Linux or Mac OS X ?

[Embio]

Leopard > Tiger > Ubuntu > Panther > Fedora > Windows 2008 > DSL > Windows 2003 > Windows 2000 > OS9 > Windows XP > Windows Vista

 

OpenSuse doesn't even figure for me, since Novell got in bed with MS.

[foodfightr]

Well, OSX is basically *nix with a really attractive GUI and native support for creative suite and office.

 

I'd run *nix because it requires less hacking and modification, but native support for the two suites I run is my reason for choosing Leopard.

[InorganicMatter]

There's not even a question about it: Mac OS X. It's a *nix system without the headache; the tiny bit of flexibility and "true *nixish-ness" you sacrifice is more than made up for by the zero-headaches zero-questions zero-problems philosophy. Sure, it's mostly closed-source and stands against the philosophy that GNU elitists love to live by (do everything yourself and stick it to the man!), but operating systems are supposed to be about improving our lives and helping our productivity, not making socio-political statements.

[serjek]

You'll never get Flash or Photoshop in Linux. And these two are essential for my business...

[Megamixman]

if you're willing to spend some initial time.

PC-BSD or DesktopBSD are both a great way of getting the GNU environment and Mac OS X Snappiness.

Arch Linux is close in performance and you get to be a tad bit more bleeding edge, so it's #2.

OS X would have to come in a tie for 3rd with XP, sorry, but XP is a damn polished OS for the most part now.

[glassJAw]

It would be better if they unified Linux. I can't stand the amount of distros and GUI environments out there.

[IPARO]

In my opinion, Compiz is useless... it has no practical use...

I used Ubuntu a while but I give it up because of lack of applications and drivers. My wifi worked horrible on 7.10 (on 7.04 worked better).

Now I want to try Mac OS X...and I hope that it will not disappoint me...

 

After all, until now Vista still my favorite OS

[lancec50]

I just installed osx on my laptop and I am very impressed with the look and feel. I am running a triple boot of Vista, Ubuntu 7.10 and Leo 10.5.1. Vista is {censored} compared to Linux or Mac os x. Yes os x is very refined and cleaner look. Linux has come leaps and bounds and is always getting better. If you want to leave the tit of winblows I would say os x. It is alot user friendly compared to Linux. Linux is very flexible and free and there is alot less compatibilty issues if you are installing os x on a non Apple computer. Both are awesome operating systems. Try them both.

[Uncle Leo]

Well, I must say that I like a lot of things of both.

 

I feel more comfortable with Linux (Ubuntu/Mint + compiz fusion) for my daily and work tasks, but with OS X I've access to plenty of GREAT software that's impossible to run under Linux.

 

The Adobe Suite and Final Cut are the heavyweights Linux doesn't have.

 

And please, The GIMP is free and great but it can't rival Photoshop.

[fatshitcat]

Now that i'm a Leo user myself I like OS X more.

 

But linux will always be like an exotic tropical island for me...

[acrefoot]

Really, I must say that I run Gentoo and Kubuntu, and they both have very strong things going for them. One is great for avoiding compile time, and autodetection, another is great for incredible package management, architecture and processor specific optimization, and learning about how Linux works, and some of how OSs in general work.

 

For system recovery, I would never use anything besides a Linux livecd--nothing else I've tried works nearly as well. I would never run a server off anything other than linux.

 

As for those of us with dialup, Linux runs off a few floppies (a single floppy if you don't need graphics)! Vista, and believe it or not, Mac OS X, are both bloated. Installation DVDs? The only time I ever used a full DVD worth of Linux software was when I was using the Knoppix Live DVD: which has a ridiculous amount of software (~3500 software packages many of which include several programs) that runs off the DVD without lag. It has everything from a webserver (Apache, which holds the majority percentage in webservers on the internet), to audio editing to Monopoly to Scientific software. This is on the same amount of space it takes Mac OSX to put a base system on.

 

One thing I don't like about Macs is that they are so unintuitive to use. Nothing is where I expect it to be. Drivers are a much bigger pain in the butt than in Linux (obviously on non-mac hardware). If you think about it, Linux runs on *everything*. Right now I'm working a project to modify the linux kernel to run debian on a Windows-based smartphone. If you were to randomly slap together parts, from Macbooks to PCs to Sun computers, Linux would run the best. The only reason people think you have to do less configuration for Mac and Vista, is because they (the OSs) were modified to have all the drivers for the system they were preinstalled on--of course the computer manufacturer is going to tweak their OEM version of the OS to work with the computer it is selling (especially, in Mac's case, if the software and hardware come from the same company). I hear those companies who build completely Linux compatible laptops and such have great systems (but of course they charge extra). On any given system, with just the installation CDs for Vista, Mac OSX and a recent Linux distro, you would have the most success with the Linux distro.

 

Mac's cost is the biggest bother to me. I once bought an old PowerPC, running OS7.x; even then mac was supposed to be "intuitive" and "user friendly". This translated directly to being very limited. I like to do heavy hacking of my system, messing with core parts of an OS. Mac was my first OS, my least favorite, tied with Vista. It cost me ~$4000 at the time. My current laptop cost me $400, and can run Hackintosh, Vista, and Kubuntu. Apple simply does not sell inexpensive things. Sure, their computer are pretty zippy, but usually one can get equivalent specs for a much lower cost--and most of the time, people don't really need a Core 2 Duo (Usually it's the lack of ram and hard disk that is the limiting speed of the system).

 

Look, I'm sure the following will help you understand both sides of the Linux/osX debate:

Switch to Linux: http://ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54

Switch to Mac: http://ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=55

And just for fun: http://ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=53

 

You'll never get Flash or Photoshop in Linux. And these two are essential for my business...

Um... Flash 9 *is* in Linux.

And Gimpshop is free-er. And if you need it, you can run it in WINE--without dealing with the hassles of Windows or the Limiting Interface of OS X.

[Ecrid Phris]

It depends on how you adapt to your new system...

 

I myself uses an OS X Leopard, a hacked OSX Tiger, XP, and Ubuntu...

 

Since I'm most familiar with XP (I've been hanging around with Microsoft OSes since the days of Windows 3.1), it's the system I'm most familiar with, and despite the stupid looking blue screen of death, I still use it for work... But Vista definitely a no - no... All the eye candy stuff, and stupid firewall makes you feel that you are trapped in your own OS...

 

I had once used a Mac before, in the days of OS 6, 7, and 8.5. They are really easy to use... And now the OS X, either Tiger or Leopard are very simple... But for anyone who had met the Grey Screen of Death of a Mac... Find that this system is hard to troubleshoot... It happened that somehow my iMac's hard drive stopped to work... I lost all my stuff in the disk... No Backup... Hix TT. That day I found out that when a Windows System failed to work, I only need to format, and I formatted and clean my hardware (opening the case) of my Windows drive in a regular interval. But when an OSX(iMac) failed.... I had to go to the apple service center, to change the hard drive. For I can't even open the iMac... No screws... A design that made troubleshooting a system a lot harder in some ways...

 

I found using the hacked version of Tiger a challenge... I still can't get my Dvd player to work... Nonetheless I really enjoyed using these system... Because I felt that I have full control of my hardware... But sometimes using these kind of OSX is harder than the Ubuntu Linux, since sometimes driver aren't supplied for you...

 

Ubuntu are also very nice to use... It's driver are well supported and it's kind of fun to use... It's a lot better than the old red hat system. I had once used the red hat 6 and 7. Nevertheless, Linux functionality are quite good... They can do what you wanted them to do...

 

You see... I really enjoyed learning to use diffrent kind of OSes...

It's really fun to use different kind of OSes, but it's very hard to master one...

 

I mainly live with my OS X Leopard these days...

 

Ecrid

[InorganicMatter]

In my opinion, Compiz is useless... it has no practical use...

I used Ubuntu a while but I give it up because of lack of applications and drivers. My wifi worked horrible on 7.10 (on 7.04 worked better).

Now I want to try Mac OS X...and I hope that it will not disappoint me...

 

After all, until now Vista still my favorite OS

QFT on Compiz!

[#janet]

I use macbook, but at desktop I installed ubuntu 7.10

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

KDE 4 looks really promising! It's gorgeous!

[Schulz]

For me, the perfect OS would be the Linux kernel, with Aqua in top of it and DirectX ported to it. Of course all in GPL...

But now stopping dreaming: I have a computer here... It's an old Pentium 100 that my family was wanting to throw away. I've installed Debian on it and I use it as a server. In that case, the best operating system possible is GNU/Linux. Now it's alive and useful again.

Now at my main PC, that I use for work and for play games, the thing is different. Windows is the only option for games right now, and for the close future I doubt this changes. So I use Windows for games only, and tired of viruses and all, I wished for a stable OS, confortable to use for work and to surf the web that was easy to configure. The best option... Mac OS X86 of course.

I think it depends on the use, I would recomend Mac OS X for Desktop, GNU/Linux for servers and Windows for games, the last until game developers starts supporting other OSes or you buy a console, because Windows sucks for everithyng else.

[GFree]

But... I do perform actual work on my Windows system (Vista) and it works fine for the most part, no worse than the niggles I've had in Linux and OS X doesn't run what I require. I don't understand the idea that you can't use Windows for work. Heck, I don't even play games anymore and still prefer Vista than most other systems.

[gizmoarena]

was a Ubuntu user ... now a 100% OS X user.

if I need a linux software, Fink does the job.

[bonestonne]

You'll never get Flash or Photoshop in Linux. And these two are essential for my business...

 

 

ahem. wine.

 

Windows for work.

Linux for play.

OS X for show.

 

thats about it for me, i'll use OS X when i'm around lots of other people, show off music library, movies..in windows i show off the money i've spent on software, Adobe CS2, Audition 2 and Audition 3 + Loopology..in OS X i have CS2, but not yet Logic Pro 8, still thinking about it.

 

as previously said, every OS has its pros and cons.

[fredouille]

ahem. wine.

 

Windows for work.

Linux for play.

OS X for show.

 

thats about it for me, i'll use OS X when i'm around lots of other people, show off music library, movies..in windows i show off the money i've spent on software, Adobe CS2, Audition 2 and Audition 3 + Loopology..in OS X i have CS2, but not yet Logic Pro 8, still thinking about it.

 

as previously said, every OS has its pros and cons.

 

 

or windows for play

OS X for work

Linux for learn...

question of taste !

[Poe_]

I've being Linux user for 5 years and it's my main OS (Gentoo Linux). I have all on it. it's light, quick, easy, but in my opinion linux hasn't got hmm... cohesion. Different people, developer-teams etc. it's great power of linux, but it's weak too, you know. I've using os x since today (I used several times at father's work), and what i think? it looks great, everythng is in one style, but it's totally different than linux (not totally, but much). mac has terminal, I use it often. I prefer it very often for copy, move, edit system configs etc.

 

in summary, both systems has great pluses and minuses (mac is heavy, linux is not conhesion), but it's greatest systems in the world i think ;-)

 

cheers

[FunkyRes]

Hi - new here.

 

I prefer Linux for several reasons, the most important of which is that I don't have some company telling me I can't install software I paid for just because they didn't also assemble my PC.

 

I use CentOS but the same can be said for many distributions - the package management in Linux is really vastly superior to the package management in OS X.

 

With a single command, I can update *everything* on my system.

 

Linux is also kinder on older hardware.

 

I'm running the current version of CentOS on an IBM Thinkpad T20 w/ 700MHz cpu and 384 MB of RAM. And it runs quite well.

 

Fedora 8 was a little problematic on this hardware, Linux does increase cpu / ram requirements as time goes by - but not nearly to the extent that the major proprietary operating systems do, and what does increase cpu / ram requirements often can be easily disabled without crypling the system.

 

I also have a problem with Apple hardware, and since (according to the eula anyway) OS X is tied to the hardware, the hardware is a consideration.

 

Remember the Duo Dock? That was a good idea! Now - Apple only makes port replicators for their laptops, there aren't any models that have a proper docking station. You have to go to Lenovo or Dell to get a laptop that has a proper docking station available (pci slot, drive bay, etc.)

 

Also in the hardware departments - I have owned far too many "all in one" macs to ever buy one again. One part fails out of warranty, and because it is all customized {censored} - the whole thing is garbage. You can't just go to Fry's and pick up a replacement. You can try your luck on eBay for used parts, or you can spend more than the computer is now worth to get it from Apple. So the "all in one" macs are out of the question for me.

 

Unfortunately, the Mac Pro is far far far more computer than I need. I can build a damn good Linux box for a third of the cost of a pro tower. Apple really has nothing for people like me, so by default, Linux wins.

 

Yes - I am planning to build an osx86 box. And that's a shame - I would gladly buy one from Apple if they would just make one - but they've decided my money isn't good enough for them.

[Soultrain]

Things cannot be asked like this: Linux or Mac OS X? It's not like asking yourself :What am I going to eat now? There's the chocolate cake and creamy cake... hmmm ... which one should I eat?... No, not like this at all.

 

What you should ask youself is: What operating system do I need for the things that I need to do? And then consider on which is the better one for those specific tasks.

 

If you come to the same conclusion as I did, don't waste your time building an osx86 machine, as I wanted to do before.

You can get mac pro or macbook pro and run osx 100% and run windows and/or linux aside and you don't even have to use bootcamp. You can virtualize it with parallels and run it without having to reboot the computer.

 

Example: Lets suppose you're a musician. There not only great applications for mac or just for windows and none for linux. No, there are great applications for three plataforms. So why not making use of virtualization and get the best of the three? And you can even create in one application that only runs on mac os x and then, for example, edit on the best mastering tool which could only be available in the windows plataform.

 

As I mention before building an osx86 machine is a waste of time specially being a professional (I have seen many people wanting osx86 machines for professional reasons). It is a waste of time because there are some legal procedures when you start a profession and that includes on auditions to what you do and what you use to do it. And things could/will get nasty here.

 

There's a great alternative to all that. And that lies on Linux. Linux didnt't stay behind in what comes, for example, in the music scene. It has great applications to create, produce, edit and even mastering. More and more producers and musicians are starting to build their studios based upon Linux and open-source software. There are no reasons whatsoever to use illegal software.

 

This also applies to programs that are an alternative to programs like photoshop and others. You have GIMP. And don't say it sucks unless you have tried it before. As many people often do it. And if you are familiar with one application you won't get lost with the other. And once again if you can use both by making use of virtualization.

 

Now if not for professional use, then for the fun of it, you can use whatever you want.

My tip for people wanting to build an osx86 machine is: If can build one cheaper than buying a mac with the same specifications, then go for it, otherwise stick with the mac. And if you do not want to virtualize Linux, then you can dual-boot it, just a few workarounds as you would expect when running osx on hackintosh. There are plenty forums (for each distribution) and mailing lists. I am sure that if anyone tries this and gets some problem, someone already had that problem and already has been solved, so therefore you'll get it solved as well. Life ain't funny without fight!

 

This is my point of view. Hope you won't beat me too much

 

All the best!

[SDRacer48]

both.

 

the more the better...

[killersushi]

To me OS X is the perfect fusion of Linux and Windows. Linux or Unix in general is the technically most advanced OS out there but brings with it a steep learning curve and lots of geekiness that average users can't be bothered with. OS X is Unix at the core but has a GUI on top of it that has the usability of Windows (and more so arguably). This is the absolute dream-OS.

 

For professional use, don't even get me started on how lacking Linux is. There are too many apps to mention that don't exist for Linux or are way less advanced, or if they have similiar functionality you can bet that they are esoteric to use like most open source software (made by many unpaid geeks for the rest of the geeks). This is fine, after all the software is free so you can't expect it to be perfected like commercial software for obvious reasons. But out in the industry that won't cut it. One of the best examples here would be Gimp vs. Photoshop. While lots of Gimp users will try and argue that it is up there with Photoshop, it just isn't. Functionality might be there somewhere hidden in a terrible UI, you will find extensions that try to mimic the menus of Photoshop to make a transition easier, but if you worked in Photoshop professionally for any length of time you will be in for a bad suprise when you try the Gimp.