Linux vs. OS X

[u1m2]

The things that hold Linux back from being a real contender to windows and osx for desktop (btw, I am hooked on suse 10.1 so linux user here)

 

1- binary compatibility among and within distros : It is just killing me everytime I have to update a simple proggy, I have to update many dependencies that tag along and sometimes I end up with other apps that depend on specific versions of the upgraded packages not functioning and I have to update them as well. I just don't like the hassle as one can't always depend on syaptic, yum or yast to take care of everything. Searching for rpms is another adventure in itself which I can hardly say I enjoy the thrill. OSX and Windows do not really suffer from these at all.

 

2- All distros are proprietary in one way or the other, most things you have to learn all over again if you want to switch distros. There is one OS X out there and one Windows so when you come up with an error it is 10x easier to find a solution using google compared to finding a solution for lets say SuSE Linux 9.3 Professional Kernel x.xx. Fedora is so different from suse where the config files, binaries etc.. are placed and I always have a bit of a trouble using fedora after suse.

 

3- Since there are so many distros out there, it makes things impossible for linux users to have something like an "ultimate wiki" where one can find everything regarding installation instructions, package download links etc... OK this really does not apply to Windows or OS X as well but such a Wiki would be all great instead of becoming a forum junkie to solve a simple problem. United Linux FTW...

[BRP]

Well, Gentoo and Ubuntu wikis and forums are chock full of info and helpful users; they are also up to date very very often, don't have all that many versioning problems, and they are ALSO not RPM-based (and trust me, I've heard gripes about RPM-based distros for over half a decade now). I like Gentoo myself; it's source-based and therefore source-friendly. Debian/Ubuntu APT-based systems are also relatively source-friendly.

 

Of course, Linux binary distros tend to have their own problems. People who want to use Linux for now really ought to learn how to "Use the Source". It's nice that Windows and Mac OS can get programs that you just plop in and they work, but Linux isn't designed to work that way; it was always supposed to be managed by people who know how to work a computer. The inherent advantage also means it can spread to lots of different systems with all sorts of different configurations, from your iPod to your XBOX to your Zaurus to your Octane2 (with varying degrees of working-ness of course). With things that different, you can compile a source and hope it finishes building (it often does!), but you can't just plop in a binary and expect it to run if it was built for a different architecture. Windows and OS X can't do that too easily; sure, we have Rosetta, but it runs "okay", not "great" (and lets not get into the difficulties Windows would have switching architectures!), and switching the key component of your computer isn't something you'd want to do often (although admittedly that is how Apple survived the years... but they have also used pretty much forward-thinking policies to ensure that they could do that)

 

Even though the Linux world is pretty x86-centric, it takes a lot of oomph to be "ready for the desktop" for any one architecture. That's probably why the Linux offerings aren't as good to most people. But at least you are free to get the latest versions of stuff, usually without a lot of fanfare or publicity (if you didn't really follow the Linux news, you wouldn't have known that KDE3 totally kicks the pants off KDE2... but you'd probably have to have been avoiding media entirely if you didn't know that Windows 95 was significantly better than 3.1, for example). Change is also gradual for the most part. You would have a hard time telling the difference between Linux kernel 2.4 and kernel 2.6 if you didn't know the main differences between them (because most of them are under the hood). But Windows 2000 vs. XP? Big difference (yeah, sure). Panther vs. Tiger? Also big difference (not really, just a lot of cool and useful gimmicks that also help facilitate the Intel transition through things you don't see as an end user). The desktop OS's tend to be the "end-all solution" when they are released; Linux is always a work in progress that can get places, but it doesn't really have dramatic changes too often.

 

The good news is, there is a Linux "world", just like there are niches full of Apple fans. You can't really say that for Windows. You can look up your local Linux clique and probably get some good answers from knowledgeable computer users, or go to an Apple community and get the One True Solution to Your Problem. That's pretty much the "fifth column" for minority operating system users; Windows users can have trouble trying to solve a problem since Windows users are less likely to be geeks that know the answer. Isn't close-knit community better anyways? Well, I prefer that.

[u1m2]

IMHO Apple set an example with OS X. They proved unix based operating systems can be excellent for desktop use. This is mainly because Apple has a lot of resources at hand and also these resources were predominantly focused on developing a desktop oriented operating system more than anything else. I don't know what Novell or Redhat pland to do with their distributions but I sincerely do not think that desktop use will be their primary concern. At least it hasn't been the trend so far.

 

In a way they do the right thing because what makes them money are medium-large businesses and the demands of these businesses ultimately determine the way they put their resources to use. I believe Linux is 70% there, driver support is increasing day by day, you get many popular apps such as nero, skype, real player, acrobat reader etc... for linux which helps me when I install Suse to a 13 year old neighbor kids computer and he does not have to worry about service packs, anti-virus software therefore trolls on nicely doing his biz. I wish one day there will be an ultimate linux distro out there comparable to windows in terms of ease of use and availability of precompiled binaries. I still insist that having a lot of distros (and versions) do not help people to find solutions to their problems, it only complicates the matter more and makes linux more difficult to master. Just an example, I dled some source a couple weeks ago and since Suse has an habit of placing different binaries on different folders, I spent a good 30 minutes checking the log file for errors and editing the .config file so it knows where everything it looks for is as it gave me errors almost on each step of configure process. I don't mind this but 90% of the people I know would.

 

edit : woot, I am now a 90's eMac... and they told me I wouldn't mount to anything ever

[amdprophet]

SuSE is aimed towards desktop use now. SuSE 10.1 is really nice and I've been thinking about using it instead of Ubuntu. Novell has been bringing in people who haven't even used a computer, to people who have moderate experience with windows and/or OS X. They're taking the input from those people after they've used SuSE as a desktop operating system, and then changing their distrobution to suit their needs.

[paulmer2003]

Linux. Of course it depends on what your looking for and such, but for me, Linux rules! I couldent ask for my linux to look better than it is now:

http://www.paulmer2003.com/new.xfce4.png

 

A major reason for me considering linux to be supperior is just the fact its totally open. I can recompile every piece of software on my pc. I know C, and thus, if I dont like the way something works I CAN CHANGE IT!

 

1- binary compatibility among and within distros : It is just killing me everytime I have to update a simple proggy, I have to update many dependencies that tag along and sometimes I end up with other apps that depend on specific versions of the upgraded packages not functioning and I have to update them as well. I just don't like the hassle as one can't always depend on syaptic, yum or yast to take care of everything. Searching for rpms is another adventure in itself which I can hardly say I enjoy the thrill. OSX and Windows do not really suffer from these at all.

Gentoo, ftw. So what if it takes a while to compile things, if you want something just emerge it.

 

2- All distros are proprietary in one way or the other, most things you have to learn all over again if you want to switch distros.

Again, gentoo, ftw. Whats proprietary in gentoo? NOTHING. No need for propriatary tools.

 

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.

First of all, what can your osx do that my linux cannot do? second of all, linux is great for desktop use, decent for server use. but whats really best for server use is OpenBSD. Its security is simply UNBEATABLE.

 

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.

f*** standardization, really. Who cares about user-friendlyness. Linux was never ment to become a major desktop player. It was coded as a hobby. It wasent ment for wide use. Sure I wouldent mind if more people used linux, but im sick of hearing people bash linux for user friendlyness - its like bashing openbsd because it isnt the best desktop solution (It does work damned well, and I would use it more for desktops, it just dosent have nvidia (or ati) drivers).

 

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....

Damned straight its hacked and chopped. But, the fact that is dosent cause any real harm. My linux (the KERNEL) has never crashed - well, I have had one kernel panic before. and it was due to a filesystem driver which is NOT maintained by the linux kernel developers.

[bwhsh8r]

Linux is good and it never breaksdown unless you really mess up. Osx looks prittyer.... and its simple... but linux is better.

 

 

max

[bwhsh8r]

I think that Linux could be better than osx if it was condensed into one instead of all the distros because its like having your whole team each design the same part themselves instead of all of them working togeather.... also it gets confusing because you have to test out sometimes alot of distros before you find one that suits you.

 

 

 

max

[Slaytanic]

I think that Linux could be better than osx if it was condensed into one instead of all the distros because its like having your whole team each design the same part themselves instead of all of them working togeather.... also it gets confusing because you have to test out sometimes alot of distros before you find one that suits you.

max

The point is that you CAN test different distros until you find the one that suits you, while if osx doesn't suits you you can put it away and stop

 

BTW, we are the CHAMPIONS of the WORLD!

[bwhsh8r]

Im a linux user too, but you have to admit that i have a point... i think its good that there are alot of flavors suited for everyone... but it hurts linux too because they share alot of stuff but the kernal is the onlything is the same necicarly. it helps and hurts linux at the same time what distro do you use?

 

<3 linux 4 life

 

max

 

 

oh, and ps i like the we are the champions thing

[Slaytanic]

Im a linux user too, but you have to admit that i have a point... i think its good that there are alot of flavors suited for everyone... but it hurts linux too because they share alot of stuff but the kernal is the onlything is the same necicarly. it helps and hurts linux at the same time what distro do you use?

Yes, the kernel is the same (indeed, Linux is only the kernel) but the different distros usually apply their own patches.. I understand that for a newbie it can be difficult to understand how different distros work and when they get used with one it is still difficult to try another one.. but I would not like to see an "unification" all all the distros..

BTW, the first years of my linux experience I used Redhat (on my poor 486) and then Fedora.. then I moved to Gentoo Linux, and now I have it on my two laptops and my desktop PC.. Yesterday I installed on another laptop Debian 3.1, another distro that I like very much.. but Gentoo is what I like most ;-)

[rick taylor]

Anybody tried linux on a PPC machine? Everything seemed to work without any fiddling. I have almost no experience when it comes to linux, but installing Ubuntu my powermac was easy and I was able to (briefly) use it without any long commands.

 

In contrast, to get my toshiba laptop working I had to find & install drivers for my display card, wifi, ethernet and god knows what else, if it was a simple case of running an install program I may have continued.

 

I love the idea of linux, the price esspecially, its just too much work to get set up.

[sandmanfvrga]

Linux is good and it never breaksdown unless you really mess up. Osx looks prittyer.... and its simple... but linux is better.

max

 

LOL!!!

 

No offense dude, but that is rediculous. I mean I have tried alot of distros. Yes Linux is modular, open source, and has the freedom to do alot but that freedom is a double edged sword. I have ran Distros (Mandrake, Mandriva, Vector Linux, Ubuntu, Suse, etc) that changing a KDE setting or whatnot crashed the system and a reinstall was the only thing that fixed it. NO, I didn't do anything terminal, just changed settings. Plus, getting drivers to work: HAH! If you don't get a distro that has a repos and have other people package the stuff for you to click and download, you are in for compiling yourself. I know, I had to take some distros and compile Nvidia drivers but for other distros it was easy.

 

Not to bash you or Linux users but Linux will never be as good as OSX until there is standardization (said that earlier in this thread). If you are fine with tinkering with your OS and having to do things like compile your own stuff, then Linux is fine but alot of people don't. Again, no offense but OSX is streamlined, unified, standardized and Linux is to scatter brained. BUT I do give a hats off to you Linux users. Even though I don't agree with you, us OSX users and the Linux users are sticking it to Microsoft.

[bliss]

linux for servers etc.

 

os x as a desktop operating system.

 

thats the way it should be

 

and windows... well for my grandma to lern how to use a mouse ;-)

 

Im a linux user too, but you have to admit that i have a point... i think its good that there are alot of flavors suited for everyone... but it hurts linux too because they share alot of stuff but the kernal is the onlything is the same necicarly. it helps and hurts linux at the same time what distro do you use?

 

<3 linux 4 life

 

max

oh, and ps i like the we are the champions thing

 

well i 100% agree.

 

linux could be better if the whole thing would be better structured. i mean better for people like me, who just want a simple to intsall os with programs like photoshop etc and not to compile a program before installing.

 

the only os that comes closest to my imaginations of a free and legal OS is PCBSD - and well its not linux powered, but the "feel" is closer to osx/windows

 

 

 

well also i do not hate linux, i love it too, i also loved BeOS what has really could be the greatest OS on the planet...

[xandiztxu]

Why:

 

The stability of LINUX (Never had a single crash if it)

 

And the power of OS X (I think development tools, OS X wins)

 

Windows (Ehrr... nevermind)

[Slaytanic]

I have ran Distros (Mandrake, Mandriva, Vector Linux, Ubuntu, Suse, etc) that changing a KDE setting or whatnot crashed the system and a reinstall was the only thing that fixed it. NO, I didn't do anything terminal, just changed settings. Plus, getting drivers to work: HAH!

I'd like very much to know which settings made you brake your KDE installation... Perhaps asking to someone with a LITTLE bit more knowledge than you would have solved the problem without reinstalling everything or KDE..

 

I know, I had to take some distros and compile Nvidia drivers but for other distros it was easy.

NVidia drivers are binaries, you did not compile them surely...

 

Not to bash you or Linux users but Linux will never be as good as OSX until there is standardization (said that earlier in this thread). If you are fine with tinkering with your OS and having to do things like compile your own stuff, then Linux is fine but alot of people don't.

You said OSX is better than Linux, but you should say that it is more user friendly, from what you say later..

 

BTW, I installed OSX on my x86 and tried it a little bit... it is beautiful to see (I prefer my XGL+Compiz desktop, it has more beautiful effects ;-) ) but I didn't like the way it works..

[sandmanfvrga]

Oh great a smartass Linux user trying to show me up on the net. Wow! Look slick, I had Ubuntu and Suse crash on my for changing resolutions and other settings in KDE; and YES the problems were known and had to go to the forums there to get a fix and some didn't have a fix. So stop trying to make me look stupid since I didn't talk to somebody "smarter" or have "more knowledge" than me. The problems were distro problems, but oh NO Linux is SO stable.

 

If you download the nvidia drivers from Nvidia site, boot up without starting X, then you run it at the command prompt with the kernel headers installed (won't COMPILE without them), then it COMPILES the drivers. Yes smartass I did.

 

Third point is your opinion, whatever. Get tired of people on the net TRYING to make others look stupid. Typical know it all. Glad you and Linux are happy, but I know what happened and I did nothing wrong but follow instructions on distro sites. So lay off the know it all attitude. Go ahead and pick this apart to, but I don't like messing with smartass know it alls on the net, nobody wins.

[Slaytanic]

Oh great a smartass Linux user trying to show me up on the net. Wow! Look slick, I had Ubuntu and Suse crash on my for changing resolutions and other settings in KDE; and YES the problems were known and had to go to the forums there to get a fix and some didn't have a fix. So stop trying to make me look stupid since I didn't talk to somebody "smarter" or have "more knowledge" than me. The problems were distro problems, but oh NO Linux is SO stable.

 

If you download the nvidia drivers from Nvidia site, boot up without starting X, then you run it at the command prompt with the kernel headers installed (won't COMPILE without them), then it COMPILES the drivers. Yes smartass I did.

Mmmm.. you're a little bit right... you must compile something.. I knew they were closed source software so I immediately tought "You don't have any sources so you don't compile them.. this is the truth:

 

The nvidia driver is proprietary software, so nvidia only releases a binary. This normally wouldn't work, since drivers must be compiled to fit your kernel, but they added a layer (the kernel interface) which is compiled to fit your kernel, and ALREADY fits their driver binary.

 

So, both of us made a mistake: you must compile something, but NOT the driver.. excuse me for my mistake.. but this is not about the topic

 

Third point is your opinion, whatever. Get tired of people on the net TRYING to make others look stupid. Typical know it all. Glad you and Linux are happy, but I know what happened and I did nothing wrong but follow instructions on distro sites. So lay off the know it all attitude. Go ahead and pick this apart to, but I don't like messing with smartass know it alls on the net, nobody wins.

 

Again, excuse me if it seemed that I wanted to make you look stupid.. I simply found wrong what you said, and posted my answer.. but as you say, it is simply my opinion against yours.. no one wins.. or better, everyone thinks to have won ;-)

[biped]

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.

 

But of course, OSX has a much nicer UI. (except the Finder application which sucks compared to Konqueror)

I always hated computers which aren't custom PCs (that include Apple).

OSX 10.4.3 works very well on my laptop, but I still prefer running Linux as my main OS.

Maybe I would use OSX more if it could replace Windows completly in the future (and Linux don't) and of course if I can get future versions of OSX to run on my computer.

 

 

freebsd has linux binary emulation. considering very little software for either platform is distributed specifically in binary only ( usually always source code option ) this isn't too much of an issue for either platform. Never needed to run BSD binaries on linux either, so not gonna comment on that. how significant this is to base your opinion on ? probably completely insignificant unless you have some commercial software you don't want to run on its intended platform.

 

I am not sure where you get the idea that linux is faster. AFAIK FreeBSD has proven itself performance wise against any linux, in many situations, you may have some specific benchmark to prove otherwise, please provide a link. In fact FreeBSD's network stack ( probably a clone of OpenBSD's ) can handle more bandwidth than a handeful of linux boxes ( toss in a couple cisco routers and its still not close )

 

even lately there is a movement for desktops usage with freebsd... its peppy

 

but this is turning into a slashdot thread...

 

 

 

as for the GUI thingy, gnome/kde vs OSX, if you take away the only PRO OSX arguement ( Application availability ), and toss away purely subjective issues ( eye candy, visual appeal ). and get down to the real criteria that make a GUI great, you still hit a fork.

 

As pointed out by a person who has years of university study in cognitive sciences. There is a such a thing as cognitive style. Certain individuals who are frightened by flashing clocks on their VCRs/DVDs, a technical discussion with polysyllabic jargon, or even user manuals, are more likely to prefer OSX.

 

ok this is slanderous, my apologies, but in the end the GUI score still comes down to an issue of cognitive style, which is subjective, so pretty much irrevelent when trying to judge two GUI's. technical details aside. Gnome/KDE works just as reliably for people who know how to use, as OSX does for people who know how to use it.

 

personally i like gnome, it stays out of your face (imho like a well behaved GUI should) has some nice functionality to it. doesn't suffer in dual monitor configurations from stupidities like a unified single menu pull down or lack of a maximize button. but then again thats just what my cognitive style prefers.

[bluedragon1971]

By URL, I ment like /etc/ and such. Locations on filesystem.

 

But you can do that. While in Finder, type shift-command-g, that will give you the Go to Folder prompt. Type the path you want to go to in that box and hit enter, or click the Go button. Just because you don't type it into an address bar doesn't mean the feature isn't there. It's just implemented differently.

[sandmanfvrga]

Mmmm.. you're a little bit right... you must compile something.. I knew they were closed source software so I immediately tought "You don't have any sources so you don't compile them.. this is the truth:

So, both of us made a mistake: you must compile something, but NOT the driver.. excuse me for my mistake.. but this is not about the topic

Again, excuse me if it seemed that I wanted to make you look stupid.. I simply found wrong what you said, and posted my answer.. but as you say, it is simply my opinion against yours.. no one wins.. or better, everyone thinks to have won ;-)

 

You flip flop man. One time you say I need to get with somebody esle that knows more now you say we are both right. Ok, thats fine. I just don't understand why some Linux users think every person that has tried Linux and didn't get it to work was at fault and not the OS. I have talked to alot Linux users that get all up in arms about it. Even though we are all "right" and we like different stuff, one fact has been proven: OSX is more user friendly than Linux. Again, my opinion.

[Then there were none.]

gnu linux is good for the compuetr litirate but far too complicated for the average user, there needs to be big changes before it can become a widely adopted os

[sandmanfvrga]

Thank you matthunter3, somebody else that agrees. Linux is great in its own right, but my mom couldn't use Linux and she could use Windows and OSX. User friendly for non geeks is where the main money is today. That is why Windows is on about every computer you can buy in a store, ease of use for the common person. Linux doesn't have this.

[Slaytanic]

I agree on the fact that OSX is more user friendly than some distributions, no doubts about that ;-) Surely I won't suggest your mother to compile Gentoo Linux from stage1 as I did.. But when your mother will master OSX and the computer itself, I would suggest her to move to something more challenging, i.e. linux ;-)

[sandmanfvrga]

Oh God no!! Once she learns something, that is it. that is how most computer users are and that is fine. I don't blame them.

[Dapper Dan]

i really dont think you can compare linux to osx, OSX is an operating system designed for a small set of hardware components with R&D $$$$$$$, while linux is designed for a broad spectrum of hardware with little to no funding.