abracadabra
Member
so what do u think will linux be available for MAC soon as XP currently dual booted with MAC OS
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
will penguin take on the MAC
- Thread starter abracadabra
- Start date
pcthuglife
Member
As far as I know linux has always been available for Macs. At least it has for the past few years. Could you maybe re-word your question?
Bluestealth
Senior member
I have this feeling he was trying to be sarcastic....
Here is a webpage for getting Mactel to work.
http://www.mactel-linux.org/wiki/HOWTO
There was a lot of interest in Mac PowerPC machines in Linux circles.. This was because it was the only non-x86 architecture that was affordable and usefull for general computing to normal consumers. So if you wanted to play around with something that was non-x86 then apple was 'it'. That was one of the reasons I bought it.
Now, however, Apple uses the same hardware everybody else does. Same generic Intel chipsets, and cpus. (The Mac motherboard and proccessor was the only thing used in Apple machine that was not easily aviable for x86 users).
Now the only thing different for Apple hardware is OS X, propriatory form-factors, and this EFI business. So who cares? If you want to run x86 hardware with Linux there are better priced and faster things out there. Linux will end up supporting it better then it does now (with 3d full 3d acceleration and whatnot), but I expect it would take a bit longer then it would otherwise due to the more boring nature of Apple hardware nowadays.
http://www.mactel-linux.org/wiki/HOWTO
There was a lot of interest in Mac PowerPC machines in Linux circles.. This was because it was the only non-x86 architecture that was affordable and usefull for general computing to normal consumers. So if you wanted to play around with something that was non-x86 then apple was 'it'. That was one of the reasons I bought it.
Now, however, Apple uses the same hardware everybody else does. Same generic Intel chipsets, and cpus. (The Mac motherboard and proccessor was the only thing used in Apple machine that was not easily aviable for x86 users).
Now the only thing different for Apple hardware is OS X, propriatory form-factors, and this EFI business. So who cares? If you want to run x86 hardware with Linux there are better priced and faster things out there. Linux will end up supporting it better then it does now (with 3d full 3d acceleration and whatnot), but I expect it would take a bit longer then it would otherwise due to the more boring nature of Apple hardware nowadays.
spikespiegal
Golden Member
FTP that actually works for one 🙂
Also, let's see a list of hands of that would prefer to use OSX over any free Linux distro as a server.
Yeah....nothing but chirping crickets. Thought so.
Can't say I ever had any problems with FTP. With finder or any other program.
And as far as my experience goes (medium sized company), running OSX as a web server was nice enough without any real problems that couldn't be worked out (something I've lived to deal with from Linux, lol), and the same with the file server (Open Directory to AD). What are the problems?
spikespiegal
Golden Member
I guess you don't read AnandTech much.
http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=8
Care to write a FAQ up for that? Windows and Linux users who call me up asking for FTP directions to download product data off our non-Windows hosted web-site never have problems. Mac users? - forget it. We send them a CD given how well OSX handles passive FTP native.
A bigger question for me is why the same Penguin heads that have been brutal towards Windows Server, and rightly so the past decade, are strangley not applying the same criteria towards OSX. If my obnoxious neighboor buys the same brand car I do, he's not suddenly my best buddy.
erikistired
Diamond Member
😕
Don't look at me when you say that. 🙂
I don't think Apple has a paticularly strong security setup and I don't think OS X would make a paticularly good server either. Linux is faster, has better security, has much better filing systems and is compatable with a much wider range of software.
As far as corporate culture goes I also think that Apple is as bad, if not worse, then Microsoft. Sure Microsoft has a big bad monopoly on the common PC desktop and have been caught in the past by using this to try to crush competators. Sure they push/support DRM in a attempt to further people's dependance on their operating system (If people can't play their media files on Linux or OS X then they won't considure switching, the whole thing is pretty obvious). But Apple never got to the point were they could strong arm people, until they figured out the Ipod and they use DRM to make it so that people when they buy their songs online they have to use Apple's hardware and apple's software in order to play it. Obviously Itunes is DRM-lite because you can burn your stuff to cdrom, but we can all see the direction these things are going.
At least Microsoft doesn't sue their own fanboys for posting stuff to the internet, like Apple currently does.
Missing Ghost
Senior member
is this topic a joke?
Even then you can run into problems. Anonymous downloading can be potentionally dangerious unless it's setup correctly, although most ftp servers will probably ship with sane defaults nowadays.
With FTP in Linux it is very nice because you can use it to execute commands and such... Like you can pipe the output into tarball and save that on you local computer and visa versa. These things aren't well know by most ftp users, but are cool when you need to grab or upload directories and such. But it can also cause serious problems.
scp and sftp are much much nicer, especially if your only dealing with a handfull of users that you trust enough to give shell access to. Since ssh is secure shell, for users you have to give shell access to retreive stuff. It's not that different from FTP in certain aspects, although it's much much much more secure.
Otherwise if you don't want to setup shell access then you can use a chroot environment for sftp and eclude everything else. Also you can use rssh or scponly, which do pretty much the same thing but more transparently to the administrator. The downsides for that is that they run with setuid permissions to root in order to take advantage of the chroot stuff. So still you have to trust the users somewhat and be on top of things.
With apache you have a 2gig limit on file sizes. It's probably not smart to put huge files on http anyways.
So in conclusion this is what I feel...
For small amount of users that are trusted with any file sizes.:
ssh/sftp/scp
For small amount of semi-non-trusted users (as in normal users) with any file sizes:
rssh/scponly
That's pretty nice because everything is encrypted. Ssh has strong authentication methods besides just passwords. (public/private keypair and kerberos support) So it's good for sensitive items.
For a large amount of users with small file sizes:
Apache/Http
You could use ssl for more security and PKI infrastructure.
For a large amount of users with large files:
bittorrent
You can use encrypted files and have a secure method of distributing passwords if your worred about that sort of thing with bittorrent, or most anything.
🙂
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
