Second Thoughts on Linux for PPC Macs
From Jeffrey Kafer:
Dan,
Your point of using
Linux on a low-end Mac to stay current certainly sounds appealing.
However, I think it is harder to actually do in practice, and the
number of choices available for PPC Linux is diminishing quickly
. . . perhaps suggesting that the problem will be more
difficult in the future. Yellow Dog Linux, who is the only distro that
I know of that specializes in PPC Linux, has already discontinued
support for G3s. Gentoo, who also has strong Mac PPC support, has
significantly fewer PPC apps in Portage than they do for x86. In other
words, you cannot stay "current" on PPC with everything that Gentoo
offers for x86. Ubuntu and her KDE and Xfce sisters have already
discontinued PPC as an officially supported platform, relegating it to
a community-supported distribution. Hardy Heron (8.04) is out for x86,
but I can't even find a PPC .iso to download yet. Several other major
Linux distros no longer offer their current releases for PPC (e.g.
Mandrake/Mandriva), and an even greater number never did and likely
never will. It's not that there is not a future for Linux on low-end
Macs, but at the moment it appears to be getting dimmer, not growing
more bright.
Although I do use Linux, I am not a big fan of Linux when there is a
*BSD alternative available. FreeBSD is available for PPC, but it is a
"Second Tier" platform. OpenBSD does not have exactly as much support
for PPC Macs as for x86, but it is a good choice if one happens to be a
security nut and can tolerate its quirks. Fortunately, NetBSD's support
for Mac PPC appears to be as strong as it ever was, and it appears to
still be growing. All three major *BSD distros support Mac PPC in one
form or another, and all but one of the three support it nearly as well
as x86 - and without a G3 cutoff. Linux can make no such claims. I
think the future for *BSD on PPC Mac may be somewhat more encouraging
than Linux on PPC.
Nonetheless, I would not choose either *BSD or Linux over a Mac
running the current Mac OS, or even one version earlier than current.
In other words, I find that the total experience of using the most
current PPC Linux or *BSD for PPC is not quite comparable to using the
previous generation Mac OS (e.g. 10.4.11 today), but usually better
than using an older one like 10.3.9. I use both *BSD and Linux to
supplement my Mac experience today; not replace it. But given the
diminishing nature of Linux for PPC, the question remains at to whether
I will prefer the future version of PPC Linux or *BSD for PPC on a G4
laptop or G5 desktop over 10.5 when 10.7 finally arrives. Only time
will tell.
Regards,
Jeffrey
Jeffrey,
I have to admit that I'm absolutely sold on the Mac
OS. I've worked with Ubuntu on a PC notebook: It worked, but it paled
compared to OS X.
For people who need to use an up-to-date browser,
whether that's for banking or YouTube or something in between, anything
older than Mac OS X 10.2 just isn't going to cut it - and you're
pushing with 10.2.8. For Macs with no 10.3 support, Linux could be a
real alternative to replacing the hardware. For Macs that can run
Tiger, at present there are a multitude of up-to-date browsers, and I
expect that to be the case for a few years minimum.
The flip side of the "Linux/BSD instead of an outdated
version of the Mac OS" argument is the multiplicity of distros. There
are several versions of BSD Unix and far more versions of Linux. And
then there are the GUI shells: KDE vs. Gnome and all that. If anything
is going to prevent these *nix variants from having the impact they
could, it's the multiplicity of options. There is no single Linux or
BSD, but Mac OS X 10.4 and Windows XP are what they are.
It's amazing what the Open Source community can do -
and a shame that they can't all work together on really making
something terrific. Instead some work on BSD, some on Linux, some on
Gnome, some on KDE, some on Ubuntu, some on Red Hat, etc. Not only
would this provide the potential to create something truly awesome, it
would also mean a much larger PowerPC developer community rather than
them being divided among so many different distros and projects.
Low End Mac has had writers promoting Linux on Macs
since at least 2000, when Eric
DeStefano put LinuxPPC on his SuperMac S900. We've had quite a range of
writers share their Linux-on-Mac experiences, but eventually they
either lose interest in the project or see no need to continue writing
about it. Linux is a minority operating system, and the Mac is a
minority hardware platform, so there isn't a huge Mac-Linux community.
On the other hand, when we do publish articles about Linux, they pull
in quite a few readers, and there are enough PPC Mac users to keep
development of PPC Linux and BSD going.
Dan
Which Linux for PPC Macs?
From Faisal Ali:
Mr. Knight,
I recently read your article titled "Left Behind by Mac OS X or Up
to Date with Linux?" and was wondering if you might suggest a good
flavor of Linux for use on an old G4 iMac. Basically, I'd like to try
out Linux, but I don't want to have to tweak things too much. I've
heard of Ubuntu, which is supposed to be ready to go "out of the box"
so to speak, but it appears they no longer support PPC architectures.
Any suggestions?
Thank you for your time.
Faisal Ali
Faisal,
There are over a dozen
distros that support "New World" (1998-2005) PowerPC Macs,
including Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, openSUSE, Slackintosh, and Yellow
Dog. The major exception is Ubuntu Linux for PowerPC,
which has been "community supported" since version 6.10.
Although I've used Ubuntu Linux on a PC, I haven't
tried any Linux distro on Macintosh hardware. I've sent a note to our
staff asking any of them with Linux experience to share their
discoveries. Some columns you might want to look at until then:
- Getting Xubuntu
Linux Up and Running on Your Aging Mac, John Hatchett,
2008.06.04
- The Best OS for Your Hardware:
Linux, Windows, or OS X?, Andrew Fishkin, 2006.12.13
- Linux on the Low End, Larry
Stotler, July 2006 to present
- Is Ubuntu Linux a Sensible Alternative
for Mac Users?, Charles Moore, 2006.09.18
- Fedora Core and Yellow Dog Linux: Two
More Good Choices for Mac Hardware, Leaman Crews, 2005.12.21
- Using Linux to Give an Aging Mac More
Zip, Leaman Crews, 2005.12.07
- Getting Ubuntu Linux Up and Running
on a PowerPC Mac, Leaman Crews, 2005.12.14
- PPC Linux, Jason Walsh, May to
August 2002
- Unix & the Mac, Adam Loiacono,
January to May 2002
- Low End Linux?, Jonathan
Ploudre, 2001.09.04
- Linux for PowerPC, Eric DeStefano,
2000.08.24
Dan
Linux Leaving Older Macs Behind?
From Chris Kilner:
Dan:
It's not only Apple that is leaving the PPC platform behind - Linux
is sorta doing the same thing. Old World Macs haven't been able to run
a recent kernel in years. Most distros, especially the lightweight ones
like Zenwalk, DSL (Damn Small Linux), Puppy Linux, etc. don't have a
PPC version. Others clearly eschew the Mac and try to be XP-like, such
as PCLinuxOS.
If you look at the most common Linux distro, Ubuntu, they officially
stopped supporting the PPC with version 6.x - i.e., you won't find a
link to a PPC version on the official Ubuntu (or Kubuntu or Edbuntu or
Xubuntu) download sites - if you want to run the latest 8.0.4 "Hardy
Heron," you need to look to the unofficial ports: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/hardy/release/
While distrowatch.com lists 26 "active" PPC versions of Linux, the
most recent PPC versions for many of these date from the 2004-2006 era
when Apple was still building PPC hardware. Even PPC versions that are
up-to-date aren't necessarily supporting older Mac hardware - for
example, Yellow Dog v6 doesn't officially support G3s and has some
audio and sleep problems with many G4 portables.
The majority of Mac users without Linux experience will want a
mature, up-to-date desktop version (further narrowing the field to
Ubuntu, Debian-GNU, Yellow Dog, or openSUSE) and will probably want a
Live CD version to test things out first, which I believe are only
offered by Ubuntu and openSUSE.
I've installed Ubuntu and Xubuntu (Fiesty and Gutsy via Live CD and
Alternate install) on Macs and PCs - while it was slightly easier than
getting OS X 10.2 installed on a PowerBook 3400, it was a far cry from
what most Mac users are used to from Apple system installs. I
ultimately found Panther and Tiger to be better on the older G3
hardware. However, like you, I hope that Linux continues to be
developed on the PPC so that when Apple abandons the platform, Linux
will be a viable alternative for up-to-date computing on PPC Macs. As
it is, Ubuntu 8.0.4 will have long-term support for security updates
until 2011, so it will be supported a little longer than Apple will
probably support Tiger.
Peace,
Chris Kilner
Chris,
Thanks for writing. The whole Linux thing is more than
a little confusing, and every attempt to simplify things seems to bring
just one more distro to the table. Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu - what's
the difference? Why choose one over the other?
One of the nice things about Linux is the number of
Live CD images you can download, burn to CD, and try before you decide
whether you want to install it. As I write this, I'm downloading the
8.04 Ubuntu Live CD for PowerPC, which I hope to try on a G3 iMac, G4
eMac, and my dual 1 GHz Power Mac G4. Then I'll finally have some
hands-on experience with Linux on Mac hardware. [UPDATE: Booting from
the Live CD resulted in a 400 MHz iMac that shut itself down, a Power
Mac G4 with unsupported video (the stock card), and an eMac that showed
the Ubuntu logo, flashed a message about wireless, and then gave me a
black screen. This does not bode well.]
Linux and BSD are great ways to repurpose old hardware
and keep it from becoming obsolete. If they can make installation as
easy as Windows and the Mac OS, they'll have eliminated a big obstacle
to their wider use.
Dan
Left Behind by OS X
From Gary Kohl:
Wow, I thought Microsoft confused people with their 7 (or however
many it was) versions of Vista. What you are proposing would lead to
absolute confusion in the Mac community as people tried to figure out
which of umpteen versions of OS X they needed to use. I think anything
more complex than a single version with functions that the user can
choose to turn off (and thereby use on older equipment) would create
worse user head-scratching than figuring out which version of Vista is
which.
Older Macs can continue to run all the software they have always
run. To expect any more after a period of years is to ignore the
realities of software development and the evolution of the Internet.
Software always requires more horsepower as it evolves - this is not
Apple's fault. The Internet continues to add richer and richer
multimedia functionality - again, not Apple's fault. At some point the
older Macs simply won't be able to deal with the current state of the
application environment. This may be unfortunate, as thanks to Apple
building machines that last seemingly forever one would wish to
continue to use them as one always has. But sooner or later it's time
to realize that old machine needs to be repurposed. Quit complaining
about what the machine can't do and find a new use for it. After 10
years those still using machines that shipped with OS 9 have more
than gotten their money's worth out of the equipment. My 9-year-old
Yikes machine has been
upgraded to run OS X reasonably well, and works great as an
Internet/email machine - plus it still runs OS 9 games. But I
don't expect it to do any more than that - just like I didn't expect my
Betamax to play DVDs nor my record player to play CDs.
As someone who has used numerous versions of Linux dating back to
MKLinux in the late 90s, I doubt very many Mac users would put up with
even the most recent, more user friendly versions of Linux. No version
of the many I have tried comes anywhere close to being able to simply
boot up after installation and allow the user the ease of the Mac.
Frustration with networking, printing, drivers, etc. still continues
even in the latest, greatest Linux distros. And any Mac user would be
appalled at the state of consumer audio and video applications in
Linux. There are lots of them, they're free, and they suck. And the
clear trend, as Linux tries and tries to conquer the desktop, is to add
more of the same GUI complexity as the Mac and Windows - and as a
result of the extra horsepower needed, those old Macs can no longer run
it than they can 10.6.
So I recommend that we continue to enjoy old Macs for what they can
do, not get frustrated with what they can't. Apple either slows down
the pace of innovation and we all use our machines forever until Apple
goes out of business, or they continue to innovate and we realize the
day will come when it's time to buy a new machine.
Gary,
What I was proposing was not a number of versions of
Mac OS X, but a version of Mac OS X that would let the user decide
whether the Panther, Tiger, or Leopard user interface better meets
their needs on the hardware they have. There's really nothing in the
core 10.5 operating system that can't function on a G3 Mac - it's all
the extras like a 3D Dock that demand G4 horesepower. Since the Finder
is just an application, why not allow users to choose less demanding
Finders if the Leopard UI overwhelms their otherwise adequate
hardware?
For some types of work, particularly video, raw
computing power is very important, and for that hardware, an OS like
Leopard isn't a problem. But for the most common tasks - email, word
processing, using a browser - the hardware simply doesn't need to be
that powerful, but by coupling the Leopard UI with the underlying
operating system, there's no way to run Leopard-only software on those
old Macs even if they don't require all the bells and whistles of the
new GUI.
It's not a matter of trying to play DVDs in a Betamax
or Blu-ray in a DVD player; it's more like being able to listen to
today's CDs on a 10-year-old CD player. We just want to access today's
Internet using a modern, up-to-date browser after Apple leaves us
behind without buying a new computer, and we can't even count on the
open source community to keep supporting old versions of the Mac OS.
It's either buy a new computer or switch to Linux.
I don't have to have a new car to drive on the
expressway, and I shouldn't need a relatively new computer to use the
Internet. I realize that the Web is a moving target, and that's why we
need up-to-date browsers even if our computers may seem outdated. If we
can't have that with older versions of OS X (which is bound to
happen someday), Linux will give us access to the latest version of
Firefox. It may not be as use friendly or easy to install, but it will
provide an option for keeping our low-end Macs on the modern Internet
after Apple leaves us behind.
Dan
Your Latest Piece Is Inappropriate
From Philip Ershler:
Dan, I am very disappointed that you are railing at Apple based on
some very questionable rumors. This piece is not up to your usual
standards.
Phil
Phil,
The article dealt with two realities: 1) at some
point, perhaps 10.6, Apple is going to drop PowerPC support, and 2) at
some point up-to-date browsers and other software won't be available to
those using older versions of the Mac OS. There's nothing inappropriate
about that or about speculating as to when we can expect Apple to
eliminate PPC support in OS X.
The gist of the article is that while Apple will
eventually leave older Mac hardware behind, Linux provides an
alternative - a free operating system that's constantly being updated
with a wealth of free, open source, up-to-date software. It's not
OS X, but for those with old hardware who need, say, a fully
up-to-date browser but don't have one for their version of the Mac
OS.
I think the whole thing is very appropriate to our
audience, as it is a reality they will inevitably have to face if they
keep their older Macs.
Dan
Jumping Ship for Intel?
From Michael Gimeson:
I give it to Apple for fixing the
iSub, and not only that it seem they fix that issue that the iSub
had to be turn up a lot for any bass to come out.
I have been reading how people are starting to get ready in a few
years to jump ship to Intel chips as PowerPCs ship starts to sink. The
need for more power has drove the consumer to the store for a faster
PC, but at what point does all this power make no sense for someone who
does basic thing on their computers? I find it pointless for people who
have a nice setup at this point to upgrade to an Intel Mac for just the
point of speed or eye candy, but then again there are people who like
that crap. At least Apple is giving it user a choice, unlike Microsoft,
which is the reason I made the leap to Apple. I'll be staying with my
old friend a Power Mac
G4 DA Dual 533 MHz until the bitter end. To that point, your site
(Low End Mac) has helped me keep my old friend running in top
shape.
Thank You!
Michael,
The goal behind Low End Mac has always been to help
people get the most value out of their Macs, particularly older ones.
As long as your Mac meets your needs, there is no need to replace
it.
Of course, that doesn't put much money in Apple's
pockets, so they keep building powerful new features into the operating
system, which increases hardware requirements, and then release
software that requires that version of the OS. In this way Apple hopes
to entice you into buying a new Mac every few years - or at least a new
version of Mac OS X and your favorite apps.
As long as your Mac meets your needs, keep using it.
If you reach the point where you need more power or a program it can't
run, that's when it's time to move forward and pick up a newer Mac -
and the market in used PowerPC Macs is going to be solid for several
years, so maybe you'll find a Power Mac G5 with two or four cores will
meet your needs - and for a lot less money than a Mac Pro.
There are legitimate reasons for going Intel, and they
involve the need for more raw power (digital video, for instance) or
the need to run x86 software (Windows, Intel-only Mac apps, etc.). Even
a dual 1.8 GHz G4 upgrade for your DA or a 2.7 GHz Power Mac G5 don't
approach the power of today's dual-core Macs, although they may provide
all the power you need when your dual 533 MHz G4 is no longer powerful
enough. (The 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 has as much raw power as a 2.4 GHz
Core 2 Duo iMac.)
Dan
Don't Blame Leopard for What May Be a Hardware
Problem
From Felix Lizarraga:
Hi Dan,
I fully read John Campbell's
rant, and of course you gotta feel for the guy. A lot of people
have been stung by Leopard's bugs at one point or another. I personally
had a happily smooth Leopard experience - in unsupported hardware as
well as supported - until patch 10.5.3 jumbled up my Internet
connection. The solution provided by Apple (starting in Safe Mode and
then restarting) has improved things, but not fully fixed them, at
least not for me.
In Campbell's case, however, he seems to be experiencing extreme
problems that have not been widely experienced by a majority of users,
and that, as Dan points out, are probably arising from firmware or
hardware issues. What is more, it surprises me to see him lashing out
at Apple, Apple zealots, and even poor Justin Long (who is just an
actor paid to look smug in the ads and might not even be either smug or
an Apple lover, for that matter), while leaving out the most likely
source of his problem - his particular brand new iMac and the vendor he
got it from.
It does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that if a new
computer is experiencing problems that none of your old machines is
having, and that most people haven't even heard of, then the new
computer should be the possible culprit. Campbell should take it up
with PC Connection. If they sold him a lemon, they should replace it.
End of story.
Now, if he goes through the replacement process, say, twice, and all
the machines suffer the same issues, then I say: Go blame Apple, snotty
Apple fanatics, even smug-looking-for-hire Justin Long! But, as of now,
I don't see any evidence of Leopard or Apple being responsible for
Campbell's particular dilemma...
Just my two cents.
Best regards,
Felix Lizarraga
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
