[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Bringing the embarrassing fact about FOSS to light can only help the community.

How? There is nothing wrong with the concept of FOSS. You yourself acknowledged this in giving props to Linux on the server. There are a ton of great FOSS tools worthy of praise (as there are bad ones). In fact, out of all of the innovation in the entire world of computing, most of it has come from open source. That FOSS hasn't developed a Desktop as strong as OS X or Windows doesn't mean that the mere premise of FOSS is flawed, but that the resources and interest aren't there in this particular area. After decades of Unix existing and despite their best efforts, Microsoft hasn't managed to make it go away and have everybody run Windows servers. Why is that?

Linux on the Desktop will always be just around the corner. Hobbyists are free to tinker and do whatever they want with their free time.

Why always?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why always?

Because nothing has changed in ten years.

Because no one cares anymore.

Because there is no money to be made.

Because FOSS has proven to lead to irreducible complexity over time.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How? There is nothing wrong with the concept of FOSS. You yourself acknowledged this in giving props to Linux on the server. There are a ton of great FOSS tools worthy of praise (as there are bad ones).

I wouldn't exactly say tons:



http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008...ally-free.html

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Because nothing has changed in ten years.

Because no one cares anymore.

Because there is no money to be made.

Hmmmm... Well then I guess you should call up the Redhat, Sun, IBM, Google, Yahoo, etc. CEOs to inform them that there is no money to be made in FOSS. If you meant simply in selling Desktop apps, I agree that this space is largely dominated by the likes of Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and a few others, but people definitely do care. There are money making opportunities here as well, and you know full well that no empire lasts forever. If this wasn't the case, why should Apple bother competing with Microsoft? Seems to me that the problem is virtually the same, although granted Apple has the better means to wager that battle against Microsoft.

Nothing has changed in 10 years? In what respect? There have been all sorts of changes...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I wouldn't exactly say tons:



http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008...ally-free.html

I would. In fact, I would go so far as to say that anybody who claims that there isn't tons (relatively speaking) is flat out ignorant. Seriously...

[- - e r i k - -]

Really? Feel free to list a few...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Really? Feel free to list a few...

- Gnu compiler (every OS X application is built with this)
- Linux/BSD/OS X kernel
- Git/Mercurial/Subversion
- protocols: DNS, DHCP, IMAP, TCP, HTTP, etc. (there are dozens, if not hundreds)
- MySQL/PostgreSQL
- Cyrus/Courier/Dovecot
- SSH/stunnel/scp, etc.
- mail milters, heuristics, techniques
- Apache
- Firefox/Mozilla/Thunderbird
- Python/PHP/Ruby
- various wikis, blogs, other web based software
- OpenLDAP/OpenSSL
- WINE
- KVM/Xen/libvirt/Qemu/Virtualbox
- MTAs: Postfix, QMail, Sendmail, etc.
- RRDTool
- MythTV
- Blender
- VNC/Synergy
- the command line shell
- CUPS
- Jabber
- iptables/ipfw
- Google (since Google itself is deeply entrenched in Linux)
- Grid computing

Enough for now?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hmmmm... Well then I guess you should call up the Redhat, Sun, IBM, Google, Yahoo, etc. CEOs to inform them that there is no money to be made in FOSS.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Linux on servers are another matter altogether and totally unrelated.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- Gnu compiler (every OS X application is built with this)
- Linux/BSD/OS X kernel
- Git/Mercurial/Subversion
- protocols: DNS, DHCP, IMAP, TCP, HTTP, etc. (there are dozens, if not hundreds)
- MySQL/PostgreSQL
- Cyrus/Courier/Dovecot
- SSH/stunnel/scp, etc.
- mail milters, heuristics, techniques
- Apache
- Firefox/Mozilla/Thunderbird
- Python/PHP/Ruby
- various wikis, blogs, other web based software
- OpenLDAP/OpenSSL
- WINE
- KVM/Xen/libvirt/Qemu/Virtualbox
- MTAs: Postfix, QMail, Sendmail, etc.
- RRDTool
- MythTV
- Blender
- VNC/Synergy
- the command line shell
- CUPS
- Jabber
- iptables/ipfw
- Google (since Google itself is deeply entrenched in Linux)
- Grid computing

Enough for now?

You are pretty much repeating what I said, plus some redundant ones (Google equals FOSS? Oh please!)

But of course that was a setup as the reply was already there in the FA;

And then there's the "I have a workable business model" type. These are the ones you've probably heard of. The ones you raise as examples, as if somehow they represent how all open source projects could one day be successful. Quite not so coincidentally, these often (kernel excepted of course) also happen to run on Windows or other commercial OSes, which users actually use.

On a separate note you also highlight another problem with FOSS: Branding.

What the **** is Git/Mercurial/Subversion/MySQL/PostgreSQL/Cyrus/Courier/Dovecot/OpenLDAP/OpenSSL/WINE/KVM/Xen/libvirt/Qemu/Virtualbox supposed to mean? How do you even pronounce most of them? Is it Genome or nome? Try explaining what the f*ck WINE is without sounding like a dork explaining recursive acronyms.

Linux: Great on servers and for hobbyist, fail for everyone else.

[ctt1wbw]

Why the **** are you people criticizing something that is ****ING FREE??? If you don't like it, stop ****ing bitching about it.

And btw, what exactly does Linux On The Desktop mean? Is that different from Linux on servers, which are run on desktops???

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

You can't tell me, a least not with a straight face, that the learning curve with Linux isn't steeper than it is with OS X.

If you can use one, you can use the other. You are not required to use the command prompt in Linux. You are aware of this, right? I've been using OS X since the beta days and have only gone to the command prompt twice. Yet I'm still using it and not bitching about it.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why don't you try the latest version of Ubuntu and report back to us, just for fun? All you need to do is boot from the live CD.

Don't tell him that. Then all you'll hear is how slow it is. Generally, I've seen that people just can't understand that when you run from a live cd, it's going to be slow.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Why the **** are you people criticizing something that is ****ING FREE??? If you don't like it, stop ****ing bitching about it.

This thread is called "Thoughts on a Linux mini-notebook PC?".

Our thoughts are that Linux is a waste of time for non-uber geeks.

And btw, what exactly does Linux On The Desktop mean? Is that different from Linux on servers, which are run on desktops???

Yes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You are pretty much repeating what I said, plus some redundant ones (Google equals FOSS? Oh please!)

Repeating what?

But of course that was a setup as the reply was already there in the FA;

Which ones in my list run on Windows?

On a separate note you also highlight another problem with FOSS: Branding.

What the **** is Git/Mercurial/Subversion/MySQL/PostgreSQL/Cyrus/Courier/Dovecot/OpenLDAP/OpenSSL/WINE/KVM/Xen/libvirt/Qemu/Virtualbox supposed to mean? How do you even pronounce most of them? Is it Genome or nome? Try explaining what the f*ck WINE is without sounding like a dork explaining recursive acronyms.

Linux: Great on servers and for hobbyist, fail for everyone else.

So this blogger's moronic graph that you shared with us here is accurate because of branding?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Our thoughts are that Linux is a waste of time for non-uber geeks.

That may be true, but so far it is interesting that we haven't heard much from anybody who has actually used a recent version of Ubuntu just to see if they still feel that way.

[Mastrap]

As I've said, I give Linux a try every two years or so. So far there's nothing there that would get me to switch over/use in a production environment.

[Chuckit]

You keep saying "old version," but you're not really talking about old versions so much as very recent and still supported versions in many cases. Is one year really such a difference? They squandered all those years of release, but then they suddenly kicked into high gear after the last time any critics used it and now it's perfect? That just doesn't seem very likely, does it?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

As I've said, I give Linux a try every two years or so. So far there's nothing there that would get me to switch over/use in a production environment.

Fair enough. I don't use Linux as a desktop OS either.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You keep saying "old version," but you're not really talking about old versions so much as very recent and still supported versions in many cases. Is one year really such a difference? They squandered all those years of release, but then they suddenly kicked into high gear after the last time any critics used it and now it's perfect? That just doesn't seem very likely, does it?

It's definitely far from perfect, it's just that I would expect that the people who use the strongest language about it would have some sort of modern frame of reference as to not be annoying, just as it is annoying when some Windows user prattles on about one mouse button or OS 9 or something.

Like I said, I don't use Linux on the Desktop either, I'm not a huge fan of Desktop Linux, but I still respect the progress being made there, and will defend fervently the strengths of FOSS as it applies to software run on servers as well as the virtues of FOSS itself. Then again, as you know, I spend more time managing servers than I do workstations (my Desktop is pretty boring, stock OS X)

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You keep saying "old version," but you're not really talking about old versions so much as very recent and still supported versions in many cases. Is one year really such a difference? They squandered all those years of release, but then they suddenly kicked into high gear after the last time any critics used it and now it's perfect? That just doesn't seem very likely, does it?

Exactly.

BTW, I try it every couple of years as well. Not every distro out there obviously, but one or two distros. And I always come to same conclusion... It's not there yet... and I wonder if it ever will be.

They have made progress, but the problem for them is that the bar keeps getting set higher. The blog eric posted is quite harsh, but much of it really does echo how I feel.

I really can't fathom how people don't get the concept that industrial grade stability and customizability great for hardcore users doesn't necessarily translate into good for me and grandma. People actually claim being able to do stuff like recompiling the kernel as being a plus.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

People actually claim being able to do stuff like recompiling the kernel as being a plus.

That actually is a good thing. I have an old Athlon 64 3000+, which is a single-core, approx. 1.8 GHz proc. I have it hooked up to our TV for playing video files. Initially, I threw Ubuntu on there just as an easy quick solution. Tried playing high res files, and it just completely fell down. Didn't work at all. Then I threw Gentoo on there, which made it very simple for me to compile everything myself with optimizations for my processor. Now it can play 1080p H.264 files with no problems. (Of course now I'm running FreeBSD on it because I'm turning it into a media server and am going to use a more modern computer for the actual video playing, but that also lets me optimize my system which gives me the same advantages.)

So being able to recompile your kernel? Definitely a plus if you have any interest in performance.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That actually is a good thing. I have an old Athlon 64 3000+, which is a single-core, approx. 1.8 GHz proc. I have it hooked up to our TV for playing video files. Initially, I threw Ubuntu on there just as an easy quick solution. Tried playing high res files, and it just completely fell down. Didn't work at all. Then I threw Gentoo on there, which made it very simple for me to compile everything myself with optimizations for my processor. Now it can play 1080p H.264 files with no problems. (Of course now I'm running FreeBSD on it because I'm turning it into a media server and am going to use a more modern computer for the actual video playing, but that also lets me optimize my system which gives me the same advantages.)

So being able to recompile your kernel? Definitely a plus if you have any interest in performance.

nonhuman: for what it is worth, MythTV and FreeBSD are a bad combo, at least when I tried it. For a media server, MythTV is a great addition, even if you don't use it as a PVR. I'm running MythTV with Ubuntu right now and have not had these problems, but obviously YMMV.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That actually is a good thing. I have an old Athlon 64 3000+, which is a single-core, approx. 1.8 GHz proc. I have it hooked up to our TV for playing video files. Initially, I threw Ubuntu on there just as an easy quick solution. Tried playing high res files, and it just completely fell down. Didn't work at all. Then I threw Gentoo on there, which made it very simple for me to compile everything myself with optimizations for my processor. Now it can play 1080p H.264 files with no problems. (Of course now I'm running FreeBSD on it because I'm turning it into a media server and am going to use a more modern computer for the actual video playing, but that also lets me optimize my system which gives me the same advantages.)

So being able to recompile your kernel? Definitely a plus if you have any interest in performance.

Case in point as to why LOTD may just never get there. Its target (intended or not) is just completely different from 99.9% of the population.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

nonhuman: for what it is worth, MythTV and FreeBSD are a bad combo, at least when I tried it. For a media server, MythTV is a great addition, even if you don't use it as a PVR. I'm running MythTV with Ubuntu right now and have not had these problems, but obviously YMMV.

I'm not planning on running MythTV on it. Mostly I'm just going to use it as a NAS and database server for MythTV running on a separate Linux box with newer hardware to leverage (will also be using it as a webserver and a few other things, but not really relevant). I'd be using OpenSolaris except that it doesn't support my hardware.

The problems I had with Ubuntu weren't related to Ubuntu, but rather to my elderly hardware (I built the PC about 4 years ago and haven't upgraded it at all since). It would have been entirely possible for me to achieve the same results with Ubuntu, but I find it much easier to do so with Gentoo. I'm really just not an Ubuntu fan at all, and vastly prefer Gentoo for pretty much all purposes.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Case in point as to why LOTD may just never get there. Its target (intended or not) is just completely different from 99.9% of the population.

My issues aren't really related to desktop usage. I'm attempting to use aging, outdated hardware for modern, high-performance applications, and the flexibility of Linux is what allows me to do that. I also use Linux as a Desktop OS for work, and while I do use Gentoo there and do put in the effort to fine tune things for my particular system, I'm very conservative in my setup there and, as a result it doesn't cause problems for me eve though I'm using brand new hardware that isn't in common usage amongst Linux users yet.

[besson3c]

The other thing about LOTD is that it wasn't until Ubuntu where there even was a coordinated and focused LOTD effort. Up until this point development efforts were rather fragmented. Since the LOTD people have standardized on Ubuntu, it has been making leaps and bounds. So, my point is that it never really had much of a fighting chance until Ubuntu and its variants.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Which ones in my list run on Windows?

Most run on Mac OS X, Cygwin.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So this blogger's moronic graph that you shared with us here is accurate because of branding?

How did you connect those dots? I said, you highlighted ANOTHER problem.

His graph is shockingly poignant. Most FOSS is crap.

[- - e r i k - -]

Linux and standards don't mix. What's the standard way of using audio on Linux?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Most run on Mac OS X, Cygwin.

Which run this way?

How did you connect those dots? I said, you highlighted ANOTHER problem.

Ahhh.. so the old game of "don't acknowledge that I might have been wrong, just pretend like a counter argument wasn't even made".

His graph is shockingly poignant. Most FOSS is crap.

Ahhh, so you are changing your argument. Before it was that there was little to no innovative open source, which you haven't repeated since I came up with that list, and now it's a game of numbers - that most of it is crap. A lot of Mac and Windows stuff you can download on Versiontracker is crap too, but I guess because you feel that there is more FOSS crap that it is safe to generalize that there is little there worth acknowledging, despite the list I came up with?

You have a strange way of arguing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Linux and standards don't mix. What's the standard way of using audio on Linux?

Ironic, since you wrote this very post using a browser compiled with an industry standard compiler that came from the open source community, connecting to this site with an assortment of standard protocols that also came from the open source community, hosted on an industry standard open source web server.

You really need to be precise with what you are saying. You are railing against Linux on the Desktop, and if you'd take the time to notice, I'm not arguing that. The problem with your argument is lumping FOSS in with your narrow view that centers on Linux on the Desktop.

FOSS is not crap, you cannot make this generalization, and if you think you can you really need to go through that list I came up with and tell me what makes each item in the list inferior. Otherwise, it seems like you are simply talking out of your ass, which I haven't ruled out isn't the case, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[mduell]

Which Linux criticisms apply to a supported Linux distro on a Netbook?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh.. so the old game of "don't acknowledge that I might have been wrong, just pretend like a counter argument wasn't even made".

What are you smoking?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

FOSS is not crap, you cannot make this generalization, and if you think you can you really need to go through that list I came up with and tell me what makes each item in the list inferior. Otherwise, it seems like you are simply talking out of your ass, which I haven't ruled out isn't the case, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

When did I generalise that? I said MOST FOSS is crap. It's human nature - it fails. FOSS works when it is MANAGED like a REAL SOFTWARE PROJECT. Hence Webkit, Kernel, Apache etc. etc. These projects work despite FOSS ideals and ethics, not because of them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

When did I generalise that? I said MOST FOSS is crap. It's human nature - it fails. FOSS works when it is MANAGED like a REAL SOFTWARE PROJECT. Hence Webkit, Kernel, Apache etc. etc. These projects work despite FOSS ideals and ethics, not because of them.

What is a "real software project"? One that earns money? Well then, why do many open source products beat their commercial counterparts? One that is well managed? One that is funded? This is extremely vague. Good developers and a good focus to a project stands on its own despite its funding or money making potential, and whether a project is open source or not does not change this. What commercial development can do is get a product out the door faster, but commercial development does not necessarily equal better. Far from it.

The bottom line is you said that FOSS is generally crap and uninnovative and you challenged me to come up with a list of projects that don't suck in defensive of that moronic graph you are enamored with. I did, and now you are backpeddling and trying to steer this debate into a direction that favors your pre-existing notions. The bottom line is that you were wrong. I reiterate: out of all of the innovation that occurs in the computing industry as a whole, the most comes out of the open source community, and there are several excellent, exceptional open source projects, despite the fact that your assumed interest in audio and perhaps graphic design (if you are like many other Mac users) does not lend itself to open source offerings.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Geesh, why does everything have to become a hill to die on?


Just like OS X, it's just another set of tools, not a way of life, fashion statement, political movement, or anything to wage war over.

[- - e r i k - -]

I do not disagree that geeky servertype stuff lends itself to OSS. This discussion was about General Use/LOTD. Stop moving your target back to your own narrow niche.

[besson3c]

Well, your little chart only listed one project that is LOTD (Firefox), and your prior statements did not qualify that you were talking about LOTD FOSS, and not FOSS in general. Say what you mean, I've only responded to what you have written.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The bottom line is that you were wrong. I reiterate: out of all of the innovation that occurs in the computing industry as a whole, the most comes out of the open source community, and there are several excellent, exceptional open source projects...

Oh, bullshit. Most FOSS projects are either copies of commercial offerings or derivatives of others projects "because they don't have enough options for me". All leading to low quality, mismanaged project.

The exceptions are exceptions for the reason I have stated.

Believe me, I used to love FOSS. I've just become quite disillusioned over the last decade, seeing as it offers very little REAL benefit to end users.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by effgee 

Beginning a sentence with "Every couple of years I take a look at Linux ..." makes it sort obvious that Mas' was talking about a personal experience, no?

Yes, but that's about as authoritative a comment as "Every couple of years I take a look at OS X, and the old adage holds true that Macs are slow, blah de blah...."

Which by the way, I've seen people attempt. And it's just about as compelling to everyday OS X users.

[- - e r i k - -]

Do you disagree that Linux is a mess unsuitable for end users other than hobbyists?

Do you disagree that FOSS, unless managed properly (i.e. like a commercial project - even paying people to work on it), tends to produce complex, derivative, abandoned projects that offers very little benefit to the end user (again with qualifications)?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh, bullshit. Most FOSS projects are either copies of commercial offerings or derivatives of others projects "because they don't have enough options for me". All leading to low quality, mismanaged project.

The exceptions are exceptions for the reason I have stated.

Believe me, I used to love FOSS. I've just become quite disillusioned over the last decade, seeing as it offers very little REAL benefit to end users.

And here we go again... around and around this merry-go-round. Dude, learn to speak precisely. Again, what you mean to say here I think (correct me if I'm wrong, I can't believe I'm trying to make your own points for you) is that most LOTD FOSS projects are copycats. If you said this in the first place (and not that the quality of FOSS as a whole is lacking), we wouldn't be having this debate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Do you disagree that Linux is a mess unsuitable for end users other than hobbyists?

Again, we return to this precision problem you seem to be having lately.

If by end users you mean users involved in research computing, software development and engineering, sys admins, etc. then no, I don't think it's unsuitable at all. If you mean end users as in your *average* end user (as in, Joe sixpack), I wouldn't go far as to say that it's a mess, but it is definitely not the best choice.

Do you disagree that FOSS, unless managed properly (i.e. like a commercial project - even paying people to work on it), tends to produce complex, derivative, abandoned projects that offers very little benefit to the end user (again with qualifications)?

Yes, I do. FOSS projects are often put together to scratch some sort of itch, not because the developer wants to put together some sort of tangible product for people to consume the way a business does. If I, as an end user, wanted an MP3 encoder that I could use to script MP3 encoding in batch via the command line for instance, I would be totally happy with LAME. In this case, I'm interested in scratching the same itch as the developer(s) that set out to write this project.

On the other hand, if this same product was a complicated mess, abandoned, undocumented, whatever, then yes obviously it would offer little benefit to me, unless I really needed something like this that badly that I wanted to put up with this. However, most FOSS projects are little tools that are designed to do one thing, and one thing well. To that end, it is rare that they become overly complex.

When you start getting into larger projects such as OpenOffice, GIMP, etc., that's when you tend to get into your forking, complexity, abandoning, etc. These tend to be Desktop apps, and I've already made my opinions fairly clear as far as the state of Linux Desktop apps.

That being said, MS Office is a bloated piece of crap too (at least the Mac version is). I'm happy to take it over Office for my needs. I like Firefox. I like Thunderbird, and know people that like Evolution, Blender, and even GIMP. So, my point is that even in the area of Desktop apps, there are still some keepers. Don't let the often poor Mac ports fool you.

It's not enough to simply say vaguely "with qualifications". That is lazy. Say what you mean.

[- - e r i k - -]

Well, we seem to agree then. Mostly. Apology accepted.

[Railroader]

OK. I downloaded the latest Ubuntu.iso build. I partitioned my drive with Boot Camp.

Now what do I do? Seriously, I have no clue how to proceed next. What is called "documentation" is full of jargon and techspeak and I can't make a single sense of it.

Trying to install on an original Macbook.

[mduell]

What would you do if you just downloaded the latest OS X?
1) Burn it to a CD.
2) Boot off the CD.
3) Enjoy!
4) Optionally, install it to your hard drive.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What would you do if you just downloaded the latest OS X?
1) Burn it to a CD.
2) Boot off the CD.
3) Enjoy!

Tried that, OS X doesn't recognize it as a OS bootable CD.

I've never downloaded an Apple OS.

Originally Posted by mduell 

4) Optionally, install it to your hard drive.

Again. "How"?

[Chuckit]

Are you sure you downloaded the right ISO? It should be the "standard" one for an original MacBook rather than the 64-bit one. (Basically, if you have a Core Duo processor, you need the 32-bit x86 kernel. If you have a Core 2 Duo or Xeon, you can use either one.)

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Tried that, OS X doesn't recognize it as a OS bootable CD.

OS X shouldn't be involved in the booting processl; go straight from firmware to booting off the CD. You may need to hold down 'c' to boot off the CD drive.
If you don't know how to burn a bootable CD in OS X, perhaps you should just order one for free.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Again. "How"?

Once you've booted off the CD, there will be an icon that says something like "Install Ubuntu."

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by mduell 

OS X shouldn't be involved in the booting processl;

How am i supposed to know that?

Originally Posted by mduell 

go straight from firmware to booting off the CD.

"firmware"?

Originally Posted by mduell 

You may need to hold down 'c' to boot off the CD drive.

"may"?

Originally Posted by mduell 

If you don't know how to burn a bootable CD in OS X, perhaps you should just order one for free.

And wait 6-8 weeks? You sound like a typical arrogant IT guy. I assume you are being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Once you've booted off the CD, there will be an icon that says something like "Install Ubuntu."

You know, I'd love to get to that step, but nothing in the online help or documentation that I can find tells me how to get there.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you sure you downloaded the right ISO? It should be the "standard" one for an original MacBook rather than the 64-bit one. (Basically, if you have a Core Duo processor, you need the 32-bit x86 kernel. If you have a Core 2 Duo or Xeon, you can use either one.)

Check. I did not download the 64-bit version.