Linux Is A Lemon On The Retina MacBook Pro

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Why would you want to do something like this?

A few weeks back I ordered the Retina MacBook Pro to see how well it would work out with Linux. Unfortunately, it's been a disappointing experience getting Linux to run on the hardware. Like many, I was attracted to the Apple MacBook Pro with Retina display over its impressive 15.4-inch 2880x1800 display
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
The rMBP is a $2500 disposable computer. I mean, come on, they glued the battery in.

It is not surprising that it doesn't work well with GNU/Linux given Apple's propensity to use proprietary, non-standard hardware and their lack of openness with the necessary specifications to write drivers for their hardware.
 

soulman901

Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
642
Why in the world would anyone want to run that crappy OS?
Seriously, Linux blows chunks.
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.
 

six_storm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,251
Why in the world would anyone want to run that crappy OS?
Seriously, Linux blows chunks.
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.

Replace "Linux" with "Android" and you will get the biggest Interwebz chewing out of your life. True story.
 

SkribbelKat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
5,330
Win 95 > we win ME

Yeah, but ME had the "Inside Your Computer" theme with a desktop background that looked great:
Inside_your_Computer_wallpaper.jpg
 

Matalim

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
349
The rMBP is a $2500 disposable computer. I mean, come on, they glued the battery in.

It is not surprising that it doesn't work well with GNU/Linux given Apple's propensity to use proprietary, non-standard hardware and their lack of openness with the necessary specifications to write drivers for their hardware.

Yep..it has to be the glue and not because the hardware is still fresh and needs updated drivers. Give the community some time and the drivers will be there in a few months. How did they get linux working on these Apple hardware if they lack openness...lol

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MactelSupportTeam/CommunityHelpPages
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
Yep..it has to be the glue and not because the hardware is still fresh and needs updated drivers. Give the community some time and the drivers will be there in a few months. How did they get linux working on these Apple hardware if they lack openness...lol

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MactelSupportTeam/CommunityHelpPages

Why in the world would anyone want to run that crappy OS?
Seriously, Linux blows chunks.
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.

Just because you weren't intelligent enough to become a *nix expert does not mean that GNU/Linux "blows chunks".

90% of the world's Supercomputers run GNU/Linux. 60% of web servers, including HardForum, run Linux.
 

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,791
Why in the world would anyone want to run that crappy OS?
Seriously, Linux blows chunks.
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.

Thank you for all your insightful points as to why Linux sucks. With these, you will surely sway the millions of people who use it. I'm kinda curious as to which OS this website runs off of... or the many hate sites you must frequent daily...

Signed your friendly Linux dev and admin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
It is not surprising that it doesn't work well with GNU/Linux given Apple's propensity to use proprietary, non-standard hardware and their lack of openness with the necessary specifications to write drivers for their hardware.
To what proprietary, non-standard hardware are you referring? The Intel CPUs, Intel chipsets and NVIDIA GPUs?

P.S. Fuck you.
Well, you've certain proven you're the better man with this. Bravo.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
Just because you weren't intelligent enough to become a *nix expert does not mean that GNU/Linux "blows chunks".

90% of the world's Supercomputers run GNU/Linux. 60% of web servers, including HardForum, run Linux.

The DNS servers of Comcast run on Linux too. Chances are, all of them do.

It's so blowful, that the internet itself relies on it.
 

ccman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
443
I still can't bring myself to pay the Apple hardware premium, but from time to time, I consider buying a Mac to run OS X alongside Windows. I want to be more proficient at Linux than I am, so I could conceive of installing Linux on a Mac if the Mac was my only computer. I can think of scenarios where this configuration might be useful, although virtualization would also be the answer in most cases.

I haven't tried with Mountain Lion, but I have run OS X on a Hackintosh and in VirtualBox and saw many glitches and "You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button." screens of death.

Besides, I'm sure Linux devs got their hands on the hardware before it was released :rolleyes:.
 

nOrVow

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
693
Why in the world would anyone want to run that crappy OS?
Seriously, Linux blows chunks.
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.

Oh silly you. You have much to learn.
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
To what proprietary, non-standard hardware are you referring? The Intel CPUs, Intel chipsets and NVIDIA GPUs?


Well, you've certain proven you're the better man with this. Bravo.

The main thing is a non-standard EFI. This makes things like power management/ACPI very difficult.
 

ccman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
443
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.
Isn't that what the Linux Standard Base project of the Linux Foundation is working on?
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,560
Why in the world would anyone want to run that crappy OS?
Seriously, Linux blows chunks.
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.

I disagree with everything but the last part. The hugely fragmented Linux community. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of distros. The biggest question I hear is "Which one?" and there really isn't any definite answer. Ubuntu or Mint is usually the most recommended for newbies that just want a new OS that isn't Windows or OSX. For those that want to dig in more and learn it, it's Red Hat (which is what I learned first), Slackware, Debian or Gentoo. But, even then, it's not entirely the same as a different distro. You have different packaging, different commands (not Linux per se, but the way the distro chose it's various packages). It's the whole various distros that are holding it back. Not it's functionality (other than gaming).

I'll run a Linux web server any day of the week. I run a Server 2008R2 server with a couple Linux VM's doing web and DNS duties.

Linux very much does NOT suck. But, you are right in the fact that the fragmentation is probably the biggest thing that is holding it back from gaining more market share.
 

Ryan711

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,173
So what you're saying is that there's nothing special about Apple hardware. Check.

In the same sense that a camaro is the same as a corvette. It's the little things that make the difference not the big.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,177
Just because you weren't intelligent enough to become a *nix expert does not mean that GNU/Linux "blows chunks".

90% of the world's Supercomputers run GNU/Linux. 60% of web servers, including HardForum, run Linux.

He did say "desktop standard".
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
I disagree with everything but the last part. The hugely fragmented Linux community. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of distros. The biggest question I hear is "Which one?" and there really isn't any definite answer. Ubuntu or Mint is usually the most recommended for newbies that just want a new OS that isn't Windows or OSX. For those that want to dig in more and learn it, it's Red Hat (which is what I learned first), Slackware, Debian or Gentoo. But, even then, it's not entirely the same as a different distro. You have different packaging, different commands (not Linux per se, but the way the distro chose it's various packages). It's the whole various distros that are holding it back. Not it's functionality (other than gaming).

I'll run a Linux web server any day of the week. I run a Server 2008R2 server with a couple Linux VM's doing web and DNS duties.

Linux very much does NOT suck. But, you are right in the fact that the fragmentation is probably the biggest thing that is holding it back from gaining more market share.

The main problem with your argument is that it adopts a very Windows-centric line of thinking.

In the Windows world, there is no package management. Program installation is the responsibility of the application developer and programs are obtained and installed independently of each other by downloading various zip and exe files that are scattered throughout the Internet. This kind of system would be disastrous if applied to an operating system as varied as GNU/Linux.

In the UNIX world, including GNU/Linux, program installation/installation is generally viewed as the domain of the operating system and is far more centralized than anything in Windows. Application developers are not expected to worry about the differences between distros and most in fact, don't; rather, the burden is on the distro and/or it's users (e.g PPA, AUR) to integrate the application in a way that works. Free software has the benefit of being able to be compiled against whatever versions of a given library the distro is using; proprietary software is typically distributed in a self-contained form where all of the libraries it needs are bundled with it.
 

nOrVow

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
693
I disagree with everything but the last part. The hugely fragmented Linux community. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of distros. The biggest question I hear is "Which one?" and there really isn't any definite answer. Ubuntu or Mint is usually the most recommended for newbies that just want a new OS that isn't Windows or OSX. For those that want to dig in more and learn it, it's Red Hat (which is what I learned first), Slackware, Debian or Gentoo. But, even then, it's not entirely the same as a different distro. You have different packaging, different commands (not Linux per se, but the way the distro chose it's various packages). It's the whole various distros that are holding it back. Not it's functionality (other than gaming).

I'll run a Linux web server any day of the week. I run a Server 2008R2 server with a couple Linux VM's doing web and DNS duties.

Linux very much does NOT suck. But, you are right in the fact that the fragmentation is probably the biggest thing that is holding it back from gaining more market share.

He's confusing "fragmentation" with "choice". When you go to buy a pair of jeans, is it a problem that there are many choice? How about when buying a new car? Different distributions have different philosophies of end user experience and functionality, and as such distributions are packaged to suit a certain need or want. They all have the same underlying architecture and mechanics. That's exactly what the Linux distribution model is all about, freedom of choice. If a developer feels a certain distribution isn't user-friendly enough for the masses to utilize with ease, he will go out of his to engineer a suitable supply for that demand (ie. Mark Shuttleworth). So it is far from a "problem".

The problem is his blind assertion that Linux needs an "All size fits all" model that reflects what Microsoft and Mac OS X go by. The same concept applies to the number of user-land GUIs and package management systems - choice and suitable desires. That certainly isn't a problem for end users - it's a healthy endeavor users actually want.

Linux is not Windows, nor should it ever be Windows.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,560
Which is considered fragmented. Yes, it's a good model for Linux users and those that want choice. But for a lot of people (most that use Windows or OSX) they want to install and forget. They want to be able to download a program from the internet and run it. They don't want to compile it, run scripts, etc.. I don't mind doing that, and it works for me. But, I'm not the majority of people out there.

I'm not saying Linux or their methods are bad. I'm just saying that is one of the main reasons why it hasn't hit it big on the average users desktop yet.

The problem is his blind assertion that Linux needs an "All size fits all" model that reflects what Microsoft and Mac OS X go by. The same concept applies to the number of user-land GUIs and package management systems - choice and suitable desires. That certainly isn't a problem for end users - it's a healthy endeavor users actually want.

Linux is not Windows, nor should it ever be Windows.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,560
Which is why it will never be a relevant desktop OS.

It is very relevant for many people. I can do everything I want with a Linux desktop, besides my gaming. I prefer Windows on the desktop, but Linux is not a bad OS on desktop (and I don't think anyone could argue that it sucks on the server - if you can, you're very closed minded and a fanboy). It's just not my preference. That's about it.

Windows is my preference for sure. I'm a Windows fanboy. I love Windows! But, saying Linux sucks would just be me being an uninformed douche fanboy. I can show you a shit ton of people that would say that Windows isn't relevant. It's not. To their needs and uses.
 

nOrVow

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
693
Which is considered fragmented. Yes, it's a good model for Linux users and those that want choice. But for a lot of people (most that use Windows or OSX) they want to install and forget. They want to be able to download a program from the internet and run it. They don't want to compile it, run scripts, etc.. I don't mind doing that, and it works for me. But, I'm not the majority of people out there.

I'm not saying Linux or their methods are bad. I'm just saying that is one of the main reasons why it hasn't hit it big on the average users desktop yet.

That would be the exact same problem for Windows if it lacked OEM PC vendor support, and Linux were pre-installed by all major PC distributors. You've just highlighted the real main problem without taking it into consideration.

Linux isn't pre-installed, that's it. Linux is a viable alternative to Windows/Max OS X. Why do you think Android is huge? They're pre-installed on smartphones. Same issue.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,560
That would be the exact same problem for Windows if it lacked OEM PC vendor support, and Linux were pre-installed by all major PC distributors. You've just highlighted the real main problem without taking it into consideration.

Linux isn't pre-installed, that's it. Linux is a viable alternative to Windows/Max OS X. Why do you think Android is huge? They're pre-installed on smartphones. Same issue.

Yea, I'm sure that's a big reason. But, I can download any modern Windows program online and it will work (keeping versions and hardware system req's of out the equation).

With Linux, I have to yum or apt-get (and I'm sure there are others). Even then, getting things to run, there are Red Hat and Debian distro (and all stubs from them) instructions. It's not bad, but the average user would read "Linux" and just think it's all the same when it's not. It all depends on the disto. But, if all PC's were shipped with Ubuntu, it would gain a lot of marketshare and developers would focus on that. You could download a "Linux" program and it would run on a Debian based distro with no problems. It may take some extra steps for Red Hat ones, though. With Windows, I can run exe, msi, etc. regardless of Win7 Home, Pro, Enterprise.

With Android, it's similar to Windows - it's based on versions. Some apps won't work with previous versions, which is understandable. But, it's all the same core basically. You can download an app for Android, and it will work.

Yea, I'm nitpicking, and it's not that big of a deal, but it is (IMO) one of the things that is holding Linux back. Read any forum and the biggest question is "Which distro do I choose?". Read the answers. 9/10 of them will be completely different. Some will recommend a few depending on the uses.

Yes, most Linux programs run on any distro for the most part, but getting them and setting them up require different steps depending on which distro you choose. It's not as straightforward as Windows (yet).

This is just in my limited Linux on the desktop experience. I've tried CentOS (learned on Red Hat, so it was easier), Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Slackware. Most were pretty much the same, but there were somethings that didn't work, so I went online to figure out why. It was a different thing than with the other distro I was using... Got it working with no problems, but it wasn't just a click, click, click, easy that a lot of people are looking for (which is what I'm basing my whole opinion here on - the average PC user).
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,177
I would say probably the best/easiest distro for an average user right now would be Ubuntu. Even though Unity sucks.
 

nOrVow

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
693
Yea, I'm sure that's a big reason. But, I can download any modern Windows program online and it will work (keeping versions and hardware system req's of out the equation).

With Linux, I have to yum or apt-get (and I'm sure there are others). Even then, getting things to run, there are Red Hat and Debian distro (and all stubs from them) instructions. It's not bad, but the average user would read "Linux" and just think it's all the same when it's not. It all depends on the disto. But, if all PC's were shipped with Ubuntu, it would gain a lot of marketshare and developers would focus on that. You could download a "Linux" program and it would run on a Debian based distro with no problems. It may take some extra steps for Red Hat ones, though. With Windows, I can run exe, msi, etc. regardless of Win7 Home, Pro, Enterprise.

With Android, it's similar to Windows - it's based on versions. Some apps won't work with previous versions, which is understandable. But, it's all the same core basically. You can download an app for Android, and it will work.

Yea, I'm nitpicking, and it's not that big of a deal, but it is (IMO) one of the things that is holding Linux back. Read any forum and the biggest question is "Which distro do I choose?". Read the answers. 9/10 of them will be completely different. Some will recommend a few depending on the uses.

Yes, most Linux programs run on any distro for the most part, but getting them and setting them up require different steps depending on which distro you choose. It's not as straightforward as Windows (yet).

This is just in my limited Linux on the desktop experience. I've tried CentOS (learned on Red Hat, so it was easier), Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Slackware. Most were pretty much the same, but there were somethings that didn't work, so I went online to figure out why. It was a different thing than with the other distro I was using... Got it working with no problems, but it wasn't just a click, click, click, easy that a lot of people are looking for (which is what I'm basing my whole opinion here on - the average PC user).

The majority of distributions (or the most popular distributions for the matter) are derivatives of two father distributions and two father package management systems: Debian (.deb) and Red Hat (.rpm). The majority of all else, and the GNU user-land are distribution agnostic. All you need to do is tell them which package manager they've obtained?

.RPM? Ok, it'll coincide with Red Hat, Fedora, OpenSuSE, SLES, CentOS, Scientific Linux, Mageia.

.Deb? No problem. Debian, (*)buntu, Linux Mint.

All under the same vanilla architecture - GNU/Linux. So we do, in fact, have standards - they're GNU/Linux and the standard package management systems.

The issue would even more alleviating if the scheme of the discussion were slanted towards new adopters/beginners. Linux Mint and the Buntus serve the majority incredibly well.

You want corporate backing for Linux? We have Canonical for Ubuntu, and Red Hat for Fedora. The user may choose.
 

mynamehere

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
1,763
That would be the exact same problem for Windows if it lacked OEM PC vendor support, and Linux were pre-installed by all major PC distributors. You've just highlighted the real main problem without taking it into consideration.

Linux isn't pre-installed, that's it. Linux is a viable alternative to Windows/Max OS X. Why do you think Android is huge? They're pre-installed on smartphones. Same issue.
But if Linux were OEM, which distro would each user end up with? Would it be standardized, or would it be luck of the draw? Luck of the draw leading to no standard operation and maintenance of PCs, therefore the same old fragmentation issue, except then everyone would be forced to deal with it.
 
Top