How Can I Try Linux?

[Kaydell Leavitt]

Can someone tell me how to install Linux on a Mac?

Kaydell
[ September 26, 2007: Message edited by: Kaydell Leavitt ]

[Bear Bibeault]

Not something I've done, or would be interested in doing, but I believe that's what BootCamp is for.

That assumes you have an Intel Mac, of course.

[Kaydell Leavitt]

I believe that's what BootCamp is for.

That's a good point. I forgot about that, though when I bought an iMac 400 MHz with a PPC G3, it came with Linux installed and it booted up OK. Since I didn't know Linux and I know Mac OS X, I erased the hard drive and installed Mac OS X. This iMac 400 G3 can still run the latest version of Mac OS X, version 10.4.10.

I don't know if Linux is "ready for prime time", but I've read that whole countries are switching to Linux.

Kaydell
[ September 11, 2007: Message edited by: Kaydell Leavitt ]

[Kaydell Leavitt]

Thank you for the keyword: "Bootcamp". I found Apple's website on Bootcamp:

Apple on Bootcamp

But I don't have the money to buy a new Intel Mac, and I do not have the money to buy Leopard.

Now, I remember the keyword: "Parallels" as an alternative to "Bootcamp":

Parallels

I don't have the money to buy an Intel Mac for Parallels either and I don't have the money to buy the Parallels software -- it isn't much alone, but I believe that it requires the purchase of Vista Business also.

It would be great if I could buy a new Intel Mac portable and run Parallels and run both Mac and PC software (even Linux), but that is not in my budget.

I could run Virtual PC. Right about now, the cost of buying it should be affordable. One advantage that Virtual PC has over Parallels is that it runs under the protection of Mac OS X. An Apple expert told me that running Windows on a Mac opens up the Mac to all of the problems of a PC running Windows -- even if you partition the hard drive.

I don't really know about Bootcamp.
[ September 11, 2007: Message edited by: Kaydell Leavitt ]

[Andrew Monkhouse]

Some links for you ...

Mac Linux Links and Installing SUSE Linux 10.1 on a PowerPC Mac

Both of these were found within a few seconds using Google. I have not gone into any depth with either, but the second one seems like it might be useful - it seems to chronicle the installation of Linux onto an external hard drive (actually an iPod) with a PPC Mac.

When I had my PPC Mac, I had both Linux and OSX installed on it, and used the dual boot capabilities to swap between them. No need for Bootcamp or Parallels or VMWare. However I can no longer comment on the process as I've now gone to Intel Mac.

I don't know if Linux is "ready for prime time", but I've read that whole countries are switching to Linux.

Define "ready for prime time"

Linux has been used to run the systems of many large companies for many years - they would not do this if it was not a stable, reliable option with a better TCO than other options.

I see Linux being used as both servers and desktop machines. So I know that it is considered to be ready for prime time by many companies.

But whether it does what you want - that is something that only you can decide.

Regards, Andrew

[Kaydell Leavitt]

Thanks for the hint. I found one link that is closer to the solution, but it doesn't inspire me to use Linux on the Mac since it keeps talking about how the support is "off and on again".

Installing Linux on a Mac

[Joe Ess]

Have you looked at Yellow Dog Linux? It's targeted at PPC. I wish I could find a review, but Google's flooded with YDL's announcement that it is supporting Playstation 3.

[Bear Bibeault]

Well, why is it you'd want to do this? To fir into some crowd? or for yourself? If the latter, who cares how much of a niche it is?

[Kaydell Leavitt]

Today is "Software Freedom Day". It's not just about the money -- it's about Liberty.

http://www.linux.com/feature/118245
[ September 26, 2007: Message edited by: Kaydell Leavitt ]

[Pat Farrell]

As an alternative, looks for a cheap used PC on craigslist or similar places.
It doesn't take that much of a computer to run distros designed for limited hardware, i.e. DSL.

Granted, if you want a full blown Ubuntu with all the 3D gui eye candy, you'll need a fairly current machine.

If you just want to get smarter, better looking, etc. go cheap. Use your old monitor and keyboard.

A friend of mine was selling a decent Compaq on the Washington DC craigslist for $150 that would be a nice Linux system.

[Nicholas Jordan]

[Kaydell Leavitt:]Open-source such as Linux is much easier to tell what the security issues are

Be that the case-hardened objective, look at either Free BSD or Open BSD - because of the ... uh, you'll have to do a lot of work to understand security issues ... last Thanksgiving I got involved in a one-hour discussion with someone who works at a major manufacturer of hardware and previously worked in financial matters for a major world government. A popular, widely-used os was dismissed by my interlocutor as not effective in the realities of contemporary business practice.

I counter that it is not that it is easier to understand what the security issues are, it is that at least you have a chance to understand what the security issues are. Proprietary kernel sources will leave you " in the cold, damp and oblivion " with no hope of really knowing what is going on.

I had a 486 quite awhile back and installed slack - then testing to destruction by stacking up mouse-moves faster than the box could unstack them.

The kernel is MUCH more robust

[Bear Bibeault]

As this has become all about Linux, it has been moved to a more appropriate locale.

[Pat Farrell]

Originally posted by Nicholas Jordan:
[Kaydell Leavitt:]Open-source such as Linux is much easier to tell what the security issues are

Be that the case-hardened objective, look at either Free BSD or Open BSD

The kernel is MUCH more robust

Lots of serious folks say the BSD versions are more likely to be more secure. And once you get it running, they tend to be very reliable. But *BSD is not what I'd recommend as a first OS coming from either the Windows or Mac worlds.

I'd use Ubuntu for a month, learn the basics, and then you can explore the *BSD folks with less of a canyon of understanding.

One firm that I worked for that cared a lot about security built the kernels from source and only included functions that were required. Less code can mean less places for problems. This is not for the casual user.

[Nicholas Jordan]

Originally posted by Pat Farrell:
One firm that I worked for that cared a lot about security built the kernels from source and only included functions that were required. Less code can mean less places for problems. This is not for the casual user.

What would be your opinion of Dragon Fly ?

Lots of serious folks say the BSD versions are more likely to be more secure. And once you get it running, they tend to be very reliable. But *BSD is not what I'd recommend as a first OS coming from either the Windows or Mac worlds.

If you get it running correctly. It is said by Slackware that, out of the box, their package uses the Swiss Cheese security model. Swiss are known for banking security, it may be that they understand the human factor is the greatest risk.

I'd use Ubuntu for a month, learn the basics, and then you can explore the *BSD folks with less of a canyon of understanding.

Pay attention folks, this guy knows what he is talking about.