How well Ubuntu (Feisty) works on a MacBook Pro

[Brian Fahrlander]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gabriel Dragffy wrote:
> David Stubblebine wrote:
>> I'm not sure why you want to use a $2,600 mac laptop to run linux.   
>> Why not eBay your MacBook Pro if you aren't going to run Mac OS X,  
>> and buy a comparable PC laptop for Ubuntu?
>>
>> --
>> David Stubblebine
>> Norwalk, OH
>>
>> "Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat"
>> -- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987
>>
>>
>>
> 
> What are you saying by that? - That linux is not worthy of a decent 
> computer? Or that OS X is better than Linux?
> 
> Either way I have used OS X for the last 5 months on it, I'm getting fed 
> up with trawling across the internet finding updates for my 
> applications. Also I love the GNU software, which is mostly ugly in OSX 
> (e.g. GIMP). In my opinion nothing beats apt for convenience.
> 
> Personally I didn't get a MBP 'cause of OS X, I got it because I thought 
> the build quality was outstanding. It's my first apple product, and it 
> is really good. It would seem that I don't have much choice in the 
> matter, I'm gonna have to stick with OS X, which isn't so bad.

    Forgive the butting-in, but:

    1. Yeah, Apple makes some *great* hardware. It's been a part of them
for a long, long time.

    2. There's a reason why it's so costly: Apple figures-in the cost of
 newbies on the learning curve, and needing close help. Not that it's
wrong- there's a *ton* of people who, for reasons of their own haven't
dedicated their lives to computing the way most of us here have.  :>

    3. You can pick up a "pc" type laptop for something like $500 and
get the benefits of upgradability, without paying Apple for tech support
they can't give you.

    I've seen both sides of the argument; a part of me really wants to
try out that smooth, non-multiplexed bus on the 68K series. It's good
hardware, like I said. It's just that PC hardware is so plentiful; the
Windows guys turn up their nose if it's "slow" on the current platform.
And the way Windows works now, it's gotta be quad-powered, baby.

    Around here I have 5 machines, the youngest is 6 years old. I'm
running PC133 memory in it; nothing has more than 1/2G of RAM. I'm on an
AMD Athlon 1200, now considered a relic, if you have the "Made for
Microsoft" label on the box.  I can't imagine needing more, until the
memory is so obscure that it's expensive, like the 486s are.

    I work with some Windows guys; they have a shop.  I'm always blown
away by "the smallest thing we can order" sounding like something that
used to aggregate global mine speculation in real-time. Sure, there are
things that _need_ as much power as you can get, but at the salvage
shops you can have a very capable all-round machine for about $100. (I
bought one, "stewie" for $30 last year.)

    I can't speak with certainty, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't making
fun of you, not poo-pooing your choice of hardware. But a different arch
has a cost; even on the AMD64, the codecs, for example require more
fiddling...it's not a simple, direct task.  It's peculiar, that's all.

    If I'm wrong, I'm sorry...I just wanted to chime in on what seems to
be a recurring theme: more horsepower for an OS that just doesn't need
it. (Especially since there are no premium games in Linux)
- --
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
 Evansville, IN                              http://Fahrlander.net/brian
 ICQ: 5119262                         AOL/Yahoo/GoogleTalk: WheelDweller
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGK0MV6PLtRzZbdhYRAl+IAJ9KK72gWxeqDMgfKdJHIc2kdV0nGACfZH0z
rYcOsOm7LCI7yWb5uwpnLcU=
=7nl8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----