PDA

View Full Version : Linux to OS X


MacAztec
Feb 14, 2002, 06:20 PM
I have recently heard of many Linux/Unix users that converted to OS X, and still had all their exact Applications. I believe they stuffed manually with a certain code, did something in the terminal. When they converted, they just usntuffed their files, and they all worked!

Has anyone heard this?

evildead
Feb 14, 2002, 07:11 PM
If its for Linux/UNIX you can port it to OS X with little effort. YOu just need to recompile them in some cases and in others... do nothing.

check out web sites like www.freshmeat.net to find cool apps and tools. Some developers of open scource apps post pre-compiled versions for OS X... i have seen more and more.

MacAztec
Feb 14, 2002, 08:07 PM
wait, how do you have a rev-a iMac 466? I have a Rev. D and its only 333

Pepzhez
Feb 14, 2002, 08:50 PM
Well, I wonder ... how about the other way around? How easy/difficult would it be to port OS X apps to Linux OS? I've heard nothing about this.

Now why would anyone want to do that? I know I risk incurring the wrath of 99% of the people here, but I really believe that OS X sucks. I figure if I'm forced to use a UNIX shell, then I may as well use UNIX that actually works properly (aka Linux) and costs significantly less (like FREE). I have limited experience using Linux, but it's more than enough experience to know that it's a hell of a lot faster than OS X. And who needs that CPU-wasting, IDIOTIC LOOKING candy-colored, Windoze clone interface?

So I figure if there's a way to port FCP 3 to Linux, why should I bother with OS X at all?

Before you flame me, no, I don't do Windoze - and I'd much rather use OS X before I'd ever touch another Windoze machine. I suppose that OS X may one day work as it's supposed to do, but I still think Apple blew it big with this move, tossing aside the easiest to use and by far the most elegant OS ever made in favor of a UNIX shell that doesn't come close to Linux.

Until and unless OS X can -

1) Run at least as fast as OS9 (let's admit it - OS X should never have been released in such an elephantine, incomplete state)
2) Allow one to TURN OFF that horrible eye candy and allow us to regain use of our CPUs for, I don't know, running apps.
3) Properly support apps and hardware
4) KILL THE DOCK ONCE AND FOR ALL (I loathe this thing almost as much as I hated the M$ Office Animated Paperclip)

- I refuse to touch it.

Yes, I'm still happily running OS 9.2 and will continue to do so until it's been rendered obsolete by Apple (which should happen any day, given their Draconian support policies). And when the day comes that I am forced to make the switch to a new OS, if OS X isn't significantly improved, I'm going to Linux.

kishba
Feb 14, 2002, 08:59 PM
i'd love to see you try to go to linux... have you even tried to copy and paste between apps? it's not always consistent. i prefer os x to 9 and linux because although its not lightning fast it get the job done and done well. you have to remember os x is built to last many years. this meant they couldnt support all the crappy hardware of the past. steve even said the new imac is the first computer built from the ground up for it. os x is certainly young and the options for removing eye candy, etc will arrive, but not until more people convert

just be happy... the more people who support x now will inspire people to find ways to customize and improve it.

and that's all i have to say about that

Pepzhez
Feb 14, 2002, 09:19 PM
By "crappy hardware of the past", do you mean Apple computers??? Because those are precisely what OS X is currently having such a difficult time supporting! And if OS X lags considerably on my G4 dual 800, I shudder to think what it's going to do if I try installing it on my imac DV-SE G3 500, never mind that it has 1 GB RAM installed.

OS 9 certainly "gets the job done" on both of these machines - and, in at least the G4 (the only machine in which I've installed OS X) - much faster than it would get done under OS X, so I really don't understand your argument here.

And why should we have to wait to be graciously offered the option to control the interface? If Apple isn't offering you this option now, what makes you think they will in the future?

I'm aware of the difficulties and inconsistencies with Linux, and would be all for OS X in a minute if it worked as advertised. And if you're implying that we all need to buy new machines "built from the ground up for OS X" in order to use it, I say to hell with that! After all, if Linux can run perfectly fast on older Macs, I don't see why we can't expect the same (if not better) performance from Apple's very own OS X! Is that REALLY asking too much??? I think not.

alex_ant
Feb 14, 2002, 09:41 PM
I agree with Pepshez about OS X's speed. I have a TiBook 550 and godd@mn, if OS X were twice as fast, it still wouldn't be enough. Here I am in OmniWeb, and doing something as simple as scrolling down this webpage is choppy as hell. I can't imagine how the poor saps feel who bought a PBG4 400 intending to use it for anything more than email and word processing in OS 9.

On a computer I paid $2300 for two months ago, iTunes is eating up TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT of my wonderful fabulous G4 CPU playing a simple MP3. The window manager is consuming 2% of the CPU and all it's doing is BLINKING the CURSOR.

Don't get me wrong - OS X is doing a lot more than OS 9 was. But... Jesus. I thought OS 9 was a bloated piece of crap before I ever used OS X. OS X makes OS 9 seem like greased lightning. I like Apple, but I want to like them more. And I would if OS X weren't such a dog. It pisses me off to hear the all the Apple fanboys reply "oh just deal with it, it's not as slow as you think, it's got Altivec, you must be imagining things, OS X is like lightning on my iMac 233!!!" Apologizing for Apple doesn't get Apple anywhere. It only makes them lazier and more complacent. Which, in the software engineering department at least, is really the last ******** thing they need to be right now.

"Oh, quiet down, OS X will be faster with the next update." Yeah, I eagerly await the 10.2 update which will be giving me a 50% across-the-board speed increase. Sure.

I'm comforted by the fact that Apple laptops hold their value like Ferraris. Hopefully someday soon I'll be able to afford a computer on which OS X doesn't actually suck.

Sorry about going off topic. What about Linux and OS X?

Alex

AlphaTech
Feb 14, 2002, 09:41 PM
I believe that there is a compiler on the OS X developer tools cd that comes with OS X 10.1 (retail box). With that, you can recompile Linux/Unix apps to OS X. I do not know if it is easy or difficult, since I have not yet done it, but there are tools readily available for you.

menoinjun
Feb 14, 2002, 09:44 PM
If you dont like the dock...dont use it. Just turn on hiding and remove all of the shortcuts you can except the finder and the trash. I personally love it, but I dont like how much screen real estate it takes up. I need either a larger monitor or a card that can do higher resolutions at a better refresh rate. (I hate anything under 100hz) I have loads of stuff in it, but I just hide it until I need it.

-Pete

gbojim
Feb 14, 2002, 09:51 PM
I've tried this with several open source utilities and apps - all command line based - and had no problem.

Most are not available in binary format for OS X, so you have to download the source and go through a normal UNIX install routine which is always outlined in the included README. This requires the dev tools to be installed. This is all possible because of OS X's use of the BSD APIs and works quite well in my experience.

I have not tried installing X Windows to run any of the GUI based apps for Linux so I can't comment on that.

AlphaTech
Feb 14, 2002, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by ptrauber
If you dont like the dock...dont use it. Just turn on hiding and remove all of the shortcuts you can except the finder and the trash. I personally love it, but I dont like how much screen real estate it takes up. I need either a larger monitor or a card that can do higher resolutions at a better refresh rate. (I hate anything under 100hz) I have loads of stuff in it, but I just hide it until I need it.

-Pete

I have the dock rather small, but set to magnify when I pass the cursor over it. I think the dock is about 3/8" tall when not going to select an item.

I agree about using the options built into it's preferences. If you don't like it, hide it so that you can still use it when you want/need. Otherwise, you can set the links onto the desktop and just go there.

I do prefer the dock, since it is there while I ma using any application (makes switching easy) :D

evildead
Feb 15, 2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Mac_User
wait, how do you have a rev-a iMac 466? I have a Rev. D and its only 333

I put a 466 in it. Made by newer technolgies. Works great