From Linux to OSX

[Alessandro17]

http://batsov.com/ar...x-1-year-later/

 

Overall, OS X is much better than Linux, especially where it matters most: desktop experience, hardware support, applications availability.

I don't quite agree with the author when he says that: "The Linux distro package management is definitely infinitely better".

OK, in Linux you can dist-upgrade everything, or you can install many packages in one go, but that is not possible with a proprietary operating system.

Linux desktop experience wasn't that bad at all until a few years ago (KDE 3.5, Gnome 2), but it has been killed by arrogance or stupidity.

[cili0]

I've been using Linux since Red Hat 7.2, the desktop experience has always been "challenging". In my opinion Linux is a great way to learn the unix philosophy and how your computer actually works. I remember spending a week on Slackware 8.0 just to make the X11 Server work.

 

Regarding the package manager, the main problem is that package managing is one of the few area where OSX is not coherent at all: you have 4 ways for installing applications (unpack a zip file, mounting a dmg file, run a pkg installer or install from the app store) and it's near impossible to rollback the installation of complex applications (as a proof of concept, just look for instructions on how to uninstall Logic Pro 9 once installed from the original DVD set). On the other hand, almost all linux distributions rely on a package manager that keeps track of dependencies and allow you to fully upgrade the operating system without rebooting.

 

The great paradox of Linux distributions is that you can fully upgrade your operating system without rebooting, but you can't be sure that dragging and dropping a file between two applications will work, cause the first one is written using GTK+ and the second using QT.

 

My number one reason to switch from Linux to OSX is exactly that: coherence, between applications, between shortcuts, between look and feels and so forth and so on.

[XLR]

It doesn't matters how good an operating system is, if it can't do what an operating system suppose to do.

[snackole]

I remember compiling Open Office using gnome on my old emachine desktop. It took like 12 hours but it was very gratifying when it finished with no errors.

[Alessandro17]

How true. Once I believed that distribution where you had to compile (like Gentoo) were the future, once we had very fast computers.

But things went the opposite way. Now we have fast computers, but people have become lazy and source distributions are almost dead. Around 2004 all my friends were using Gentoo (one was using Slackware). Within a couple of years they had all moved to Ubuntu.

[cili0]

The problem is that at a certain point you lose interest for the system per se, and the only thing that matter is to get the actual work done. At a certain point I decided that the number one priority was the stability and safety of the data, I don't want to risk my memories just because an upgrade went wrong.

[Mikethebike]

Baah, I boot all kind of OS with Grub and my main is still Ubuntu.

[3.14r2]

IMO there in no such thing as THE BEST OF THE BEST OS. There could be an OS better suited for one purpose and the other OS better suited for the other purpose. The choice is up to you. If the things you do on a PC are most convenient to be done on say Linux, then why not stick to it (as the best OS for the purpose)? If most efficient way of doing your work is achieved using OS X, why not stick to it (as the best OS for the purpose)?

 

As for me, I find Windows more suited for the work I do (partly do to the Windows-only software I use). OS X on the other hand is my favourite OS X for entertainment (browsing, videos, music, torrents etc.). Linux is a must have for fix-my-PC stuff (gparted, clonezilla etc.) So each OS has its purpose/use. I doubt I could stick to only one of the above. And I do enjoy being able to use all of the above OSs.

 

If a transition should be made (from one OS to another), the success/failure of this transition, greatly depends on how easily one can adopt to changes and make use of advantages/disadvantages the new OS has. It also greatly depends on what OS&PC combination was the first you've started work with (read what was your first personal computer you used on a regular basis). Same goes to software. For instance, it was quite hard for me to switch from CorelDRAW to Adobe Illustrator, cos' the CorelDRAW was the software used in the college and we've been taught to use it (probably transition from IL to CD would be less painful ). So, once one starts using something new, it may become a second nature and the other methods/options/ways of doing the same, might not look that better at first sight...

 

As for the overall usage experience of both Linux and OS X, for me it's quite mixed. How Linux feels greatly depends on the distro chosen. Linux in its core is a server OS, written for geeks by ubergeeks and IMO is not intended for an average person (I mean the Linux in its purest CLI form). It's a tank by concept - doesn't look as cool as Porsche, but does what it was designed for and does it reliably (if configured properly ). OS X on the other hand was designed by ubergeeks for ... well, not geeks at all (for people ranging from kids to seniors). Hence the very different impression the same end user would get using both OSs. Not to mention that both OS X and Apple PCs were designed as a single end product, this way Apple made the user experience more complete. Linux on the other hand, has no single big corporate owner (I mean as big as Apple or Microsoft), what would care/be seriously interested to invest gigantic resources to make it a better OS for everybody. Instead we have different companies/projects aiming to be "the one and only best ever Linux" while usually the real goal of many is far from making the user friendly distro (mostly it's to satisfy exaggerated ambitions). But it's free

[Mikethebike]

In a Nvidia test around two years ago, Linux was fastest and OSX the slowest OS.

[jamiethemorris]

I must say, as much as Linux fanatics try to say that Linux isn't hard to use anymore, it's a complete fallacy. Simple tasks can take hours to figure out. Want to get some files from a hfs+ or ntfs drive over to Linux? Pain in the ass. No wireless driver available? Pain in the ass. Getting ATI cards to work properly? Pain in the ass. Getting an apple trackpad working properly? Pain in the ass. Connecting to wifi on Arch Linux? Pain in the ass. Some things just don't work for no apparent reason. Don't get me wrong, I love using Linux, when it works properly/when you have compatible hardware. But it's a love-hate relationship. If you don't have the right hardware, you're pretty much screwed. The ONLY reason I am somewhat experienced with Linux is because most of my time with it is troubleshooting. I'm definitely not a noob that is too stupid to get things working. I compiled Arch and so far it's my favorite distro. But certain things about it make it damn near unusable. I have to turn my speakers off when I'm using it because certain apps, such as Chrome, generate a constant popping noise that is the most annoying thing ever and nobody on any message board has been able to help me fix it. Same thing with my MIDI keyboard, if I have it plugged in, it takes 10 minutes to start up. If I have it unplugged, it takes about 15 seconds to start up. It's really unfortunate because on a computer as powerful as mine, along with an SSD, it's rediculously fast. If it weren't for issues like these, it would be my main OS. Right now, the order is: OS X, then Windows, then Linux (Except on my netbook, which is Linux, then OS X, then Windows).

 

It's not really Linux's fault though... Mostly other companies' fault for lack of drivers.

[SS01]

As a Linux geek, I'm going to debunk a few myths here.

 

MYTH: The Linux desktop sucks since GNOME 3.

 

TRUTH: I'm not trying to say GNOME 3 doesn't suck. Even though I personally happen to like it, I do realize it could come across to some as a but, umm, odd. What I'm saying is that you've got loads of other desktops to choose from. GNOME 2 fan? Grab MATE or Xfce. Feel like some Windows? Install Cinnamon or LXDE. Want OS X? Grab MATE again, get rid of the bottom panel, install Docky or Cairo Dock, and go fetch yourself an Aqua window theme. All in all, you've got plenty of choice.

 

MYTH: Linux is hard to install.

 

TRUTH: This doesn't apply to all Linux. Yes, Arch Linux and Gentoo are hard to install. What I'm trying to say is that not all Linux is hard to install. Go grab yourself a Linux Mint CD with codecs (the Cinnamon version can be conveniently found at http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=107), download it, burn it to a CD, boot off of it, and tick the "Download restricted drivers" box before installing. 90% of the time, all your hardware will work out of the box, and if it doesn't, you can likely make it work. Would this happen on Arch Linux? No. If you want everything to be working OOB or nearly OOB, you aren't the type of person who should be using Arch Linux.

 

MYTH: Linux won't work with my hardware.

 

TRUTH: See above.

 

All in all, having to maybe change your hardware a bit is the price you pay for such a customizable, robust, and free OS. But in most cases, you won't have to.

[jamiethemorris]

As a Linux geek, I'm going to debunk a few myths here.

 

MYTH: The Linux desktop sucks since GNOME 3.

 

TRUTH: I'm not trying to say GNOME 3 doesn't suck. Even though I personally happen to like it, I do realize it could come across to some as a but, umm, odd. What I'm saying is that you've got loads of other desktops to choose from. GNOME 2 fan? Grab MATE or Xfce. Feel like some Windows? Install Cinnamon or LXDE. Want OS X? Grab MATE again, get rid of the bottom panel, install Docky or Cairo Dock, and go fetch yourself an Aqua window theme. All in all, you've got plenty of choice.

 

MYTH: Linux is hard to install.

 

TRUTH: This doesn't apply to all Linux. Yes, Arch Linux and Gentoo are hard to install. What I'm trying to say is that not all Linux is hard to install. Go grab yourself a Linux Mint CD with codecs (the Cinnamon version can be conveniently found at http://www.linuxmint...tion.php?id=107), download it, burn it to a CD, boot off of it, and tick the "Download restricted drivers" box before installing. 90% of the time, all your hardware will work out of the box, and if it doesn't, you can likely make it work. Would this happen on Arch Linux? No. If you want everything to be working OOB or nearly OOB, you aren't the type of person who should be using Arch Linux.

 

MYTH: Linux won't work with my hardware.

 

TRUTH: See above.

 

All in all, having to maybe change your hardware a bit is the price you pay for such a customizable, robust, and free OS. But in most cases, you won't have to.

 

Yes, I'm familiar with Linux Mint. It's definitely an easy install. The reason I use Arch is because I wanted to build the distro exactly how I wanted it. I only did that on one computer though...

 

On my MacBook I use Linux Mint, which has quite a few issues, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt because most people don't install Linux on a macbook pro. Unfortunately, on my desktop it has the same compatibility issues as Arch does - Popping with the audio interface, and slow startup because of my MIDI keyboard. It has also has a few other issues Arch doesn't have, for example my mouse doesn't work right unless I type in a few terminal commands after I get to the desktop.

 

Also, I agree with you on Gnome 3. It's my favorite (especially the Linux Mint version of it). I also like XFCE with Compiz but the Super key doesn't bring up the Applications menu which really annoys me. Unity is very nice as well, I don't see why everyone complains about it. I prefer gnome shell though.

 

So... SS01, since you sound like a more experienced Linux user than me, could you give me some pointers on where to start with my audio interface/midi controller problems? Every time I post on a message board I get zero responses which makes me think the problem may be unfixable.