in the first place"
Indeed. Unless your reasons for buying were the price, the size, or the neat design.
and in so doing significantly reduce its value when compared with equivilently priced PC hardware."
What equivalently-priced PC hardware? For that price, in a shop, you'll get a beige box PC filled with the cheapest components they could find. Try selling that in 2 years, and compare it to the price of a secondhand Mac Mini then
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How confused can you possibly get? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/...id=44091&cid=4592270)
Nobody, not even Apple, has said this.
"Easy to port X11 applications
With the complete suite of the standard X11 display server software, client libraries and developer toolkits, X11 for Mac OS X makes it even simpler to port Linux and Unix applications to the Mac." -- Apple's X11 Page [apple.com]
What you might not realize is that there are already a significant number of X11 apps that have already been ported. This is what the OP was basing his statements on.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ladle.demon.co.uk/)
Maybe you just don't get on with the Mac UI. Such people do exist. I understand that if you want focus-follows-mouse in Mac OS X, you either get a compromise where it only works on X apps, or you have to spend $40 on third party virtual desktop software.
Mac Mini is definitely a cuter form factor than anything else out there right now.
I'm tempted to get a Mini just in order to try out Mac OS X, but I'm dubious enough about Mac OS that having the option to replace it with Linux if I don't like it is a selling point for the hardware.
Article Text (just incase of slashdotting) (Score:2, Informative)
(http://jaredsutton.com/)
Introduction
Apple's Mac Mini is something which a lot of Linux users have been waiting for: An inexpensive, readily available PowerPC system in a small, quiet and attractive chassis.
Debian is very popular on Intel i386 compatible systems. Due to the open source nature of the Linux kernel and the Debian operating system, it is possible to build the same software to run on the PowerPC processor found inside the Mac Mini. It's simple to swap your big, noisy old PC for the slim, svelte Mac Mini, and this page aims to show you how to do just this.
Personally, I bought the Mac Mini as a replacement for my girlfriend's aging 1GHz Pentium-III system. Thanks to the portability of Debian and its advanced package management tools, making her new Mac look like her old PC took only an hour or so.
Hardware
The hardware specification is somewhat less than stellar by 2005 standards, but still perfectly adequate. One can choose between a 1.25GHz or 1.42GHz PowerPC G4, both running with 512K on-chip L2 cache and a 166MHz "MaxBus" front side bus. This is markedly less powerful than contemporary Intel or AMD x86 systems, but for the overwhelming majority of tasks this is more than enough processing ability. If you need more power, you can always stack a few more Minis on top;-)
The advantage of the G4 used in the Mac Mini is that it produces very little heat relative to an x86 processor with comparable computational power, making it ideal for the small space inside the Mac Mini. The G4 used dissipates around 21W at 1.42GHz, and 18.3W at 1.25GHz.
The other hardware in the box is also mature and reliable (or, if you're a glass-half-empty person, cheap and slow). The Mac Mini has an RV280 GPU ("Radeon 9200") with 32MB of dedicated DDR SDRAM. The RV280 doesn't have fancy features such as hardware geometry or lighting transformation, but it's more than adequate for people who aren't interested in playing the latest 3D games. The 3D hardware it does possess is supported by XFree86, which is excellent news.
The system has a single DIMM socket which takes standard PC2700 modules, although it is slightly tricky to gain access to it. The largest available upgrade at present is a 1GB module, but I believe that the Mac Mini will also be certified for use with 2GB modules when they enter production. For the average Linux user, 1GB will be more than adequate. The 256MB Apple supply is far too little for MacOSX.
For heat and noise reasons, Apple have chosen to use a 2.5" (laptop-size) hard drive in the Mac Mini, making end-user upgrades fiddly and expensive. The 40GB or 80GB hard drive supplied is unlikely to be large enough for everyone. Apple appears to be shipping a mix of 4200rpm and 5400rpm units in the 40GB size, but currently all 80GB units are 4200rpm. The 5400rpm drives are apparently faster, presumably due to their shorter head seek times. My unit has an 80GB Toshiba MK8025GAS.
The Mac Mini uses Apple's "Intrepid" north bridge. It appears to be a very compact derivative of the eMac's motherboard design. This diagram illustrates the hardware in the Mac Mini as exactly as I can. Note that the MaxBus and SDRAM are clocked at 166MHz, and the internal optical drive is configured as a slave device on the same ATA-100 bus used by the hard drive. This is a cost-saving measure on Apple's part, as the Intrepid chipset has a second ATA channel that could be used for the optical drive.
The Airport card and Bluetooth modules are mounted on an optional mezzanine card. If your system did not come with either of these options, the mezzanine card will not be present. I am told that the modem is not present on models sold into the educational market.
Noise
It's quiet -- very quiet. But not silent. The only noise is the barely audible hum from the hard disk. Thanks to the fluid dynamic bearings, this isn't the annoying high-pitched whine that older 2.5" disks produced. I'm very pernickety about noise, and I find it quite acceptable.
but why? (Score:1, Redundant)
you could make a mini-itx computer for much less, and put debian on that, not to mention it'll be much more fun
OK (Score:5, Funny)
And iMovie, and iDVD and iTunes and Photoshop and Poser and Bryce and Vue D'Esprit and... wait... why do I want to do this again?
Re:OK (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.nixnuts.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 01 2004, @01:43PM)
WHy would you want to? (Score:2, Insightful)
So why would you use the same OS, on what is essentially older, and far less impressive hardware, when for the same price you get the same OS, and FAR better hardware?
Please fill me in.
Re:WHy would you want to? (Score:4, Insightful)
You *can* find faster and (not much) cheaper PCs, but it will be large, ugly, and loud.
Apparently (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.primotechnology.com/)
Cool, man (Score:1, Funny)
What! No Airport Extreme! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:What! No Airport Extreme! (Score:4, Interesting)
Wireless support in linux distros is actually quite good these days.
I'm on an older pismo powerbook that dual boots osx and ydl. I plugged in a dlink 802.11b card and osx didn't see it at all. I ended up paying for a $40 aerocard driver. (There is an opensource driver but it doesn't support wep or wpa for 90% of the cards). Linux did see it and prompted me for the wep key etc.
Then a year later I got an airport card from work. I plugged it in, and removed the dlink card. OSX made me reconfigure the card, including plugging in my wep key again. Linux asked me if I wanted to migrate my wireless settings over to the new airport. It required 0 setup and "just worked".
Why? (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://theari.com/)
I just ordered a PowerBook. I'm going to run MacOS X on it. If I wanted a laptop running Debian, I already have one. I want something with absolutely perfect support for all the hardware on the machine, but which doesn't hold me back like Windows does. MacOS X is the answer, and I bought a PowerBook to run it.
If I got a Mini, it, too, would run MacOS X. I already have Debian boxes, and I didn't pay $500 just to spend an hour undermining half the benefits of having the machine in the first place.
Remember, a Mac Mini = a Mac, period. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.funwithheadlines.net/)
Debian and OSX (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.alexwasserman.com/)
I have OSX. I have apt. I just installed fink, and got apt with it. I installed Apple's X11 and I run GNOME in full-screen mode. I like the way it runs with Aqua. The desktop is the same in both. I use LyX a lot, but don't like the Aqua QT version so I use the X11 version with GNOME it works better, but when I click "View DVI" it switches back to Aqua and opens TeXShop because I like that program.
I love that kind of interoperability. I get the best of both worlds. I can apt-get install stuff, and still get nice OSX software running alongside it.
If I did want debian on my powerbook I would install Ubuntu. I has a great install process, has a clean desktop even my parents could use, and runs well. But I wouldn't give up my Airport Extreme card for it.
Why - Because OS X and BSD are not Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I like Linux, and I like to switch it up sometimes - maybe on Tuesdays I dont feel like running OS X
2) When I'm working in an all Linux environment, it's often more convenient to have a full Linux OS to test on, work with, and interface with the rest of the system. YES, OS X has BSD under there, but that's not Linux, as any BSD fan will be quick to point out, and there _is_ a difference between being able to fun some linux apps on your OS, and actually having Linux on your machine.
-Jay
Debian on PPC (Score:1)
(http://www.bidon.ca/)
I've been using Debian GNU/Linux on my ibook for two years and I love it (except for the buggy motherboards, but Apple finally fixed that). OSX is perhaps Unix, but it doesn't give me the freedom that Debian GNU/Linux does, nor does it have apt-get
It Just Like... (Score:2, Insightful)
*Shakes head, walks away*
keep in mind (Score:1, Informative)
i can live without bluetooth and the apple modem support, but no audio
Re:keep in mind (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1274
Yellow Dog (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.familyreserve.com/)
Use Ubuntu (Debian) (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.markwatson.com/)
Why run Linux on a Mac? I find that Linux has less to distract me from work. I like to boot OS X to edit video, etc., but for writing (OpenOffice.org) and programming (Eclipse for Java, Python, and C++) there is less fluff on Linux to distract me from my work.
Mac Mini Linux Servers (Score:1)
hmm.... why (Score:1)
(http://www.jonandkerry.com/)
You know it... (Score:5, Funny)
- A set of Debian CDs: 5,-
- "Making her new Mac look like her old PC": Priceless!
Maybe this should be called... (Score:2, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday July 26 2004, @10:01PM)
Gateway system? (Score:1)
(http://www.kcore.org/)
WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.biglumber.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 18, @12:25PM)
Perhaps questions about why someone would want to install software on a computer, is an attempt to start up one of those stupid jokes. 1) In Soviet Russia, Mac installs Debian on YOU! 2) Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Mini Macs. 3) ??? 4) Profit!
But seriously, since when did asking why (as opposed to how) someone would do something unusual with their computer, switch from being a source of shame and embarrassment, to being a source of pride such that people trip over each other trying to get the First Post so everyone can see what a luser they are? Fuckwits.
Firewire problem? (Score:4, Informative)
A few odd problems I've discovered:
* If I plug the firewire port into the firewire port on my PC, it seems to interfere with the PC's power supply. It's like holding down the "reset" button on the PC. This makes it impossible to use "firewire target disk mode" on the Mac Mini.
However, I'll wager that if he used a 4 pin Firewire cable and it would have worked fine. The 6 pin cable supplys power as well as data, and both the PC and the mini are supplying power. It's probably a ground loop.
And.. (Score:2)
Deb on G5? (Score:2)
(http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/1045)
Does anyone know if you can safely install Debian on a G5 yet? The G5's require the operating system to run the fans to keep it from melting itself, and I hadn't heard of any distro other than Yellow Dog claiming to provide that (also, no information about this that I could find on debian.org).
--realinvalidname
Why would you do this? (Score:2)
(http://www.realistic-dragon.co.uk/)
From your list of gripes ... (Score:5, Informative)
No SSH server
Open up the System Preferences app. On the "Internet & Network" row, click the "Sharing" icon. Look down the Services list for "Remote Login" and enable it. Done !
Autoupdate keeps on telling me I need 40mb of updates for an iPod and I don't own one.
Highlight the update when it appears in the list, then goto the Update menu option and choose "ignore update".
Image and font rendering isn't as good as pango/xorg
You have sky high standards mate. Image & font rendering are stunning on Mac OS X, and from the few pango'd screenshots I can find I can't see any difference
Expose is nice but more of a gimick than a useful feature
Huh? You're joking. Try using Mac OS X for some real work and get your screen a bit busy. Multiple terminal app windows, a brower or two, mail, etc and you'll soon discover just how useful it is. Especially if you map the Hot Corners of the screen to the different functions. Parking my mouse pointer in my Top Left corner exposes all app windows in the same group. Top Right exposes everything. Bottom Right exposes the Desktop, and Bottom Left turns on the screen saver.
I'll give you the point about the DVD Region locking. Discovered that pain in the ass when I went to the USA recently and grabbed a DVD in the airport to keep me amused on the flight back. Only allows you to switch Regions 4 times before you're stuck. Boo hiss
Don't you think you're being just a touch nit picky with the rest though?
Something to think about (Score:2, Insightful)
Cheap portability check (Score:5, Interesting)
I installed dual-boot Debian testing the day I got the mini, however. (debian-ppc lost my success report mail from weeks ago, so I can't cite precedence over this guy.)
Why install Linux on an OS X dongle?
Because it's probably the cheapest new non-x86 machine you can buy. I care about the portability of my software to other architectures, and I can check them on the mini. Also, it's big-endian.
At some point I'm going to buy a nice Athlon 64 box and run it in pure AMD64 mode. That will give me a sizeof(void *) != sizeof(int) box, and mostly a non-i386 machine. (It's still little-endian, though.) Between the mini and the Athlon 64, I figure I've covered most of the common portability problems, without spending too much money on hardware I can't use for something else like OS X or Halflife 2.
Why replace Mac OS X? (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://onesadcookie.com/)
I have to say, I personally wouldn't replace Mac OS X with Linux. On the rare occasions where a piece of Linux software really is the best tool for the job (eg. GIMP, Ethereal) it's usually easy enough to get it up and running under Apple's X11. For me, running Linux would be no advantage.
I'm not running my Mac as a server, though. If I were buying a Mac Mini to be a server, I'd be seriously considering running Gentoo on it. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with Mac OS X client as a server OS, but I do think that Gentoo is easier to administer and keep up-to-date.
My final thought is, that there's always a place for the idealist in this world. Sure, they'll be ridiculed (read the comments here, and many other stories on Slashdot), but face it -- your beloved Linux wouldn't exist if it weren't for the idealism of a few people. The sorts of people who would run Linux on a Mac Mini now are the sorts of people who are contributing patches to, or making donations to, your favorite open-source software projects. They're the ones who are ensuring that in three or four years' time when the Mac Mini can't run Mac OS X Ocelot acceptably, that you can install Linux flawlessly and get another few years use out of the machine. Why they do those things doesn't really matter. "Because I can" is as good a reason as any.
Re:Why replace Mac OS X? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @06:53PM)
Indeed. Maybe back when Macs were running Mac OS 9, or even OS X 10.0 and 10.1, there might have been an advantage to Linux... but since Jaguar came out I've been hard-pressed to come up with a reason to run FreeBSD, let alone BSD's adopted cousin Linux. People talk about running Linux on a Mac laptop and I look at them like they've grown an extra head... Apple's laptops are uninspiring if you don't get to run Apple's software on them.
If in a few years Ocelot requires more beef than the Mini can provide (unlikely, my daughter's running Panther on a 1999 iMac and it's actually faster than with Jaguar), you'd do way better with Darwin than Linux.
I can maybe see an advantage to the Mini hardware for a little while, but as soon as someone comes out with a nice slab case for your Mini-ITX boards, maybe 8" by 10" but only an inch thick, why spend more for a less expandible box?
Apple is not quite there yet (Score:3, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I bought a 17" Powerbook. While I'm fairly happy with it, they are a bit hacker-unfriendly in some respects.
The UJ-825 "SuperDrive" in mine is RPC-2 with a vengeance, for example. It won't even read the raw data from an out-of-region DVD, making even VNC useless, and it doesn't look like any firmware hacks will be forthcoming.
Also, because Broadcom will not release specs on the Airport Extreme, no "monitor mode" is available, so passive wardriving is impossible without using a 3rd-party wireless card.
Maybe someone smarter than me will eventually reverse engineer and fix these problems, but it's not looking too good so far. IMO, Apple needs to get back to it's hacker-friendly roots. [metromac.org]
Linux vs. OS X (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Thursday January 26 2006, @04:44AM)
on one side we have fanatical fans that have little reason or understanding behind their choice of HW and OS and on the other side... its the same damn thing.
Personally, I can't STAND linux. And the Penguinistas are really getting on my nerves. I believe it is a great OS, but soley on the point that it is free. Yes, and it gets better every day... but that's part of the problem... every single day, the damn thing changes... and from my experience, it breaks itself at regular intervals.
Many Apple users are annoying too... fanatical, but really a bunch of winers. Apple is proprietary, but it is an entity that tries very hard to take care of its customers (iPod batteries notwithstanding). If you want the HW but don't like the GUI, don't use it, you can run KDE if you want (I'm sure there are others). If you can afford it, and don't mind the GUI, what you get is excellent HW, excellent support, and a machine with software that works nearly flawlessly. I am really impressed with how Apple has turned itself around, and just when Microsoft started falling on its face... who knew this would happen?
As for the 64-bit processing questions... I just don't get it... besides games, I think, what is the average or lower educational user going to do with applications that can access more than 2GB of memory? Who can afford more than 2GB of memory? The Mini won't even hold more than a GB (though I hope someday someone makes a 2GB stick that will work in it).
This post, Debian on Mini, was bound to happen. And it is neat, I guess, for the 'science' of doing something the manufacturers never intended. I think linux on the iPod is neat, too. But that's it. Its neato mosquito, man, but... almost entirely worthless, other than having the experience of doing an install that might be tricky.
I can't wait to see the /. post where some genius finally gets linux to install on his cat... now that would be impressive, and turn something totally useless into something that might be incredibly useful.
"like her old PC"? (Score:1)
I see. So her old PC had no wireless, no sound, and flaky video?
aging system? (Score:1)
(http://www.xyu.ca/)
yeah.. those shitty old 1ghz p3 machines can't run ANYTHING anymore...
Thank you Apple! (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/religion/)
Reading the above comments by OSX users is funny as hell! "We can use Photoshop!", "We can use Word!", "We can use iWhatever!". The only important thing is "getting work done with the best tool!". Basicaly all they say applies to Windows, but being made by Apple makes it acceptable. The concept of freedom in the development and use of software is just a sidekick, something that can be convenient but not at all necessary.
Thanks a lot Apple! OSX has attracted -- like a bright light attracts flies -- the Windows rejects looking for a company to worship that rided the free Unices bandwagon for years, but always whinning about the need for pragmatism and pissing in the ideals that made it all possible.
Good ridance, and "think different!".
Why I would install Debian on Mac Mini (Score:2)
(http://www.karastathis.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 05 2005, @07:51PM)
Not exactly /. newsworthy.. (Score:1)
Partitioning: hfsplus Driver Still Unsafe? (Score:2)
(http://192.168.0.1/)
I've just bought a Mac, and have been dual-booting between Debian and Panther. Unlike the author, however, I've just been using a large HFS+ partition to move things about. I was under the impression that recent Linux kernels incorporated the supposedly safe HFS+ driver from here: ArdisTech [ardistech.com]
Was I mistaken? Are there still valid reasons to not to let Linux write to an HFS+ partition?
Mini now looks like her old PC (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/~siriuskase | Last Journal: Wednesday April 18 2007, @01:08PM)
that sounds like sacrilige. I hope the old PC was running Debian and the new setup was double boot. But, then the Jobs co writes at least as much scary legal shit as the Gates gang. So maybe he's doing the right thing.
Re:Why ? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Saturday December 07 2002, @12:34AM)
In terms of user-friendliness, OSX wins hands down, but it is for performance and customizability that ppl will turn to Linux on a mac.
Re:Why ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Slackware? (Score:2)
This is why I run MSDOS! No bloat and blindingly fast! And by the way, who needs anti-aliased font!?!?!?! That just consumes extremely valuable CPU and memory resources!!!!!
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Interesting)
why? because some people prefer linux :)
although OSX is 'unix' under the hood, I still cant stand the 'bubbly' backwards interface. Another great reason is to play around with the source code on a different platform. Although I would never buy an apple product, if someone gave me a mac, I would wipe the OS immediately and install linux.
Re:Slackware? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.moremayo.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 16 2007, @10:07PM)
Slackware, officially, only supports x86 processors.
The Mac dosen't use an x86 processor.
Debian, on the other hand, does produce a PowerPC Linux distro.
Me? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:question about debian (Score:1)
(http://tyro.homelinux.com/)
Re:Mezzanine slot (Score:1)
(http://www.2600hq.com/?refer=slashdot | Last Journal: Monday September 06 2004, @10:16AM)
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Flamebait)
(http://www.open-rsc.org/)
No kidding. We're finally able to buy cheap functional BSD or BSDesque machines and people want to install Linux on top of that? Why? Not enough security problems? A fixation to put things in the wrong place ? An aversion to dp->d_type ?
Re:Mezzanine slot (Score:1)
(http://www.apoapsis.net/)
Maybe this will help you: Disassembly Documentation [smashsworld.com] for the Mac mini.
Re:No 802.11g !!! (Score:2)
(http://www.polyprecords.com/ | Last Journal: Friday October 03 2003, @02:20PM)
Re:Great (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why ? (Score:1, Insightful)
MAC
That would be "Mac". It doesn't stand for anything!
MacOS-X
ARGH! "Mac OS X" .. "Mac OS X" .. how did you come up with "MacOS-X"? Is that the evil dude's base in a James Bond movie or something? "Take him to... Macos-X!"
I swear I think the next time I see someone write "MAC", my head will rotate 360 degrees and turn Bondi Blue.
Re:Debian boot but no OS9 boot? (Score:2)
(http://www.cafepress.com/darwinos | Last Journal: Tuesday April 08 2003, @10:53PM)
Re:Debian boot but no OS9 boot? (Score:2)
(http://www.mikeash.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 11 2004, @12:57AM)
Making Debian work on every new system requires effort on the part of Debian developers, with whom Apple has no association. This is completely free for Apple.
So, what's your problem?
Re:Why ? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://electrob.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 27, @01:42PM)
The only risk is if a naughty exploit hits debian. But it's a risk that win-only or mac-only setups have, too. Especially win
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Insightful)
If I want to buy a Mac Mini and stick Linux on it is my business and no one else's. Hell if I wanna buy a Mac Mini and dismantle it and turn it into a dubious modern art sculpture that is up to me too.
I swear the world is in such a piss poor state purely because people are massively obsessed by what other people are doing.
Re:Why ? (Score:3, Insightful)
i've been thinking of picking one up totally based on the hardware for the price. i want a small quiet machine that isn't made of cheap looking plastic. i don't really want an intel solution (cappuccinopc) or one that is too pricey (hush).
if i could be sure that i can basically have my cake (minimac) and eat it to (linux) i'm a happy camper and i'm sure steve jobs won't mind me reformatting that disk
Re:Why ? (Score:2)
(http://www.angelfire...epublican/index.blog | Last Journal: Thursday July 27 2006, @12:00AM)
People like me. I have two Macs running Linux right now. I'm thinking about scooping up a third for the same purpose.
Linux on the PPC really stomps ass.
LK
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Funny)
(http://irc-galleria.net/view.php?nick=Mortal | Last Journal: Sunday September 14 2003, @03:46AM)
Re:Why ? (Score:1)
(http://ghelm.sourceforge.net/)
SERVER (Score:2)
(http://amongthechosen.com/)
If you don't need a GUI, you don't need OS X (with few exceptions). Debian, in my experience, makes a vastly better server than OS X on the same hardware.
Re:question about debian (Score:2)
(http://lavincolindo.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 20 2006, @05:50PM)
From someone who gave OSX a try... (Score:2)
- Because Unix, for me, means very rarely having to reboot to install a security upgrade. MacOSX isn't very Unixy in that regard
- Because I have to do lots of stuff to make my iPod work under OSX, due to some silly iTunes DRM thing, whereas GTKPod just works. Also the tag editor in GTKPod (just click the text to edit) is simpler than iTunes (right click context menu).
- All my work is in OpenOffice and JOffice isn't very good.
Re:Why ? (Score:2)
Re:Why ? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://moreminimal.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 15 2003, @06:24PM)
I'm tempted to mod the parent as both overrated a troll, but I'll respond instead. And this is coming from someone who is typing on a dual G5 with two other Macs in view.
The general answer is that it could be the user simply *likes* Linux or Debian (for a host of reasons that really don't need explanation to most Slashdotters).
It could also be that the user is philosophically committed to Open Source software, or doesn't have the means or inclination to commit to an OS that doesn't come bundles with something as basic as a decent FTP client.
It could be the user has older Mac hardware that feels sluggish with OS X. Apple has done good work optimizing OS X since its first release, but it's still pretty heavy.
It could be that the user is building a server and has no need for the desktop goodness of OS X.
It could be that the user was given or acquired a Mac box cheaply, but is committed to Linux.
It could be that the user has acquired a Mac without an operating system, and finds the investment in Panther unaffordable.
In the case of the Mac Mini, it could be the user has need of Linux in a small form factor.
It could be that the user has a Linux application need and wishes to take advantage of the PPC platform's modest power and cooling requirements.
It could be that the user is committed to Linux, but appreciates Apple's design ethic.
Really, one could go on and on, but here are a few answers to your question. I suspect, however, your comment was rhetorical.
It's "Mac," not "MAC," by the way. And there's no dash in OS X.
Re:Why ? (Score:2)
(http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~njh/)
(As someone who got fed up with the poor hardware support and crappy firewire hardware)
Re:Debian boot but no OS9 boot? (Score:1)
Also you can install OS 9 from inside OS X and have it set up in such a way that when you're working inside OS X and attempt to run OS 9 app it will start OS 9 until you finish using the app - all without having to reboot and allowing you to switch between OS X and OS 9 apps on the fly.
Re:Now available, Yugo motors for your BMW ! (Score:2)
Re:Live without AirPort Extreme? (Score:2)
I did try YD on my Powerbook. Then I discovered that AE doesn't work, not to mention the laptop was hot as hell because proper fan control wasn't implemented. I put OSX back on it the next day.
It is called Classic Mode, a Mac 9 emulator... (Score:1)
I have yet to try it on my Mini...
Re:Why ? (Score:2)
Honestly, do they think that people use Linux for the eye-candy? Maybe they want an OS that suits their needs? Maybe they want an OS that is free both in speech and in beer. Maybe Linux simply outperforms Mac OS? Maybe they prefer Gnome or KDE over Aqua? Maybe they don't need GUI?
Yes, OS X is a fine OS. No, it's not the OS that will end all other OS'es. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread for some people, but it might not suit some other people (even though those people might like the hardware OS X runs on). I have fiddled around with OS X and there are several things in the UI that annoy me. I don't like the OS X style menubar in the top of the screen. I fail to be impressed by the dock, I absolutely hate the minimize/"maximise"/close-buttons.
And before anyone says "But OS X is based on Unix! That's the reason to use OS X!". Well, Linux-users haven't meen migrating to FreeBSD either (which is more free that OS X is), so why would they move to OS X? Becuase of the eye-candy? Think again!
some prefer Linux over OS X, (Score:1)
(http://www.truthspeaker.org/)