#  metric tons o' Linux Questions 



## xaqintosh (Jun 14, 2002)

1. what is the best, most powerful, most well rounded, most compatible variant of Linux?

2. Where can I get it, and will it work on my iMac?

3. How do I install it?

4. What is a good book on learning Linux?

5. is Linux better than Unix, or should I get Unix too?

6. If answer to second question of #5 is yes, answer questions 1-4 again this time substituting the word "Linux" for "Unix"

(note: metric tons are better than English tons!)


----------



## Koelling (Jun 14, 2002)

A question I can answer. First off, #5 Linux is UNIX, and so is Mac OS X (at the core) so you don't have to worry about choosing. 

I know the most popular distro of Linux for PPC is Yellow Dog Linux. It's free to download or you can order a pretty CD to go along with it. You won't be able to use Linux made for X86 (Red Hat) but there still are some choices on the PPC side.

You install it like any other operating system, at least I'm told. I am too afraid to put it on my main machine and I don't have a second one yet to try it. YDL has a graphical installer and you can use Gnome or KDE as a desktop so it will seem fairly familiar.

If you want to learn it, do what I did. OS X unix has all the same commands as POSIX standard UNIX meaning you can play with the terminal and know the file structure, commands and other important stuff. Check websites for commands you can try, it's as good as any book. 

Then when you get bored with cd ls top locate grep and those simple commands that they teach you in newbie tutorials, try downloading the X Sever. Go to http://www.xdarwin.org/download/ for the graphical installer or go to fink.sourceforge.org and get fink where you can use the program 'dselect' to install XFree.

When you feel comfortable with that and get it working you can log out of your account in OS X and log in with >console. Aqua goes completely away and you are left with pure UNIX. Type startx and you are back to the same X Server you familiarized yourself with earlier (hopefully you got a window manager with it or else it sucks). You can install mp3 players, web browsers, word processing applications, Chat clients, and other things that a typical person likes to do in their free time to see what you can do in unix. And the best thing is when you are done, type 'exit' in the xterm window and 'logout' and you are returned to good ol' Aqua (It tastes a lot sweeter when you return).

Sorry if this was overkill, I couldn't tell what your experience level was. Taking it easy, step by step is what I would suggest as you will have questions at each phase. I know I did and the search feature on these boards really helped. Diving head first into linux without a friend or room mate to guide you will probably make you frustrated so use the resources you have. Good luck.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 14, 2002)

Thanks for the info  . I already have Xfree86 running with Gnome and GIMP, but I want to install Linux because there are more apps available for it, that haven't been ported to Darwin yet. I think I'll try Yellow Dog.


----------



## Koelling (Jun 16, 2002)

The thing I still wonder about is whether the programs will still work. They should but just as there is problems porting software to Darwin I think there are problems porting software to YDL because it's PPC platform. Then again Darwin is FreeBSD so you have different libraries and file structure than linux. Good luck and let us know.


----------



## buc99 (Jun 16, 2002)

I've played with yellow dog and mklinux before. Just because they were Linux based does not mean they ran all of the Linux software. The problem being that Linux is built for the 386 platform. So all of the software runs for it first. However YD and other run on PPC so they use a bastardized linux kernel to accomplish this and you will not find 100% portability amongst apps. Just about any PPC Linux app you come across will easily port to Darwin. You would just have to run it in xdarwin instead of Aqua. So why switch? 

I have Xdarwin installed rootless. I use an app called Space to switch from my OSX desktop to an Xdarwin desktop running rootless. There is very little hit for running Xfree86 this way. And I have the best of both worlds on both platforms. Meanwhile, as more X apps are ported to OSX, I still have the ability to switch to OSX and run those apps ore the othe Mac app I wish to use.

Ok. Once again, OSX rocks. Can I get an Amen?

Anyways, I feel that the more apps are ported to OSX the more powerful of a UNIX OS it will become. 

(Ahh, must stopp thinking of world domination!!!)

 

Hope this helps some. Pardon the digression.
SA


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 16, 2002)

> Ok. Once again, OSX rocks. Can I get an Amen?



Amen


----------



## lethe (Jun 16, 2002)

No Amen.  linux software is released as sourcecode.  most software is not processor specific.  Linux/ppc is not a bastardized kernel.  Linux/ppc is the same kernel as Linux/386.  software that runs on linux/386 should compile on linux/ppc, linux/alpha, and linux/sparc, and others.

linux software does not compile on darwin out of the box.  it has to be ported.  xaqintosh is correct.  there are a lot of apps available for linux that are not available for darwin.  a lot of them get ported but a lot of them do not.  a great nummber of linux apps depend on the gnu c library, which does not run on darwin and has not been ported.

let me reiterate:  in theory, any program that compiles for linux/386 should compile for linux/ppc.  there is no such guarantee for darwin.  there are exceptions, like programs tthat rely on the high endian nature of the processor, but those are the exception, not the rule.  there are a lot of apps available for linux, that are not available for darwin.  just poke around sourceforge or freshmeat for a while and you will get an idea of the magnitude of the number of apps.

i prefer debianppc, but i will defiintely recommend YDL for compatibilty.  easiest installer, and more compatibilty with redhat package system.

darwin has some significant advantages over linux, but linux already has a larger share of the market than macos, and there are philosophical zealots who want to develop software for no platform that is not GPL, in other words, linux only.  there are certainly advantages to running llinux, and i encourage you to try it out.

your question about which variant of linux is the best, is comparable to asking which version of windows is the best:  the one that ships with dells, HPs, or IBMs.  they all have the same kernel, and the same GUI.


----------



## lethe (Jun 16, 2002)

i would also like to respond to one other thing that koelling said.  

 linux is UNIX only insofar as it looks like UNIX; it is a UNIX clone.  UNIX is a trademarked word, and the software is copyrighted, so there is definitely a legal definition of what can be called UNIX, and under that definition, linux cannot.  nor can OSX.  

some people say that anything that is UNIX like with a command shell and process ccontrol and other such stuff should be called UNIX.  in that sense, linux is UNIX, but let me just point out that while linux is POSIX compliant, OSX is not, so while OSX is indeed UNIX based, it is not really UNIX.


----------



## fintler (Jun 17, 2002)

I'd just like to say that gentoo http://www.gentoo.org/ linux kicks ass and it runs on most macs. I'd also like to say that the precative of calling linux a un*x is widespread, saying "unix" instead of "un*x" usually implies at&t system v.x


----------



## buc99 (Jun 17, 2002)

Not to be argumentative. But you are right about there being tons of software out there for Linux. However, and it has been along time since I compiled a Linux kernel, I do not think you can go get the Kernel source code and compile it under PPC. I thought there were two different kernels out there since all of the kernels I compiled on my PC specifically asked which 386 chip I had at the very begining of the compilation.

Like I said, it has been awhile since I've done that, so things may have changed by now.

As for OSX not being Posix compliant. Are sure about this? I thought I read somewhere on Apple that it was. It has to be closer to POSIX compliance than BeOSS, and they claimed they were partly POSIX compliant.

You are correct. Linux software may not compile under Darwin right out of the box. This is due to library differences between BSD and Linux. But there is a lot of software that requires libraries specific to 386 PCs and would still not compile under LinuxPPC.

I know you like Linux and all, but ....

Anyways. Don't be offended. I just find I can do everything in OSX that I did in Linux and the Aqua interface is much nicer than anything I've seen in Xfree86 yet..IMHO

Thanks. 
SA


----------



## lethe (Jun 17, 2002)

> Not to be argumentative



OK.  my reply was a little excited last night.  so lets make it an intelligent conversation instead of an argument, or an unintelligible my-OS-is-better-than-your-OS flame war.



> I thought there were two different kernels out there since all of the kernels I compiled on my PC specifically asked which 386 chip I had at the very begining of the compilation.



well i have only been using linux for 3 or 4 years, so i m a little new.  i ll bet that in the early days of linux/ppc, there were seperate trees.  but right now, linux/ppc (as well as all other architectures) get merged into the main tree.  one can download the main tree from www.kernel.org and compile it on a PPC machine.  i am quite sure: i have done just this myself.  when you begin the configuration of the kernel, it does seem to be specific to your architecture.  when you make config on a PC, it asks you what kind of chip you have, giving you choices for pentiums and AMDs and such, whereas when you do it on a mac, you get choices for various PPC chips.  a lot of the make config options are specific to your architecture.  This is not due to the fact that you are using a different kernel.  it is because when you compile the kernel, it detects what architecture you are on, and gives you options accordingly.





> As for OSX not being Posix compliant. Are sure about this? I thought I read somewhere on Apple that it was. It has to be closer to POSIX compliance than BeOSS, and they claimed they were partly POSIX compliant.



check out apple s website.  it claims support for most POSIX APIs.  so OSX is fairly POSIX.  i don t know to what extent most implies, but i get the impression that they aren t really trying for full compliance.  it has been discussed before on these boards, and i based my statement mostly on those discussions.  the point that i want to make is that if compliance with UNIX standards is the criterion an OS should meet if it wants to be called UNIX, then OSX is close, but not quite it.  and yes, it is definitely much more UNIX than BeOS.  i still think something should have to be genetically related to ATTs original UNIX to be called UNIX.  there are hundreds or more OSes that are descended from ATT or BSD UNIX, and they legally licensed the code.  in my mind only those are UNIX.

if you want to say UN*X or unixen, or *nix, to include any UNIX plus linux plus darwin plus HURD plus the {FreeBSD OpenBSD NetBSD}, then i fully support that and even agree with you.  we should have a term for that kind of OS.





> You are correct. Linux software may not compile under Darwin right out of the box. This is due to library differences between BSD and Linux. But there is a lot of software that requires libraries specific to 386 PCs and would still not compile under LinuxPPC.



I know of no libraries off hand that compile for linux/x86 but not linux/ppc.  i m not saying that there are any, but in theory there shouldn t be.  most libraries rely on your kernel headers and other libraries.  most things rely on the GNU C library glibc.  that works fine on all linux/ppc, and does not work at all on darwin.  so any software that relies on glibc will compile easily for linux/ppc, and will have to be ported if it is to compile on darwin.

in theory, all interaction with hardware is done by the kernel, so every other piece of software in the OS does not care what architecture you use.  _In theory_.  so again, i claim that any software that you want to use for linux/x86 will work for linux/ppc.

i should point out that there is a fair amount of linux software these days that is being sold commercially, and released in binary format.  this is almost always x86 binary, meaning that it won t work on linux/ppc.  i am only talking about open source software that you compile yourself.

of course, compiling all your software yourself can get to be quite a pain in the ass, its easier if you re using redhat and you just rpm a package.  that is harder with ppc architecture, because redhat/ppc does not exist.  YDL uses rpms, but slashdot just had a great article about the annoying fragmentation in RPMs.  anyway...  i digress.

finally, let me say that, yes, buc, i do like linux.  i find it much preferable to windows when i m using a PC.  it has a lot of features, and it is fun to play with.  however, OSX is my favorite OS of all time.  i use it all the time.  i do have a linux partition on my mac, but i have found that none of the linux distros are as advanced on the mac, support for apple hardware in the kernel is always lagging about a year behind support for PC hardware, the darwin kernel has preemptive multitasking, which linux doesn t, and of course darwin supports all my firewire stuff, my scanners and cameras and hard drives, without any trouble, with no recompiling the kernel (actually i did recompile the kernel to get IPv6.  and mostly just for the fun of it.  but i appreciate the fact that i don t have to recompile the kernel.  it can be quite a daunting task at first).  so on the apple hardware, i much prefer OSX.

so i am not going to tell xaqintosh to migrate to linux because it is a better OS.  it is not.  OSX is the best OS ever.  but if he wants compatibility with linux software, then darwin just can t hold a candle to linux/ppc.


----------



## buc99 (Jun 17, 2002)

Lethe: 


> so i am not going to tell xaqintosh to migrate to linux because it is a better OS. it is not. OSX is the best OS ever. but if he wants compatibility with linux software, then darwin just can t hold a candle to linux/ppc.



I would concur with this statement. But add just one more.
You got to agree Aqua is way better than anything Xfree86 has to offer?

Now you can say Amen Brother.

(He, he,he ...)

Anyways. That was basically the point I wanted to get across, but you did it much better. I will concede on the compiling of kernels since it has been many moons since I last compiled a kernel myself. I no longer own a PC (my last PC was an AMD K5 chip that smoked with Linux or BeOS installed) and am only forced to work with one at work when I have to use some proprietary software my work forces upon us.(When a better alternative is readily available in the Open Source Community) So basically I own a TiBook and a Dalmation, and OSX rocks on both so I feel no need to switch to anything else.

Thanks. 
Sa


----------



## lethe (Jun 17, 2002)

AMEN!

aqua is a lot nicer than xfree86.  very beautiful to look at, but also intelligently designed, and object oriented from the ground up.

X does have one functionality that i wish Aqua had: the client-server model.  i think it is a wonderful thing to be able to xhost your display to another terminal, or to have multiple displays across a network.  i don t think that will ever happen, X was designed that way from the beginning, and aqua (NeXTSTEP) was not.

anyway, let me just throw my 2 cents in to answer the original question.



> 1. what is the best, most powerful, most well rounded, most compatible variant of Linux?
> 
> 2. Where can I get it, and will it work on my iMac?
> 
> ...



1.  most open linux: debian.  easiest to use: mandrake, most powerful: SuSE, most compatible: redhat.  mandrake, suse, debian will run on your mac.  redhat will not.  best distro for mac is YDL, it is based on redhat.  i have had kernel problems with some of those distros, so it sort of depends on exactly which iMac you have.  if you have an nVidia graphics card, make sure the distro includes xfree86 4.2.0.  also kernel 2.4.18 is pretty important for the mac architecture.  gentoo linux is a lot of fun, but it has a do it yourself installer.  the package manager is very cool, as cool as debian.  gentoo is very open, and free, and has the latest software for mac, so it is a good option to consider, but i think you should have some installation experience first.  the installer is basically nonexistent.  it includes instructions on how to manually install, but that s it.  read this article about the redhat package manager.  i think it is universally disliked (at least by people who have tried other package managers, like debians apt-get, and gentoo has a really nice one too, emerge)

2.  http://penguinppc.org/ is the place for all linux/ppc distros.  it has links for all the distros, and lots of mac specific help sites.  let me just point out that LinuxPPC is a specific distro, and linux/ppc refers to the general concept of a port of the linux kernel to the PPC architecture.  LinuxPPC is no longer in development and i do not recommend it (anymore).  distro is a common word in linux parlance.  it is short for distribution.  redhat, debian, yellowdog are all examples of different linux distros.

3.  YDL, redhat, suse, mandrake, all have graphicall installers, not too different from installing the MacOS.  the important thing is figuring out how to partition, especially if you want to dual-boot your machine with linux and MacOS.  the distro should include instructions.  debian installer is not as nice, but its still fairly self explanatory, and like i said gentoo installer is not really an installer at all.  its just a boot disk, with source, and directions on how to format and compile.

4.  for tech books, you can t beat OReilly.  check out their book 'running linux'.  UNIX in a nutshell is also a good reference to have.

5.  well i m not sure.  i think linux is better, but UNIX definitely has its advantages.  i do still use UNIX sometimes.  i downloaded solaris 9 yesterday, and i ll probably install it sometime next week.  

6.  if i were to decide that UNIX is better, then i would say solaris is the best one.  but that will never run on your mac.  in fact, the only *nixen that will ever install on your mac are OSX and linux/ppc, both of which can only arguably called real UNIX.  there was once A/UX (apple UNIX) for macs, but that is no longer supported or developed.  apple once released a server that ran AIX from IBM, but that won t work on your iMac.  

so anyway, sorry about the really long posts.  i guess i just have lots to say on the subject.


----------



## lethe (Jun 17, 2002)

i guess i should also mention NetBSD, and OpenBSD.  they both run on macs, and are well respected.  they are not as popular as linux, but good OSes nevertheless.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 17, 2002)

Thanks for all the info, and I really don't mind the really long posts, they are more informative.


----------



## fotobroker (Jul 4, 2002)

Can I ask a question that kinda relates to this thread.

I have a Intel based rack server that I am about to co-locate. I've used Apple Computers since the Eighties but couldn't afford a Xserve at this time.

I want to learn and understand how Mac OSX works under the Aqua, i.e. the UNIX and my question's are as follows.

1. If I install freeBSD on my HP web server, will what I learn from OSX be exactly the same as freeBSD. My fear is that self learning one new UNIX OS when you have no prior knowledge of UNIX or programming is a daunting prospect, so to have to learn two at the same time would be horrendous.

2. What is the best book for a beginner to learn about the core Mac OSX.

3. Would I be better selling my Mac and buying a Intel box and installing RedHat Linux on the web server and desktop machine and learning Linux.

Thanks

Sean


----------

