Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: adina-allie on 16 March 2003, 08:05
-
Allright, newbie post. Nice to meet all of you. *waves*
After reading through the site, I went out and bought a copy of OS X (..as well as the book "Mac OS X for Dummies".. Feel free to laugh. Loudly). I read through the book(lette?) that came with OS X and it sounded pretty easy to install. So, I wiped my computer (..the best I knew how, which was removing the company provided repair cd about halfway through its run); and attempted to install OSX with no luck. I booted to the c:/ prompt and changed directories and tried typing -every- run command I could think of ("startup", "run" so on and so forth). Making a long story short, I've tried 2 times to install OS X on my computer (a Emachines T4170 with 1.60 GHz 256MB 56k modem and a 60 GB hard drive, currently running Windows XP Home edition) with no success. I'd like to be able to just toss the computer and purchase an iBook (considering a family member is planning to buy a Mac around April first or so) but due to financial situations, that dosen't look feasable.
Anyway, sorry for making this hellishly long, does anyone here know what I did incorrectly and/or how to fix it? I'd really like to install OS X.
Thanks for your help and patronage.
M
-
dude? wait a minute.. did you just try to install osX on a x86 pc?? :confused:
-
I don't know if this thing's a x86 or not. -_- If you want, I can post the details of it.
...Lemme guess, Mac OS X won't run on a x86 machine?
-M
-
That's right. Apple goes out of their way to make sure OS X only runs on Macs. I suggest you use Linux instead.
-
Allright, thanks for the information. Now to go look into getting a copy of Linux. (Whee!)
-M
-
I suggest going to www.redhat.com (http://www.redhat.com) they make the overall best distribution, especially for newbies.
[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
yeah, since you already have the hardware, id suggest redhat 8. macs are expensive (but oh so worthit!!).
-
At first i thought this was a joke but i wish it was that easy in trying to install OSX.
I just bought an iBook and i get the install cd's with it, i wish i could then install it on my AMD 1700...damn how i wish.
If you are getting linux get SuSE 8.2 its out next month.
-
I have a bias against SuSE because version 8.0 was buggy as hell and it contains a lot of proprietary or at least non-free stuff (flash, YaST, etc.) I don't even think it's legal to give your friends copies, but I could be wrong. I think you can download it but not in iso format. I'd suggest getting RedHat Linux 8.1 when it comes out and just installing a stock KDE if you don't like Redhat's build, or run GNOME 2.2 which is quite polished, if lacking in a few features.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
That's right. Apple goes out of their way to make sure OS X only runs on Macs. I suggest you use Linux instead.
Apple does not go out of their way. Quite the contrary actually. Have you ever heard of Marklar. Its OSX for x86. Its always updated right when the Mac one is updated and is finished. Apple has not released it and probably never will. It is just there in case PPC goes under. And I do so hope they release it.
-
They go out of their way by not releasing the source code to OSX. I'm sorry if it offends Mac users, but Apple is just as wrong as Microsoft in this respect.
-
i do agree linux user. if apple were really embracing open source, their os would be available in downloadable ISOs. i am optomistic though, i can see apple truly getting into the spirit of things and going totally open source (they would have too, if they are to keep up with linux in the next few years :D )
-
They shouldn't necessarily provide downloadable ISOs... what they should do, though, is include an extra source CD when you buy OS X or at least mail you one if you asked for it. You should also be able to buy an x86 version directly from them. Look at Red Hat, they let you use their ftp and network for free and they have 270 million in the bank! There's also yellow dog linux, which is a ppc port of RHL.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
They go out of their way by not releasing the source code to OSX. I'm sorry if it offends Mac users, but Apple is just as wrong as Microsoft in this respect.
Darwin is opensource and its released for the x86 platform so the OSX kernel at least runs on x86 hardware.
Safari is opensource as well or uses elements of opensource and gives any modifications back to KHTML.
The aqua element of OSX is Apples nad its their product so they don't have to make it opensource (its not like its part of the GPL) but what they have done so far DOESN'T make them as bad as MS. Apple have embraced amd contributed to it while MS ignores it and is activily trying to destroy it, big difference i think.
With regard to SuSE, YAST is their technology and because it is theirs it isn't open source, it things like that, that make it unaviable for download into ISO's, but you can perform a remote installation. But you can copy it for your friends. I think its the best for a newbie.
-
Those of you wondering, I purchased a copy of Red Hat personal. Wish me luck and thanks for the advice. (http://smile.gif)
-M
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
I have a bias against SuSE because version 8.0 was buggy as hell and it contains a lot of proprietary or at least non-free stuff (flash, YaST, etc.) I don't even think it's legal to give your friends copies, but I could be wrong. I think you can download it but not in iso format. I'd suggest getting RedHat Linux 8.1 when it comes out and just installing a stock KDE if you don't like Redhat's build, or run GNOME 2.2 which is quite polished, if lacking in a few features.
Actually you can redistribute it non-commercially, but not for profit. Which is basically Suse's way of ensuring that no-one will be able to create a new truly free distribution based on theirs, and certainly not a commercial one.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Crunchy(Cracked)Butter:
Darwin is opensource and its released for the x86 platform so the OSX kernel at least runs on x86 hardware.
Safari is opensource as well or uses elements of opensource and gives any modifications back to KHTML.
The aqua element of OSX is Apples nad its their product so they don't have to make it opensource (its not like its part of the GPL) but what they have done so far DOESN'T make them as bad as MS. Apple have embraced amd contributed to it while MS ignores it and is activily trying to destroy it, big difference i think.
Darwin is Open Source, but not free software. The misleading term "Open Source" allows companies like Apple, who have no more interest in freedom than Microsoft, to win acclaim from their users by releasing software under a restrictive, non-free licence. Simply because the source code is available and people mistakenly believe that that is going far enough.
-
Actually Darwin is free, you can download it without cost from the website of apple (which I have and I had it on my PC a while back). Darwin is distributed under the AGPL in which terms are laid out. -- even though I am all FOR many nice OSes I sometimes do not get the negative attitude of some linux people that want everything free.
Personally for linux I prefer SuSE but currently I am using Mandrake. I downloaded Psyche from RedHat a while back but dispized it. If you are looking for a nice linux for your PC get SuSE or Mandrake. If you are looking for other OSes, Some of the BSDs are nice (have played around with OpenBSD and NetBSD). QNX is nice but not much software to go with it. BeOS rocks, you should give it a try if you are feeling courageous. there is software available for it online (http://smile.gif)
-
No, Darwin is *free of charge* but it isn't free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html). I'm sorry you think that it's a 'negtive attitude' to desire freedom, unless of course you're talking about Linux users wanting things to be free in terms of cost, in which case you've missed the point. Free software is about freedom, not price. Freedom that the APSL doesn't grant.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Darwin is Open Source, but not free software. The misleading term "Open Source" allows companies like Apple, who have no more interest in freedom than Microsoft, to win acclaim from their users by releasing software under a restrictive, non-free licence. Simply because the source code is available and people mistakenly believe that that is going far enough.
The fact alone that Apple decided to work with the Open Source community honors them as a computer manufacturer. The fact also that Apple in the case of Safari respect the terms of the GPL by releasing the improved code back to the community, something which is not the case even for Lindows (?!), is definitely a step forward!
Hence you cannot compare Apple with M$ in any way! Apple is a computer manufacturer and have the all the right in the world to make their own OS! Unlike M$, Apple don't force it down everyone's throat or bully hardware vendors around.
I would love to see OS X GPL'd by the way, but even if that doesn't happen, I'll be nonetheless satisfied that a major company such as Apple have "discovered" OSS!
-
I disagree. I despair of the open source philosophy and its watered-down attitude to software freedom. "Open Source" is about software vendors exploiting the practical benefits of making their source available (i.e. having other people help them fix their bugs) without actually giving anything of use back to the community. Despite what you may believe you are not free to use Darwin code as you wish, and it remains the 'property' of Apple.
Safari is GPL'd simply because it's based on GPL code; Apple have given code back to the community not because they're "a good open source citizen", as they claim, but because they're legally obliged to. And Lindows is doing nothing that's worse than what Apple has done. I doubt Lindows has actually violated the GPL; if they had the FSF would be suing them.
-
Then tell me where do I download Lindows and the source code from. Come on give me a mirror! The FSF suing them? Oh, give me a break!
This kind of dispute is absolutely pointless! That way you would be discouraging more and more people from actually using anything that is "Open source"! Who would sit down and read all those licenses? do you really think people care about those minor differences? I don't! Those two BTW (the FSF and the OSI) are still working together on several projects!
Again, Apple is a computer manufacturer and do not force their OS down everyone's throat. Not only that but you can also get a Mac with YDL preinstalled along with OS X.
PS Doing something is always better than doing nothing!
-
I didn't say that you could download the Lindows source code, I said that they haven't violated the GPL. If they have, I would be very interested to know where, and so would the FSF. And there is no doubt that they would sue.
Yes, I'm encouraging people to not use software that is merely "open source" - we should all be using software that's free. What you're saying is that open source (or partial open source in the case of OSX) is 'good enough', so who really cares about freedom? That kind of complacency is a major barrier to people becoming insistent on completely free software, and it's this complacency that the open source movement is encouraging.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I didn't say that you could download the Lindows source code, I said that they haven't violated the GPL. If they have, I would be very interested to know where, and so would the FSF. And there is no doubt that they would sue.
Yes, I'm encouraging people to not use software that is merely "open source" - we should all be using software that's free. What you're saying is that open source (or partial open source in the case of OSX) is 'good enough', so who really cares about freedom? That kind of complacency is a major barrier to people becoming insistent on completely free software, and it's this complacency that the open source movement is encouraging.
Then why when installing Lindows you are asked to agree upon the terms of an EULA? :eek:
What you are saying confuses people who would like to get involved with something else than closed-source or proprietary software and it is, sorry to say disorientating! That's all I'm saying here!
Believe me, I'm not complacent when it come down to this issue. I'm aware of the differences between the two movements but I'm doing my best to bridge the gap when it comes to talking people about open source. Do you have any idea how someone new to this would react if you started rumbling about all those types of licenses? The least you would manage to do, would be to scare people off. :D
About Apple, let me repeat for the ... time that, it honors them as a company to have recognized finally the existence of the open source community in general. That's all I said. People like you nag about everything. Hell, you would even find something to nag about even if OS X went GPL'd. Sorry to say that, but that's the case here.
-
quote:
Then why when installing Lindows you are asked to agree upon the terms of an EULA?
What I'm saying is that Lindows have not violated the GPL i.e. they have not taken GPL code and incorporated it into proprietary software, which would be illegal. All the prroprietary code in Lindows is (we would assume) their own. There are GPL programs in Lindows but they're not making you agree to agree to a EULA to use those.
I agree these differences would be confusing to someone coming from a world of purely proprietary software, and I blame the open source movement for introducing this confusion. As Stallman says, this kind of thing isn't helping people prepare to resist the threats to our community, rather it's just a half hearted gesture to try and sate the consumer, and stop them from demanding their freedom.
As I said before, I don't believe we should be grateful to Apple for recognising the benefits they can reap themselves by making available the source code to their software. Even Microsoft have 'acknowledged' OSS by liberalising the terms of their 'Shared Source' licence, and again it's purely for reasons of PR and getting their bugs fixed for them.
I don't nag about 'everything'; I nag about things that are wrong. And Apple's licensing of this software is wrong. I'd be delighted if they went GPL, and I'd have absolutely nothing to complain about.
-
Well, we definitely agree on the point that the OSI has certainly "screwed things up" there. However, I still reserve the right to believe that what Apple are doing will in the long-term benefit the Open Source community in general. That's my opinion though and I know that you including others disagree heavily on that.
-
are pano... aston na leei...aston na leeeeiii... ekeinos mono kseri, kai mesa tou kleeei....xexe xe... (private message to panos).
I was going to *pay* for lindows, but decided to go the mandrake route. Apple does not claim that they are free software (god I love os x!), but lindows is linux! They don't even have a low-down-minimalistic-ISO to download and play around with it like SuSe do! (http://smile.gif) I think the FSF should sue their pants off ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral:
are pano... aston na leei...aston na leeeeiii... ekeinos mono kseri, kai mesa tou kleeei....xexe xe... (private message to panos).
I was going to *pay* for lindows, but decided to go the mandrake route. Apple does not claim that they are free software (god I love os x!), but lindows is linux! They don't even have a low-down-minimalistic-ISO to download and play around with it like SuSe do! (http://smile.gif) I think the FSF should sue their pants off ;)
Opa! Me trelanes re sy Admiral! Ellinas? Pou eisai? Amerikh? PM me, na ta poume!!
:D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral:
....xexe xe... ;)
listen carefully folks, that's the eerie sound of greek laughter...
-
I have to ask about this:
AFAIK some people subscribed in SourceForge.com were working in a way to do a Mac OS X port for
the "Wintel" platform. Is it true?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum: literally X11:
listen carefully folks, that's the eerie sound of greek laughter...
MUHAHAHAHA... :D :D
-
LOL :D
Well there was a petition to "bring" MacOS X to the intel platform but it never culminated to anything. Also there are some people who want to "port" OS X to intel, but these poor saps dont understand the concept of macos x AND its history.
Concept:
MacOS X = Darwin (free) + Quartz (not free) + QT Media Layer (partially free) + a few other things. People want the nice looking UI but not much more, thats what confuses them.
History:
OS X evolves from NeXTSTEP. NeXTSTEP was m68k and Intel. Just like BeOS, the m68k (native NeXT hardware) died off and the intel was what was left. Then apple took it and reworked it for BOTH mac and intel (Rhapsody anyone?) and let developers make apps FOR BOTH. However developers prefered the PPC platform and so in the end the PPC platform ended up with TWICE the amount of software than the PPC one. Making an intel version of OS X without actually having macs running on intel hardware is suicide and apple should not and will not do it. Developers spoke up with their actions and so apple made its decision about which version to pursue.
Admiral
-
From what I've read here and there, Apple is developing an OS X port for the wintel platform with the code name "Marklar",since Apple and Motorola don't have the best of relations. Those however could only be rumours.
IMHO, if something goes wrong between Apple and Motorola, I think that Apple will turn towards IBM, but that's just me. We'll see.. (http://smile.gif)