Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Linux is not needed in Mac, because macos is unix and very well smoothed.
why should I replace it with something that is rough here/there.

I would use linux only when I build a special solution from server parts.

Applications on linux, not a problem if you talk to the right people. They will come and put any software to work, but you yourself will be driven to see monkeys in the zoo during this work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millerj123
…Trying Ethernet would be an obvious next step when your WiFi isn't working, I'd think.
Show me the Ethernet port on a Macbook Air, or any MBP 15" model since 2013, or 13" since 2016. (This problem was directly mentioned in #4 of the OP. Not having the complete finite set of common wifi drivers squared away during installation in 2024 is auto-fail for any Linux distro that dreams of ever being on a mobile computer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Linux is not needed in Mac, because macos is unix and very well smoothed.
Every version of the MacOS has had teething problems as it was transformed from a solid GUI launcher (the System 6,7,8,9 era) into a bloated sow encrusted with data-harvesting ecosystem bling inferior to 3rd-party software.
why should I replace it with something that is rough here/there.
For the simple and glaringly obvious reason that Apple is walling off the MacOS, as well as refraining from supporting its existing hardware as a means of artificial obsolescence. For example, you can run Windows 10 (or Linux) featuring modern web-browsers on a 2006 white iMac, while it is otherwise restricted to MacOS Lion (which, until the very recent arrival of Chromium-legacy, had been without a modern browser for a decade).
 
Here's mine: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08HQBC678 :) I have a similar, USB-A model in my gadget box, but it requires a driver download and install to be functional/
That's nice. Now ask the coffee-shop you're having lunch in if you can hook your laptop up to their Ethernet. Oh, wait, it still won't work because you have to download a driver for your Ethernet/USB gizmo (which is the exact same problem this hypothetical lame Linux distro is facing with absent Broadcom WiFi drivers).

You're searching for bandaids to cover a wound that shouldn't exist.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
  • Haha
Reactions: millerj123
For the simple and glaringly obvious reason that Apple is walling off the MacOS, as well as refraining from supporting its existing hardware as a means of artificial obsolescence. For example, you can run Windows 10 (or Linux) featuring modern web-browsers on a 2006 white iMac, while it is otherwise restricted to MacOS Lion (which, until the very recent arrival of Chromium-legacy, had been without a modern browser for a decade).

It's not a problem when gcc, clang exists. Does anyone ban compiling software for macos?
 
Now ask the coffee-shop you're having lunch in if you can hook your laptop up to their Ethernet.
Oh, not at all, I'd simply fish one of these out of my bag: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PB1X4CN Or, more likely, just tether my phone. That's if I ever find myself installing linux on anything in a coffee shop :)
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Grumpus said:
Oh, not at all, I'd simply fish one of these out of my bag: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PB1X4CN Or, more likely, just tether my phone. That's if I ever find myself installing linux on anything in a coffee shop :)
So now you have two pieces of additional gear, a phone, and time innumerable spent frogging around in laptop and phone settings to enable tethering around the firewalls, all to help you solve a problem that the distro's devs could have done before release if only that gave a damn.
It's not a problem when gcc, clang exists. Does anyone ban compiling software for macos?
Because exactly 0.00001% of the warmbody-mass needed to assist Linux in throwing Apple, Google, and Microsoft under the nearest bus are proficient L3T3 coders. Saying "Be a mechanic and make it yourself!" is not the correct answer to anyone asking for advice on a new car or a new refrigerator or a new operating-system that actually bloody works at its one-job.

Propellorheads cock-sure they can solve every problem are not the target-audience of this thread. Lazy distro devs who don't know what their own product's objective reason for existing is are.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Because exactly 0.00001% of the warmbody-mass needed to assist Linux in throwing Apple, Google, and Microsoft under the nearest bus are proficient L3T3 coders.

If you want to stand out from the crowd here, you have to study this other literacy.

Saying "Be a mechanic and make it yourself!" is not the correct answer to anyone asking for advice on a new car ....

Everyone knows that if you don't make your fingers oily, you can't drive.
 
If you want....
That sentence's first three words imply a premise (that I want X), with the remainder of the sentence consisting of snarky advice for gaining X. But the implied premise is false, constituting a straw-man fallacy.

Reread the threat title, the OP, and the rest of my posts in the thread, in particular this one.
 
Well, if you don't want to be different from the masses, then you don't start such a topic.

By the way, some people want their tools to be incompatible with winternet for security reasons.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave
I just reinstalled Asahi Fedora on my M1 MBP after having to send it in for repair.
It's pretty straight forward, and other than Citrix not working, I could easily use this as a daily driver.

You can even install Ubuntu if you wanted. I prefer Fedora, myself.
 
TL;dr version of the OP:

Out-of-box requirements for a linux distro to be ready for mass-adaptation by users of Mac and Windows GUI operating systems:

a. installer able to create partitions (i.e., without nuking the whole destination drive) and install into them​
b. neat-looking, full-featured, drag-and-drop icon-based desktop environment with dock or menubar​
c. supports machines with proprietary WiFi and video drivers (this includes most Macs) sans hackery​
d. has a built-in "app store"-type portal for finding/installing the vast amount of available Linux software​
e. automatically sees and mounts other drive volumes; copies to/from Mac and Windows drives​
f. has a built-in EFI bootloader or other mechanism for assisting the user of a multi-boot system​
g. includes partition & drive back-up, cloning, migration, and recovery utilities; clones successfully boot​
h. standardized user-apps/settings migration tool that works across a variety of Linux distros​


Few of the many distros that I have examined achieve even half of these. So far, Pop! OS is arguably the prettiest-looking and satisfies b. and d., but without pre-installed Broadcom drivers is useless on most Macs.

EndeavorOS with KDE Plasma 6 DE is by far the closest to satisfying those requirements: its installer (which doubles as a bare-bones read-only version of the OS itself with browser and networking) is the only one that I've seen yet which even offers to partition the destination. Its only real glaring omission is a complete absence of any sort of "store" for locating and installing more available software (because, for some unfathomably obtuse rationale, Endeavor carries along parent-Arch's OCD-for-OCD's sake pride in being a command-line-centric OS).
 
Last edited:
The only requirement *I* care about is having the proper drivers for whatever hardware I want to use.

As for the UI, the command line looks and works the same in every Linux distro I've used.🙃😏 But I have to agree about the GUI; Linux is light-years behind in the WYSIWYG. That quirk is part of its charm.🤓

Anyhow, the best reason to use Linux is it doesn't spy on you.
0449358680be0256ab95787c1887a22d6465806f43dc721acc9e8b611306dc92_1.jpg
 
I have to agree about the GUI; Linux is light-years behind in the WYSIWYG. That quirk is part of its charm.🤓
With KDE Plasma 6 and potentially Cosmic, things are actually looking well on the DE front. The major problems continue to be at the back-end, such as scaled deployment. I.e., I have fifty computers of twenty different flavors, and desire to clone away.

EndeavorOS let me down today: neither of its two available partition utilities would resize smaller the active partition, which is something Mac and Windows have had squared away for over twenty years. Go figure. Derp.
Anyhow, the best reason to use Linux is it doesn't spy on you.
Distros should probably stop including Mozilla products if privacy is paramount.
 
Last edited:
The majority of computer users don't even know what Linux is....
They don't have to. Let me explain: Last week at the metro-area recyclers to pick up machines, I couldn't get any of my favorite laptops (2013-2015 Retina 15.4" i7 MBPs w/HDMI) because they had a bulk-order of 200 machines from a foreign buyer -- and it's like that almost everywhere now: the West in general and the US in particular are being strip-mined of used machines in the "fast-enough" category by dealers in countries with favorable exchange-rates versus the dollar. So anyway, pallets of these things pile up in warehouses overseas, and eventually need drives wiped and new OSes installed upon arrival.

So what OS goes on them? --Whatever the reseller thinks will make them most useful and therefore valuable.
  1. They could put on the default OS (i.e. Command-R during boot for most Macs), or whatever similar procedure sets up Win10home (if a PC drive's recovery partition hasn't been wiped, which it probably has), then wait forever for Cupertino or Redmond to spoonfeed an artificially-obsolesced OS over whatever horrid wireless rate his Lagos import terminal's ISP gateway box possesses, taking likely hours or more per machine, especially if they're going to load them up with any other goodies while the copyright police have their backs turned across the ocean). In the unlikely event option 1 is chosen, the result is a craptacularly slow Catalina/APFS on much of the Mac inventory. Option 1 is what your typical, law-abiding, tax-paying, licensed reseller in the West offers the consumer: a box whose OS possesses an obsolete browser and obsolete ecosystem widgets, and not much else besides a lot of ads and nagging notifications to set up an account so Apple and/or Microsoft can keep track of their ear-tagged herd. Microsoft and especially Apple like it this way, due to contrivance, old machines are prevented from being able to do much.
  2. They could clone a prepped external drive full of goodies. Clone time ranges from under twenty minutes (USB3 SSD to internal SSD) to well over an hour (USB2 to rotational for 150gb of material), but volume cloning is simple if you've made a lot of copies of the master drive. This is probably what goes on with machines arriving in Africa and Asia. (Note that volume installation of the default OS by the default method of phoning the mothership as described in #1 is not possible because it is subject to the bandwidth of the importer's internet service. So, already there is a strong incentive for such a person to explore this method.)
  3. They could throw Open Core Legacy on the Macs, and Tiny11 or somesuch on the PCs, and stuff on the newest, most bloated OSes. Result is slow, buggy machines that runs less older software (much less in the case of Macs) but some newer subscription-model titles. (Unscrupulous sellers on CL and FBM do this to bamboozle the unwary dumb buyer who simply wants "the latest" because that's what the access-media they consult blares at klaxon volume.)
  4. Dual-boot native OS full of goodies and a user-friendly modern Linux distro with Chromium, VLC, GIMP, Kitra, LibreOffice, Wine/Bottles, DOSBox, Steam, etc already installed.
I can tell you right now that #2 is what those importers are doing. #4 is what gives Apple/Microsoft the cold sweats, because, as yet, it's not quite feasible to scale-clone such a master-drive across a dozen disparate hardware models (since most Linux distros don't include proprietary Broadcom and nVidia drivers) -- but we're very close now. When #4 fully arrives, resellers will implement it almost immediately, and buyers will receive machines that, for the first time in over a decade, run operating systems that do not artificially obsolesce on Apple's or Microsoft's timeline. Linux' real-world (as opposed to new machine statistics) percentage of marketshare will hockeystick, and faux-obsolescence will ebb, eating into the bottom lines of high-end hardware manufacturers.
 
The so-called "average user" is incapable of installing anything on anything. That's why they call us nerds, remember?
They were able to install AOL in the 1990s by the gazillions. All it takes is the will to create an installation mechanism that's easy to use, comes with enough bloody damn drivers, the final product isn't an eyesore, and it's able to co-exist with rather than replace the current operating-system.
 
They were able to install AOL in the 1990s by the gazillions. All it takes is the will to create an installation mechanism that's easy to use, comes with enough bloody damn drivers, the final product isn't an eyesore, and it's able to co-exist with rather than replace the current operating-system.
Pipedream. They can't see past their accountants. And coexistence is not even a bad dream. Dominance is all.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
To ops point, I have never, ever had a Linux install go 100% flawlessly on my Intel Macs. Broadcom WiFi always fail out of the box for me whether it was Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Elementary, Debian etc. on a number of EI macs. I am at least hopping into Terminal, purging bcml & adding b43 drivers via Ethernet - at a minimum.

This alone will stop wide adoption for most folks who don’t have the time, ability, desire or Ethernet cable/port. It’s pretty obvious that Linux dev has put the cart before the horse in a few key places to anyone viewing this with wide adoption as a goal.

I am a big fan of light Linux distros breathing new life into old “obsolete” Intel C2D/i3/i5 MacBooks. Op imo is 110% right in that a comfy & intuitive, basic installer that automates/manages partition/volume creation for ground level users & provides appropriate WiFi drivers out of the box is a huge opportunity to making Linux accessible & usable to normal folks etc. I believe folks would flourish in a Linux environment if we could just get them there with streamlined installation media.

A $40 2008 a1078 or more modest a1181 MacBook running Lubuntu for example could easily & snappily serve DD tasks for most folks today and do it in style but they need to be able to get there and with current installation media they can’t.
 
Last edited:
(TL;dr version)

Preface: this post is drenched in sarcasm, because it's directed at those who have it coming. And who are these people? --Answer: anyone and everyone who's ever claimed that any version of Linux is "ready" to replace the MacOS on a Mac (or indeed any OEM OS on any PC). Especially if it came out of the mouth of a distro developer themselves.

A brief, itemized list of aggravated nonsense (this is from a Mac POV, but applies just as easily to Windows machines with a few word-substitutions):

1) The installers.

Stupid ISOs from the CD-rom era that require third-party app flashing to a USB boot device (seeing as most machines don't have an optical-drive anymore). What is it with this garbage? Have any of you paid any attention to MacOS installers or the Disk Utility at all over the last quarter-century? Hey, here's a novel idea: write a launch-file that users can just run! And it'll create a partition, and install into that right on the spot! (Or automatically go through the process of creating a temporary EFI booter that'll do so upon restart, if reasons (see next three below.) --Wouldn't it just be utterly fantastic if we had something like that? Why yes, it would be just lovely. Why aren't you making them that way? Why isn't it literally the first thing that you do? It's as if you're designing a new engine with no thought given as to how your user will manage to put it in their car.

2) SIPiddy-doodah, SIPiddy-day

You must know that most older Macs (of the sort that people are contemplating putting your distro on) have this little "feature" called System Integrity Protection, right? (The more recent ones have Secure Boot, which does the same thing.) --Does your chimp-written installer know how to account for it, or will it breezily plod along until it freezes or crashes without explanation? (Looking at you, Elementary OS, you bloody great heaping waste of time that I'll never get back.) You probably also don't know that Macs have this feature called "zapping PRAM", and if you do it twice in a row, amongst myriad other default-resetting, SIP is re-enabled, and if the particular vintage of machine does not have the Command-R phone-the-Apple-mothership procedure implemented, it's going to be pretty damned difficult to disable SIP again without a Recovery Partition whose Terminal app has the permissions to successfully "csrutil disable".

3) You don't get partitions, those are for closers

The Mac Disk Utility easily creates drive partitions, into which the MacOS can be installed. The installer will even list the partitions for you. It's been, what, fifteen-twenty years it could do that? Longer even? --Why doesn't your distro's installer either create or ask of partitions, let alone install into them? ...because you don't care enough, that's why. You're perfectly comfortable with "Evil Big Tech" squatting over virtually all consumer hardware instead of takin' the fight to the man.

3) Your AWOL Bootloader

Maybe 4% of Mac owners (who have a leg up on the 3% of Windows users aware of BIOS boot keys) know that if they hold down the Option key at startup, they're given a choice of bootable volumes (one of which could be your crappy-on-its-face Linux distro's ugly generic EFI load icon, because you didn't care enough to paint the thing). It's as if you're advertising a new car in the 2020s that requires its users to set the choke and check the floatbowl like a 1940s tractor. Unless it's the only vehicle in the barn because it ate the other, in which case it'll start right up. --Would it absolutely kill you not to be so lame?

4) Pull your head out of your Broadcom

There's only millions of used Macs out there made between whenever and whenever that have Broadcom network adapters. Do you think their users give a damn if the drivers are proprietary? --What they will give a damn about is your Linux distro being absolutely useless without working wifi (and most Mac laptops and many PCs haven't had optical-drives or Ethernet ports for a decade, so be prepared for byzantine bluetooth phone-tethering tricks attempting to smuggle drivers onto them). WiFi should have a visible icon on a taskbar by default, whether connected or not. There must be a dozen distros out there whose devs obviously spent countless hours lovingly crafting superb desktop environments mimicking the look-and-feel of the MacOS (staring at you, my lovely Pop! OS, so dolled-up but dysfunctional out-of-box) ...which are nevertheless useless on a Mac because they spent zero hours rounding up the bloody drivers.

5) Could I please put my favorite crap on the desktop?

Do you know what the heart & soul of a GUI operating-system is? The ability to plaster application and document icons and alias shortcuts all over our desktops and make snow-angels in them to our heart's content. And click them over and over in a dopamine rush. (The look & feel of MacOS Lion is the goal here.) --If your sterile GUI Linux distro doesn't even have a desktop environment and thinks it's just going to run as a pile of tiled windows, please slouch away, as there may be children present. (Suffice also to say that your distro ought find and auto-mount (as icons) attached storage devices regardless of format type (HFS+, APFS, NTFS, ExFAT, etc) so the user can access his files.

6) Effing Firefox as default

You obviously haven't received the memo detailing that Mozilla isn't a nice company anymore, and heading downhill fast into full enshattification. (Yeah, it's still better than Safari, but that's damning-with-faint-praise.) If they're not as bad as Microsoft or Apple yet, it's only because they're not as big yet. At least consider Waterfox (for up-to-current Firefox forks) or Basilisk or Chromium-legacy (up-to-current chrome fork) or something else without an S&P500 ticker-symbol. --And would it kill your lazy asses to equip your default browser with uBlock Origin, FB Purity, and Adblocker Ultimate already up and running? I mean, if you really intend to stick it to the man by throwing a sledge in his face, show me that you mean it.

7) Forking the MacOS

Just imagine how popular your distro would *instantly* become for millions of suffering Mac users if it actually ran MacOS apps as well as Linux apps? And I mean all of them, from the 9" B&W era up to silicon, by removing all the restrictions Apple wrote into the code (or maliciously removed from the code qua artificial-obsolescence). --The one thing every Mac user would love is to never again have to see the slashed-circle "No!" icon over their favorite app after Apple scared them into updating the OS. (Reduce your dev team's work-load by removing all of Apple's telemetry-bloat, starting with Spotlight Indexing and MRT, and proceeding from there.)

And then envision your distro running on any platform, not just Mac, and that it also ran Windows apps too. (This is how you stick it to the man at both Apple and Microsoft.)

And make your logo six-colors, to really rub it in how much better you're going to be than these soulless data-harvesting, wallet-hoovering abominations.
There is not much demand to run Linux on Mac hardware. Linux has the same base root as MacOS hence, we can expect similar strength and weakness on both. Plus, macOS offers more integrated and better UI.
 
There is not much demand to run Linux on Mac hardware. Linux has the same base root as MacOS hence, we can expect similar strength and weakness on both. Plus, macOS offers more integrated and better UI.
I disagree about the UI. I like Mint Linux better. More customizable and modern.
 
There is not much demand to run Linux on Mac hardware. Linux has the same base root as MacOS hence, we can expect similar strength and weakness on both. Plus, macOS offers more integrated and better UI.

However, some tasks, such as processing LaTeX documents can be noticeably faster under Linux, even when running on the same Mac hardware.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.