Hi, members of the "Hackintosh-community",

One day I saw a Video on Youtube. In this video, a men boot into OS X with his Dell.
I was very impressed and i wanted to do it.
But unfortunately, it didn't work on my PC (Usb-problem). After this bitter defeat, i installed Ubuntu 7.04 "Feisty Fawn" on my PC, it's working fine.
But now i'm wondering : "Why should I install OS X on my desktop if Linux is even good as Mac OS X except that it's free and with infinite possibilities ?"

Certain people says : " I like the Mac OS X theme and all his superb softwares." Well, this is how my desktop looks like :

and i think that almost every software has a freeware equivalent. (do you know some exceptions ?)

That's my opinion, what do you think about it ?

TTP

i like OS X hvent tried linux YET though... watch this space...

i run Mac OS X, windows XP and Kubuntu - and MAC is by FAR the best

well ive tried ubuntu and also got deskop effects running (beryl) its very nice and very fast and you've got a lotof options but it feels beta and on my card you cant run any opengl app under beryl. so you have to log out and log into normal gnome just to use google earth or play a game. but on some cards it also works...

i do like macos more... but ubuntu is also nice - nicer then vista

Before jumping to OS X I was running Linux exclusively for 3+ years.
Although Linux has made great strides, and distros are much better than they were before, OS X still has a polish that no distro I've tried has.

The little touches are the type of things that aren't on a feature list, and you might not even recognize them, but in day to day use I find they make a difference and what separates Apple software from competitors. (The interface.)
Things like consistent textedit box focus, working drag and drop anywhere it makes sense, simplified dialog boxes. (Although this part is application designed.)

Edit: Had Beryl running on my old distro. Although there were some cool effects, I found most weren't too useful.
(The key is making those effects useful and sometimes more subtle effects are better.)

As you can see from my signature,i am dual booting Mac OS X Tiger and PCLinuxOS 2007. I think they
are both excellent but different. I have been using linux as my main os for almost 2 yrs so i am more
comfortable using it, but i am using Tiger more and more as time goes on.
Since i am using Mac for free that really helps the case for using it. One advantage linux has is that it
has thousands of programs and they are free. Quite often a good program that you might want for Mac
costs money like Toast 8. I love how easy it is to delete a program in Mac. As someone else stated, i
love the look and polish of Mac.
What is has come to now is that i boot into either one based on a whim of that day. Finally ,i would not pay the $160 for Tiger unless linux did not exist. I firmly believe that Tiger is superior to any Windows and
could be #1 in usage if Jobs let it be sold for the pc.

Hello, that's well fun to talk over this OS-war, but please can you give some arguments ? I would like to know why should Mac OS X being better than Linux...

X is easier to use.
have better programs.

linux needs less hadware resources
you need console knowledge to use it properly

X is nicer

cheers

~R

I dual boot on my MacBoot with OSX and Ubuntu using BootCamp.

I am a big fan of the Open Source Comunity.

Thanks for your answer Rzk
But wich software are you talking about exactly ? This is very important to me, so I'll know if I install Mac OS X.

@Tetrasoft : Wich OS do you generally use ? Mac OS or Ubuntu ?

Linux is good, but the system suffers from a fatal flaw: being open source and not ONE distro, everybody does things differently. Sure on newer distros, you can (with broadband, forget dial up I have tried) install new apps, but on OS X you can download .dmg (disk images) or whatever and take to any mac with the requirements for the app, drag it to applications and there you go. Some apps have install scritps/front ends like Windows, but it is SO simple to install things in OS X. NO other os does this. Linux IS good, to me I can install apps I want to try as easy as windows and be one a unix based os that is far superior to windows. I wish I could run it here at work. heh

Your asking for specifics that aren't really going to come.
Both OSes are pretty much feature wise the same. Chances are no matter what kind or program you are looking for it is available. Like someone mentioned, there may be more "free" applications on Linux, but for the the "average" end user type tasks OS X has free equivalents also.

Also, many Linux apps can be compiled and run on OS X also. I recently had KDE running on my OS X and used Quanta the web editor all the time.

You also have the option of running Linux in a virtual machine using Parallels or VMware Fusion so if you have a must have Linux app that won't work any other way you can go that route.

As to look and feel, its a personal judgement but I think most people still feel OS X is a more finished, polished product.
This isn't to say Linux is capable, but you just don't have the same cohesion when you have competing Desktop Environments, toolkits, etc, like Linux.

It would be easier for us if you named applications that you need or want and we can tell you if OS X has the same or better equivalent than Linux, rather than just randomly guessing them.

Edit: Fixed spelling mistake that made sentence confusing.

Thanks for your answer sandmanfvrga

@headrush : Well, i don't really need any ^^ i'm just a ... computer fanatic If something interest me i try to learn use it and when i learned use it, i learn use something else.... lol. So i think i will try to resolve my problem and install OS X on my pc.

I am not a Apple/OS X fanboy though, and OS X has a fatal flaw: you NEED Mac Hardware to be perfect. Now Hackintoshes claim to be "perfect" but they are not seeing as you need to NOT use Software Update and get updates from Apple and other things. I mean when it comes to it, if you don't mind the hacks and such, the OSX86 is fine and still better in my opinion to Linux.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you shouldn't use Linux. I learned lots using it, especially since I stuck with Gentoo.
I was more referring to your questions as to which programs are better, just pointing out it is very subjective and that by using OS X you can get the best of both worlds.
(Either Linux in a VM, or as a recompile or since OS X is based on BSD, console based commands are very similar and often the same as you would use in a Linux BASH session.)

Well... I prefer OS X on Macs and Linux on generic PCs (next to Windows, of course).

I'd have to disagree and say distros that use stuff like apt have the easiest install (when the program is in the repos, that is.).

What could be simpler than either typing apt-get isntall application or opening a package manager and selecting the application/s you want to install.

No browsing or looking for the application online, just type the name in and install.

Though when you have to install from a package file or compile from source, it gets to be a hassle.

I love mac os. i love it good. Linux is awesome and windows sucks, but i think UI and ease of use falls to mac os x

You still have to start package manager, find the package and then supply the root password.
(Sure for a seasoned Linux user that knew the package name and worked from the command line it would be quick.)


Well, I would say a DMG that automatically opens a window with the APP icon and an alias to the Applications folder and all you have to do is drag the icon onto this alias is still easier.


In theory sounds nice but often these repositories/lists are so bloated with duplicate functioning apps and "interesting" names that for all lot of users it would take more than just ap install programA. (Average joe wouldn't know the name of a music collection app was Amorak, Juk, or Rythmbox, so some searching is still needed.)
So the user would still need to find out about each app before they installed it anyways.

Of course APT and portage are miles better than the old days of just RPM. (Dependency hell )

Well for one thing. Graphic card support.

There are mainly 4 graphic card chipsets around.

NVidia GForce (and derivates)
ATI Radeon (and derivates)
S3 (and derivates)
Intel (and derivates)

And usually only the Intel (onboard) GFX are supported out of the box. The problem gets worse as you know that the ppl who can benefit the most of these linux 3D-desktops are the ones with ATI and/or NVidia gfx-cards. Yet these are usually NOT supported on many distros.

This "problem" get even worse on the Live-CD's. Since you usually try those before actually installing a Linux. But then you get dissapointed because knoppix-Vxx doesn't run on your standard ATI Radeon PCI-E card (which is already over a year old) let alone that olde ATI AGP Radeon 9800pro (which STILL isn't supported on most distro's today????)

If the 2 major gfx-cards don't get supported out o/t box then it's no use to even start thinking of going to linux. Definitly not with beryl 3D-desktop.

Forgot about package names.


Yeah, i guess it can be easier if conditions are met.

So I'll have to admit that OS X does it best in general.

i've used windows for many years... and although each version is a much more stable the the pervious they are still not that stable...
my first experience with linux was with fedora.. which was disapionting to say the least... but when i got my new laptop and tried ubuntu.. that was so much fun.. you just feel that OS is much more powerfull... now i have never used mac in my life, except for when i was in elementry and my school had computers...over 10 years ago..i think i was even black & white or maybe my memory..
so since mac is unix i thought it would be a more powerfull version of linux...big mistake... its been only two days since my install... and all i have successfully done is install the ethernet and MSN messenger...perhaps i will change my mind about MAC...its still early...but that wont change till i can get this sound driver installed....

Linux By Far...

mac os X... linux.... i don't have to choose..i just love *nix

You're comparing an open source OS that is made to run on as much hardware as possible to trying to setup a hacked OS on your hardware although it was designed to run on a specific, somewhat proprietary hardware set. Not exactly a fair assessment using that criteria.

I'm surprised noone has mentioned this yet
but the main reason I want to switch from Linux to Mac OS X is...sound!
In my opinion the linux sound system ALSA is at best a patchwork buggy mess.
If you have on-board sound(AC'97 for example) then the fact is that there are programs that
will NOT be able to mix their sound with others unless you hack and even then it doesn't always work.

Here are two experiments you can do (1) Try a java application that uses sound.say jin(a popular chess client)
then (2) open up rhythmbox to play some mp3s and see if u can play anything . No sound? that's because java applications
are oss only so you must do aoss javapp to get sounds mixed in with rhythmbox. But that won't
work with java applets as they are not command line launched..maybe aoss firefox?
Can you say gross hack?

Another example ..VMware with XP guest in linux host..try searching the forums for people
who simple cannot get XP to play sound because /dev/dsp is in use by linux.
Again some hacks have been posted for vmware 5.5 but I'm still waiting for a solution
for Vmware 6

This is important for me as my two favorite programs are java based and i like to listen to music
or watch movies at the same time..

Finally I should say that I really like Fedora and have been using it for a while
but this and other issues(that are not Fedora's fault) make me keep trying OS X
on my P4 i915 system(no sound yet alas) or waiting for the day OpenSolaris becomes stable

Well... I honestly can't really compare the two. This is because i would never use linux as my regular everyday user operating system as i would os x. However, I do use linux on my server, and would never use os x server as a server os. The two are totally different in my mind because they are used for different things.

Linux.

From my limited experiences with Linux, which have been hassles, *cough*Ati 3d acceleration in fedora core 7..*cough*, I'd have to say Mac. Also because you can compile *nix apps to work on Mac, and the reverse isn't true; you can't make Mac apps work natively in *nix.

yea..well now i know that. but i guess at the time i never thought about it this way...
seems that mac will never be 100% compatible with our type of hardware... not unless Apple decide to start selling the OS for normal PCs.. which i must say would not be such a bad step.. they could get good money from that espically if they sell it for high prices (which im sure they will).. i think the bigest weakness in that would be the pirating of the software...

It would be a disaster. There are distinct advantages when you also control the hardware.

Competing with MS just based on OS would incredibly tough for OS X and/or any other OS.
It's no longer just a matter of having a better product. Windows is such an entrenched product that for a multiple of reasons it would take a long time for any OS to significantly erode its user base.

Mac OSX will always be my top. Dealing with the Terminal in Linux drives me insane!
Installing apps in Osx is simple enough. Drag n Drop.

Well.. you ask in a Mac-orientated forum so go ahead, guess the answer. Now create the same thread @ linuxquestions.org or similar and get a different answer.. Why ? It depends on the people..

Personally.. I have a Macbook, I like the looks, nay.. I LOVE the looks, I love that the Macbook (non-pro) is so sturdy - unlike other Laptops and so on.

But the Operating System itself.. I don't know..

On Mac.. I boot up to a pretty useless system. Although I have 2 gigs of ram and a Core Duo CPU, I get sluggish performance, that could be because the apps are bloated, but it isn't.
QuickTime hardly plays any movie/sound formats
Safari is a joke (even worse than Konqueror, the opensource app from whom Apple steals the HTML-rendering)
The Address book is fairly good, though not too intuitive
IChat.. well.. what can I use it for ? Honestly ? It doesn't support the protocols I use so it's completely useless too
I have no capable text editor

For crying out loud, Finder won't even let me upload files to my HTTP server (I swear it wouldn't, yes I used the same credentials that works for Linux/Windows)

So.. Where am I going with this ? Well.. When I install Ubuntu, which can automatically fetch ATI/Nvidia drivers (just to quiet the naysayers here) and comes pre-loaded with Intel drivers as well as drivers for sound, camera's and whanot.. I don't "just" get a complete driver package, a free system which isn't dictated by ONE company.. No.. I get more. I get useable apps:
Evolution - Capable email client, comes with calenders and everything, supports exchange
Firefox - Probably *the* best browser. Great in vanilla, very extensible if I want it.
OpenOffice.Org - A complete Office Suite which is integrated with my themes.. For free
Gaim - MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, Jabber etc -- all there
Banshee - What Itunes should've been (IMHO, if you want more Itunes-like behaviour -> Songbird )
VLC Media Player - Plays anything under the sun, be it movie, DVD's or sounds
K3B - The abosolutely best CD/DVD burner I've ever had on any OS, period.

Now granted. K3B may not be in the standards package, but it doesn't bother me as I can always install it or create me own install discs or scripts.

Now.. Before someone tells me that this is a moot point, remember, you install apps on OS X too (unless you literally do -nothing- on your computer), can you automate the whole process and ensure you get the newest apps of your preference ?

As for the looks.. I don't enjoy the standard Ubuntu look, the Fedora look is great though, so it's a matter of distro choice but I have a couple of neat themes installed in conjunction with Compiz Fusion and Screenlets (a widget app) - All in all I don't feel left out in regards to eye-candy.

As for the supposed consistent style on Mac OSX.. It's no more consistent than on Linux. I can do fine with Gnome apps save for K3b which I use as my CD/DVD burner, however, Firefox isn't integrated that well in OSX, OpenOffice sure isn't and Microsoft office looks like the bastard child of Windows and OS X.

But I'm willing to admit this: Linux is not better PER SE than Mac OSX - because I recognize the validity in the words "to each his own". And as for finding out which Operating System is better (for you)? There is one answer: try them all

They are both good OSes.

I say:

Linux for fun,

Mac for Everything else

OS X for Apple hardware and the odd Hac, Linux for everything else (toasters, PS2s, age-old laptops included!)

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.

Well all I'll say is that every Mac fan should be damned glad that BSD and Linux exists and here's why:

Apple takes the BSD code and this forms the basis of your system -- they don't make significant contributions back to the community though

Apple takes the KHTML rendering engine (a HTML renderer) and this is the base of Safari --

Parallels, the app that let's you run Windows Apps (including 3D(!) apps!) on your OS X uses significant portions of Wine -another- OpenSource app for running Windows apps on Linux/BSD to make it all work.

Similarly, Transgaming published Cider so that game companies could get a game framework for porting Windows games, now that framework is based heavily on Cedega which in turn was based on Wine -AND- the money and patience of Linux users.

So, even though Linux is sort of regarded as being the bastard child, the community surrounding it is *really* beneficial for the Mac.. Mac probaly wouldn't be a viable platform were it not for the opensource movement

And that's really where it hurts IMHO.. The BSD and Linux communities give so MUCH to Apple. Apple literally owes them their existence and yet they do next to nothing in return.

I too used Linux exclusively for many years, pre all the flash of todays distros.

DarkCarnival, I though I noticed the tone in your previous post, but for sure in this one, that sounded much more like a bitter Linux user than a answer to which one you like best. (bitter because OS X gets the praise and not Linux)

I think its a little naive to think that OS X wouldn't exist without Linux. Using that logic could you not say without Minix, Linux would not have started Linux.
OS X is a combination of many different parts, not just FreeBSD.
And if I'm not mistaken all changes to Darwin (which includes the FreeBSD 5 used parts) have the source released to the public.
(If you are thinking Apple should release the code to the GUI and their proprietary hardware, how would they survive as a commercial company then?)

Although the KHTML devs and the webkit devs have had different agendas, the webkit changes were available to use, but at that time for various reasons it wasn't. I was sure that last KHTML mailing list post I read said that webkit changes were going to be incorporated now anyways.

As for Parallels and Cider, they aren't Apple products so who cares? Does VMware Fusion use Wine? It does the same thing as Parallels so I think maybe Parallels cheated to get to market a feature faster, but it is hardly dependent on open source for its functionality.

Do you really think the idea for which the Beryl/Fusion/Compiz whichever you want to call it didn't come after seeing OS X?

Bottom line is Linux is the bastard child.

I loved Linux as much as the next guy, but its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. Having all this flexibility over everything, window managers, DEs, drivers, package management sounds like a great thing to savvy computers users, but for the average user this stuff doesn't fly.

That will always be an advantage that OS X and Windows have.
Although you can package it all up in a nice distro that installs and sets up everything for you, once joe user looks something up on the internet and tries to follow it and it looks different because the article uses a different looking distro or a differing back end process, game over.

Apple may use parts of open-source projects but I disagree that they own their existence to them.
Pretty sure Apple had A/UX in 1988, 2 years before Linus started Linux.
I know that isn't the current OS and sure they may uses parts/ideas from Linux, same as Linux does from other OSes, but I'm sure they would have got here anyways. (A/UX was a Unix type system with the Finder GUI running on it.)

If it really hurts than people shouldn't release under the GPL.

Oh yea, I'm bitter.

Not so much at OSX users as such - I love the fact that you guys are chosing something else over Microsoft, I really love diversity, so this is to you guys: You Rock !


The bitterness stems from the way that companies treat opensource software. All this crap about Linux not being viable while the publish Parallels and Cider for OSX is really angering me. The technology was baked and MADE with BSD and Linux so why can't we have it ? Linux has about the same userbase worldwide as OSX so it can't be lack of users -- it's more of a political thing - Companies are stuck to the cliché that Linux and BSD users are idealist geeks who refuse to pay a dime for software and who believes that companies are evil by heart.

Anyway. What I dislike is that people are choosing things based on first impressions, appearance and superstitions.
The best example is all the people who uses a Hackingtosh and claims that it's so much easier than XYZ operating systems. You rely on brilliant hackers but you still have to patch this and that, get unofficial drivers, add device ID's and whatnot. Hacking XML config's isn't easy. On the other hand, using Ubuntu, SuSE or similar is.
Many of the apps that people fall in love with in OSX are often also available (or even originating) from the BSD and Linux world, examples:
Adium(Gaim/Pidgin), VLC, NeoOffice(OpenOffice), Camino(Firefox), MPlayer, Audacity, Scribus, Gimp and InkScape ... and there's most likely a host of other applications too -this is just the stuff I encountered while I spent 5 days using OSX.

And while we are on the subject of that. Apple has a brilliant marketing department whereas Linux and the free BSD's get a much more realistic coverage.
Examples would be The "Linux Action Show". Although Linux-enthusiasts, they aren't blind to whatever problems we might have. But you know what ? They have switched from Apple-stuff to Linux. They were huuuuge fans of Apple (and even developed software for it for several years) but they quit some time ago.
For a little more... realistic covering of "the worlds most advanced operating system" try listening to http://www.linuxactionshow.com/?p=129 episode 55, where they compare Linux and OSX Leopard on more technical merits and so.


------
This is specifically for HeadRush

Check your facts, friend.

Parallels have achieved what took VmWare YEARS by borrowing huge amounts of Wine code. Wine was founded 12 years ago -- FOR 12 YEARS HAVE THEY WORKED TO SUPPORT THE WINDOWS API'S
So it's fairly obvious that Parallels wouldn't be able to do what they have in so little time, had it not been for the readily available code from Wine.

As for Apple being original ? They're not.
The new leopard bar ? You probably think that the opensource communities are copycats for creating docks and such. But the dock itself was existing before Apple started it- and the Leopard dock is a blatant RIP of project Looking Glass which is *5 years old!* (Piccie here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LG3D_memo_board.jpeg)

You know how you can flip through albums in Itunes ? That's ALSO a feature they ripped from the Java Desktop System.

And let's see.. Well they were shopping for a system. They were just about to be BeOS but instead they bought NeXtStep and Steve Jobs and later they based their stuff on the BSD software available.
So no, Apple hasn't really created their entire system. Intially they tried buying up systems and later they based themselves on a fairly complete system. Why ? Because Apple doesn't have the capability or resources to develop an entire system from the ground up, so yea - they depend on open source and owe it their continued existance.

To point out that they once had a Unix ? What has that got to do with today ? The downfall of Unix was exactly that there were too many small firms that tried to develop an entire OS for themselves. How many big and active Unix OS's who are developed by ONE company can you name today ? How about the adoption rates for those Unixes ?

So.. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge Compiz and Beryl - if you only knew how many features Apple and Microsoft "borrows" from the open source. Another example is the app to publish simple webpages on OSX.. THose webpages are served by Apache which is definitely NOT made by Apple either.

I'm sure if one had the energy they could come up with many more examples. But I simply don't use OSX or care about it enough to really go through everything they have.


But claiming that it's a superior system is just.. silly.. It's a decent system + some gloss + brilliant marketing. It's not inferior either, it's just another choice, that's all.

OS X if you want everything to work out of the box.
Linux if you want more flexibility. And BTW, I believe that KDE has loads of features that I miss in OS X.

Edit, November 09 2007: I don't know how I could say "OS X if you want everything to work out of the box." back in August. That would be true only if you had a Mac. And considering the many Leopard bugs, not even then. If you have a hack, you must wait for somebody to release a hacked OS X version, and after that solve all the possible problems which might arise, even with the most compatible hardware.

Go re-read what I posted and don't inject what you think I am saying, but what I said.


Did I say they used no Wine parts? No.
Do YOU know how much code they used? Doesn't seem like it. The code in question is Direct3D code only.
The core virtualization method used by Parallels is vastly different from Wine and doesn't use it.
Should any changes made to the code derived from the Wine Direct3D code be shown according to the license, yes I agree.



Did I say that? Nope. OSes copy GUI elements all the time and in both directions. They're truly aren't many new ideas.


Who said they invented it? The actually purchased it from another company, so your beef should be with that company.
Not sure what the point is?
Why not be angry with all OSes since they all essentially copied the desktop paradigm that Xerox created. At least Apple purchased the rights! :-P


So?


They seemed to create System 1-9 ok by themselves. The main reason they bought established OS parts for the basis of OS X was time.
OS 1-9 was based on dated and no longer acceptable paradigms. The time needed to write an entire OS from scratch would leave them out of the market for years and frankly would be waste when tested cores already existed. Whether they could do it is speculative, but from a economical position it would have been impossible.


The point was that even before Linux was started, Apple had a working Unix system with a consistent working GUI. Was it OS X, no, but the idea that they are dolts and wouldn't have advanced without Linux is a little much.


You miss the point. OSes copy ideas all the time. You can't pick and chose only the ones YOU think work in one direction.
Do you really think everything in a Linux distro is new?


What's the point? To be validated as an OS they need to rewrite their own implementation of everything?
Pretty sure OS 9 had its own web publishing service, so they could, but apache was a better option.
The license allows them to do use it so why not?


I swear you didn't read any of my post. Did I say it was superior? No.
I used Linux for over 4 years and it has great features and less than great features, but like I mentioned, for mainstream end users it still has problems that OS X doesn't. (The keyword is END USERS.)


I was a big fan of KDE. I have the latest beta running on OS X, but its pretty limited still.

DarkCarnival, I even said back in post #12:

Don't get mad at me, it's not my fault Linux is the bastard child, I contributed!

so far not much you can do on a Mac OSX when u're hacking it to x86, you can only pray and wait for a better build to fit your machine.

so linux is a much better choice in that sense...

of coz if you have an actual Mac then of coz Mac is better.

I do ubuntu, 10.4.8 and xp

Ubuntu supports all of my hardware 100%, if the GFX driver(ATI 9000), and speedstep (for my centrino) worked, i would mostly use OSX.

Installed OS X for the first time last night. Till now I've used Ubuntu and Vista in dual boot on my laptop, and I planned on exchanging Vista with XP (mostly for running Photoshop) because it sucks, but I've decided to give OS X a go instead. I think most of the hardware is compatible except for the wireless card (Intel 3945) and the card reader.

So far I like the very polished look (but not necessarily the standard brushed metal theme) and the ease of installing/uninstalling applications as they're sort of self contained and not spread out into lots of different folders etc. The dock is also nice, albeit a bit impractical in my opinion. I much prefer a taskbar to the dock+exposé function, or in the case of Linux+Compiz Fusion, taskbar+exposé is a much better alternative. There's also the virtual lack of viruses/malware, as in Linux, which I like.

The only thing I really really don't like, is Finder. It's even worse than Windows Explorer. Apple could learn something from Gnome's Nautilus file browser. So far that's the only really annoying thing with OS X that I've come across, except for it being proprietary software etc.

So in short, I prefer Linux/Gnome. There's so much more freedom, and although it doesn't look as polished, it's quite a bit more intuitive and user friendly.

KDE4 coupled with Leo will definitely kick Vista's ass in october!

OS X for regular stuff, Linux for server/background stuff.

+1
For basic usage (Internet, listening to music, watching videos) OS X is my fav.
For web/music/dns/proxy/ftp server, storage Linux is more suitable.

IMHO i prefer linux over OS X. Linux seems to be more optimized and more compatible. I know this is cause linux is made for normal intel pc's and so forth. linux just seems alot more responsive in my opinion and the programs are easy to install.

I find Ubuntu the best linux distro .

If I have a real Mac (which I have several), I'm not going to put Linux on it. Now when Leopard comes out, then I'll have a definite reason to put Linux on some of them (since I have a G4 tower and two G3 critters). I might not even put Linux on either one of those, but I like it in that it's always an option.

If I get a Windows box, the first thing I do is wipe it and put Linux on it. While Vista is good, Linux to me is much better.

I had a vast variety of linux flavors installed but the simplicity of OS X is awsome, drag and drop, download a .dmg and simply install and app without use command line, thats make the differences because in both OS you have app for almost every task you do but I love OS X for its simplicity, so I like the open sourse community too.

my main machine uses debian etch, i keep an xp machine for games and another debian machine runs stuff around my house (cctv etc). my mac os x is used as a router. they all have their uses. debian is for getting real work done. os x is for play and doing specialised stuff like firewalls and routing without complicated configurations. xp is for games.
BTW, ubuntu sucks compared to debian. its a crappy user friendly dumbed down version of a perfectly good linux. get debian etch.