HFX Forum

Operating Systems => Mac OS => Topic started by: Tazinator on September 02, 2005, 07:57:18 PM

Title: Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 02, 2005, 07:57:18 PM
For those of you Mac people who are Redhat fans (you should be slapped...hard), apparently the Fedora project has been quietly supporting PPC in some build levels.

Fedora Core 3 has a PowerPC release

http://fedoraproject.org/fedorappc/FC3/isos/

No core 4 folks, sorry.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Metgod on September 03, 2005, 12:13:54 AM
Yeah.. *slaps Cobby*

haha

just kidding mate

Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 03, 2005, 11:04:54 AM
As much as I love Fedora (*gets smacked by Metgod*), what's the point of putting it on a mac?  Mac OS X has very similar basic architecture (I know it's unix, not linux), plus a GUI that kills any flavor of Linux.  I suppose you could do some cool kernel stuff and whatnot.... And all the stuff you're about to flame me about that I didn't realize a linux distro would have over Mac OS X...

That brings up another question:

Will FC3 look and do the same things it does on a PC if it's on a Mac, just on different hardware?  
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Metgod on September 03, 2005, 03:17:11 PM
My guess is yes, it'd just be on different hardware. Of course, I haven't really looked at it, so I don't know for sure.

But you have a good point... Mac OS X is probably much nicer for Macs.

I personally don't care what OS anyone uses. They could use Geoworks for all I care (and actually I liked that OS). Used to care though.. not sure why. Maybe it had to do with my current view of things.

This seems interesting though..




Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 04, 2005, 03:29:00 AM
The FC3 build for PPC would be the same as it is for x86 and x86_64. The only difference *should* be the kernel and some hardware level packages.

I didnt create it so I cant say 100% for sure.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 04, 2005, 03:32:35 AM
Oh, and in regards to Linux on Mac's, its useful for old Mac's that run OS X dog ass slow if at all (early G3's). As each Gen of OS X comes out, support for the older wares gets dropped bit by bit. Apple is notorious for leaving people behind who havent upgraded to new hardware. They even got sued for it when OS X first came out by all the G3 owners who had issues trying to load and run 10.0. :P

Allows you to put the old hardware to good use. Plus for people with new Mac's, could be a level of preference.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: wilnix on September 04, 2005, 05:24:40 AM
I lub OS X (I didnt say ecks, either)  :-* If only my Mac had a vagina and a cold beverage waiting. I would be set for LIFE....


Wilnix
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 06, 2005, 05:51:57 PM
Good point Taz, but it raises further questions.  Mac OS is built on Unix, so it should be very portable and whatnot to other systems (in particular, slower ones), right?  What the crap's up with that?  Why can Windows XP still run easily on hardware two or three generations back when Mac OSX can barely do one generation back?

And don't tell me "Cause XP sucks" or I'll flip out (cause it doesn't).
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 06, 2005, 07:19:13 PM
Apples GUI (Qwartz) is a memory/processor hog but newer PowerPC procs handle it well as its coded for that architecture. Thats the price you pay for those nice flashy graphics and smooth colors. ;)

I dont believe its possible to run OS X headless, so the GUI comes with and to keep the size down, Apple takes out older drivers and kernel support which is where the older machines suffer. Yes OS X is Unix based, but they also added a ton of other things atop the base Unix layout which is where the problems begin.

With Linux or BSD, you can pick and choose what you want to run so you can guage what the machine could handle before it has a cardiac arrest. OS X still needs is baseline packages which many are intensive.

As far as Windows XP, eh, it doesnt run on as much older machines as you think. You can toss it on a P4 400Mhz so long as you give it at least 256MB of RAM and dont intend to do much more then documents, web browsing and email with it. Less than that and you run into trouble. I know this first hand. However, try and run 2000 on the same and it wont handle it. Its all on how they gear the kernel (yes NT derivitive systems have a kernel as well). XP likes RAM more then processor power, 2000 is the opposite.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Metgod on September 06, 2005, 07:34:55 PM
XP may not suck .. but it's sure ugly ... and it's a shame that so many windows programs are changing to that kind of look...

Yes I know you can revert to the old look but still...
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 06, 2005, 07:41:53 PM
Fisher Price - My First Operating System

 ;D
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 06, 2005, 08:09:35 PM
I thought the whole concept of Unix was portability: A kernel that different modules can be easily plugged into and removed.  Mac OS doesn't do that if you can't even remove the "graphical frontend."  BTW, can you run a Mac in "real mode," ie. for a mac that'd be 32 or 16-bit?  I guess this would knock off the GUI...

(PS. - XP is currently running like a "dream" on my PII 266 Mhz crap computer w/128M RAM)
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 06, 2005, 08:50:21 PM
OS X isnt designed for portability. To quote Steve Jobs "We aren't in the operating system business." which is how Apple takes the approach of OS X. Its designed to work on their hardware, no more. Even though its built on BSD, it isnt BSD and Apple will be quick to point that out. Thats why its not as portable like other *nix's.

I believe you can run OS X into real mode, though I dont believe you would be able to take advantage of much that way. You'd have to screw around with BootX (/System/Library/CoreServices/BootX) and its settings. I can say that screwing with the OS X boot sequence can be a hassle and risky as well. Again, I cant really see the benefit to booting into 16bit mode, thats more crippling then figuring out how to kill the GUI. Thats why they have Darwin ;)

Im amazed at the XP machine you have running. You must have disabled a boatload of services to get it to run smoothly. When I ran on slower chips the machine was too slow to be bearable.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 06, 2005, 09:07:22 PM
What's Apple in the business of?

And why do mac's have 16-bit real mode's?  Is there no 32-bit?

On a Windows PC, real mode is kinda like (if not exactly like) being on the same level as the OS so you can do anything to it.  Is it the same on Mac's, cause then it seems like it would serve a purpose.

Also (sorry for the buttload of questions), why'd you say, "that's why they have Darwin?"

BTW, the computer is actually 300Mhz (and it's got a wireless card).
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 06, 2005, 11:02:50 PM
Personal Computers and devices.

I think your thinking of Single User Mode. Real Mode is a 16-bit limitation for processors and allows hardware level access to the BIOS and peripherals. Multitasking is also limited as is memory allocation. Plus it was an x86 processor thing, so im not sure how PowerPC's would work it.

Single User Mode is basically filesystem mount and command line,, no deamons are started. In windows I suppose the equivalent would be Recovery Console where you have access to the system to make changes if theres a problem but its not the place to run services, have user interactivity, etc.

Headless would be like running Linux in runlevel 3 or BSD w/o X Windows, its multi-user environment and networking with deamons.

Darwin is the backbone to OS X. Its the BSD kernel Apple wrote that powers all OS X systems. You can download and run it as its own because its open source and it doesnt come with the GUI. Its apple hardware specific tho and older Mac's still dont react well to it.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 06, 2005, 11:04:06 PM
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 06, 2005, 11:09:41 PM
I suppose I asked if real mode on a mac would be 32-bit simply because it's half of 64, like half 32 is 16 in Windows.  I didn't realize it would be 16-bit on a mac too.

Thanks for all the info, I downloaded all the Mac OS X architecture pdfs, I just haven't had time to read them yet.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 06, 2005, 11:11:28 PM
There is an x86 Darwin:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/images/darwinx86-801.iso.gz

Though, I don't know how cool it'd be, I've never used it.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 06, 2005, 11:14:50 PM
And X11 for OS X:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/x11/

Which means unix ports are getting some support from apple.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Tazinator on September 06, 2005, 11:44:53 PM
Only the G5's are 64-bit, the G4's are 32
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 07, 2005, 01:11:11 AM
Those'r what I'm talkin' 'bout (I suppose the question could be extended to x86-64).
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Uneek on September 20, 2005, 01:50:49 PM
I lub my PowerBook, Darwin, Aqua, and find myself using it 90% of the time for everything...  ;D
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: benthehutt on September 23, 2005, 01:58:10 AM
So would you put Fedora on it?  (Seems like a waste of an expensive machine to me--if it would act the same as Fedora does on a $200 PC)
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Uneek on April 12, 2006, 04:52:37 PM
Hell no!!! Why would anyone go from BSD to Linux???
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Metgod on April 12, 2006, 06:22:52 PM
I can think of some reasons (including some that converted me in the past, although I still wouldn't mind having a BSD system):

1. More 'adopted'.

2. More help/support if needed (although I guess one could dispute this issue).

3. More code designed for it (although this is partially a moot point because of autoconf and automake).

4. And, for me, it was the code that I worked on -- it was originally built under Linux, so I decided it'd be best to be under that environment.

On another note though... Linux IS slower in most cases, which really sucks. I have to say though, my Gentoo machines are nice and fast, and rock solid.
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Uneek on April 25, 2006, 04:50:55 PM
Well to issue my rebuttal on the reasons brought up...

1. "More adopted" - Even though it's based on BSD, we're still talking Mac here which is more adopted than Linux
2. "More help/support..." Mac has more support including commercial support than Linux
3. "More code designed..." Not sure about this... Mac has quite a lot of commercial and open source applications, and it has it's own version of ports collection which is really nice and in my opinion ports > rpm...
4. --I'll give you this one....


;)
Title: Re:Fedora for PowerPC...
Post by: Metgod on April 25, 2006, 09:13:56 PM
Hrm.. yes, I suppose you're right more or less.

I probably did miss the point though - the way it was worded, it sounded to me as if it was a general thing, not for mac specific. Should have thought of it, especially considering which board it was under. So yes, I guess in that context you're right.

1. Yes, probably true. I could maybe argue this one, but I'm not sure I could back it up completely.
2. True -- especially on the commercial side. Though, I have to say some linuxes have some pretty decent support forums from what I've seen, but that's not so much the developers as the users. And that can prove troublesome in some cases.

3. I agree that ports are better than rpms (especially when you take into account rpms without fullfilling dependancies). From what I remember, BSD ports took care of that kind of thing. Very annoying that rpms often don't (poor design imo). Thankfully, I don't have to worry about rpms (I compile things manually). As for more software.. guess it depends on how you look at it (i.e., what defines mac software over general open source software, etc.). Especially since a lot of open source programs would probably run under linux, bsd, etc.

4. In the context that you're using, even this statement by me wouldn't work so well (since I don't own a mac). Though, I guess it could work in the sense that it's my personal reasons for using it over BSD (just not related to mac).

5. No, you're absolutely wrong here, sorry.