# Why use Linux?



## kainjow (Jan 4, 2006)

I'm extremely bored right now and am downloading Ubuntu 5.1 Live CD (for PPC) and was wondering for those of you who use Linux and Mac OS X:

*Why do you use Linux if you have Mac OS X?* What applications do you run in Linux that you can't (or do not want to?) run in OS X?

Also, do you run Linux on an x86 or PPC processor?

One thing I've seen when downloading Linux apps is that some of the apps that aren't open source aren't available for PPC Linux, for example the Steam server (used for Counter Strike and Half-Life). That's kind of annoying 

Another question: do you prefer KDE or GNOME? Also, what's the major differences (yeah, I could Google, but I want to hear personal opinions).

If future PC companies allow running multiple OSs at the same time with Intel's (or AMD's) new processors, I would be very tempted to get a nice PC laptop for running Windows and Linux at the same time. Heck, if Apple allowed this in their PowerBooks, that would be extremely awesome! mmm time to start saving up


----------



## mdnky (Jan 5, 2006)

I prefer KDE over GNOME...it's really a personal decision more than anything else.  Never have run it on a PPC platform though, just x86 and SPARC.  Right now the only other machine I have that isn't running Mac OS is the old Sun Ultra 10 running Solaris 10 with KDE 3.4.something.


----------



## powermac (Jan 5, 2006)

I ran Yellowdog linux on older Macs. As mdnky pointed out, which desktop you prefer is just that a preference. I actually used both of them interchangeably, which made using Linux fun. Not being extremely techy, my experience with Linux, whether it be on PPC or Intel, was buggy to say the least. Configuring the video driver always presented trouble for me. After hours of experimenting, I would get it to work. That has been my experience with Linux, on either platform. Linux, in my opinion takes times and patience to get it perfect.  
As far as PC companies supporting two OS. I believe HP released or is going to release a laptop with winblows and Linux.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 5, 2006)

Someone HAD to ask this huh??? ::ha::

Honestly, on a new Mac that can run the latest version of OS X (or even the previous OS X release) at a snappy pace, I wouldn't even bother installing Linux because you basically have everything that Linux is trying to be, but better.  I _love_ using Linux, but on my new 17" iMac G5, I wouldn't even think about putting that there.  OS X does everything I need and has most of the stuff I would do on Linux anyway.  So for a new Mac, unless you wanted to use it as a server without paying for OS X server, I would skip Linux.

However, on an older Mac, Linux takes great advantage of the hardware that the latest version of OS X struggles on or won't run on at all.  Most of this is mainly because of Apple wanting to march on without supporting hardware acceleration (2D and 3D) on older video chipsets or other devices.  A lot of the eye candy on OS X definitely requires this hardware acceleration, and unfortunately you can't disable it.  With X.org's X11, you don't need the eye candy effects if you don't want it.  And while the generic kernels shipped with today's distros are quite optimized, the fact that you can go in and reconfigure the kernel (granted you have the expertise) to support whatever hardware you want is a wonderful thing.  This is how people were able to support NuBus PPC Macs even though the main distros claim that they won't install on those Macs.

The other nice thing about running Linux on your Mac is that a lot more hardware is supported that normally wouldn't be supported under the Mac OS.  I've used devices that normally would work on a PC running Windows on my StarMax 4000 with Debian, and it worked alright.  Mind you, this doesn't work with everything (like some video cards) since they would have to recognize the Mac architecture in the firmware, but it does work.

As for desktop environments, that's up to the eye of the user.  I have my praises and gripes for KDE, GNOME, XFCE, and other desktop environments.  Lately i've been leaning more towards KDE, since it seems like they are headed in the right direction as opposed to GNOME, but others might think differently.  There are still some interface issues to tackle, like when you're running GTK applications and a dialog box comes up with the buttons.  In GNOME, the order of the OK and Cancel buttons is reversed from that of KDE (more Mac-like in GNOME as opposed to Windows-like in KDE).  This is a minor issue, but something everyone using Linux is affected by and needs to be addressed by the desktop environment developers.  There are various other issues, but that would go beyond the scope of this post (and would make it more long and boring than it alredy is ).

The great thing about being able to run Linux on your Mac is the simple fact that you have the choice to do so.  This is the case on the x86 side, and we might see more of this once the Macs do switch processors.  This is the wonderful thing about open source: where there's a will, there's a way.  And from the quality of some of the software, you can tell that it works (not for all FOSS, but in general it does).

It also provides a good learning experience on how a UNIX/Unix-like system functions.  My only wish is that someone would revive the Slackintosh project  since Slackware was how I became more adept at using Linux in the first place (believe me, I've thought about taking up the task, but I have too much on my plate at the moment ).

*THIS JUST IN!*:  The Slackintosh project has been revived!  See the link above for details!  WISHES _DO_ COME TRUE!! 

If you have an old Mac lying around that won't run anything higher than 9.1 or 9.2, give the latest Linux/ppc distros a try.  You might just enjoy the journey.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 5, 2006)

BTW, I just bought a Celeron D 335 CPU for a Linux-only setup I'm going to work on this weekend.  I'm still debating on what to install, but Slackware so far is tops on the list.

As for PPC, I have a StarMax that ran Linux but I don't need it anymore as I now have the iMac.  See my sig for details on it.


----------



## g/re/p (Jan 5, 2006)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Someone HAD to ask this huh??? ::ha::
> 
> Honestly, on a new Mac that can run the latest version of OS X (or even the previous OS X release) at a snappy pace, I wouldn't even bother installing Linux because you basically have everything that Linux is trying to be, but better.  I _love_ using Linux, but on my new 17" iMac G5, I wouldn't even think about putting that there.  OS X does everything I need and has most of the stuff I would do on Linux anyway.  So for a new Mac, unless you wanted to use it as a server without paying for OS X server, I would skip Linux.



man do you ever have a way with words!! Thank you!
Could not have said it any better myself.


----------



## Viro (Jan 5, 2006)

Another one of this topics eh? On the PowerPC, I see no reason to run Linux. Mac OS X and fink bring you all the Unix applications you could possibly run. On the other hand, if you ran Linux on PowerPC, you lose out on a lot of goodies, like Airport Extreme support and 3D hardware acceleration because the drivers aren't available. There aren't as many (are there any?) commercial products that target Linux on the PowerPC, so you are stuck with just open source apps. Not a problem for some, but a major problem for me.

On the x86 side of things, Linux makes absolute sense. Nice solid OS, free, loads of apps, and it's starting to get commercial applications. I find Linux much better to use and Windows on a daily basis. Then again, I haven't been using Windows much for years, so the gripes I used to have may no longer be valid. *shrug* Oh, and as nixgeek says, Linux runs great on things that aren't speed demons.

As for desktop environments, I'm a GNOME user all the way. KDE makes my eyes bleed. I personally think it's a usability nightmare. Examine the control panel and I think you'll find that it is needlessly cluttered, has loads of options that no one apart from the most hard core geeks would want. IMHO, it's a geek friendly desktop environment, and not one for people who like polished interfaces. Of course, there are many who disagree but this is just my opinion.

GNOME in my eyes is a better desktop environment by far. The interface is very well done, and doesn't have the cluttered look that KDE has. Compare the application menu in GNOME and KDE. You'll see that the spacing between items in GNOME is wider, making you feel less cramped. Or in the control panel, see how GNOME only has a slider with words 'slower' and 'faster' on each end for you to set your keyboard repeat rate, while KDE has a slider and a text box (!!) telling you exactly what the repeat rate is (like anyone really needs to know that). Just a few examples of why I find GNOME better than KDE.

Nevertheless, try both and see which one suits you better. I did, and after 3 years of using KDE I switched to GNOME and haven't looked back since.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 5, 2006)

Viro, I was wondering when you would step in on this topic. ::ha::

Good to see you back on...hope your holidays went well.

And...GO KDE! ::ha:: (just kidding   BTW, my critique on the button order wasn't meant ot crap on Gnome, but actually on both DEs since neither does anything to make it a seamless experience.  GTK-QT does, but it doesn't do everything.  I guess the only seamless interface on Linux would be the command shell! )


----------



## cpm (Jan 5, 2006)

kainjow said:
			
		

> I'm extremely bored right now and am downloading Ubuntu 5.1 Live CD (for PPC) and was wondering for those of you who use Linux and Mac OS X:
> 
> *Why do you use Linux if you have Mac OS X?* What applications do you run in Linux that you can't (or do not want to?) run in OS X?



I use Linux because I have been using Linux since 1995, kernel 1.13. It's always
been good to me, and the last decades has shown me nothing to countermand
that. 

OS-X is great in a whole lot of ways. However, the desktop isn't X, and
I've been using X for a long time, and am quite used to it. Yes, you X-ify
OS-X, but OS-X is already a great OS-X, I don't see any reason to
mess with it much. 
Apps in Linux, pretty much everything I do for a living.
Apps in OS-X, Apple-specific st uff is best done on the Mac, Office-X is 
(imho) preferrable to Office-XP. 


			
				kainjow said:
			
		

> Also, do you run Linux on an x86 or PPC processor?


x86,x86-64


			
				kainjow said:
			
		

> One thing I've seen when downloading Linux apps is that some of the apps that aren't open source aren't available for PPC Linux, for example the Steam server (used for Counter Strike and Half-Life). That's kind of annoying


Wouldn't know, I don't use non-free software much. Only on proprietary
systems, do I use proprietary software. On a free software system,
(most of my life) I only use free software. Open source doesn't mean
much to me. 


			
				kainjow said:
			
		

> Another question: do you prefer KDE or GNOME? Also, what's the major differences (yeah, I could Google, but I want to hear personal opinions).


I moved from Gnome to kde about 4 years with a trial of Mandrake. Stuck
with it. Haven't paid much attention to Gnome since. It seems neither
has the developer community since kde got their licensing in order.


			
				kainjow said:
			
		

> If future PC companies allow running multiple OSs at the same time with Intel's (or AMD's) new processors, I would be very tempted to get a nice PC laptop for running Windows and Linux at the same time. Heck, if Apple allowed this in their PowerBooks, that would be extremely awesome! mmm time to start saving up


----------

