Torvalds Switches to a Mac 1162
renai42 writes "Linux creator Linus Torvalds said this afternoon that he's now running an Apple Macintosh as his main desktop, mainly for work reasons, although partly simply because he's a self-described "technology whore" and got the machine for free." And yes, he is running Linux on it ;)
He has been posting from torvalds@ppc970.osdl.org (Score:5, Interesting)
Always good to see another boost to the PPC64 platform though...
He is using linux on a dual g5 (Score:4, Interesting)
Not too happy about this (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the great things about linux which came about organically and entirely incidentally was the fact that it works on commodity hardware. I live in and work as an open source consultant in a developing country; this stuff is not important, it is critical. Precious few people here can afford non-commodity computing assets (software or hardware).
Torvalds is the figurehead for the movement though, whether he likes it or not. I'd venture a guess that over 90% of linux users use x86 platforms; it feels a bit like the BMW CEO driving a Mercedes. Both good cars, but there's more to the decision of what to drive than that.
I am reminded of a story of the early days in the Chrysler-Benz merger; the Chrysler top execs would drive to meetings in a Chrysler van (they called it "the clown car"), whereas the Benz execs would show up in all sorts of fancy vehicles.
It's a matter of understanding your base better by using what they use.
Erh, sorry, ranting. I'm still infinitely grateful to Linus, and I'm not as upset about this as the post may suggest, but I still feel it isn't a good idea.
Re:Do the posters even read the fucking articles?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Which distro I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why should it matter? Here's one reason. (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone who worrries that x86 support is going to end anytime soon is just silly. Thankfully, I don't see anyone claiming that anywhere. The sky is hardly falling.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter somewhere. Personally, I'm hoping that by having the "father of Linux" running Macintosh hardware that more attention will be made to PPC ports, incorporating more capabilities of the hardware, and bringing some of the distros more on par with their x86 cousins.
Are you aware that it's only been within the past few months that there have been some fixes for sleep support on Apple laptops? I'm running a PowerBook here myself, but until more recently couldn't even consider running Linux on it, as if I did I couldn't put the system to sleep (and expect it to wake back up, at least). The built-in AirPort Extreme wireless adapter is likewise unsupported.
Having Mr. Torvalds running on Macintosh hardware may help illuminate these issues, and get a push going to get Apple to open up their specs a bit more, or at the very least attract more Open Source developers to the cause. Personally, while I run OS X as my main desktop environment on my PowerBook, I wouldn't mind seeing PPC Linux on-par with x86 Linux when it comes to hardware compatibility. It's close, but there is room for improvement.
(And for the record, while OS X is my day-to-day OS for getting work done, I do keeep an Ubuntu PPC live CD in my laptop bag for those times when I want/need to run Linux, and have several Intel-based Linux boxes which I routinely access through the PowerBook).
Yaz.
Re:What distro is he running? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how long it will be... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Big Deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, I bought a mac to run linux apps, but I also stick with osX for the desktop and run X11 over it. it's only a g3 700 iBook, but it still feels fine.
My gaming machine runs linux all the time (rtcw nightly with it) and my work box, is a desktop machine, and runs linux too.
I wouldn't use a Mac with Linux on it for a desktop, but LT doesn't *need* a desktop for what he's doing.
Ah, well. It's not like he's using a Sun or anything. Move along people.
The end of 'eating your own dog food' is (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd prefer that Linus use OS X occasionally so he could see what's going on in the OS X world and decide if it might be a good to incorp/cooperate into/with Linux.
I'd love to see a RendezVous like technology of auto configuring hot pluggable devices that can be discovered on a LAN.
It makes printing and sharing hardware and software a whole lot easier on the Mac side of the wall.
Re:Why run Linux on a Mac, if you're not Linus? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd dearly love to get a dual G5, both for video editing and my daily work. I'd especially love to see how Hercules runs on one.
Reading between the lines (Score:2, Interesting)
2: Mac software sucks -- even when it's included for free. (And I always thought the myth was that it was the software, Stupid, that made Macs something special.)
3: If Apple ever finds out who gave Torvalds the hardware -- they're toast!
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just another linux machine with that horrible X thing on it.
Like it or not, but that isn't the case.
Recently, I've been considering buying a new laptop. I last had an iBook G3/500, recently bequethed to my girlfriend, with me using a PDA/handheld as my main computer for the last year or so. So, thinking about getting another full laptop, I've been shopping around. But since I've had my fill of OS X, I was looking at PCs too, since I'd probably be fine on a PC running Windows or Linux. But I keep coming back to the Macs. With the quality of hardware, the size/weight factor it's hard to find a notebook of comparable price, one that isn't a big piece of junk.
Saying that a Mac without OS X isn't a Mac just isn't true. There's more to a Mac than software. Most folks who think so have never used a Mac, not for any long period of time. Similarily, a PC running OS X isn't a Mac. Maybe an x86 machine produced by Apple could make it as one, though.
Re:Why run Linux on a Mac, if you're not Linus? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop talking crap. Linux *is* ready for desktop. It was ready A LONG time ago.
It is only up to users if they will use it. But there is no correlation between Linux ready for desktop and number of users running it as a desktop.
I mean, is Windows 2.0 ready for desktop? Is Windows 3.1 ready for desktop? Is Windows 95 (98, Me?) ready? Compare all of that with what Linux delivers today. Now compare the number of users still using Windows 95 to number of users of Linux (for desktop!).
Re:Not too happy about this (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux is run by the community, not by one person. If Linus all of a sudden said "I'm going to work on MS Windows now and will never ever ever again touch Linux" it wouldn't matter. Linux will go on without even a blip...
If indeed something bad were to happen just because one person in thousands that develop for Linux went to a different hardware platform, then how stable is Linux afterall? You make it sound like a house of cards built on one card at it's base. It isn't.
And please, do NOT get into that figurehead and image bullshit. I don't have time for that...I just want an OS that's stable, reliable and built tough as nails.
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been ready for mine for some time. Anything I might "need" Windows for (with the sole exception of certain games) runs fine through Wine and/or VMWare.
I realize your comment was an overall defense of Linux usability...but I get just as tired of hearing "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" as I assume you do of "Linux is teh r0x0r!"
For most basic day to day use (e-mail, web browsing, typing up a letter and printing it) Linux is a fine desktop environment needing little tweaking (or at least no more than XP) and has next to zero learning curve as many environments are specifically designed to mimic Windows as faithfully as possible (unfortunately, as some would argue). For many desktop environments (mine in particular) it's superior. For others, it's sub-optimal to be kind.
The simple fact is, "ready for the desktop" is a misnomer and is no more meaningful than any other ridiculous invented memes foisted onto our consciousness by people (usually pundits, analysts, and journalists) who have little, if any, idea what they're talking about.
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:4, Interesting)
Obligatory Apples-are-expensive post? (Score:2, Interesting)
For $2500:
Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
1GHz frontside
bus/processor
512K L2 cache/processor
512MB DDR400 SDRAM
Expandable to 8GB SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA
8x SuperDrive
Three PCI-X Slots
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem
Can you even get a dual-processor Athlon64 motherboard with SATA and PCI-X slots?
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:4, Interesting)
Mind if I call bullshit? [opendarwin.org]
Great! We can finally end the language argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, here ya go, time to STFU about that
"Torvald's response came quickly and succinctly. "My main machine these days is a dual 2GHz G5 (aka PowerPC 970) - it's physically a regular Apple Mac, although it obviously only runs Linux, so I don't think you can call it a Mac any more
If the inventor of it can call the operating system "Linux", then I say that means it's officially "cool" to use the term "Linux" to in fact refer to Joe Blow's "LinuxOS". We;ve more or less dropped saying GNU in front of it, so let's just drop the pedantic grammar fascist lecturing about the difference between a Kernel and the OS.
Now the other issue. He doesn't care about userland space. You know, I think this is a serious problem. Think about this long and hard for awhile. Then rethink about it.
Maybe it's time someone with ultimate say so DID care? Just maybe that might be a good idea seeing as how it's 2005 and not 1995? Look on the shelf at the retail level, how much "Linux" do you see? Perhaps time for some groups to think about forking the kernel and having the forked maintainer dictators actually *care* about userland? Get some much needed standards going? Evolution is not static.
Re:You're all missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)
No it doesn't. It still allows the merging of kernel patches that break mips, arm, 68k, alpha and so on, and of course and especially Sparc.
Which Distro? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why this is important (Score:2, Interesting)
Today, you can't even find the -BENH tree. Every mainline release builds on ppc64, and ppc32 tends to need only tiny patches, if any; when PPC breaks, Linus notices, and cares. PPC is a "tier 1" platform.
Some of this is probably due to bitkeeper -- the ppc development tree was kept in bk before even Linus adopted it, so the common infrastructure probably smooths the path of PPC-specific patches into mainline. But the fact is, when ppc64 is broken in mainline, Linus can't work on any other part of the kernel until it's fixed, and every kernel gets built and booted on such a machine before it can become a release. It makes a big difference in the quality of PPC support in Linux.
Re:Why run Linux on a Mac, if you're not Linus? (Score:1, Interesting)
The OS is what makes the system so insanely great.
I don't see it, honestly.
I have a laptop running OS X for testing purposes. I prefer KDE. There are just so many little things that bug me about OS X. Not being able to maximise properly is a pretty big one. The fact that the trackpad only has one button is another.
I like the overall integration, like how a translucent symbol pops up when you press the "volume up" key - but then it's completely let down by the two or more second lag between you pressing the button and the system actually noticing.
Re:Do the posters even read the fucking articles?! (Score:3, Interesting)
And what if I take all the guts out of the case and replace it with and intel motherboard, CPU, etc. Does that still make me a Mac user?
I'm just curious how you can NOT use the Mac OS and still use a Mac.
Maybe this will clear it up, if I buy an Intel based machine, wipe Windows off of it, and install Linux. Am I still using Windows?!
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:5, Interesting)
Troll-bait aside, as a Mac user running OS X at work and at home, I use X11 all the time. The only problem with OS X's windowing system, Aqua, is that it does not support remote windows. With "that horrible X thing," I can and routinely do open graphical windows spawned by applications on other machines running totally different operating systems. It is the only technology out there that does that that I have ever heard of. Even between macs, try opening iTunes on your home machine from your work machine. X11 is a useful application, not horrible at all.
No news, Alpha was there first (Score:5, Interesting)
So he's just doing the same, this time with a platform not so fancy but with a safer future.
It means an easier life for us Linuxers on PPC, but we were already blessed with great hackers both on the kernel and in other parts; for example the leader(s?) of the Debian X Strike Force are Linux on PPC users.
Now what would be great is if proprietary vendors start porting their stuff... every day I miss things like j2re plugin for Mozilla, a Flash player, Adobe Acrobat and NX. Granted there are alternatives and clones, but gcjwebplugin still crashes Epiphany and ain't Java 2 level yet, swf_player is only playback, no interaction and takes way too much CPU, Evince doesn't do PDF forms and X.Fast (LBX) simply can't work in POTS dial-up situations where NX shines.
My Theory (Score:4, Interesting)
Having a dual-proc PowerPC with G5 (PPC 970) processors will increase the chances that Linus will think about performance issues for such hardware. The 970 has a longer pipeline than the G4, for example, so it's possible to leave quite a bit of performance on the table with code that stalls the pipeline a lot.
If Linus' insights on this for Linux can help the OS X people even find 1% better performance for any publically quoted benchmark, it will have paid for itself many times over.
This is just a SWAG (simple wild-assed guess).
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:2, Interesting)
To enable firewire networking with my friends' WinXP systems, I clicked on a few checkboxes in OS X. In Linux, I have to recompile the kernel.
GNU/Linux is a networking powerhouse: So WHY did it take until Dec 2004 for someone (Xandros) to come up with a VPN client?
Oh, and if Linus or the FSF would allow themselves to see just how wonderful application installs/moves/removals are under OS X then perhaps we would see support for aliases in Linux. Dear LORD the problems that would solve!
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux will be ready as a desktop for the masses in my opinion when the average (L)user can install and remove applications more easily, when it has a ID10T ready help system that doesn't scare the hell out of them (no big words, no jargon), when it has a desktop that offers a fairly complete and polished control panel system like Windows 95/XP/OS9/OSX, when the average A+ moron can install and configure a piece of hardware graphically with drivers and all without a recompile (for when the (L)user takes it to CompUSA) when the user interface has better continuity (I still have problems occasionally with cutting and pasting between apps), etc.
I really dig Linux, especially Slackware, but I'm not putting my mom on it because she lives too far away for me to support it (2300 miles). And even though she is a SASI administrator (annoying database app created for educational use), I'm pretty sure that it'd be a rough haul for her without direct help/me administering the machine. My father, who is mostly a non-user (if you move the icons around, he gets confused) would be completely lost.
Hell, at one school I worked at for a bit, I did some configuring of an OSX box from the command line and the other Network Techs got all freaked out. They were flabbergasted when I setup automated backups of the grade books to the district office using rsync (if you use THAT, who will support THAT if you are not here). Since the Network Techs at my last job couldn't figure out how to do anything other than launch what was listed in the KDE menu, and re-image the machines using the CDs the outside contractor gave them, I have a rather low opinion of Linux's readiness for the masses
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
And how is that going to change if every Linux developer continues using only x86?
That's not a bad idea, if you are trying to improve the performance/reliability of the engine in the sedan you are selling...
In fact, I have seen instances where sports cars are equiped with engines from mid-sized cars, because a few modifications can make it outperform the stock engine of the sports car.
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
Open up a gnome or KDE desktop and do the same thing.
This is just an example but will probably still work unless you choose a program with no file menu on purpose.
Now try your experiment again. Were the menu items in the same order in those programs? How many had sub menus?
Pick five windows programs at random and figure out how to open their options or preferences dialog.
Install a microsoft program like Money or Project. Look for where in the start menu it put it's icon. Now install Office. Look for where that put it's icon (hint, it's not even in programs).
Open up the control panel and look in the Power settings. Now tell me why some of the settings you expect to find in there are actually in the Screensaver tab of the Display properties window... including the amount of time before the hard drive spins down.
Consistent my ass.
Re:Why should it matter? Here's one reason. (Score:3, Interesting)
And that should be the main excitement here.
There was a time right before OS X dropped in our laps that I was running Linux PPC or YDL more often than OS 9 on my well-abused Powerbase (long live PCC). Now OS X is leaps an bounds ahead of OS 9 in all the right places, but having an alternate OS that has a growing user base that's able to do some pretty intersting development just might be a great fire under Apple's butt to keep the performance improvements coming.
I mean, imagine in a year if Linus and PPC Linux junkies end up being able to run a (hypothetical) Linux/PPC Doom3 at 50-100% increased fps over OS X. Bring it on. Push these boxes to their limits.
I'm not leaving this hardware platform any time soon. Anything that's going to put competition at the OS level to push the software development on that very platform can only bring good things(TM).
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
$ find
1165052
Did I miss something?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
knock off another $300 if the CPU/VRAM specs aren't crucial for 1.5GHz/64MB
no, x86 is sane (Score:3, Interesting)
the wild and crazy stuff. Linux does this.
With a normal PowerPC chip, there is no way to
avoid using the hashed page tables. You simply
can't ignore it.
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:3, Interesting)
My point is that the mere fact that a system started out on platform X says nothing about how well or poorly it will now support platform Y.
Windows NT originally started out on an intel risc machine (i860). Sun started on m68k and is now on ultrasparc. HP-UX started on PA-RISC and is now primarily on ia64. PalmOS started on motorola m68881(?) and is now on ARM. Staying on the same set of processors over ten years is the exception.
Re:Just hardware, no apple OS. (Score:4, Interesting)
Just a side note, but that would execute a lot faster if you just piped the list of names through to xargs and let it run cat, rather than run cat once for each file:
Re:Why run Linux on a Mac, if you're not Linus? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is apparently because you're an apple fanboi as are the moderators who will +5 anyone who mentions how great Macs/OS X/Steve Jobs is. But I'm bored so I'll play with your troll a little bit. As a note, I *am* an Apple user at work, with a 12", a 17", 3 Xserves, 2 dual G5s, and a couple dozen G4s of various flavours. Oh, and I use a 15" from time to time as well. Obviously I see virtue in Apple kit, but the rampant fanboism gets old.
The Apple Powerbook is steps ahead of comparable offerings from the PC world, from a purely hardware perspective.
Um, right. Which is why my Dell (bought at roughly the same time as my 12" for roughly the same price) is faster, and only just over a pound lighter, despite the Dell being a 15" ultrawide. Think Apples are light? Try one of the ultralights from Fujitsu et al. Even the Toshiba tablets feel light compared to my 12".
Did I mention better wireless reception with the same Broadcom card in both, due to the nice Faraday cage metal case design of the 12"? None of the Apple laptop screens (remember, I actually use all three) begin to touch the top of the line Dells, Sonys, Fujitsus. How about the fact that the Powerbook keyboards all feel horrible as far as travel, and that all three units use the horrid squeezed design of the 12", despite having room for advanced things like
Oh, and despite having similar use patterns, the 12" is more dinged up than my plasticy Dell.
CPU power? A Pentium M can eat a G4 for breakfast. Batter life? Pentium Ms can outlast anything Apple makes.
Firewire 800
Which is built into how many of the total Powerbooks out there? And useful for what laptop applications precisely?
I'd run Linux on Powerbook over an Inspiron any day of the week.
I guess you don't like wireless then. Airport Extremes don't play nice with Linux.
P.S. Those great slot loading CD Drives Mac fans love to drool over? They're a real pain when they die. Time to ship the entire thing back to fix something that Dell can cross ship to you...