[PPC] Load XBMC with no finder or less GUI Bloat? - Printable Version
+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Help and Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: XBMC General Help and Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=111)
+---- Forum: Mac OS X support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=56)
+---- Thread: [PPC] Load XBMC with no finder or less GUI Bloat? (/showthread.php?tid=115932)
- MarkosJal - 2011-12-03 09:47
Darkscout and Davila
I thank you very much for your input on the thread.
sorry I never mentioned that what I posted about here was currently running OSX 10.4.11 . I should mention that I heard I might get better performance from 10.5 but then again I read that it has even more bloat and runs slower on "minimal systems"
Thanks again for the input. I do appreciate all that gets done here with XBMC. There are more and more people around me evry day looking for systems and the number keeps growing. I have to deal with the iThingies, Mac, Linux and Windows and all of the variants, and problems thereof.
I am posting a new thread with some interesting stats, I will call it "ATV1 vs Mac Mini 1.25 Ghz". You may want to have a look. I am not a coder in any way however I have done things thgat at times surprised myself. I would be willing to assist/contribute/test in any way I can for the development of XBMC linux PPC
defaults delete /Library/Preferences/com.apple.loginwindow Finder - MarkosJal - 2011-12-03 19:42
defaults delete /Library/Preferences/com.apple.loginwindow Finder
Does not work!
2011-12-03 09:38:04.443 defaults
There is no (Finder) default for the (com.apple.loginwindow) domain.
Defaults have not been changed.
I think this may be causing my XBMC.app to not get the IP address? Now I cant seem to undo it.
- darkscout - 2011-12-03 20:02
Finder shouldn't need to be open to to get an IP address.
If you ssh in you can try:
- MarkosJal - 2011-12-03 20:20
The question remains how I undo the boot to XBMC bypassing the finder. I will only know for sure once I test.
Computer has an IP , XBMC does not see it.
Moving IP issue to this thread
- darkscout - 2011-12-03 20:23
Stab in the dark.
Debian with .deb or Ubuntu and compile? - MarkosJal - 2011-12-04 01:17
I am considering what you have suggested and the dependencies for the .deb package you led me to are way too new for the latest Ubuntu 11.10.
So I need to get some clarity on the names and numbers of Debian releases. Some seem to say that SID just always refers to the latest unstable, and the lists that correlate release numbers with names do not even list Sid, seemingly confirming that . This is typical of what I have found with each install of Debian I have done. One must always "chase down" an answer even the most simple questions for example; what names correlate to what version number?! . The download page I found has numbers and no mention of names! That thought alone like makes me uneasy of what I am getting into.
An OS should always use the name or number NOT BOTH. If they use both they need to ALWAYS USE BOTH. Any other way and it gets too confusing to those of us who deal with many OSes and distros (or I am getting too old)
So my question is because I have come to a fork in the road, have you installed that xbmc ppc deb and if so has it worked for you? What exactly did you install it on OS (NAME AND NUMBER PLEASE FOR CLARITY) and hardware?
I have wasted far too much time on the OSX PPC versions and need to move on. My original intention was to install in Linux, until I found that it was not in the PPAs,. I even bought a used machine just to try it.
If I see this as stable I will gladly make a disk image that can be downloaded, but that is the best I can do. I do not enter into another Debian install and configuration with too much confidence based on past experience, but maybe the .deb will make it easier than compiling
- darkscout - 2011-12-04 03:21
Debian has 4 concurrent developments going.
experimental - where stuff first hits repositories. Don't run it if you're crazy.
unstable - "unstable" not because it'll crash your computer. "unstable" because it changes a lot. Always better than Ubuntu.
testing - once stuff is vetted in unstable it
stable - STABLE. This is what people who run websites run.
Stable also gets a name:
Debian 6.0 (squeeze) — current stable release
Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 (lenny) — obsolete stable release
Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 (etch) — obsolete stable release
Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (sarge) — obsolete stable release
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 (woody) — obsolete stable release
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 (potato) — obsolete stable release
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 (slink) — obsolete stable release
Debian GNU/Linux 2.0 (hamm) — obsolete stable release
Unstable is ALWAYS Sid (the unstable kid from Toy Story) and it has no version number. Packages are constantly updated, none of this "we just released so this is what we're locked to" BS.
However, new code is also untried code, and those packages are only distributed with clear disclaimers. For packages to become candidates for the next "stable" release of the Debian distribution, they first need to be included in the "testing" suite. For a package to be included in testing:
It must have been in unstable for the appropriate length of time (the exact duration depends on the "urgency" of the upload)
It must not have a greater number of "release-critical" bugs filed against it than the current version in testing. Release-critical bugs are those bugs which are considered serious enough that they make the package unsuitable for release.
It must be compiled for all release architectures the package claims to support (e.g.: the i386-specific package gmod can be included in "testing")
All of its dependencies must either be satisfiable by packages already in testing, or be satisfiable by the group of packages which are going to be installed at the same time.
The operation of installing the package into testing must not break any packages currently in testing.
Quote:xbmc ppc debStep 1) Install Debian.
Step 2) Add debian multimedia repository.
Step 3) apt-get install xbmc, that's it. Debian will sort it out. (Which is why Debian is awesome).
That deb was built for Debian and not Ubuntu so that's why it won't work.
- MarkosJal - 2011-12-04 03:27
I am very perplexed because I do not see how to install the unstable / sid. Apparently that is what this deb is built for.
I assume then this is not a daily build then, daily build would be experimental.
This is one of the complexities of things having two names daily = experimental?
- darkscout - 2011-12-04 04:40
That package is 10.1. If you want a nightly for linux you're going to have to compile it yourself or get it from: http://sshcs.com/xbmc/ (It doesn't check any dependencies so you have to make sure you have stuff installed).
You install stable add the unstable mirrors and dist-upgrade to sid.
- MarkosJal - 2011-12-04 05:11
I am not referring to XBMC I am referring to the debian distros. They seem to require a secret handsshake that I do not understand .
I dont understand why they must make it so confusing