Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when Timothy Murphy wrote:
> If I purchase one of the new MacBook Pro's,
> what is the probability that I will be able to dual boot with
> (a) Linux, (b) Windows on it at some point in the near future
> (say the next 6 months)?

Somewhere between 0 and 1.

Probably higher for Linux, as I have seen indication of specific
efforts to that end.

Mind you, I wonder what the point of that would be. Linux is likely
to support the MacBook hardware *less* well than OS-X, and most of the
interesting software that runs on Linux should run pretty happily atop
the Mach/BSD kernel that OS-X uses. If I got one, I'd almost
certainly prefer to run OS-X...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/nonrdbms.html
"A program invented (sic) by a Finnish computer hacker and handed out free
in 1991 cost investors in Microsoft $11 billion (#6.75 billion) this week."
-- Andrew Butcher in the UK's Sunday Times, Feb 20th, 1999

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:26:16 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:

> If I purchase one of the new MacBook Pro's, what is the probability that I
> will be able to dual boot with (a) Linux, (b) Windows on it at some point
> in the near future (say the next 6 months)?

Not immediately. The BIOS replacement, EFI, presents some problems
although there is a Linux bootloader for Itanics that uses EFI so everyone
expects that there will be Linux on the Macintels eventually. Windows may
never happen.

If you were to get a MacBook Pro why would you want to run Linux on it
anyway. OS-X is Unix so there isn't anything that you can do on Linux that
you can't do on OS-X.

General Schvantzkoph :
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:26:16 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> > If I purchase one of the new MacBook Pro's, what is the probability that I
> > will be able to dual boot with (a) Linux, (b) Windows on it at some point
>
> [snip]
> expects that there will be Linux on the Macintels eventually. Windows may
> never happen.
>
> If you were to get a MacBook Pro why would you want to run Linux on it

That's a silly question. If you were to get a PC, why would you want
to run Linux on it? It already comes with Windows, and it has a POSIX
shell.

> anyway. OS-X is Unix so there isn't anything that you can do on Linux that
> you can't do on OS-X.

Not that I care, but does Wine run in OS-X?


--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Linux Counter #80292
- - Spammers! http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling/emails.html
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when "s. keeling" would write:
> General Schvantzkoph :
>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:26:16 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>
>> > If I purchase one of the new MacBook Pro's, what is the
>> > probability that I will be able to dual boot with (a) Linux, (b)
>> > Windows on it at some point
>>
>> [snip] expects that there will be Linux on the Macintels
>> eventually. Windows may never happen.
>>
>> If you were to get a MacBook Pro why would you want to run Linux
>> on it
>
> That's a silly question. If you were to get a PC, why would you
> want to run Linux on it? It already comes with Windows, and it has
> a POSIX shell.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.

Windows is *not* "a Unix." OS-X definitely is.

We have some pSeries systems at work where I'd *somewhat* prefer to
run Linux because it's such a bag of worms to get things to play
properly on AIX. We stay with AIX because HACMP doesn't run on Linux
(yet) and because the high end disk connectivity isn't supported on
Linux (yet).

But I'd expect a reasonably compelling reason to replace OS-X with
Linux when both systems clearly are Unixes, of generally comparable
functionality, underneath, where OS-X would have a number of local
advantages on the MacBook Pro hardware.

In particular, I'd be loathe to throw away the near-transparent
wireless connectivity support on OS-X in favor of doing a lot more
by-hand configuration on Linux. I have enough important systems to
throw system administration effort at; I'm disinclined to put high
grade effort on a laptop, if I can avoid it...

>> anyway. OS-X is Unix so there isn't anything that you can do on
>> Linux that you can't do on OS-X.
>
> Not that I care, but does Wine run in OS-X?

Yes.
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "gmail.com")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html
Coming Soon to a Mainframe Near You! MICROS~1 Windows NT 6.0,
complete with VISUAL JCL...

Christopher Browne wrote:

>>> anyway. OS-X is Unix so there isn't anything that you can do on
>>> Linux that you can't do on OS-X.

Is it straightforward to link to an OS-X machine from a Linux box over WiFi?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

In the last exciting episode, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>>>> anyway. OS-X is Unix so there isn't anything that you can do on
>>>> Linux that you can't do on OS-X.
>
> Is it straightforward to link to an OS-X machine from a Linux box
> over WiFi?

Assuming you start an sshd, I don't imagine it would be much of a
problem. Usually, I'm not connecting *to* my laptop...
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")
http://linuxfinances.info/info/emacs.html
For example, if errors are detected in one of the disk drives, the
system will allow read-only access to memory until the problem is
resolved. This, PE claimed, prohibits a damaged disk drive from
entering errors into the system. -- Computerworld 8 Nov 82 page 4.

Christopher Browne wrote:
> In particular, I'd be loathe to throw away the near-transparent
> wireless connectivity support on OS-X in favor of doing a lot more
> by-hand configuration on Linux.

Maybe transparent in the sense that it's _their_ (one) wireless card
(airport, ya?) and _their_ OS. There are dozens, if not hundreds or
cards that Linux is trying to support, ya? Not to mention, there are
quite a few wireless cards that require absolutely no configuration in
Linux (not just one).

--
vuja de:
The feeling that you've *never*, *ever* been in this situation before.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> If you were to get a MacBook Pro why would you want to run Linux on it
> anyway. OS-X is Unix so there isn't anything that you can do on Linux that
> you can't do on OS-X.

OS X ain't open source. That'd be reason enough for me.

--
vuja de:
The feeling that you've *never*, *ever* been in this situation before.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

> If you were to get a MacBook Pro why would you want to run Linux on it
> anyway. OS-X is Unix so there isn't anything that you can do on Linux that
> you can't do on OS-X.

People always ask this. I bought a Mini specifically to run PPC Linux
(for an embedded project, http://www.larwe.com/technical/current.html).
I bought an iBook specifically to run PPC Linux. I work with x86 Linux
primarily in my real life. Not quite everything is easily operable on
OSX (I've tried). Maybe people like the industrial design of a Mac but
want the OS of their choice.

I imagine that I would be able to run EAGLE (PCB CAD) and my VHDL
software on x86-Linux-on-Mac. That software is binary-only.

One of the biggest downsides to Linux on portables, especially Apple
portables (assuming the LCD and other peripherals are basically
working) is poor support for power management - sometimes dangerously
poor.

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:02:29 -0800, zwsdotcom wrote:

>
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
>> If you were to get a MacBook Pro why would you want to run Linux on it
>> anyway. OS-X is Unix so there isn't anything that you can do on Linux
>> that you can't do on OS-X.
>
> People always ask this. I bought a Mini specifically to run PPC Linux (for
> an embedded project, http://www.larwe.com/technical/current.html). I
> bought an iBook specifically to run PPC Linux. I work with x86 Linux
> primarily in my real life. Not quite everything is easily operable on OSX
> (I've tried). Maybe people like the industrial design of a Mac but want
> the OS of their choice.
>
> I imagine that I would be able to run EAGLE (PCB CAD) and my VHDL software
> on x86-Linux-on-Mac. That software is binary-only.
>
> One of the biggest downsides to Linux on portables, especially Apple
> portables (assuming the LCD and other peripherals are basically working)
> is poor support for power management - sometimes dangerously poor.


Running Linux on PPC Macs makes sense because the PPC is a very popular
embedded processor and it's also popular in supercomputing systems. The
PPC Mac with Linux is an ideal development platform for other PPC systems.
However the x86 Mac is just another x86 box, but it comes at a premium
price. There are zero advantages to running Linux on an x86 Mac vs an x86
PC so why pay the premium. With a standard x86 whitebox system you don't
pay for any OS and on a branded PC the margins are so small that even with
the Windows tax the price is still less then an equivalent Mac. The other
thing is that OS-X is Unix so you can do anything on it that you
can do on Linux, that's not so with Windows. Even if you run Cygwin on
Windows it's a very poor substitute for a real *nix system, so putting
Linux on a PC makes sense but putting it on a x86 Mac doesn't.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

> price. There are zero advantages to running Linux on an x86 Mac vs an x86
> PC so why pay the premium. With a standard x86 whitebox system you don't

If you happen to like the industrial design of the Apple machine or you
want to be the first kid in your drug hangout [or whatever kids do for
fun these days] with a Core Duo machine, you might be willing to pay
the price premium. Or maybe you simply want the MacBook because you
think Apple is cool, but you don't want to run OSX.

Let's face it, anyone buying a MacBook is already a niche customer.
Anyone who uses Linux regularly _AND_ buys a MacBook is a niche inside
a niche. So the argument we are having here really boils down to
whether the number of people who would install Linux on a MacBook is
epsilon or epsilon/10. The difference is lost in the noise.

> the Windows tax the price is still less then an equivalent Mac. The other
> thing is that OS-X is Unix so you can do anything on it that you
> can do on Linux

This is so completely not true; it irritates me vastly when people say
this. There are swathes of Linux drivers that are not buildable on OSX,
which makes attaching a lot of unusual USB hardware (for instance)
challenging. The configuration layout and boot process of OSX is
totally different from Linux, so there's considerable loss of
familiarity with the admin process, too. OSX is also always tied up
with a GUI, which isn't the case with Linux. I could go on but the
point has been made.

> Even if you run Cygwin on
> Windows it's a very poor substitute for a real *nix system, so putting
> Linux on a PC makes sense but putting it on a x86 Mac doesn't.

OSX is orders of magnitude better than Cygwin, but it still leaves one
unsatisfied if what one wanted was _Linux_. Linux it ain't.

I've used Tiger as a development platform, working on AVR, MSP430,
8051, ARM and PPC. It was indistinguishable from Linux-based
development right up to the point at which I needed to connect to the
target board and upload code. This stage turned out to be slightly
irritating for AVR and 8051, challenging for MSP430, and impossible for
ARM and PPC (no support for the JTAG/COP adapters I was using). Linux
support _was_ available, however.