Both Linux and Mac OS X are excellent operating systems and i use them both.
Linux has edge in two areas.First it is free while Mac OS X is $130. Secondly linux has a quickly
accessable and installable repository of thousands of free programs and drivers. Most of Mac's
best programs cost money such as ILife,Toast 8 Titanium,etc.
Mac has the edge of beauty and polish. And i love the great use of drag and drop also.
Mac has the edge in multimedia programs.
Right now i'm using OS X most of the time because of the novelty of it and i want to learn to use
it very adeptly.
Full Version: Linux or Mac OS X ?
@ FunkyRes
Great post! (also the bit about Apple hardware).
Great post! (also the bit about Apple hardware).
QUOTE(killersushi @ Feb 2 2008, 11:32 PM) 
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.
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.
The old story that Linux is hard to use no longer is topic for conversation. That simply isn't true. The only thing that people may need to learn (and learn something new is always something great and not terrible) is the console. But only if people want to get deep inside Linux. What if they can't use it at the first attempt? I bet these same people never knew how to use MS-DOS and they complain about Linux's console?
Linux has a friendly user interface. Linux has indeed great applications, which do not exist to be against commercial software, but rather be an alternative. And as alternative I mean free and non-illegal.
GIMP vs Photoshop. As I mentioned before GIMP as free and open-sourced software doesn't exist to fight Photoshop, it exists to be a free and excellent alternative to Photoshop. Why would people want to make it look like Photoshop? If that was the purpose of it, I believe the builders would have made it that way. Yes sure, there are plugins that make it be similar to Photoshop but if you ask me that's killing it. Last but not the least, GIMP also has a friendly user interface. Different from Photoshop from also friendly of use. Why be the same? That would be cloning it. One thing I agree with you GIMP is not a perfect tool and never will be. It happens the same with photoshop. There are things that can't be done in none of them. At least not at the moment. But GIMP being open-sourced is on a constant improvement. And if you do not like Linux at all, GIMP also work on windows. There are no reasons whatsoever, once again, to use illegal software, whether you use it for professional reasons or just wanting to play with such tools. The choice is always yours. But I do can tell you this: GIMP and Photoshop are great tools, so why not use both? If you can buy Photoshop. If you can't, then you won't get sad using GIMP. Not at all. I use both. Both are great. Both need improvements. Both will stay different from each other and hope always will.
Once again this is my point of view and is as valid as any other.
All the best.
QUOTE(Soultrain @ Feb 3 2008, 01:49 PM)
The old story that Linux is hard to use no longer is topic for conversation. That simply isn't true. The only thing that people may need to learn (and learn something new is always something great and not terrible) is the console. But only if people want to get deep inside Linux. What if they can't use it at the first attempt? I bet these same people never knew how to use MS-DOS and they complain about Linux's console?
Linux has a friendly user interface. Linux has indeed great applications, which do not exist to be against commercial software, but rather be an alternative. And as alternative I mean free and non-illegal.
GIMP vs Photoshop. As I mentioned before GIMP as free and open-sourced software doesn't exist to fight Photoshop, it exists to be a free and excellent alternative to Photoshop. Why would people want to make it look like Photoshop? If that was the purpose of it, I believe the builders would have made it that way. Yes sure, there are plugins that make it be similar to Photoshop but if you ask me that's killing it. Last but not the least, GIMP also has a friendly user interface. Different from Photoshop from also friendly of use. Why be the same? That would be cloning it. One thing I agree with you GIMP is not a perfect tool and never will be. It happens the same with photoshop. There are things that can't be done in none of them. At least not at the moment. But GIMP being open-sourced is on a constant improvement. And if you do not like Linux at all, GIMP also work on windows. There are no reasons whatsoever, once again, to use illegal software, whether you use it for professional reasons or just wanting to play with such tools. The choice is always yours. But I do can tell you this: GIMP and Photoshop are great tools, so why not use both? If you can buy Photoshop. If you can't, then you won't get sad using GIMP. Not at all. I use both. Both are great. Both need improvements. Both will stay different from each other and hope always will.
Once again this is my point of view and is as valid as any other.
All the best.
Linux has a friendly user interface. Linux has indeed great applications, which do not exist to be against commercial software, but rather be an alternative. And as alternative I mean free and non-illegal.
GIMP vs Photoshop. As I mentioned before GIMP as free and open-sourced software doesn't exist to fight Photoshop, it exists to be a free and excellent alternative to Photoshop. Why would people want to make it look like Photoshop? If that was the purpose of it, I believe the builders would have made it that way. Yes sure, there are plugins that make it be similar to Photoshop but if you ask me that's killing it. Last but not the least, GIMP also has a friendly user interface. Different from Photoshop from also friendly of use. Why be the same? That would be cloning it. One thing I agree with you GIMP is not a perfect tool and never will be. It happens the same with photoshop. There are things that can't be done in none of them. At least not at the moment. But GIMP being open-sourced is on a constant improvement. And if you do not like Linux at all, GIMP also work on windows. There are no reasons whatsoever, once again, to use illegal software, whether you use it for professional reasons or just wanting to play with such tools. The choice is always yours. But I do can tell you this: GIMP and Photoshop are great tools, so why not use both? If you can buy Photoshop. If you can't, then you won't get sad using GIMP. Not at all. I use both. Both are great. Both need improvements. Both will stay different from each other and hope always will.
Once again this is my point of view and is as valid as any other.
All the best.
I can't agree. My first linux install was I think Redhat 1 back in the days, basically I had to install it all manually which was a good experience (I wanted to learn linux after all). Next time was Redhat 4 or 5. Much easier to install but still far from user friendly with lots little problems that added up quickly and ended in weeks of geeky work. My last was Fedora Core 5. Easy install, almost no problems. Lots of unsupported hardware still because the manufacturers just don't care to create linux drivers. Once installed though, setting some things up like a samba server or automated data backup was not possible through the GUI and still needed heavy config files editing and lots of console work. Not to mention that there are so many apps for linux that only work with some distros, some work only with some windowing clients, dependencies without end. Work work work. It's still absolute chaos and very daunting to the average user. The fact alone that there are so many apps out there that are free and badly documented (as most free software, documenting isn't the fun part to those people), even just finding what you need is a major pain. At least installing them is fairly easy today, if nothing goes wrong that is. I remember not so long ago when automated installers where lacking across the board and when installing something you would get 5 dependency messages, then after searching those they would themselves spit out some more dependencies and that could go on for literally hours. One of the most frustrating computer experiences I've ever had.
Since we're comparing linux and OS X, I'm sure you can agree that OS X is inexplicably lots easier to use than Linux, can you not? You barely need to explain anything about OS X, there are no hardware incompatibilities (on original macs that is), installing an app is a one-click effort and even deleting one is as simple as that. Network stuff just works out of the box, there is (almost) all the industry standard software you need etc. etc. I don't really need to go on. The downside: it's not free. But it should be clear by now what you get from commercial software. You're not using a $1 watch out of some chips bag and expect it to be equivalent to a Rolex. Ok, bad example I admit
As for the Gimp. Well I won't try to argue your points away. If you can't afford Photoshop or decline to pirate it, then by all means you want a free alternative. Same for linux then I guess. In this case all my points are moot, but on the other hand that is not the main argument of this thread. If you can afford it, and especially if you're not just a hobbyist but actually work in the industry, then money isn't the biggest concern. Much more important is getting the job done. In this case, comparing Photoshop and the Gimp while ignoring the price difference is valid. And with Photoshop being the undisputed industry standard it's also valid to see the Gimp for what it is. A free, messy wannabe-alternative to Photoshop.
QUOTE(killersushi @ Feb 3 2008, 04:32 PM)
I can't agree. My first linux install was I think Redhat 1 back in the days, basically I had to install it all manually which was a good experience (I wanted to learn linux after all). Next time was Redhat 4 or 5. Much easier to install but still far from user friendly with lots little problems that added up quickly and ended in weeks of geeky work. My last was Fedora Core 5. Easy install, almost no problems.
Linux has changed beyond recognition since Red Hat 4 or 5. It began to be much more user friendly around 2003, with distributions like (then) Mandrake 9.1, Libranet 2.8/2.8.1 and especially SUSE 9.0, which convinced me that Linux had overtaken Windows.
Fedora is still now not terribly user friendly or desktop oriented, when you compare it to openSUSE (most commercial plugins installed by default, one click Nvidia or Ati drivers install, Windows partitions mounted by the installer ...) or Mandriva Powerpack.
QUOTE
And with Photoshop being the undisputed industry standard it's also valid to see the Gimp for what it is. A free, messy wannabe-alternative to Photoshop.
I strongly disagree. The Gimp was never intended as an alternative to Photoshop, it was meant as something different, which in any case has plenty of features for non professionals. If OTOH you do need Photoshop, it has been running fine in Linux for years, under Crossover Office.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7770280571.html (2003)
QUOTE(Alessandro17 @ Feb 3 2008, 10:51 PM)
If OTOH you do need Photoshop, it has been running fine in Linux for years, under Crossover Office.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7770280571.html (2003)
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7770280571.html (2003)
Ah that's cool, I didn't know that.
I think the answering formular for the topic title could be:
If you need it to be absolutely legit, take Linux. Else use OS X.
I think the parts where OS X leaves Linux in the dust, are
- ease of use in most cases
- much more (and commercial) software
Ok, f.e. Ubuntu is easy, too. But not half of the fun I have with Leo. Imho Linux
has a problem with the right mix of eyecandy and functionality at the same time,
for everyday work. On the other side, there are some things in Linux like networking
that are at least as good as with leo. Setting up a daap server for example or vnc.
I think Linux is on the right track, but I would still prefer OS X for most things.
Not for all, of course.
If you need it to be absolutely legit, take Linux. Else use OS X.
I think the parts where OS X leaves Linux in the dust, are
- ease of use in most cases
- much more (and commercial) software
Ok, f.e. Ubuntu is easy, too. But not half of the fun I have with Leo. Imho Linux
has a problem with the right mix of eyecandy and functionality at the same time,
for everyday work. On the other side, there are some things in Linux like networking
that are at least as good as with leo. Setting up a daap server for example or vnc.
I think Linux is on the right track, but I would still prefer OS X for most things.
Not for all, of course.
QUOTE(xtraa @ Feb 4 2008, 03:02 AM)
- much more (and commercial) software
Maybe more commercial software, but more software in general?
CODE
root@parsix:~# apt-cache stats
Total package names : 28879 (1155k)
Normal packages: 22027
Pure virtual packages: 439
Single virtual packages: 1875
Mixed virtual packages: 187
Missing: 4351
Total package names : 28879 (1155k)
Normal packages: 22027
Pure virtual packages: 439
Single virtual packages: 1875
Mixed virtual packages: 187
Missing: 4351
Parsix is based on Debian testing (Lenny)
As to ease of use, I have my doubts too:
# apt-get dist-upgrade: upgrade every package with one single command.
# apt-get install: add as many packages as you want in one go (best use synaptic).
# apt-get remove --purge (packagenames): remove packages including configuration files, not available in OS X.
QUOTE(antst @ Aug 14 2007, 12:12 AM)
First of all, last 4 years my primary desktop OS was linux. Even more, it was my only OS not only in offcie, but also at home. I didn't have installed windows or whatever else. Before that, I had Solaris as primary office destop, and Irix as secondary and Window (NT/2K) as home destop. Before that...it was a lot of different things, including RT11 on DECs and AppleII which didn't have OS virtually.
And even if I don't have linux on my desktops now, I still use linux console every day, and write/use linux console programs every day (on x86_64, Itanium2 and Power5).
I want to say, that OSX is a kind of most well-polished unix for now. It is probably what I always wanted to have out of linux, and, probably, linux never going to be like that. Opensource way has not anly advantages but also some weakness. If someone once will force all this thousands of opensorce developers to go in one direction and to stop reinventing wheel all the time, linux will become much nicer. At least I would like if someone will standartize only ONE GUI library and stop this QT/GTK/XFCE and the rest hell. And will stop spreding resources for developement of five different programs with the same functionality but written for different GUI widgets, and consolidate all developers to write ONE product, which will, probably, become bugfree finally. In current situation you very often have to use 2/3 programs for the same job, in one, written for KDE one part of fucntionality works well, but another doesn't work, in another program for GNOME, another part of functionality works well, but first doesn't work...
That's crap and chaos
Although linux is really nice in console, linux GUI is still chaotic and probably will remain chatic forever. At least a lost my hope.
If you want production system, you need standards. Even if you like freedom and rest of the crap, you still need standards!
At least, Apple enforce some standards for OSX. And, actually, that the reason why linux isn't going to be competitor for Windows, because MS enforce some standards!
Now, if you want to distribute binary for linux, you have to embed almost all the system with your binary, starting from libc, and ending with GUI libraries(or make huge statically linked binaries). Becaus there is absolutely no guarantee that otherwise your binary will work with some random linux installation.
Sometimes you have minor compatibility problems with windows programs and windows versions, or osx programs and osx versions. But you can't imaging, how huge problems you going to have, if you want to distribute binary program for linux. No way to compare. Even if you distribute your code in sources, it is still can have a lot of problems.
Going to current state of 3D linux desktop and beryl, by which some of you impressed...
Unfortunately it is still unusable in some sense. On ATI card you have to go via additinal XGL layer (and via some additional bugs, of course) instead of more clean and right AIGLX, because ATI still can't produce driver with support of texture_from_pixmap. With NVidia card you can use AIGLX, but.. NVidia can't fix stuppid memory leak for more than half year. And if you keep you desktop running for few days, you will reallize that it became unusable, because your X-server ate all RAM and all swap. So, you have to reboot yoo PC almost every day, which is nonesense. For many years of using unix, I got used to reboot/shutdown my machine once per few month (mainly due to kernel updates/major system updates) and rebooting my PC every day is something unacceptable for me.
And it is inacceptable for me to use destop without 3D support nowadays. At least I think that expose and related things were the most important invention in GUI for last decade. So, I vote for OSX
But if you want to build custom system which doesn't supposed to be modified later(HTPC, toaster, whatever else), your go with linux
My HTPC is a linux box and going to remain linux, I think. Even if I'll buy AppleTV, I'll probably install linux on it. It is just more easy to cutomize it for what I really need from this box.
And even if I don't have linux on my desktops now, I still use linux console every day, and write/use linux console programs every day (on x86_64, Itanium2 and Power5).
I want to say, that OSX is a kind of most well-polished unix for now. It is probably what I always wanted to have out of linux, and, probably, linux never going to be like that. Opensource way has not anly advantages but also some weakness. If someone once will force all this thousands of opensorce developers to go in one direction and to stop reinventing wheel all the time, linux will become much nicer. At least I would like if someone will standartize only ONE GUI library and stop this QT/GTK/XFCE and the rest hell. And will stop spreding resources for developement of five different programs with the same functionality but written for different GUI widgets, and consolidate all developers to write ONE product, which will, probably, become bugfree finally. In current situation you very often have to use 2/3 programs for the same job, in one, written for KDE one part of fucntionality works well, but another doesn't work, in another program for GNOME, another part of functionality works well, but first doesn't work...
That's crap and chaos
Although linux is really nice in console, linux GUI is still chaotic and probably will remain chatic forever. At least a lost my hope.
If you want production system, you need standards. Even if you like freedom and rest of the crap, you still need standards!
At least, Apple enforce some standards for OSX. And, actually, that the reason why linux isn't going to be competitor for Windows, because MS enforce some standards!
Now, if you want to distribute binary for linux, you have to embed almost all the system with your binary, starting from libc, and ending with GUI libraries(or make huge statically linked binaries). Becaus there is absolutely no guarantee that otherwise your binary will work with some random linux installation.
Sometimes you have minor compatibility problems with windows programs and windows versions, or osx programs and osx versions. But you can't imaging, how huge problems you going to have, if you want to distribute binary program for linux. No way to compare. Even if you distribute your code in sources, it is still can have a lot of problems.
Going to current state of 3D linux desktop and beryl, by which some of you impressed...
Unfortunately it is still unusable in some sense. On ATI card you have to go via additinal XGL layer (and via some additional bugs, of course) instead of more clean and right AIGLX, because ATI still can't produce driver with support of texture_from_pixmap. With NVidia card you can use AIGLX, but.. NVidia can't fix stuppid memory leak for more than half year. And if you keep you desktop running for few days, you will reallize that it became unusable, because your X-server ate all RAM and all swap. So, you have to reboot yoo PC almost every day, which is nonesense. For many years of using unix, I got used to reboot/shutdown my machine once per few month (mainly due to kernel updates/major system updates) and rebooting my PC every day is something unacceptable for me.
And it is inacceptable for me to use destop without 3D support nowadays. At least I think that expose and related things were the most important invention in GUI for last decade. So, I vote for OSX
But if you want to build custom system which doesn't supposed to be modified later(HTPC, toaster, whatever else), your go with linux
My HTPC is a linux box and going to remain linux, I think. Even if I'll buy AppleTV, I'll probably install linux on it. It is just more easy to cutomize it for what I really need from this box.
I didn't used Linux for 4 years but only two and then came back to a proprietary OS for pro applications (Video Editing) as i needed them again. I didn't want to mess betwin two OS so i took Mac as it became PC-compatible, stable and user-friendly.
- What you say about Linux is against the Open-Source philosophy. If "one person" came to give directions to the open source develloppers community, Linux wouldn't exist anymore. We certainly would have a new proprietary OS (maybe a fine one) but only one and not open anymore. The power of linux comes from no-one being "forced" to devellop new softs in any way. Also, time does the selection betwin 2/3 software doing the same thing. If a soft is not updated frequently or a project aborded, then the soft disapear from itself and is replaced by an other one more functional/compatible. That's it. Most of the devellopers you're talking about don't give a {censored} who made the soft but how it's made and how to perfect it and this is a big diffrence betwin "free" and open-source software.
- What you say about KDE/GNOME/XFCE compatibility is all wrong. Programs are compatibles as soon as you have the wright librarys and dependencies installed.
- Well configured Beryl is also stable (even if it's still a bit useless). A lot more graphic cards are supported in Linux than in OSX.
- There is no need to restart you're commuter to reload the X-server... there's even a keyboard shortcut doing it : Ctrl-Alt-Del... (remember ?) Also i never had this problem with Nvidia-cards... and never updated my kernels every day...
One more thing you can do with linux that you can't with OSX is to shutdown properly our OS in case of crashes : Alt+Syst+s (syncronises your disks) Alt+Syst+e (kill all processes but init) Alt+Syst+i (kills init) Alt+Syst+u (unmount drives) Alt+Syst+b/o (reboot/shutdown). >>no way of data loss
So +1 for Linux
Anyway both of Linux and OS X are great and i don't see reasons to compare them this way. If you want an open-source OS you have to accept to be a bit late on some things (like new hardware support as it comes out : sony (BlueRay) and microsoft (HD DVD) tryed to lock the market and stop Linux's devellopement : who's the fault ? - hopefully too late) and not to have others (like some of the pro shareweared applications and games).
I hate linux desktops
Useless to me...
No commercial software, no decent audio & video editing, too much distros, too much abandonned project.
Osx is the king of unix desktop systems : stability of unix systems & large commercial applications catalogue.
Osx is also UNIX certified.
So osx osx osx
Useless to me...
No commercial software, no decent audio & video editing, too much distros, too much abandonned project.
Osx is the king of unix desktop systems : stability of unix systems & large commercial applications catalogue.
Osx is also UNIX certified.
So osx osx osx
Apart from tastes between Linux and Mac OSX. They both have their qualities and things to improve. Apart from GIMP and Photoshop (Photoshop is a very great tool, althought GIMP does not stay behind, it only has a peculiar GUI). But I hope you agree after seeing here www.blender.org that this is indeed a great tool. Its open-source and guess what? You can run it on Linux, Windows and Mac. This is one of the best 3D tools available and beats out many of the commercial versions if not all. Not all open-source is free, not all open-source developers do it for free. some do make a life out of it. Just pick the things you need and if you can get them for free and use them as you please, then go ahead and take them. It's yours!
All the best.
All the best.
QUOTE(Soultrain @ Feb 7 2008, 04:53 PM)
Apart from tastes between Linux and Mac OSX. They both have their qualities and things to improve. Apart from GIMP and Photoshop (Photoshop is a very great tool, althought GIMP does not stay behind, it only has a peculiar GUI). But I hope you agree after seeing here www.blender.org that this is indeed a great tool. Its open-source and guess what? You can run it on Linux, Windows and Mac. This is one of the best 3D tools available and beats out many of the commercial versions if not all. Not all open-source is free, not all open-source developers do it for free. some do make a life out of it. Just pick the things you need and if you can get them for free and use them as you please, then go ahead and take them. It's yours!
All the best.
All the best.
What you fail to mention is that Blender has an atrocious interface (as I mentioned before, typical open source application). It's totally counter-intuitive. Also if you really think it beats most, if not all, commercial 3D software then why do you think it isn't the industry standard? Why does the industry prefer to pay $7000 for Maya or $3500 for Max? Think about it.
no i was talking about professionnal appz like :
Logic studio
Final cut studio
Avid
Pro tools
etc .....
don t talk me about ardour
Logic studio
Final cut studio
Avid
Pro tools
etc .....
don t talk me about ardour
QUOTE(tomazzzi @ Feb 7 2008, 05:00 PM)
no i was talking about professionnal appz like :
Logic studio
Final cut studio
Avid
Pro tools
etc .....
don t talk me about ardour
Logic studio
Final cut studio
Avid
Pro tools
etc .....
don t talk me about ardour
Logic Studio is a very great application. Same goes for Final Cut Pro.
Pro Tools is an application that only works with digidesign audio interfaces. Digidesign is a part of Avid. Digidesign audio interfaces are too expensive and honestly I rather use Fo
usrite. Avid is the same company that owns M-audio. M-audio's interfaces are "lighter" versions of digidesign audio interfaces.
But in the end it all resumes to what you need in an audio interface.
All the best!
i know Avid i worked for them ...very good company but i still can t understand why they bought this shitty m audio ....
but that wasn t the subject here ...
The thing is all those appz works on windows & osx but not in linux : that s why desktop linux sucks, no good softwares, only toys.
but that wasn t the subject here ...
The thing is all those appz works on windows & osx but not in linux : that s why desktop linux sucks, no good softwares, only toys.
One thing that really irritates me about repositories in something like Ubuntu, is that people say it keeps your software "up to date".
BS! Ubuntu 7.10 has the latest version of LyX for example at 1.5.1, whereas the actual latest version is 1.5.3. Why don't they actually keep it up to date in the repos? Why don't people point this out more often instead of just saying repos keep software up to date?
There's a reasons I use LyX in Windows. If a new version appears, I just download, double click the installer and we're done. With Linux, I'd have to either wait for a 3rd-party deb (which often doesn't appear) or build it myself. Waste of my time.
BS! Ubuntu 7.10 has the latest version of LyX for example at 1.5.1, whereas the actual latest version is 1.5.3. Why don't they actually keep it up to date in the repos? Why don't people point this out more often instead of just saying repos keep software up to date?
There's a reasons I use LyX in Windows. If a new version appears, I just download, double click the installer and we're done. With Linux, I'd have to either wait for a 3rd-party deb (which often doesn't appear) or build it myself. Waste of my time.
QUOTE(tomazzzi @ Feb 8 2008, 02:31 PM)
i know Avid i worked for them ...very good company but i still can t understand why they bought this shitty m audio ....
but that wasn t the subject here ...
The thing is all those appz works on windows & osx but not in linux : that s why desktop linux sucks, no good softwares, only toys.
but that wasn t the subject here ...
The thing is all those appz works on windows & osx but not in linux : that s why desktop linux sucks, no good softwares, only toys.
those applications should be available for Linux as well, but life ain't perfect, now is it?
I know this isn't the topic to mention it but DFH Superior (discontinued nowadays) is the example that money is necessary in order to produce a great application, because it is necessary to pay peoplo who indeed understand about sound, musicians. Unless these offer help for free. Angels come down on earth.
QUOTE(tomazzzi @ Feb 8 2008, 06:31 AM)
i know Avid i worked for them ...very good company but i still can t understand why they bought this shitty m audio ....
but that wasn t the subject here ...
The thing is all those appz works on windows & osx but not in linux : that s why desktop linux sucks, no good softwares, only toys.
but that wasn t the subject here ...
The thing is all those appz works on windows & osx but not in linux : that s why desktop linux sucks, no good softwares, only toys.
Toys run a good portion of the internet as well as being the back bone for the scientific community. If anything I'd call your programs, that lack true physics, toys. Honestly, quit the bashing and stick to criticism.
One thing people really need to understand stand is that although OSX is UNIX Certified and yes it is based off of BSD, there are huge differences even in the core.
Secondly, Each OS has it's use. I find OS X has a real good standing in the Graphics design market. I'm not saying it's any better for it, but they definitely have a good handle on that market both in the users and the Software companies. OS X is also getting a good handle in the academic market due to it's ease of use. That is something Apple has really done well. OS X on Mac Hardware is quite simple to use for most people, and just plain works. This is great for those that don't care about getting that extra 0.1% of performance out. Especially when the most they do is write, surf the web, listen to music, chat on AIM, etc. Things that a lot of average college students do ( Most of them use consoles for games, at least at my uni ).
That being said, Linux beats OS X for Engineering/Science. Being able to tune out that extra 0.1% on a Monte-Carlo simulation that could take days is well worth it. Especially when you're going to run multiple of those over the year.
Each OS thus has it's use. For pure Ease of use, stick to OS X on Apple Hardware. For max performance ( at the cost of initial time), linux can't be beat. And no, I'm not talking about Ubuntu, I personally use Arch Linux, which is a Light weight binary distro that runs as fast as Gentoo.
We were talking about DESKTOP os isn t it ?
Of course if you talk about the professional world Linux have it s place : servers, scientific computers etc....
But the lack of good commercial software makes it unusable for good desktop, multimedia, design or music use. ( at least for me...)
But it s my own opinion, i m unable to find an equivalent of the softwares i use dayly on OSX & windows
I tried every linux distro availlable ( including ARCH & gentoo ) & never found one as user friendly windows or mac os are.
Though i use linux dayly at work ( redhat, suse etc..)
Of course if you talk about the professional world Linux have it s place : servers, scientific computers etc....
But the lack of good commercial software makes it unusable for good desktop, multimedia, design or music use. ( at least for me...)
But it s my own opinion, i m unable to find an equivalent of the softwares i use dayly on OSX & windows
I tried every linux distro availlable ( including ARCH & gentoo ) & never found one as user friendly windows or mac os are.
Though i use linux dayly at work ( redhat, suse etc..)
Debian Gnu/Linux Sid > Gentoo > FreeBSD > Mac OS X
because... I found Mac OS X to be rather... limited. Sloppy Focus anyone?
because... I found Mac OS X to be rather... limited. Sloppy Focus anyone?
I finally got OSX working(Tiger). I worked with it before, but now i tried it more advanced. The look is great, and its user friendly, and more stable than Windows(but that doesnt say much... 
).
I have used Linux(Suse) in the past for desktop. I like the idea of open source, but special programs just doesnt have a good GUI when compared to commercial software. And for everyday use i would prefer a OS that is more time saving and doesnt rely on the Terminal that much.
A bit offtopic, but the OS i really can't go without is Windows(i no i no rite). Im not a M$ fan, but most of the applications are just Windows based. But when comparing linux versus OS, for Server enviroments or for business, i would say Linux is the best. For everyday use/graphical design/video editing i think OSX is the best.
).I have used Linux(Suse) in the past for desktop. I like the idea of open source, but special programs just doesnt have a good GUI when compared to commercial software. And for everyday use i would prefer a OS that is more time saving and doesnt rely on the Terminal that much.
A bit offtopic, but the OS i really can't go without is Windows(i no i no rite). Im not a M$ fan, but most of the applications are just Windows based. But when comparing linux versus OS, for Server enviroments or for business, i would say Linux is the best. For everyday use/graphical design/video editing i think OSX is the best.
i ran linux on my xbox, does that count? haha.
i used a friend pc with linux
and im running OS X on my comp. and will never switch to anything
i used a friend pc with linux
and im running OS X on my comp. and will never switch to anything
QUOTE(tomazzzi @ Feb 12 2008, 02:37 PM)
We were talking about DESKTOP os isn t it ?
Of course if you talk about the professional world Linux have it s place : servers, scientific computers etc....
But the lack of good commercial software makes it unusable for good desktop, multimedia, design or music use. ( at least for me...)
Of course if you talk about the professional world Linux have it s place : servers, scientific computers etc....
But the lack of good commercial software makes it unusable for good desktop, multimedia, design or music use. ( at least for me...)
We keep coming back to the same argument, all the time.
My answer:
1)For the vast majority of users Linux has more than enough applications.
2)Some commercial applications have been available for Linux or have worked under Crossover Office for several years now:
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9874297-3...ml?tag=nefd.top (Photoshop)
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?...&id=9683256 (Maya)
The same holds true even for several Windows game, which now run (almost) as good as native under Cedega.
I prefer Mac OS X. Since a real Mac is too expensive, I am using Hackintosh instead.
I have not used a Mac -YET.
At work it's Solaris which is a very good for the database server and performance tests that run on it. Solaris still makes a good stable poweful highend server not to mention it has a big install base in Telecom. However Linux is catching up and already webservers, db servers are mainly Linux. Windows and OS X have little or no presence here. Solaris has none in the desktop market. Plus I am not sure how good it is for Intel/AMD it works best on Sparc chips.
Of course Windows XP for my laptop for regular stuff email, docs, spreadsheets and presentations that companies seem to generate by the 1000s. I have a good Dell D630 and I am luvin' it. I think with PC hardware it helps to be one version behind the latest OS always seem to hog resources in the latest processor.
At home Windows with a Linux VM. I think the problem with linux is that apps aren't properly integrated with it. When you install a distro (I have OpenSuse) it has some prebuilt apps which have all the nice stuff like links from the start menu, desktop , context menu integration etc. For some reasons people who distribute software for Linux seem to think they only need to put stuff in a tar file and that's it. I don't see why installers can't do the Windows kind of creating icons on desktop, launch bar etc for KDE and GNOME atleast.
IMHO my Linux desktop looks better than XP and hey it's free. As a programmer Linux has very good tools gcc, gdb etc. Also shell scripts are a HUGE plus. If you have to do things like "rename all files with .txt extension under a folder and it's subfolders" or "find all files with a pattern" - good luck with Windows. I mean how do people manage without grep.
OS X has drawn me - and I hope to have a VM running in a few days - since it seems to have best of both worlds. As a darwin based OS it has a shell and has a super cool GUI. I know running a hacked version that too as a VM won't give me the best experience but I have to start somewhere. Maybe my next comp will be an Apple
At work it's Solaris which is a very good for the database server and performance tests that run on it. Solaris still makes a good stable poweful highend server not to mention it has a big install base in Telecom. However Linux is catching up and already webservers, db servers are mainly Linux. Windows and OS X have little or no presence here. Solaris has none in the desktop market. Plus I am not sure how good it is for Intel/AMD it works best on Sparc chips.
Of course Windows XP for my laptop for regular stuff email, docs, spreadsheets and presentations that companies seem to generate by the 1000s. I have a good Dell D630 and I am luvin' it. I think with PC hardware it helps to be one version behind the latest OS always seem to hog resources in the latest processor.
At home Windows with a Linux VM. I think the problem with linux is that apps aren't properly integrated with it. When you install a distro (I have OpenSuse) it has some prebuilt apps which have all the nice stuff like links from the start menu, desktop , context menu integration etc. For some reasons people who distribute software for Linux seem to think they only need to put stuff in a tar file and that's it. I don't see why installers can't do the Windows kind of creating icons on desktop, launch bar etc for KDE and GNOME atleast.
IMHO my Linux desktop looks better than XP and hey it's free. As a programmer Linux has very good tools gcc, gdb etc. Also shell scripts are a HUGE plus. If you have to do things like "rename all files with .txt extension under a folder and it's subfolders" or "find all files with a pattern" - good luck with Windows. I mean how do people manage without grep.
OS X has drawn me - and I hope to have a VM running in a few days - since it seems to have best of both worlds. As a darwin based OS it has a shell and has a super cool GUI. I know running a hacked version that too as a VM won't give me the best experience but I have to start somewhere. Maybe my next comp will be an Apple
OMG 
I created this topic 270 days ago (approximatively) and it's still leaving
(yes i AM The_true_power but i changed of nickname and i don't remember my old pass anymore)
I'm so happy
I created this topic 270 days ago (approximatively) and it's still leaving
(yes i AM The_true_power but i changed of nickname and i don't remember my old pass anymore)
I'm so happy
Definitely Mac OS X. Though I so love Compiz Fusion in Ubuntu! The wiggly windows win every time.
QUOTE(geecko @ Apr 9 2008, 02:42 PM)
OMG
I created this topic 270 days ago (approximatively) and it's still leaving
(yes i AM The_true_power but i changed of nickname and i don't remember my old pass anymore)
I'm so happy
I created this topic 270 days ago (approximatively) and it's still leaving
(yes i AM The_true_power but i changed of nickname and i don't remember my old pass anymore)
I'm so happy
If you have OS X , check your keychain.
Having used Windows for Years, and not knowing about linux, i felt trapped. However, with the arrival of my iPod, i learned about OS X
and can safely say i will never leave Apple. Though from time to time i do pop open VMware and run a lil bit of Linux, Hardy Heron 
Think Mark
Hi there,
lately I do my comment.
I'm a linux developer and I love Linux like a child I like to see it slowly grow.
But I'm also a creative music producer and I must say, windows and mac give me a more stable and usable environment for music production.
Linux lacks proaudio applications like Logic !!! - the WineAsio method (I think it's from opensuse jacklab) let usrun apps like Reaper which is a full featured VST sequencer - but a compatibility layer sucks ressources, so on the same computer with windows or mac, I can do more virtual synth voices, more realtime ampsimulation for my electric guitar. WineAsio is OK for the most people, which wanted to start a music app from time to time, but I talking about (semi-)pro users, music producers which are using a computer 10 hours a day...
If you see Ardour for Mac in comparisation Ardour for Linux -my god what a difference, because the mac version supports au, but the linux version only these mostly crappy LADSPA stuff....and at the end Ardour lacks midi support. Linux is a nice playground for developers, it is ready for office and internet and graphics but not for proaudio/video.
lately I do my comment.
I'm a linux developer and I love Linux like a child I like to see it slowly grow.
But I'm also a creative music producer and I must say, windows and mac give me a more stable and usable environment for music production.
Linux lacks proaudio applications like Logic !!! - the WineAsio method (I think it's from opensuse jacklab) let usrun apps like Reaper which is a full featured VST sequencer - but a compatibility layer sucks ressources, so on the same computer with windows or mac, I can do more virtual synth voices, more realtime ampsimulation for my electric guitar. WineAsio is OK for the most people, which wanted to start a music app from time to time, but I talking about (semi-)pro users, music producers which are using a computer 10 hours a day...
If you see Ardour for Mac in comparisation Ardour for Linux -my god what a difference, because the mac version supports au, but the linux version only these mostly crappy LADSPA stuff....and at the end Ardour lacks midi support. Linux is a nice playground for developers, it is ready for office and internet and graphics but not for proaudio/video.
Hi guys,
this is my recent thought about linux..
I'm a hackintosh user and a student, and i see that kde 4 seems gorgeous
At the first moment, I have thought to move to Opensuse,
I am fascinated by saving session(which I think this should be the basic function of every OS), controling software output sound(this is running in Vista, but i don't see it in MAC OS X),
I can't enjoy the benefit of QE and CI software(My card doesn't support it)
Yet, I thought that I can really do nothing on Linux besides normal surfing
I really enjoy the time that Pages give me to handle my projects, my homework and even my notes, it is clear, good-looking and easy
I don't really think that OO can replace it
I really like the concept of entering like "apple/mac" to the url bar and it direct me to "www.apple.com/mac", but can i do this on linux?
also the Alt-tab and Quit function, nothing replacement can be found in Linux
And the last point, it is not really commercial, People are looking for people who are excel at Photoshop, but not gimp
Or maybe linux will get me someday, but not today
this is my recent thought about linux..
I'm a hackintosh user and a student, and i see that kde 4 seems gorgeous
At the first moment, I have thought to move to Opensuse,
I am fascinated by saving session(which I think this should be the basic function of every OS), controling software output sound(this is running in Vista, but i don't see it in MAC OS X),
I can't enjoy the benefit of QE and CI software(My card doesn't support it)
Yet, I thought that I can really do nothing on Linux besides normal surfing
I really enjoy the time that Pages give me to handle my projects, my homework and even my notes, it is clear, good-looking and easy
I don't really think that OO can replace it
I really like the concept of entering like "apple/mac" to the url bar and it direct me to "www.apple.com/mac", but can i do this on linux?
also the Alt-tab and Quit function, nothing replacement can be found in Linux
And the last point, it is not really commercial, People are looking for people who are excel at Photoshop, but not gimp
Or maybe linux will get me someday, but not today
QUOTE(Deomitrus @ Apr 26 2008, 12:34 AM)
Definitely Mac OS X. Though I so love Compiz Fusion in Ubuntu! The wiggly windows win every time.
Compiz Fusion is on every linux distribution, its not ubuntu specific.
QUOTE
Linux or Mac OS X ?, Wich OS do you prefer ?
GNU/Linux, at least for now.
As for OSX
- the resource management especialy the memory management sux big time, at least with the available software. I will have to compile some bigger stuff to see how really good or bad on that is OSX.
- not very good in heterogenic networks.
- no native support for other file systems
- very few darwinports especially those for CLI.
- combined code, not forcing vendors to write proper 64-bit code.
+ nice pool of GUI devoted professional software
At least we see a positive developement at Apples.
As for GNU/Linux it's same stuff but as a direct opposite with some lack of GUI software.
Concerning GUI itself I'm indifferent. I like them both Aqua and KDE.
As for gadgets like iPhone or MacBook, Apple got me already.
If Apple will manage to make his OS sexy enough for us I might consider and buy a Mac Pro.
For now, however, there is no alterntive for me. I'll stick to GNU/Linux.
i'd go Mac OSX, becasue it boots faster and i achieve tasks on it easily, unlike linux you'd have to browse the repo for years to be able to find an app to do something..lol, kidding
but now am not looking back, my pouch is full of linux cd's, Knoppix,Mepis you name it, might as well throw them away
but now am not looking back, my pouch is full of linux cd's, Knoppix,Mepis you name it, might as well throw them away
I got fed up of Mac being slow on my Powerbook, so I wiped it and put Ubuntu 8.04 on.
There's no 3D graphics, no working sleep, but I am happy with it - much faster than Leopard.
On the desktop, I've been using Mac for a while and I much prefer it. When I get a larger hard drive and I have a bit more room to play with, I'll use Linux a bit more.
What I find though that if I am dual booting, I'll use Mac more - it's just taking that plunge and wiping the drive clean.
What I love the most about Ubutunu and other distros with synaptic is that it is stupidly easy to install and update applications
There's no 3D graphics, no working sleep, but I am happy with it - much faster than Leopard.
On the desktop, I've been using Mac for a while and I much prefer it. When I get a larger hard drive and I have a bit more room to play with, I'll use Linux a bit more.
What I find though that if I am dual booting, I'll use Mac more - it's just taking that plunge and wiping the drive clean.
What I love the most about Ubutunu and other distros with synaptic is that it is stupidly easy to install and update applications
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.