Ubuntu For PPC, And As A Live CD 289
Jeff writes "Ubuntu is just sweet. For Mac users it is even sweeter, as you can read in this review: it supports hardware like a charm ad now with a live CD out everyone can taste ... sorry, test it." And
Chris writes "Gnoppix 0.8.1 now appears to be Ubuntu Linux based. At OSDir, we've got over 50 screenshots of the Gnoppix 0.8.1 release, including the controversial Ubuntu desktop background images." (See this earlier story; the default background images have been changed in Ubuntu proper, so the "controversy" need not keep you up nights.) The Gnoppix version is a very nice Gnome-based live CD, with fewer apps but more polish than most live CDs I've tried. (Note that this is not the same as the official Ubuntu CD, and that the PPC version is not a live CD.)
Ubuntu (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ubuntu (Score:5, Interesting)
Desktop/Program Menu icons. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the #1 problem I have with Ubuntu so far (besides the slow X refresh rate...), its so frustrating to have to work out how to start apps once they've installed, and I usually just resort back to the shell to fire things up
Re:Desktop/Program Menu icons. (Score:2)
Re:Ubuntu (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ubuntu (Score:2)
2) It's stable
3) It's fast
4) It's up-to-date
5) Did I mention it just works?
Re:Ubuntu (Score:3, Interesting)
My friend (just enough technical knowledge to set up a Windows machine) successfully installed Ubuntu last night by himself, the first time he has managed to successfully install a Linux distro.
The desktop is well thought out, it comes with graphical tools to do most common system configuration and there aren't several billion menus of applications to wase through - there's just one each of what is c
So Easy that the only complaint is the artwork... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mind you, I reinstalled rather than upgraded, but it was frighteningly simple to get EVERY device on my thinkpad working, including the wireless.
It just works. Beyond that they have kept the amount of stuff installed to a reasonable minimum, so that I don't have to fish through 10,000 packages.
That is why there is such a furor over the 'disputed' artwork in my opinion. The distro works so well that people have nothing else to bitch about.
K
Controversial theme? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
The theme is very appropriately named Human.
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
There was extensive discussion on the users list and an IRC community meeting about the 'controversial' artwork. Very few people actually had a problem with it directly, but most people thought it was a bad idea as the default for a distro that wanted to be taken seriously and appeal to as broad a userbase as possible. There were plenty of real-world examples from people who wanted to deploy Ubuntu in their company but would have to create custom install-images to change the default.
My take on it was that I didn't want my computer to look like a Bennetton advert; more that it was goofy looking than that it might upset people.
That artwork is still installed, it's just not selected by default.
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
This is sick,
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
Here are the images from the thread, and I agree with you. What sort of a fucked up world do we live in, where we can show images of people killing other people, but not of 3 people caring for each other.
RegardselFarto
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
So I respect the fact that you don't have a problem with them and want them to stay, just as I would hope you respect the fact that I don't mind them as an option, but think they are inappropriate for the default.
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
Are you unable to read National Geographic without masturbating as well?
Re:That is fucking ridiculous (Score:2)
Again, I am not turned on by that image at all, it's just too fucking saccharine. I can imagine them singing "Kumbaiya" while hugging each other.
Besides, why would I want that shit on my desktop? Tell me with a straight face that it looks good - not that it's 'acceptable', tell me that it actually looks good, and that you would put it on your desktop if you found it on the web.
You can't can you? That is some of the u
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
Wasn't untill the devil corrupted man (the part about the apple) that they got they idea that they could take their cloth off.
The bible is pretty clear on this, so showing pictures of naked skin is really waving a red cloth at the christian community.
Maybe they should make a new version of the background where they wore burkas.
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
it wasn't until they ate that apple and pissed the boss off that naked became a bad thing...
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
I had to claim the moment
hugging? (Score:2)
Apparently it is a photo of humans hugging. It would be perfectly ok if they pointed guns and shot at each other, as usual.
Actually, they're not "hugging"; they're just sort of standing there looking stoned.. Or maybe that's supposed to be an attitude - "we're tough, we're rebels, we're naked - and we have varying skin tones, so we're oh so enlightened".
I would find it less annoying if there were some actual sexuality there. Instead, you have all of the immorality of one naked guy and two naked girl
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, many people wouldn't understand having that picture show up on their desktop or splash-screens. This
Modesty & Propriety (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm all for naked women everywhere and i'm a anti censorship guy, but this one like saying "take ubuntu, look cool and those mindless beautifull cheeks will think you're so great that you'll have two at a time". I don't think females will like that one bit and this time i can understand why...
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly.. females have worked long and hard to make it clear that nerds can't get them, let alone two at a time.
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
Still, that's not the problem. As far as i'm concerned they could be totally nude and have hairy 70's like pussies i wouldn't mind. It's the message that is disturbing, because it implies that cheeks are so dumb they'll jump on anyone using ubuntu, just because he's using ubuntu. Because being with a guy who uses Ubuntu makes them look cool, and that's all that matter for them. So, use ubuntu and get all
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
OSX makes you slim, because you have the time to use your computer, and make sport at the same time ! just compare RMS and jobs, it says something.
Linus ain't fat, but he's clearly starving to death, he doesn't have the time to have a meal between all the bugs the fatty bastards are trying to incorporate in the kernel !
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
Seriously, they have resolved the issue quite well IMHO. A nice summary can be found in the latest Ubuntu Traffic:
http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/ubu
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
If I have found the correct picture, it's three young athletic people interlocking arms, viewed from above. Representative of both genders and at least 3 races.
I'm not sure what the offence is, 'cause I missed the previous flap. But I'm guessing:
It's young athletic people. Linux geeks thought they were some alien life form and were afraid.
It's too PC. Linux geeks thought it came out of Berkeley, and was therefore FreeBSD, not
Re:Controversial theme? (Score:2)
Hey, maw--ah found out where all that thar intarweb porn is a-coming from. They make it overseas in Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is great (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really solid though it is only in it's first release now, the desktop is really well thought out, the package selection makes sense and doesn't overwhelm new users but you still can use thousands and thousands of debian packages if you are so inclined.
This distro for me really strikes the right balance between ease of use on the one hand and not taking away the power and choice of linux on the other hand.
All in all I'm really impressed and even now looking forward to the next release. And this is coming from someone who normally uses KDE and Gentoo, so if you impress someone like me with a Debian based Gnome distro you certainly did something right.
Re:Ubuntu is great (Score:2)
Live cds DOA here (Score:2, Insightful)
I've also tried two releases of gnoppix and found neither of them to work any better on
No PPC live (Score:2)
Did I miss something?
Polish? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm running it on my tiBook (Score:5, Informative)
Mine is the rev-a powerbook (the one with the firewire problems), so maybe its my hardware, but the default X config that ships with Ubuntu is s-l-o-w
It is pretty darn nice, sloppy GUI aside, to be running Linux on this machine, which has been a trusty and productive computer (running OSX) since I got it. It truly is pleasurable to have the two best operating sytems around as a selection on my powerBook
OSX is a great Unix, anyway, but for the things that I can't be bothered porting (or using fink to install), and just want to check out anyway, a quick boot into Linux to have a complete 'standard-ish' Linux system to apply that code to, is really productive.
If you've got a PowerBook, I urge you to dual-boot it with Linux/OSX. It will give you some serious reflection about the power of your computer, I think, to see Linux running on it, and OSX side-by-side, as well
Morphix Based (Score:5, Informative)
The Ubuntu LiveCD and the Gnoppix LiveCD are based upon Morphix, which basically takes away the hard work of re-mastering a Knoppix CD. The base, the part based upon Knoppix contains the kernel, kernel modules, hardware detection, etc. This base is left untouched. You can either a change a mainmod or add lots of minimodules to make different liveCDs
The Ubuntu LiveCD is built using one of Morphix [morphix.org] Tools Module Maker [alextreme.org]. Feed you XML file into module maker and out pops your mainmodule for the LiveCD.
There are a range of tools Morphix tools available to make a LiveCD. Such as Module Maker [alextreme.org] ibuild [livecd.net] and TROM [morphix.org]. It is even possible to save you files, configuration and setting to the Morphix LiveCD you using using CD persistant, ready for next boot up. Did I mention the GUI Morphix installer ?
Ubuntu CDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Ubuntu is anything but a newbies distro ! (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps a "newbie to Debian" would be a more accurate description.
I tried it recently and as a slackware 'fancier' I must admit it didn't suit me. In fact, I've never been able to get used to the idiosyncracies of Debain based distributions, even though it's supposedly so easy.
I installed and am giving it the benefit of the dought - who knows, perhaps I'll become a convert and learn to love the Debian way as much as I like Slackware !
But Ubuntu a newbies distro ? - wow, maybe the LiveCD, but the i386 I tried is anything but !
Live CD Torrent File (Score:2)
Gnoppix 8.1 REL release date (Score:2)
Andrew
Had me sold until (Score:3, Insightful)
I recently converted to the KDE after being a die hard icewm user.
I've read so many comments on slashdot about what a pain in the ass Gnome is.
If I want to futz, I will go back to icewm.
Re:Had me sold until (Score:2)
I'm on dialup so I am not really into the "download it yourself after install" path.
I would rather just make the arrangements to get what I need on CD at one time.
I wish the OS community stopped working on the assumption that everyone has a high speed connection. My only justification for getting one would be to download OS software. If I did th
Re:Had me sold until (Score:2)
I mostly use my PC at home as a desktop and the stuff they include takes care of my needs.
Everyone once in a while I want to check something out and that is where it becomes a pain.
If something is an ISO on a server it is not a problem as it is easy for me to have someone download and burn it for me.
However, when it is not in a convenient ISO it becomes much harder to ask people to lend me their time or their resources.
Re:Had me sold until (Score:2)
If it is something like a browser, or a new jvm I just go have dinner.
Things become a problem with larger, less frequent ( hence no justification for a high speed connectiion ) issues like downloading an entire desktop or upgrading an entire installation.
Someone slashdot this. (Score:2)
My brain hurts just saying that.
Worked Great For Me (Score:2)
Perhaps the only problem that I had was burning the Ubuntu ISO, which kept causing Disk Tool/hdiutil to crash. I ended up installing CDRecord to burn the
Enemy Territory LiveCD? (Score:2)
Ubutnu looks promising (Score:2)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly: Maybe some of us want a real *nix on our PPC machines ? (Bah, OS-X is NOT a BSD, read this rant [nylug.org] on why OS-X is anything but a BSD)
Sunny Dubey
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit this is a stupid question, but I'll answer it anyway:
Because you have a PPC machine, and don't have an AMD64.
Consumericanism, kiddies. Cure thyself!
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
The CrapOS didn't print to dmesg when it had an error, I didn't find *any* logs of any value in /var/log/ and more annoyingly I couldn't easily
find a dhcp client on the command line. (sudo networksetup is a joke).
In any real modern *BSD system, the kernel would print everything to the
dmesg, and all logs would be done in a sanitary fashion in /var/log/* via
syslog, and more importantly, I would have dhclient to use at my finger
tips. Just like a real FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD system.
In a "
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please elaborate. I find distros like Ubuntu as easy to use and install on PPC as Mac OS X. Yeah, I've used both, in case you wonder.
For me, I just have no desire to dick around with Linux while I have a perfectly serviceable Unix (tm) available.
Well, it's your life. We linux users don't care.
As far as the Mac not being a real Unix, it is far more of a 'real' Unix than Linux. It's directly descended from AT&T Unix. It has a microkernel design, and is definitely BSD.
First, AT&T unix didn't have microkernel parts at all, so direct descendency is more than questionable. Second, UNIX System V came after BSD, it's a more modern UNIX specification, but still UNIX. Linux follows this one. Third, OS X uses a microkernel to load the bsd one completely in memory. There goes your microkernel design.
And last, remember that to have a true UNIX(R) system, you have to pay for certification. Perhaps linux could get it, but the developers already said they wouldn't apply for it since it's not their goal to make a pure UNIX system.
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:3, Interesting)
Next thing I find there's no Japanese input system. So I can display Japanese, but not input it. After searching the Ubuntu wiki I learn that Japanese actually isn't really supported (so why is it an installation option then?), but you can install
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:3, Informative)
Scanner: downloaded the HPOJ drivers from Universe. Works immediately. (I use an HP PSC 950.)
USB Printing: works out of the box
Burning CDs: Very, very easy. Data just needs to be dragged and dropped in the burn:/// folder, ISOs just need right-clicked. Music needs XCDRoast, available in Universe.
Bluetooth: no experience, but I think it's built in.
Not hard at all.
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are more Linux than Mac servers. Depending on whose numbers you use, there are more Linux Desktops than Macs. Even the conservative numbers put Linux about equal with Macs.
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have a link to back up this statement? All the site I've googled up (aside from the fact that most of the figures were 2-3 years old) showed that the overall percentage of linux desktop usage was about 1/2 of mac desktop usage. And a lot of these figures were pre-osx.
OK let's back away from this 'Linux vs. OSX' thread before it's too late. Whoops, too late.
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2, Informative)
It's always too late. It's inevitable in a story about linux on PPC the first comment will always be "why would anyone want to run linux when OSX is just soooo amazing." Well, here it is, get ready.....some of use just prefer linux. That's it. Just prefer it. No subjective better than/worse than arguments will change personal preferences. Not even objective but I can't put my iBook to sleep arguments will deter
Subjectively speaking... (Score:2)
Compared to something like Suse ootb I have actually had better experiences with Mandrake, but I think their desktop design is so god-awful ugly -- between the bright blue and the stars and the little round buttons everywhere that look like marbles dropped onto cardboard squares cut from the inside of a shoebox -- this alone is what's holding back its reputation as a "serious" desktop. Even the startup screen just screams "we suck."
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
That's nice, but what is the reason for Linux having Unixware and Xenix emulation layers?
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Again, I know it is hard to believe for some people, but there are computer users who don't think that OS X is the best OS that ever was and ever will be and that simply prefer Linux. Reasons for that may be that they are simply more familiar with Linux, that they want a coherent IT infrastracture and are already using Linux on their other machines, that they simply enjoy the choices Linux offers compare to OS X, that they are more productive with something like ratpoisen than with the eye-candy of OS X
3. For older Macs Linux is a great option, as OS X tends to run, ehm, not really fast on these machines.
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:5, Informative)
There are very good reasons to run linux on an OSX machine.
I used to run linux on several Mac's at my old workplace.
Reason OS9 is useless for serious web development work - sorry but dreamweaver and go-live are not my bag. Its also useless as a half decent web-server platform. I could have done some of these things on OSX granted but
a) it wasnt possible to persuade the powers that be to purchase OSX (not that I even asked)
b) on older Mac's - linux just performs much faster compare the speed of YDL on a blue G3 (333mhz) to OS9 running on the same machine - the latter is like a snail in comparison.
Now dont get me wrong - OSX is great and all - Someday soon I might treat myself to a powerbook.
There are things that make OSX superior to Linux eg:
availability of "cool" livestyle applications iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto, iWhatever - The other attraction for me about OSX is the avalability of proper decent Music Sequencing / Composition software like Reason / Logic and Cubase. All this cools stuff and the inner peace that "it's not windows/micorosoft" and "theres a unix variant under the hood" are the reasons I find it attractive.
Linux however is still IMHO better as a server platform because it enables you to cut out all the crap that goes with the OSX gui. Its much easier to set-up , configure and run in headless operation. Its easier to patch and keep up to date. OSX can be more expensive to keep running if you manage to get yourself into the upgrade cycle.
While OSX is a very capable OS in both the server and the desktop space. And in addition it can run lots of your fave Linux apps via Fink et.al. For serious server-side development all the sexy gui stuff "Just gets in the way" whereas for Joe sixpack "It Just Works". We had am OSX server at my old place I rarely used it because it was such a pain to configure apache and friends.
IMHO Linux PPC
is great on older Macs as a desktop or a server / development platform
IMHO OSX
is great on shiny Mac's as a desktop and as a point'n'clicky server for less experienced staff.
Its also great if you have an eye candy fetish and an open source fetish.(you can still use many of your favorite apps), but also need use some of the proprietary apps that just dont exist on Linux.
Nick
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
Under OS X 10.3 Server this is no longer true. In fact, Apple has a whole manual dedicated to commandline administration [apple.com]. Using the systemsetup command allows you to change
My reason (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
Why this has changed, I don't know.
I have a beige G3 500 that can't run OS X 10.3 (haven't checked the last version of XPostFacto...), and 10.0 thru 10.2 are pretty dog slow on it. Ubuntu/YDL/Mandrake give me alternatives. And alternatives are good.
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer Linux.
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
Why am I using it? It draws less power, generates less heat, and takes less space as a server in my kid's closet, especially when compared to either of my other choices - a dual AMD rig (heat/noise problem) or a old Dell P-75 (heat/noise is ok, lacks processing power).
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
I've got linux on my G4/450 server and OSX on my G3/450 fileserver (strictly for Appleshare). But there's lot of reasons to plop linux even on newer macs. Assuming you've got a mac that you want to use as a server or a development platform, although OSX IS a *nix, it's not linux, and things that work fine in OSX tend not to work right in linux and vice versa. ie- different paths for some stuff, different libs, xin
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux on the Mac is for Masochists... (Score:2)
For instance, the Finder seems quite polished from the outside, but its innards basically stink. It's often crashed on me on imported Samba shares, and it broke horribly when I tried copying just a few thousand JPEGs* in a folder which Konqueror coped fine with, even loading all the thumbnails for the images in a nice, fast and tidy manner.
Talking of thumbnails, the
Re:what is gnoppix for? (Score:5, Funny)
If gnoppix is based on Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is based on Debian, then who the hell is working on releasing sarge?
Re:what is gnoppix for? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what is gnoppix for? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:what is gnoppix for? (Score:3, Interesting)
If gnoppix is based on Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is based on Debian, then who the hell is working on releasing sarge?
Well, why do you think it has been 2+ years and counting since the release of woody?
Re:what is gnoppix for? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not good as adevelopment environment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not good as adevelopment environment (Score:2)
Re:OK, here we go again, Linux for PPC (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Redhat, Suse, Gentoo, FreeBSD, and NetBSD all have SPARC distros, and those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. I have a SPARC20 running a gentoo live cd as we speak, serving as basically a web terminal. More distros have PPC compatability beacyse PPC is a more popular architecture, just like x86 has more available distros than PPC.
And how exactly would having BSD for any particular arch make Linux
Re:OK, here we go again, Linux for PPC (Score:2)
Re:Ubuntu and other distros (Score:2)
The main thing that sets people off is the lack of instant gratification. You can't just download an RPM or apt-get and have a program working instantly. Most of these people don't understand (or don't want to understand) that compiles can run in the background at a low priority -- even for things you're running (X, KDE, Mozilla, etc). Most programs compile in a couple of minutes.
It's really annoying to see people with decently p
Re:Ubuntu and other distros (Score:2)
You left off the smiley. Changes the context, IMHO.
Besides... in my opinion, a lot of the reasons people have for not wanting to compile packages are "uninformed" at best, and "bogus" at worst. I've had people say they switched because 2-3 minute compile times (measured on my "old" system) would take too long on their cutting edge boxes. Or
Re:Ubuntu and other distros (Score:2)
Re:Sorry I don't get it.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if you excuse me, I have to go cut a hole in a sheet so my wife can bear children.
/sarcasm