Linux vs. OS X

[Urbz]

I hate Linux.

I am a racist.

I am racist against Linux.

 

I have tried it time and time again and i can't get used to it. It feels like an early alpha version of some geek's fist computer creation ever. I will never use Linux again in my entire life. Bleh.

[-.-]

I like OSX a lot but I voted for Linux, because of aps like Cinerella, Gimp, K3B, Audaciy and other audio aps are free as well as open office and everyhing you would need to run a business or anything else you want to do, If you buy all those Apple aps you would have to be very well off, would have to spend a lot of money, and some people are just not rich.

 

They are complete loons for drastically overcharging for everything, because when you lower the price from a ridiculous amount to something most people can afford, you don't just merely double the amount of potential customers that can buy it, you multiply it 30 to 100 fold and that is just if you count US, EU and other wealthy western nations, if you count the rest of the world you multiply your potential sales by more than a thousand.

 

A few years back various industries such as pc manufaturers and cell phone providers, ISP's, etc., were publicly declaring thier tremendous success while internally totally freaking out that their dreamworld of everyone on earth buying their product or service was clearly not materialing and was becoming all to apparent that it was not ever going to materialize. They are real smart those tech people but running a little low on common sense, they have made it where less than one percent of the people on the planet can buy their stuff. I think greed must cause some brain dammage like dope does.

[aldimeneira]

Mac OS X by far

 

If it was 100% FOSS it will dominate the computing world in less than 3 years... and it will be... a sweet dream come true. On the other hand, it may fork in too many versions... I don't think that's a good idea.

 

Overall Linux has much better foundations (thanks to GPL, Linux can use BSD code, but BSD can't use Linux code, which keeps Linux superior in my opinion) and is a lot faster.

(...)

 

O really? I don't think so. It doesn't make any sense. If anything the BSD license is "more free" ...maybe too free.

 

I'd say linux.

 

I mean.. You're sitting there, using windows or OSX and you think you can do most of the things you like. Then you get introduced to this system with amazing scalabillity and immense power.. It's like being trapped everytime you try the normal commercial os's then..

 

Especially with the intel transition, mac gaming seems to be even less possible than linux gaming, since linux has quite a few great ports and free games + excellent "emulation" software (Crossover, Wine, Cedega).

Software which obviously let's us run a great deal of software (yea DarWine exists. But Wine is better supported on Linux since that's where it's originated from, it's where it's main user base lies and simpler to integrate it into a truly open os).

 

And about the looks. Linux can look like anything really. We can use Mac OSX widgets if we so desire. We can access a far greater range of widgets with gDesklets, Karamba and whatnot. We have multiple graphical enviroments (which admittedly look CRAPPY when they're not skinned) that can be customized to look just like anything. Look at kde-look.org, gnome-look.org, freshmeat.net for themes and examples of themes.

 

Our UI is not quite on par with OSX yet in terms of technical muscle but we're getting there (currently vector drawing mechanisms (Cairo) and transparency, shadowing and such have been more or less implemented).

And even if we're not exactly there, we absolutely smoke any legally available Windows build (and by the time Vista gets there, we'll be ready)

 

On the subject of kernels. Tests clearly show that OSX have the wrong kernel implementation, monolitchic/micro-kernels (whatever that hellspawn thing is!) are much slower than the fast and modular Linux kernels.

 

It's worth to note that one of the reasons Microsoft scrapped the Longhorn project and started over (Vista) was that they could no longer deal with one large kernel themselves. It was too slow, buggy and troublesome.

 

Being a biology student, I find it fascinating that the Linux kernel employs the same principles of modularity that bacteria-cells does. It's pretty obvious to most that bacteria are one of the most successful (adaptable) lifeforms of our planet

 

Also it's quite funny to note that there's a lot of apps that improve the Linux desktop experience. Take Beagle for example, it crawls through your directories and lets you search images, conversation logs, code-fragments, programs and documents in an easy and fast way (Does it's job much better than spotlight IMHO).

 

A vanilla linux won't seem as impressive as a vanilla OSX install, but if you do it right (and it's really not rocket science people) you'll end up with something which can compete quite well (and in my oppinion) surpass any other OS out there in overall.

 

Windows and Linux uses the same main kernel design: monolithic

Mac OS X uses a microkernel, the performance is sligthly slower but the machines that runs it make that specific slow down barely significant.

 

We're not comparing Windows with Linux tough. "Linux hates Windows, *BSD loves Unix."

 

Also the Linux kernel is too tied to one developer: Linus Torvalds. Nothing can be implemented if he says no... there can be too many great ideas turned down due to that.

 

And there's Fink, wish can easily port any FOSS *nix program.

 

Mac OS X is consitent, mainly because of the GUI. It just feels right.

[paulmer2003]

Also the Linux kernel is too tied to one developer: Linus Torvalds. Nothing can be implemented if he says no... there can be too many great ideas turned down due to that.

Ughh no.. There are many 'maintainers' who maintain certain sections of code in the kernel...SATA drivers...and such...

 

Mac OS X uses a microkernel, the performance is sligthly slower but the machines that runs it make that specific slow down barely significant.

I'm always hearing people going around touting their microkernel v-penises. Honestly... The peformance gain is practicly nil.

 

Mac OS X is consitent, mainly because of the GUI. It just feels right.

I love OSX, but the problem is alot, is that its too 'noobish'. Take 'Finder' for example. You cant even type in a URL to it! LAME. For a unix cli person... Its quite torturous.

 

I honestly don't see what's so great about linux...it's too "Hacked" and "chopped". I honestly prefer any other nix over Linux. 1.Darwin 2. FreeBSD 3. Solaris.

Those and A/UX....

Eh.. Maybe it is quite Hacked and chopped, however, it runs damned well and is pretty damn stable (Ive only have 2 kernel panics ever, and it was due to ReiserFS driver crapping out on me). FreeBSD is nice... But ports is lame.. For servers its okay... But it cant touch OpenBSD

 

I mean.. You're sitting there, using windows or OSX and you think you can do most of the things you like. Then you get introduced to this system with amazing scalabillity and immense power.. It's like being trapped everytime you try the normal commercial os's then..

Exactly. Totally.

 

I vote OS X because it's a platform I can buy software for in a store. Linux tends not to be.

By this same criteria, XP is an even better platform because the number of XP compatible software boxes in all retail stores near me are much greater.

People who legally buy their software are SUCKERS. What a waste of money! I laugh! You dont even need to buy linux software....

 

Linux is great but it hasn't got the real juice: photoshop, dreamweaver

Dremweaver? Just use the mozilla HTML app.. nice and basic

And what about GIMP? Gimp is fine for my needs (me is a digital photography student).

 

I hate Linux.

I am a racist.

I am racist against Linux.

 

I have tried it time and time again and i can't get used to it. It feels like an early alpha version of some geek's fist computer creation ever. I will never use Linux again in my entire life. Bleh.

Probally because you were too stupid to properly make your desktop look nice

[bluedragon1971]

I love OSX, but the problem is alot, is that its too 'noobish'. Take 'Finder' for example. You cant even type in a URL to it! LAME. For a unix cli person... Its quite torturous.

 

You can't type a URL into Finder because it is not, nor is it intended to be, a web browser. That is one thing most Linux distros got WRONG because they decided to copy how Windows Explorer worked.

 

As for the UNIX CLI, what's wrong with starting up Terminal?

 

It's worth to note that one of the reasons Microsoft scrapped the Longhorn project and started over (Vista) was that they could no longer deal with one large kernel themselves. It was too slow, buggy and troublesome.

 

You don't know what the hell you are talking about here. Longhorn==Vista, they are one and the same. Longhorn was simply the codename that they used in the early part of development (in fact, some things in Vista still have references to Longhorn). It's still using the same kernel, based on the NT 5.2 kernel from Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP x64 Edition.

[arvster]

Both are good. Both currently need a lot of work to be run the way I want them to be run. Both are fun to play with and do work with. OS X just needs to get some missing drivers from very dedicated and smart people. Linux at times needs just the same. I have to admit, that GUI in OS X is more polished. KDE is cool and suits my needs, but it requires hard work to get there. Both have great apps. iTunes is cool and stuff, but I have to say that I am very used to the feature set of amaroK player. It eats more RAM, but functions such as queing of songs in a playlist, easy tag editing and more is not to be found in iTunes. Then again iPhoto beats Digikam to dust currently (ask my mother; she has used them both and right now sticks to iPhoto ). Of course presence of apps like Photoshop is a great + for OS X. However, in Linux I also like the idea that I can freely compile my kernel+apps+whatnot and choose only the parts that are needed for my computer. Gentoo with it's USE flags is quite nice at this. Also, I have to say that OS X is something very close to what I would like Linux to be. As I am using them both, I did not vote.

[Proteo]

Hahahahahahaha

 

I knew the day would come when I could push this in your heads:

 

http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html

 

or (the same but HTML):

 

http://folk.ntnu.no/shane/dokumentasjon/commandline.html

 

or (in spanish):

 

http://sindominio.net/biblioweb/telematica/command_es/

 

Seriously people, if you're in computers you'll never regreat to read this.

[paulmer2003]

hysterical.gif You can't type a URL into Finder because it is not, nor is it intended to be, a web browser. That is one thing most Linux distros got WRONG because they decided to copy how Windows Explorer worked.

 

As for the UNIX CLI, what's wrong with starting up Terminal?

By URL, I ment like /etc/ and such. Locations on filesystem. And nothing is wrong with Terminal.app its very nice... I just wish OSX had virtual consoles (like linux+every 'modern *BSD).

 

Gentoo with it's USE flags is quite nice at this.

Gentoo rocks

 

As for my vote, I am going to refrain from voting. Just happy to see modern unicies doing well in a world dominated by Fagdows.

[deltatux]

hmmm... hard question really, but I have to say Linux because of customizability and that I have had no problems with Linux. Right now, I'm still quite confused with MacOS X as I haven't used it in years. I like the consisted UI. Yet, I must say, I hate having the monitor stuck on 1024x768!! ARGH!

 

 

Anyways, the bad things about MacOS X is that it uses Mach. The Mach kernel is pretty clumbsy and creates its own flaws in the system because it's really an experiment to redesign what an operating system is.

 

deltatux

[RobNyc]

I would say both too.

 

Linux = Learning, Cool, Works on PCs OSX doesnt, Faster than windows, you're never done learning

OSX = Easy to use, lovely, fun, pretty, has a lot to learn too ( inside tricks )

Windows = boring, for gamers

[Alessandro17]

Your preferences will also depend on what you know best.

For instance I'd define myself as an intermediate Linux user (I'll never call myself an advanced Linux user ) but an OS X newbie. I am using OS X now thanks to this forum.

 

I'd like to add, however, that Linux, thanks to its open source nature, to thousands of developers and the commitment of a huge community, advances extremely fast. If you remember what was available in 2002 and how much things changed during 2003 you'll probably agree with me.

[Jeezoflip]

When it gets down to it, it just depends what you want out of your OS. Linux will give you good security, and reliability. Great for servers and what not... OS X is very user friendly, and almost anybody with a head can use it... I personally am a noob at linux, and dont really need it, so i would use OS X. Its that simple.

[sandmanfvrga]

Linux. *pukes*. I mean no disrespect to Linux users or the makers of Linux. Linux is not an OS. I might get flamed for it, but Linux is a kernel like posted earlier in this thread. The Linux DISTROS are pieced together "OS's" that try to be like Windows and/or OS X. They aren't. The reason Linux is so half baked is that there is no common idea in the Linux world. Hell now there are many different Kernels being used. The only people that like Linux are those that love coding and tinkering, and I don't mean to bash any of you. If you like that, good. That is your right. But to me, having an AS and BS in computer Science, 7 years in the field and a System Administrator that has used many forms of Linux, every Microsoft OS there is, and OS 8/9/10 (just giving my background, not saying I am smarter or better than anyone) I have to say that Linux just isn't there. Sure you can Customize the hell out of it, but how much time is spent making the operating system usable and using it? Lindows, Suse, and other distros have made it to where you can buy copies and use it right out of the box but most are "FREE" but are not user friendly.

 

One thing that pisses me off about Linux is that to add functionality to the damn thing, you have to know alot of about the Linux architecture. So to intall program A, you need to do step B through however many, possibly make or compile the program, and then maybe recompile your Kernel. WHAT?? I just wanted to install and try this app, now I have to go through this? Whatever. I have to give Winblows the credit, install stuff has been easy on it. OS X? Easier. I can customize OS X by adding apps and whatever I need without knowing Unix or opening one terminal/console. That is user friendly and a polished product. Linux, barring Lindows and some that attempt to do this, can't.

 

I know when I look at my PowerMac G3 (yeah old, but all I got) that I can sit down and install apps that it can support, with ease. Then when I don't need the apps, or the app wasn't what I thought, I uninstall it. No terminal, no Unix coding, just ease of use.

 

Linux stability? Hah! I have had Linux, from Mandrake 7.0 and up (I have tried Linux alot, so I know what I am talking about) be unstable and just hose the system. Then a grand reinstall was needed. I have had Linux just not boot, xwindows not work, linux partitions just up and disappear and when I was using the "OS's", I wasn't recoding or installing or tweaking any files. I just use the "OS" and then it died. I am not saying OS X doens't crash, it does. Windows crashes. It is just the way things are. But I am so sick of Linux advocates that bash anybody for not thinking Linux is God saying it is SO stable. PLEASE!

 

Again, I can look at my PowerMac and know it is stable. Not perfect, I know that (many Linux users need to realize Linux isn't uncrashable) but I know that I am running an OS that is reliable.

 

So what is this rant all about? Linux is fine if you want to tinker and constantly rebuild your "OS". OS X is a fully polished OS that allows user to USE their computer. This is the truth and no Linux advocate (those that put other non Linux users down and act better than others) can deny this. They just like to "use their OS" that way and think others should to.

 

I know I will be picked apart and/or flamed, I don't care. I know that what Linux can and can't do. I many computer science friends that know about Linux. It is neat and I give credit that those that created it, but it is not OS X.

[bofors]

@sandmanfvgra - Thanks for your post, I have never used Linux and still kind of wonder what I am missing. But you added a lot of details to my vague impression of Linux.

[sandmanfvrga]

I will probably get torn apart by the Linux hardcore crowd. Eh, don't care. Linux is neat, it is a real achievement for those that created it. I don't bash the users or the creators (well I do bash the fanboys, they just unsult everybody) just I bash the "OS" itself. It has the potential to be better than any OS. Already Linux can, with cedega, play alot of Windows games. If the Linux community can STANDARDIZE the OS and make it user friendly, then I would be on Linux most likely. But everbody thinks it can't stay open source and be standardized. It can, but I don't see that happening.

[bofors]

If the Linux community can STANDARDIZE the OS and make it user friendly...

 

It seems clear that it is not possible for the Linux community to standardize to the extent needed to bring it to level of Windows or OS X. Likewise, Linux users clearly do prioritize user-friendlyness because if they did they would not be using Linux, so is effectively impossible for the Linux community to significantly improve user-friendlyness as well.

 

In short, I think it would a strong, dedicated force outside the Linux community to produce some "distribution", perhaps with some closed source, that is capable of measuring up to Windows and OS X in the area of desktop usability. Really, my ultimate question about Linux is, is that a likely scernio? Is somebody like Novell, Sun or Linspire likely to get there some day?

[node64]

bofors: i agree, and i think that some day this might happen. i think this becuase od osx being based on BSD, although BSD and linux are differant it shows what an established company with a definate idea of what they are aiming for can do with an open source operating system.

 

What we really need to remember is that deep down linux is a server based operating system and in this enviroment it is often important for the "tinkering".

[lord_muad_dib]

i voted for linux just because it's better for any purpose

 

with xgl you get even better eye candies than macos X and a looot of speed

linux just lacks some desktop applications and games off course

but things wil change i'm sure

[amdprophet]

I voted Linux for numerous reasons, but I'm not going to list them all. Linux has proven to be one of the best operating systems for servers. It's incredibly reliable, free (most of the time), and fast. As many others agree, Linux is very hard to get used to on a desktop system. It's complicated, and it will seem so much different than the OS you are used to. However, day by day it is becoming more and more easy to use, and new cool features are being made. Like lord_muad_dib said, XGL gives some very nice eye candy to which ever window system you are using in Linux. It's still buggy, but it is comparable with OS X's expose. Linux can be ran on almost anything these days, from cell phones to the mars rover. It can be entirely optimized for the system it is running on, so you know yo u are getting the most performance out of your machine. For the average home user, OS X would definitely be the best OS to use. For geeks who love tinkering with their operating system, Linux is great!

 

It seems clear that it is not possible for the Linux community to standardize to the extent needed to bring it to level of Windows or OS X. Likewise, Linux users clearly do prioritize user-friendlyness because if they did they would not be using Linux, so is effectively impossible for the Linux community to significantly improve user-friendlyness as well.

 

In short, I think it would a strong, dedicated force outside the Linux community to produce some "distribution", perhaps with some closed source, that is capable of measuring up to Windows and OS X in the area of desktop usability. Really, my ultimate question about Linux is, is that a likely scernio? Is somebody like Novell, Sun or Linspire likely to get there some day?

 

Novell and Ubuntu are getting pretty close. I know a lot of people that don't know much about computers using them. It still isn't as easy to install, uninstall, and modify programs like it is in XP and OS X unfortunately. I do believe that one day, Linux will be just as user friendly as Windows and Mac OS.

[oddbod]

Define better, IMHO as long as it runs the applications that you want to use then the OS itself is irrelevant.

 

As most posters have already pointed out it all comes down to the requirements and experience level of the individual user i.e. Linux runs on almost any hardware platform but that doesn't help a Photoshop user, OS X has a great desktop environment but that doesn't help it play Grand Theft Auto, Windows has wide application support but that doesn't help someone developing RTOS applications.

 

The user experience is similar under all OSes these days, it's the administration burden that is often the deciding factor a point that Apple seems to understand better than most.

[amdprophet]

I didn't really make my statement that clear. I can't even really think of how to put it in words right now. Linux is the most helpful operating system, and that is why I believe it is the best. It's running on something like 85% of the servers in the world, and the fact that it can run on almost anything means that people with just a cheap sega dreamcast can have their own personal computer. It's especially convenient for those without loads of money for a good PC and/or an operating system.

[gingerbread_man]

I see a lot of emotional responses here.

Let's just clear a few things up though...

 

Some people have been attacking Mac OS X's kernel, some just on being ignorant and others citing pretty benchmark tests by a well known site.

 

First off, Mac OS X's kernel (XNU) is NOT a microkernel. People get all worked up when they hear that OS X is based on Mach. The critical point here is that OS X used some idea's from the Mach 3.0 microkernel model to improve upon the pre-existing fat kernel.

 

now for the benchmarks. They were FLAWED. Here are the facts.

-GCC was never a good compiler for the PPC platform till version 4, incidentally this is the compiler used to build Tiger.

-MySQL was originally built for Linux.

Under the guise of being 'fair' to both systems, they compiled mysql from source with gcc 3.3 on both systems. The benchmarks then basically measured mySQL performance on both Tiger server and Linux 2.6. How in the world can that be fair? First they picked GCC 3.3, a compiler that is not fully optimized for the ppc to compile MySQL. Then to top that off, they took the mySQL source. for this last point, you need to appreciate that deep down in kernel space, OS X and Linux are completely different beasts with different threading models. MySQL is optimized for Linux. If they really wanted to be fair, they would have added the OS X specific additions to their compile OR used the already provided binaries for OS X.

No wonder OS X seemed to suck, and if you really didn't know any of the above, you'd think the whole thing was perfectly fair.

 

In my opinion OS X is unbeatable for desktops and Linux is much better on Servers. I think OS X has a lot more going for it though. For me the critical thing is that its written to a standard. Linux developers reserve the right to change the API if and when they choose. Linux people have been bickering for years to enforce standards that has still not come to pass. It's the very reason why whenever you need to download linux software, you need to look for your distro and most probably the specific version of it. If not, you compile from source. Compare that to downloading software for OS X or Windows... it's just one download file.

[Slaytanic]

i voted for linux just because it's better for any purpose

 

with xgl you get even better eye candies than macos X and a looot of speed

linux just lacks some desktop applications and games off course

but things wil change i'm sure

[/quote

I perfectly agree with you.. I have installed Gentoo on my two laptops and on my desktop pc and everything worked perfectly.. on the newest laptop I've also installed XGL, which is simply wonderful (considering also that it is still alpha software).. look at http://gentoo-wiki.com/XGL to see what we are talking about..

 

Then, some days ago I've heard a friend about the possibility to install OSX on an x86 machine and I thought I HAD to try it I don't know if it is better, I will give it a chance... but I think that my love for GNU/Linux systems and in particular for Gentoo will always make me think they are the best Operating Systems.. Gentoo portage system is one of the best software management tools (like apt) I've ever seen and used.. Gentoo can be completely customized, compiled from scratch, and a lot of other things

[Colonel]

KDE in OS X. You get the best of both worlds.

[amdprophet]

KDE in OS X. You get the best of both worlds.

I guess you could do that, but the reason I would use OS X is because of the simplicity of the way everything works. Nice new signature colonels1020, I loved that movie.