Linux boots on Intel iMacs
By Marc Perton 
posted Feb 16th 2006 1:35PM
posted Feb 16th 2006 1:35PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Isn't Windows an "OS other than Mac OS X"?
Not really a big deal.
During my last gentoo build (my 7th or 8th time already, I like to break the systems doing dumb crap like rudely unmerging gcc :P), I noticed the latest 2.6 kernel has 'experimental' support for EFI.
The fact that they got the framebuffer to work is what's really shocking though. That's some pretty good hackin going on!!!
this has been done for an eternity already on regular macs. What makes it so special on an intel mac?
What is the big deal?
Linux boots on everything, including PowerPC mac.
Ever hear of Yellowdog?
How do you know that this isn't just a G5 iMac, with someone booting a PowerPC based Linux??
Something seems suspicious.
Food for thought: Windows runs on the Linux version of VMware. The native BIOS is not even used, but an emulated Phoenix BIOS. Hours or days to have Windows running on the Intel iMac?
Balazs:
Well, it can be a screenshot of a regular Linux boot displayed fullscreen on MacOS, for all it matters. But it's definitely not a PPC Linux boot. The two penguins indicate two cores/CPUs, which are unavailable in the G5 iMac.
Others:
The big deal is that Linux can be used as a bridge for running Windows in the new Intel Macs. Still, folks will always say "why run Windows on a Mac?" to which different people can give different answers.
You can tell it's not a G5 if you follow the link..
The guy posted a copy of his dmesg output.
'CPU0: Intel Genuine Intel(R) CPU 1400 @ 1.83GHz stepping 08'
And to the guy who said ANY linux distro would work:
It will, so long as the boot kernel has EFI compiled in, and the proper video drivers.
And about VMWare: Why? You'd have a degraded XP (driver wise) running on top of a hacked linux distro. The thing would probably be as slow as Win 3.1.
Cool. Now I can take my $3000 luxury Mac and turn it into a POS linux box that would only cost me $400 to build.
Nice work geniuses.
What exactly is the point of this exercise?
Why buy an expensive Mac and load it with free software? And Its not like you cant run it on a cheaper machine!
Some people just have tooooo much time to waste!
Why exactly is RedHat being mentioned in this article? This is Gentoo - it has nothing to do with RedHat. RedHat != Linux.
I'll be more interested when the person finishes merging a full desktop environment. It stands to reason that once the thing boots, all of the x86 software branches in portage should "just work". Well, as much as things "just work" on Gentoo. ;)
Answer to Joshua - I beleive if my memory serves me correctly, that earlier in the year, Redhat proposed their plans to sell the intel macs with a precompiled and installed redhat OS. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060125-6045.html
This is not criticism, it's actually a real question: why would anyone want to run Linux on iMacs? (Except, of course, because they can.) Enlighten me, for I'm perplexed.
to #11.
It's simply 'Proof of Concept'.
It shows that Apple hasn't taken specific measures (hardware or otherwise) to ensure that Windows (or any other OS) WON'T run. Aside from using EFI of course.
Wooops.
That was for #12.
The page fooled me.
Personally i have no desire to dual boot os x/ windows, but i'd love to have linux on my intel mac. If i NEEDED windows, there's always vmware... (which i'm curious if they got up and running)
As to why someone would want to run Linux on their Mac:
1. Some people (a miniority, but still some) prefer the Linux operating system.
2. Linux can be run on a variety of hardware, so if you're running Linux you have a choice of computer manufacturers.
3. Many people feel that Apple makes the nicest computer hardware.
Therefore, many Linux users will consider Apple hardware, as long has Linux has been proven to run on it.
And because some people just like to see how far they can take the new iMac, and how far they can push themselves. Running Linux is not necessarily a goal-oriented objective - they're not trying to make a server, or some dedicated machine... they just want to see what they can do. Sure, I'll probably never install Linux on my iMac (if I had one), but I think this is very interesting from the "what can we do" aspect.
Also, I'm waiting to play with OS X on my x86!
You could just buy a cheap PC and run a fully functional linux
"You could just buy a cheap PC and run a fully functional linux"
You (and at least six other posters) could also completely miss the point of this article.
I never understood all the fuss surrounding Linux. Everywhere I go I hear linux this, linux that. Microsoft might have an almost complete monopoly in terms of software but XP isn't all that bad. It's a relatively friendly OS. Explorer sucks but hell that's why we have Mozilla Firefox. Mac OS X is just fine as well. Linux needs to just die. Whats next? A remote control running Linux? A PS3 running Linux (LOL!), How about a pair of Jordans running Linux. Fuck Linux.
linus rulez!
and is has been ported to the ps3
Wow, what a title. I never thought I'd hear Linux, Intel, and Mac mentioned in the same sentence in my lifetime.
#17
'Also, I'm waiting to play with OS X on my x86!'
You'll be waiting for a long, LONG time.
The use of EFI doesn't prevent the use of a different OS on Apple hardware.
But what it DOES do is prevent the x86/EFI version of OS X from being installed on a motherboard without EFI enabled. And guess what, Intel disables EFI by default.
So it's not gonna workie. For the time being, the only boards with EFI enabled will be those inside 'genuine' Apple computers.
At the point when EFI is enable by default, the novelty will have passed (and the next Apple OS will probably use hardware based protection).
I have a Mac Mini that I have Ubuntu Linux on that is a pretty good utility box. I have it setup in ways that I found hard/costly/cumbersome to do with Mac OS X (particularly running headless and allowing multiple independent VNC sessions).
Besides that, I could see having Linux on an iMac useful for benchmarking purposes where you'd want to compare the iMac hardware with a PC and were trying to eliminate the OS from the equation.
And, some people just like playing with Linux, what's wrong with that? =)
That looks like an iPod screen to me
lol
"You (and at least six other posters) could also completely miss the point of this article."
I don't think we miss it, we're just sick of all this "It Runs Doom/Linux" nonsense posts that are listed on this site and many others on a DAILY basis.
Yawn.
The Apple OS X is an amazing operating system. It is incredibly stable and is built on a Free-BSD UNIX Core. I don't see any gain by running Linux on the hardware. If I were going to run another OS, I'd just install Virtual PC on OS X.
J, you're not the brightest.
"Cool. Now I can take my $3000 luxury Mac and turn it into a POS linux box that would only cost me $400 to build."
Hrmmm, ok first off... it's a $1299 "luxury Mac"... since making the machine boot Linux makes it worth only $400... I believe you're saying that OS X costs $899. Last I checked, a single user license is $129...
So your calculations are off by $780.
The ability to run Linux on an iMac INCREASES the value of the machine because it INCREASES its functionality.
People with your mindset ("it doesn't matter to me, so it doesn't matter.") should be visiting CNet, not Engadget. Go troll Slashdot and see how long your karma lasts with comments like that.
Well, many of us feel Apple makes the best laptops, but OSX is not yet widespread enough to be a viable business OS (in my field).
I develop Linux apps, so I want the Linux OS, and I want the best laptop hardware I can find which I believe is make by Apple.
Will I dual-boot it? Probably, OSX has nice eye-candy.
#21 You are to technically savvy, are you? OSX86 has been cracked to run on generic hardware, and no matter what Apple does to prevent it, someone will find a way around it.
All software concerns aside, why would you want to run an OS other then Mac OS X on a mac?
I mean... why settle for less when you have more already on your computer?
Who cares? Why would anyone buy a beautiful, and expensively elegant, iMac only to install an ugly, crude, primitive (from a user interface standpoint) OS such as this?
That's like buying a top-of-the-line Lexus and ripping out the interior, replacing it with the inside of a Chevy Cobalt. From elegant to ugly in just three easy steps. Huzzah!
I know the "yeah, but can you run Linux on it?" question is SO tired it's a joke these days, but there are plenty of reasons why this is "A Good Thing" tm:
1) What good is it to distribute an OS that's designed to be run on x86 hardware, if you can't guarantee that it runs on ALL combinations of the hardware it's intended for?
2) There are a LOT of people that run Linux on existing Apple hardware - some even dual-boot. That distro is YellowDog Linux. But YDL is only for PPC machines and the maintainers of that distro have already stated they have no intent of supporting x86.
3) There are quite a few people who develop for both OSes. What's more, there are quite a few developers who are working to port Linux apps to OS X. Things like an OS X native GIMP, and even KDE and GTK+. For that community, being able to use both OSes on the same machine is extremely valuable. Not every *Nix app runs/exists for the Mac (even with Fink).
4) There are plenty of people (like Leethal and even Linus Torvalds) who feel that Apple makes beautiful hardware but they still prefer to use OSS.
5) For the programmers that are knowledgeable enough, this is an exciting challenge - especially if you can beat the "big guys" to it.
Hopefully, this can help some people understand things some more. It still may mean nothing to a lot of people, but that doesn't make it worthless. I know I'll appreciate it years from now when Mac OS no longer supports my 1st rev MacBook Pro and I don't have to worry why somebody didn't think of porting Linux sooner.
btw, I don't even USE Linux, but I can understand the usefulness of endeavors like this.
To Leethal:
I assume you're talking to me.
The OSx86 project was just served with an injunction.
So......I'll go ahead and stand by what I said.
You WILL NOT be playing around with OS X on non Apple hardware.
What I said about EFI is a fact. The OSx86 project was just a workaround. Now if you are 'technically savvy' enough to re-create the OSx86 projects hacks, and dumb enough to publish them, you'll be served with an injunction too.(notice how 'english savvy' I am?)
Forgot to mention.
The OSx86 project wasn't even a geniune 'install' from sratch. It was simply a hack of the Apple restore disk.
Folks out there smart enough to write their own drivers can ignore me of course.
willyjsimmons, get a clue.
ox86project.org is still there. Maxxuss is still making patches, and I am still running os x on non-apple hardware.
After doing all that, I'd still rather use linux than the giant pile that is OS X.
1. Linux on Mac:
a) I like to use several desktop environments
b) It's sooo practical to use virtual desktops (this way I may run many many apps and don't lose focus)
c) I'd rather use The Gimp than Adobe Photoshop (as I don't like to pay for expensive SW all the time, there is a life out there and I'd rather have dinner with my GF)
d) SW updates in Linux aren't cheap... They're free!
e) I loooove variety... What kind of variety gives me OSX?
f) I like the looks of Apple stuff & I like Linux (why pay more?)
2. About Quantum Physics... And why should some of your minds should be studied.
It's people like us --that is, we who go one (or more) step ahead-- who build up the world ;)
3. About Linux being crappy...
a) Take a look at how fast Linux evolves...
b) Linux has a very nice eye candy too
c) There's just people out there who like to evolve too ;)
BTW, I had an iBook G4... It was hell beautiful when I used OS X. And it was hell productive when I used Gentoo Linux on it XD
There are certainly reasons to do this and it's perplexing to me how many people don't seem to get it.
I am a Mac user. In many cases, this isn't because I'm a loyalist it's because there's software that supports my workflow that isn't cross-platform. For instance, most of my audio work I do in Digital Performer. I use it because it works best with the MOTU hardware I have sitting on one of my workstations - and it doesn't run on Windows. So unless I want to make serious changes to my workflow (thousands of dollars in software and new hardware) it doesn't make sense.
I also (in fact, primarily) am a compositor. This means I use Shake - by far the most widely used compositing software for film which runs on MacOS X and Linux only. Currently, it runs poorly or not at all in Rosetta because there's no universal binary for it and won't be for several more months. If I'm thinking (as I am) of buying a new Mac, I want to be able to run Shake in the interim - if I can dual boot into Linux, then I've got my cake AND I get to eat it.
I have an old G3 iMac which I dual-boot with OS X Panther and Debian GNU/Linux.
There are very few Linux distributions for the PowerPC Macs compared to what is available for x86 machines. Yellow Dog Linux, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Slackintosh are the only ones I'm aware of.
Now that Apple has changed to the Intel platform, there could be so many more choices for making a system dual boot with Linux and OS X, or even with Linux, OS X and Windows XP.
I'm a developer and I recently bought a Mac Mini (Intel). I'm disappointed at how slow applications run in Rosetta mode. Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft Office applications. There are not really developer tools, anyway, but I thought I'd just mention it. I also hate the fact that I'm not to run any stable version of Eclipse yet on my Mac Mini. This is important to me since I'm currently writing a plugin for Eclipse. This is the reason why I would LOVE to install Ubuntu on this machine, so I can work in Eclipse. Other than that, I hate the fact that the basic installation of OS 10.4.5 is 15.5 GB, out of a 60G harddrive. I don'e the memory usage, and in my opinion its way too high. I have 512 MB which is more than enough to function in a Linux environment. Turns out, its crap on OSX.
Over and out.....
I realize I'm a bit late to this commentary, but...
The potential for the Mac Mini is most interesting. While running/experimenting with Linux (or LFS) on old, cheap Wintel boxes is nice having large Wintel boxes taking up lots of space is not.
Cheers,
Sardonic