How to Install Debian on Mac mini 527
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."
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.
Me? (Score:3, Interesting)
Use Ubuntu (Debian) (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Interesting)
And what about dual booting? What about people who buy a mac mini and use it with osx but also want to use linux on it for a host of reasons?
Re:Why? (Score:1, Interesting)
Furthermore, there's some applications (like HTPC) where Linux simply has better User Interface options than OS X. (gasp)
Re:Me? (Score:3, Interesting)
you and four other people.
most of us will use the best tool for the job. that is why i use os x AND darwinports. i get the best of both worlds. until iphoto, itunes, and imovie have comprable equivalents on linux then it's a moot point. for me, i need java, perl, mysql, php, and python. hmmm...already there. X11. there. the only real reason i'd need to run lunux is if i was doing kernel development or something x86 specific. and i don't.
and by the way, i have linux installed on my pc at home. i've run linux since 1998 (red hat 5.2). my "switch" if you will came a couple of years ago when i needed a new laptop and didn't want to pay the ms tax and hardware compatibility was less than perfect for linux on laptops, though it is better now. plus, i have three children and lots of digital movies.
Re:keep in mind (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1274
IBM behind on G5s? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
I want to get a Mini and start using OS X as my main (but not only) OS. After living with a 17" Powerbook for a few months, I'm ready to switch - well, switch back anyway, until Win2K I was a Mac guy.
But if I end up liking it as much as I expect I will, I'll want a dual G5 at some point. Then what would become of the Mini?
Problem now solved: the Mini would become a Linux development server (something I always need a few of around).
Very nice. And by setting it up for dual-boot I get can keep it as a backup Mac as well.
Re:Why ? (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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".
Re:Article Text (just incase of slashdotting) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Use Ubuntu (Debian) (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Thank you Apple! (Score:2, Interesting)
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!".
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
XFS, Reiser, ext2, etc, etc... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently you either haven't heard the horror stories about UFS, or you're one of The Few The Proud The Etc. who've had good experience with it.
Apt is handy. And a hell of a lot easier to use than software update, ime- with debian, any gui app you have is updated through apt. No going to Adobe's site to download updates, going to Macromedia's site to download updates, no downloading Quicksilver and copying it to the Appllications folder every single week, etc. It makes the environment quite a bit more transparent.
Especially when it comes to hardware. Debian makes beige macs and blue g3s (machines that SUCK for OS X) useable, and more importantly- the system isn't strapped to the PPC.... which enables us (my workplace) to spend a heck of a lot less on server hardware. And if you're running it on PPC, you're not stuck with PCI cards and hardware with OS X drivers available- you can run anything that has a linux driver- a good example would be Debian Stable shipping with drivers for common Realtek ethernet chipsets- something that's a driver install on either OS 9 OR OS X. A driver you have to _download_.
Server-wise, I'm a lot more comfortable with linux than I am with OS X. I can get around it, but I just _don't_ like using it headless. The GUI's the entire point of the OS, and if I'm not going to be using it, I'll run something that takes advantage of the features I DO want. The box in the closet could be a pentium three, a Sparc, an SGI or a PPC, but if it's got debian installed, it doesn't matter. (compare SGI, solaris, and Apple command line environments... bleh.)
Re:Use Ubuntu (Debian) (Score:3, Interesting)
Well that's funny. I feel exactly the opposite about the whole thing. When I want to get work done, I fire up the Mac. Things just work right. It stays out of my way while I complete my work.
When I want to experiment, play and tinker endlessly with the system (it seems most often to get it working the way it already should, or find another project that works better) I fire up the Linux box. When I want to spend time learning how to get something working or the elements of a project I fire up the Linux box.
Not saying that one is better than the other, it's just interesting that you find you're more productive on a Linux box.
Re:Cheap portability check (Score:3, Interesting)
Just curious, but why don't you replace it? 40GB drives run about $50-60 or so now, and most of the ones on currently the market only have 1 platter and run pretty cool and quiet.
Re:Why ? (Score:2, Interesting)
While it's fun if you've got hours to kill to muck about with Linux, installing bits of software here and there, OS X is simply ready to use. Plug in your printer, camera, scanner, it'll just work, and there's good quality software to use with them. Linux has nothing to compare to the quality of even software in the iLife suite, let alone the Pro applications that Apple offers. OS X is the consummate "home" operating system.
I like Linux, it's a fantastic server OS, but in my opinion, the desktop software is lacking massively because it has no integration. Best of breed picture editing might be made by (for instance) a GNOME favouring author, which won't play nicely with best of breed word processor which is written without using that toolkit. Actual features which simply don't exist - not to mention the more esoteric things like look-and-feel differences from having different toolkits on the same desktop. It's not particularly pleasant even on the Mac when some apps are more Carbon than Cocoa based, so mixing Qt, GTK+ and other styles (Firefox, OOo, etc.), which are even more fundamentally different is just bad. I'm not belittling choice, just pointing out for me that the Open Source desktop has some fundamental flaws in my opinion, things which stop the job getting done.
Of course these are all just my opinions, but it's nice to not sit waiting for functionality to arrive, and just get on with it.
Re:No offense (Score:2, Interesting)
I used Linux mainly before I switched to Mac, and it just seems to me that since I switched (early 10.2 time) OS X has been accelerating away from Linux in the functionality areas that I require.