PDA

View Full Version : Any who converted from Mac to Ubuntu?



Darrin
November 16th, 2005, 04:09 PM
If you have converted over, why? Last month was the first real go at using linux. Before ever trying it I was pretty set in getting a mac as my next computer. Researching it a bit, macs have all the software I need and appear to be safe and stable. Macs and Linux (mainly ubuntu) seem to have similarity. To sum it up in a simplified manner it seems that macs are more user friendly linux style OS. At the momment I still dont vision a future for me as Ubuntu only user. Just not enough software that I need to do so.
Your feedback and comments on this are appreciated.

ubuntu_demon
November 16th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Can you be specific about the software you miss ?

I recommended a mac for my dad during hoary but I might start recommending Ubuntu over macs with the Dapper release. I recommend Ubuntu for "nerds" for it's high configurability. I also recommend Ubuntu to people who don't have the money to buy a new system.

Darrin
November 16th, 2005, 04:25 PM
Can you be specific about the software you miss ?

The main software I must have is Logos (http://www.logos.com/originallanguages). I have found nothing even close to it in Linux. They will have it for Macs here pretty quick. If I have to Ill stick with windows and only have this one software title on it.


I might start recommending macs over Ubuntu with the Dapper release


Why? Is dapper going to be more difficult to use or less user friendly?

quietglow
November 16th, 2005, 04:44 PM
I use macs and ubuntu, but prefer Ubuntu for me. When my dad (sorta a typical user) wanted a computer, I got him set up with an iMac.

My question, though, is why would you (ubuntu_demon) suggest that after Breezy you'd no longer give to an end (non geek) user? Sounds kinda ominous!

Brunellus
November 16th, 2005, 04:46 PM
The main software I must have is Logos (http://www.logos.com/originallanguages). I have found nothing even close to it in Linux. They will have it for Macs here pretty quick. If I have to Ill stick with windows and only have this one software title on it.



Why? Is dapper going to be more difficult to use or less user friendly?
it might be worthwhile seeing if you can run your preferred software in WINE.

Darrin
November 16th, 2005, 04:51 PM
it might be worthwhile seeing if you can run your preferred software in WINE.
I probably will try that eventually. But Im not brave enough yet to do so. Im afraid Ill mess something up. :p

Chayak
November 16th, 2005, 04:58 PM
I've installed Ubuntu on my mini mac. OS X tends to bog down on it but it seems quite happy to run Ubuntu. I admit some of Apple pro applications are pretty hard to beat... Final Cut for one. I am a big fan of OS X, you have to pay yes but with remote desktop it's very easy to manage a large network. It does howerver require more memory. Apple makes good hardware as well. I'm seriously looking at getting one of the dual dual-processor G5s and dual booting OS X and Ubuntu on it.

ubuntu_demon
November 16th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Why? Is dapper going to be more difficult to use or less user friendly?


typo : I meant the reverse. Dapper is going to be very userfriendly and stable. I also think that our community support is improving (ubuntuforums, the new doc.gwos.org , official backports, plf and a lot of other nice initiatives).

Darrin
November 16th, 2005, 09:18 PM
typo : I meant the reverse. Dapper is going to be very userfriendly and stable. I also think that our community support is improving (ubuntuforums, the new doc.gwos.org , official backports, plf and a lot of other nice initiatives).
Thats reassuring to know. I really like Ubuntu. I have a hard time justifying the price of macs. IMO they are overpriced.

Brunellus
November 16th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Thats reassuring to know. I really like Ubuntu. I have a hard time justifying the price of macs. IMO they are overpriced.
..which is one of the reasons I got into Linux (the first being that my WinME computer had become unbootable).

Ubuntu, and Linux in general, does wonders for stretching my computer dollar. Not only do I not pay licence fees, but I can get lots and lots of use out of old hardware, since Linux-based OSes are, by and large, less resource intensive than equivalently modern versions of Windows.

Also, it's easier for me to trim a linux install to fit my existing hardware. Cheaper than buying my hardware to fit my software!

quietglow
November 16th, 2005, 10:01 PM
To play devil's advocate: the increasing popularity of mac have really made the resale market much more attractive. It used to be that you could sell a 3 year old mac (assuming it wasn't the bottom of the line at the start) for only a 15% depreciation or so. Those days are pretty well gone now. $500 now buys a decent g4 tower. Note that I am NOT saying a dollar goes as far on mac hardware as on x86 (I'm not! $500 bought me a sweet amd 3400+!).

What I WOULD say is that there are lots of really great reasons to choose Ubuntu over OSX: the philosophical reasons behind OSS, the apt system, configurability, the excellent community, the regular OS updates (that have not become a commodity a la OSX Grrr....) etc. These are just the tip of the iceburg.

FWIW, I have a twin 1.4ghz g4 sitting right here next to my Ubuntu laptop at work, and I've had dozens of macs stretching way, way back (my first computer was a IIc and I have more or less used macs since). Ubuntu is very much the OS of my future!

Brunellus
November 16th, 2005, 10:05 PM
yeah. but on the other hand, G3 iMacs are going for under a hundred bucks here in my local market. I wonder how good they are with ubuntu, and whether or not they'll play nicely with USB wlan adaptors?

quietglow
November 16th, 2005, 10:08 PM
I've run it on newer (maybe 400mhz?) g3 Imacs and its lots more responsive than osx for sure--I think aqua really hurts their old graphics hardware. Haven't tried a USB graphics adapter, but if anyone has an interest in it, I could give it a shot (I have both here at work)

Brunellus
November 16th, 2005, 10:34 PM
quietglow, if you can do that, that would be a great help to everyone.

Surplus G3 iMacs would make ideal computers to give to kids......

ubuntu_demon
November 16th, 2005, 10:58 PM
Thats reassuring to know. I really like Ubuntu. I have a hard time justifying the price of macs. IMO they are overpriced.
For a "nerd" like me they are overpriced because I can do almost everything I want with Ubuntu. But for the average desktop user they aren't that much overpriced because they just work and are pretty.

But like I said I might start recommending Ubuntu over a mac when Dapper releases. That's why I'm interested in this thread. What kind of software is holding some of you back ?

I forgot to mention I really like the fact that Ubuntu is open source. :-P

quietglow
November 16th, 2005, 10:59 PM
I meant network adapter, of course, alright I'll put it on a machine at work...yeah they make awsome kids computers. My daughter's first computer was a bondi imac!

pxgray
November 17th, 2005, 04:02 AM
I have used Linux off and on now for about 8 years, beginning with debian and debian-based solutions, and moving to Gentoo. When Ubuntu came out I was a little skeptical about it, mostly because I liked the source based approach that Gentoo had. When it came time to buy a laptop for college I finally settled on an iBook G4 (which had just come out at the time), and was very happy with my decision. It had all the Unixy goodness of my Gentoo PC, and the user interface was very flashy and cool.

Flash forward to two weeks ago, 2 years after having bought the iBook, nearly $300 in maintenance fees due to faulty wiring and whatnot, and finally the hard disk deciding to fail, and I decide to buy a new laptop. I think at the moment it's useless to buy Apple laptops because in 8 months they'll be Intel processors and not PPC, so I went with a Toshiba. I decide since I've been running OS X and not subsisting on any Windows apps for 2 years, I'll give Linux a shot on the laptop and try to continue to be Windows free. My first choice was Gentoo, but after considering it, I wanted the ease of a binary based system, as well as the large and friendly userbase that seemed to be surrounding the Ubuntu distribution

Already long story short: I love it. All the hardware, including suspend and hibernate, work right out of the box, the distribution is fast, laptop friendly, and all the software I could possibly want is available at the touch of a button. I am definitely a Mac to Ubuntu fanatic, and I cannot wait to see the new features that Dapper has to offer us. I may own another mac in the future, but I will always run Ubuntu on something.

SectionThree
November 17th, 2005, 04:42 AM
yeah. but on the other hand, G3 iMacs are going for under a hundred bucks here in my local market. I wonder how good they are with ubuntu, and whether or not they'll play nicely with USB wlan adaptors?


As I type this, I'm running Ubuntu quite happily on my G3 iMac, and if I want, I can boot her back up into OS X 10.1.5. It runs a bit quicker with Ubuntu however. If you spring for the cheap iMac, methinks you will not be disappointed...

(Mine is a 1999 266 mhz model with 130 MB of RAM. I've seen it sell on eBay for $15 before. You'll probably be good with a mere 64 MB of RAM.)

Darrin
November 17th, 2005, 04:47 AM
Its nice to hear that some mac users here actually prefer ubuntu in some cases. I do think its future is bright. I cant wait for the next release to see whats in store. Once thing I am sure is my switch from Linspire to ubuntu. But thats another thread ;)

tomwell
November 26th, 2005, 01:50 AM
Guys dont you think that a lot more Mac users are going to switch to one flavor or another of linux now that Apple=Windoze??

I mean the die hard Mac fans are so unhappy bout it...!!!

And linux based distros are the best OS once they are installed right??

Peace

Tom

ssam
November 26th, 2005, 02:24 AM
i run ubuntu on my powerbook. my reasons are explained here http://www.tygier.co.uk/linux/why.html

some other random notes:

if you need to run photoshop and final cut (and can afford to spend as much on software as you do on hardware) then get a mac. but if you want to have the best free software then run linux.

you can dual boot mac os x and linux. its as easy to set up as dual booting linux with windows

apple hardware is generally of a high quality, i know people who do heavy graphics work on 5 year old G3s. when you take everything into account the price is similar to a high quality x86 machine.

if you just want to run linux then you can probably find cheaper hardware than a mac.

there is very little proprietary linux stuff compiled for powerpc. ie no macromedia flash, no skype, no binary graphics drivers, poor realplayer, no w32codecs... if this bothers you then don't bother with linux on mac (this may change with mactels).

Sirin
November 26th, 2005, 02:36 AM
Guys dont you think that a lot more Mac users are going to switch to one flavor or another of linux now that Apple=Windoze??

I mean the die hard Mac fans are so unhappy bout it...!!!

And linux based distros are the best OS once they are installed right??

Peace

Tom

Aw come on. The Mac OS X itself is based on UNIX. Linux is also based on UNIX. Windows will never equal the stability, security, and ease of use of UNIX.

Comparing Linux to Mac OS X:

1) Mac OS X has a lot of software, over 12,000 applications. Ubuntu (I'm posting Ubuntu only because I really don't know how much RedHat or Slackware has) only has less than 4,000.

2) Mac OS X is developed by Apple, a nice, family-like corporation that works together. Linux however, is a community-run project. It is seperated. Some people work apps for Debian or RedHat. Gnome or KDE.

3) Mac OS X is easy to install. It uses a GUI, thus making the mouse active, and guides you through the whole thing. Ubuntu on the other hand, uses a text-based installation process, which means that I had to use my keyboard strictly :( . In the Ubuntu Installation, when I had tried to enter my password, I couldn't see it as I was typing. No asteriks, no dots, nothing. That caused me some frustrations.

The point is (those were only 3 reasons above. Nothing near the total count.): Ubuntu, is not ready for the newbies or the average user. From my experience, it's for experienced users only. My mother and friends had a VERY hard time installing Ubuntu. ;)

tomwell
November 26th, 2005, 02:57 AM
I understand exactly what you are saying, my post was with regards to those Mac die hard fans, that actually do know a lil about computing and usually are quite happy to experiment with new things.. remember they enjoy the fact that there system is a "special" OS that not everyone has it... they like being different...

You cant be more original than having a linux based distro on ur box...

I wouldn't exactly say that Macintosh computers are for completely inexperience computer users... There is windows computers for that...


Aw come on. with regards to your comment at the begining of the post, i was just asking a simple question do you think Die hard mac users are going to want to change OS + Hardware because of Apple signing off to Microsoft...

Simple question no hostility needed...!!!

Peace

Tom

Iandefor
November 26th, 2005, 03:56 AM
I use Macs on an almost daily basis as well as an Ubuntu PC. I like Ubuntu better; it comes with just about anything you'll need for everyday desktop usage and the option to expand to almost any application you coud put a computer to. Plus, macs cost a lot more; Here's a price comparison between a custom-configured system made for the AMD64 architecture and a similarly configured Mac Mini (The absolute bargain-basement of the Macs):
NOTE: These were configured without regard to graphics capabilities, although the Mac admittedly has a large advantage in that area.

AMD64 computer:
2 GHZ AMD Athlon 64
1GB DDR400 SDRAM
Onboard video
40GB SATA hard drive
CD-RW/DVD combo drive
VGA video output
Built-In 10/100 LAN and 56k modem
Optional wi-fi

Cost:$435.00 (Includes cost of extra cooling equipment)

Macintosh Mini:
1.25GHz PowerPC G4
1GB DDR333 SDRAM
ATI Radeon 9200
32MB DDR video memory
40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
DVI or VGA video output
Optional AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth
Built-in 56k Internal Modem

Cost: $599.00

I tried to give the same amounts of information on both systems (Meaning the AMD system specs were truncated, because Apple's spec sheets are kind of sparse; Believe me, I could have gone into much more detail) for simplicity. Even then, in almost all respects (Graphics card excepted), the AMD system either matches or exceeds the Mac Mini's specs and does it at a lower cost. But it really comes down to personal preference; All I showed was that a PC makes more sense in terms of price. So: I like Ubuntu because it fits better with my beliefs than propietary software, it's free (No price tag), it's based off of an operating system I'm familiar with, I've become addicted to the UI, the fact that I have the option to run it both on a Mac, an x86, or an AMD, and the community around it is really great. Certainly, Mac OS X is, on the whole, easier to use than Linux, but I have my reasons for using Linux. Go with whatever appeals to you more.

By the way, Sirin, here are my responses to your comparisons:
1) Ubuntu has around 16,000 packages available to it (Excluding those aplications that you can run with WINE).

2) OS X is developed by a single company, and thus provides one choice: OS X. Linux is developed by a multitude of people, and provides you with choices, albeit at a cost of greater complexity (a problem which is easily resolved by knowing what the choices are) but with the benefit of greater flexibility. You can run Linux on x86, AMD64, PPC, and embedded platforms. Do that with OS X.

3) You had to use your keyboard to install? How Barbaric! :) Ubuntu's installer doesn't use a mouse for the interface, but that doesn't make it difficult to use.

Littleweseth
November 26th, 2005, 05:11 AM
Guys dont you think that a lot more Mac users are going to switch to one flavor or another of linux now that Apple=Windoze??

I mean the die hard Mac fans are so unhappy bout it...!!!

And linux based distros are the best OS once they are installed right??

Peace

Tom

Um... Apple != Windows. Apple is merely switching from IBM PPC processors to Intel x86 ones, albeit ultra-supersecret-special ones.

______

As a point of interest, I have a 1999 iMac as well (using it right now), G3 400mhz/320mb SDRAM. As a sidenote, it's ridiculously easy to put RAM into a G3 iMac - 'turn little screw thing, take off plastic panel, push RAM in, reassemble', so think about getting an iMac cheap and then finding some surplus SDRAM. Anyway, it runs OSX fairly well, so I'd imagine that Ubuntu (which wouldn't be using the zomg 8mb TNT graphics for drawing pretty aqua pills everywhere) would run fairly well also.

As far as mac software goes... heard of Fink and X11? You can run pretty much any piece of Linux software on a mac, albeit slightly slower (disclaimer : probably immaterial on a G4+ Mac). Linux software also runs in something closer to a native *nix environment than windows, because BSD = Unix and OSX = BSD, so everything works - on the other hand, the PHP manual is littered with "WARNING! [function] doesn't work on Win32". Additionally, the software you DO get for mac tends to be of higher quality, possibly because only hardcore devs have the guts to develop for it. Just check out the average Mac developer website compared to the average Windows developer website. (No, i'm not trying to corellate websites with software quality - or am I?)

Installers : ever installed XP? ZOMG it makes you use your keyboard for the first part of the install! Oh, the humanity.

Oh, and SectionThree - how'd you manage to get 130mb of RAM? 128mb DIMM plus, an ahh.... 2mb DIMM? :p

Sirin
November 26th, 2005, 06:37 AM
1) Ubuntu has around 16,000 packages available to it (Excluding those aplications that you can run with WINE).
Yes. Libraries, application expansions, system extensions, source packages...

When I said 12,000 applications, this meant only the applications. Not packages. Also, to your WINE statement, WINE is in development stage. It has never worked on my computer (except that one time that I tried to run WinAMP which it crashed the exact second the GUI popped up).



2) OS X is developed by a single company, and thus provides one choice: OS X. Linux is developed by a multitude of people, and provides you with choices, albeit at a cost of greater complexity (a problem which is easily resolved by knowing what the choices are) but with the benefit of greater flexibility. You can run Linux on x86, AMD64, PPC, and embedded platforms. Do that with OS X.

Choices. Of course this is a benefit to some height, however, things can become complex as you said. There are several different packaging systems. Each is distro-dependent. More packages are made for RedHat-based systems than Debian-Based systems (e.g. Ubuntu), and converting RPMs to DEBs via Alien is a very risky thing.

As on the Mac with architecture compatibility: We already have. :D

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1637/img2213536400az.jpg



3) You had to use your keyboard to install? How Barbaric! :) Ubuntu's installer doesn't use a mouse for the interface, but that doesn't make it difficult to use.

Could you explain how I couldn't see my password while I was typing it in through the install process? It took me hours to find out how to get it working. There is no disclaimer saying that the password entry line would stay blank as you typed it. ;)

BELOW: "No disclaimer at all"
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3969/014password3ef.png



with regards to your comment at the begining of the post, i was just asking a simple question do you think Die hard mac users are going to want to change OS + Hardware because of Apple signing off to Microsoft...

Simple question no hostility needed...!!!


There was no hostility meant. I was just talking about how UNIX and UNIX-Based OSes were superior to Windows. :)

aysiu
November 26th, 2005, 06:45 AM
Could you explain how I couldn't see my password while I was typing it in through the install process? It took me hours to find out how to get it working. There is no disclaimer saying that the password entry line would stay blank as you typed it. ;) Were you installing Hoary? Because I got feedback when I typed the password in for the Breezy install (a bunch of asterisks--one for each character).


As on the Mac with architecture compatibility: We already have. Are you implying that Mac can be run on any architecture? That's simply not true. Even when it comes to Intel, it'll be designed for Apple Intel computers. You won't be able to plop it on any old x86 computer without some special hack.

Iandefor
November 26th, 2005, 08:52 AM
Yes. Libraries, application expansions, system extensions, source packages...

When I said 12,000 applications, this meant only the applications. Not packages. Also, to your WINE statement, WINE is in development stage. It has never worked on my computer (except that one time that I tried to run WinAMP which it crashed the exact second the GUI popped up).

Ah. Okay, then. You win. Damn semantics! Anyways, it's true WINE is still in beta (and in fact only left Alpha a little while ago), but I've had a lot of success with it. Go figure.



Choices. Of course this is a benefit to some height, however, things can become complex as you said. There are several different packaging systems. Each is distro-dependent. More packages are made for RedHat-based systems than Debian-Based systems (e.g. Ubuntu), and converting RPMs to DEBs via Alien is a very risky thing.

Yeah, but the choices aren't that complex. KDE or GNOME? Each has it's merits, and even then, there's the option of XFCE4 or even Fluxbox. But it isn't at all difficult to learn about the merits of each.
To the best of my knowledge, .rpm's and .deb's are only incompatible insofar as they use different formats for laying out files. Alien fixes this (Again, I've had success with Alien, but I've only converted about 4 packages with Alien, so my experience is limited).



As on the Mac with architecture compatibility: We already have. :D

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1637/img2213536400az.jpg


True, but to have that available to a consumer now is kinda really illegal (or at least a breach of Apple's licence); they have to hack the Mac OS X source code to make that work, and source code's got legal protections. Aysiu is right; Just because the processors on the Macs will use the x86 architecture doesn't mean it'll run on any old PC; it's still probably gonna be protected in some way.



Could you explain how I couldn't see my password while I was typing it in through the install process? It took me hours to find out how to get it working. There is no disclaimer saying that the password entry line would stay blank as you typed it. ;)

BELOW: "No disclaimer at all"
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3969/014password3ef.png


I guess I'm used to that on Linux systems, but I never learned why that is.
Once you get that it's there, it's not that hard to work around. I guess that it would be handy for users that're unfamiliar with Linux to be warned about that :).



There was no hostility meant. I was just talking about how UNIX and UNIX-Based OSes were superior to Windows. :)
Sorry. I was feeling a little snippy when I responded to you. I'll have to start watching my tongue a little more closely, I guess :).

ssam
November 26th, 2005, 12:38 PM
although there is a lot of unix in mac os x that does not mean that it runs all linux/unix software well. Apples X11 is better than nothing, but its not very well intergrated. running gimp on osx is not that fun. Inkscape for osx can't get pressure data from a wacom tablet. fink packages can be out of date.

raw counts of applications can be miss leading. what if 1000 of the linux packages are text editors? what if the applications you use only run on one of the systems.

i dont think most mac users are too bothered about the switch from powerpc to x86. i think very few people will notice anything different. i imagine apple compared the roadmaps (and how the companies had deviated from these in the past) and worked out that 2006-7 the best (fastest/cheapest/lowpower) would come from intel. then they just tweek the xCode to make binarys with code for both chips (or put both binaries in a package). then fix the odd endian bug and test it like crazy for a year.

tomwell
November 26th, 2005, 01:30 PM
Um... Apple != Windows. Apple is merely switching from IBM PPC processors to Intel x86 ones, albeit ultra-supersecret-special ones.


Need i remind you??

http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html

Is that big enough?? LMAO!!

tomwell
November 26th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Aysu,

I am not sure about this but from the article below you dont need to change the source code or anything they are just going to try and lock MAC OS X into there own Expensive harware!!!

But then my programing skills are = 0 so am not 100% on that...

Great article none the less...

Enjoy..

Peace

Tom

ps: Sirin, its all good!!

ssam
November 26th, 2005, 01:53 PM
yes ms have owned a bit of apple for a while.

they also provide a lot of money (through advertising) to the ostg (http://www.ostg.com/) websites (linux.com, slashdot etc).

back in 1997 apple needed microsoft office more than a huge ongoing legal fight over whether windows copied mac os. they where in no position to try to defeat microsoft.

i dont think apple want to defeat mircosoft now (although some of their uses do). they just want to provide an alternative.

i think it would be better that in ten years time there are 5 or 6 operating systems each with at least 10% marketshare (if market share means anything), than ubuntu on every computer. its like biodiversity, if you just grow one crop single crop and it gets hit by disease or the weather conditions dont suit it then you loose everything.

tomwell
November 26th, 2005, 02:29 PM
yes ms have owned a bit of apple for a while.

they also provide a lot of money (through advertising) to the ostg (http://www.ostg.com/) websites (linux.com, slashdot etc).

back in 1997 apple needed microsoft office more than a huge ongoing legal fight over whether windows copied mac os. they where in no position to try to defeat microsoft.

i dont think apple want to defeat mircosoft now (although some of their uses do). they just want to provide an alternative.


Ssam exactly my point of view, but i am speaking from experience in the design world where i work, most designers use mac, they claim they are the best OS, best hardware, and most of all the BEST!!! lol They really hate M$ as much if not more than most Linux users... When they found out that Mac got payed off in that manner... they went Totally Nuts!!! It has been the most published Pay off in the computer industry recently... Ms Word was originally written for Mac... I have known that for a while but it is not widely known news that they both companies are very close (they have had quite serious arguments LMAO)

Most Mac Users hate M$ Profusely!! That is a known fact!!! My original point was that perhaps those Die hard fans would swap over... ( and guys the die hard fans are able to use different computer systems including Linux...!!!)

And for them i think Linux (preferably Ubuntu is an alternative...)

I have ordered Install cd's for all the guys in the office..!!!! :oD

Peace to all!!!

Tom