Linux vs. OS X

[bwhsh8r]

PC-BSD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

max

[BRP]

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.

This isn't entirely true; if you set someone who knows how to use Windows or OSX in front of a working KDE or GNOME session, they will stumble around a little bit maybe, but they will figure out how to get into what they need to do, mostly.

 

The problem is setup. Installing in Windows? Stick in a CD, run an EXE, click "I agree" on porn adware install, whatever, you just follow directions. Installing on a Mac? Get a .dmg in Safari, drag something to the /Applications folder, easier done than said. Installing in Linux?

 

Run xterm and su. Okay, ubuntu/debian users do this: apt-get install blah. Gentoo users need to emerge blah and run etc-update, and screw you evil RPM bastards use SUSE and YaST at least. Oh, and you BSD guys? Yeah, you're kind of SOL.

 

Well, let's just say that's not quite as intuitive as it could be.

[clockworks]

I would have to say hands down Linux. Red Hat Enterprise for my web servers and Ubuntu for my workstation. It's just unfortunate that ATI drivers trully suck on Linux.

My sentiments exactly.

 

I love Linux. I love the apps. amaroK + K3b + digiKam + Kmail + Kontact + Kaffeine + Kopete + Adept = a killer integrated, beautiful desktop. Heh, I guess I don't love Linux so much as I do KDE...

 

Also, now it's so easy to install software in Linux, given a distro that setups a proper yum or apt configuration out of the box. I'm mean seriously...you have a GUI where you type in a search bar the name or description of the app you want, double click, and bam, it's installed. Ridiculously easy.

 

And it's all free. Can't beat that.

[clockworks]

Here's a good case study. I installed Linux (Fedora Core 2 or 3, can't remember) on my gf's computer. For the first few months, I'd get calls every now and then...

 

"I want to open Word documents."

"Run yumex, search for openoffice, install it."

 

"I want to download mp3s off the internet."

"Run yumex, search for apollon, install it."

 

"This page doesn't work in Konqueror."

"Run yumex, search for firefox, install it."

 

etc, etc.

 

So eventually everything got installed and configured. ..and it's been over a YEAR since I've had to administer anything for her. Every now and then I'll ask "How's the computer?" The answer is always the same, "I LOVE it. Everything works, it never messes up, I never have viruses, adware or spyware."

 

Every once in a while she'll have to use a Windows machine for school or something and she'll actually complain about it (no tabbed browsing in IE, no popup blocking in IE, she actually has to PAY to use software, etc).

 

She's the perfect end user case. She doesn't give a DAMN about what operating system she uses, what anyone else uses, etc. A computer is just a tool to get stuff done, and she's grown to love Linux because, once it's setup, it does everything she needs, consistently without maintence for a year, and it's free.

 

The only downside, the initial setup, is being addressed with more desktop oriented distros these days like (K)Ubuntu. Out of the box, Ubuntu's apt repositories are set for most applications that everyday users need.

 

"But when something goes wrong in Linux, the user needs someone with a degree in computer science to fix the problem."

Please, as if a normal user would know what to do in Windows, or OSX, if anything went wrong.

 

"But all they know is Windows."

So they only have the capacity to learn one operating system in their lifetime? Sit them down in front of Gnome or KDE and they'll pick it just as quickly as they did Windows. After a while, it will be the opposite...they'll say, "This stupid Windows feature doesn't work like KDE!"

[Eric C]

Here are the things that I see:

 

Linux

Pros:

1. Highly customizable

2. Many options

3. Almost fully open source

4. Secure

5. Mostly free

6. Good online support

7. Stable

 

Cons:

1. Distro options can be duanting

2. Cluttered with too many customizable options

3. Horrible UI (sorry, I know this is debatable, but KDE and Gnome just require too many sacrifices. I have high hopes for KDE 4 though)

4. Tough learning curve

5. Little attention to detail

6. Not noob friendly (for the most part)

7. Important things like Flash, Java, MS Fonts, and even mp3 codecs don't come standard (most of the time)

8. Self-compiling installation of apps

9. Too many versions for good software distribution

10. Lack of driver support

 

OS X

Pros:

1. Simple to use, very intuitive

2. Small learning curve

3. BSD foundation

4. Fast support and bug fixes

5. Good community

6. About to take over the OS world :pirate2:

7. Consistant UI

 

Cons:

1. Not free

2. Kernel is a mix-and-match, and not very well optimized

3. Not the fastest OS

4. PPC and x86 versions will make it difficult in the short term for simple software/hardware support

5. Partially open source, but not quite

6. Too much proprietary-ness (AAC, etc)

 

What say you?

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Only I'd like to add is that once the steep Linux learning curve peaks it is wonderful. It took me a little over a month, and about 5 seperate isntalls of Ubuntu Dapper to get things right, but once I did it's been all down hill.

 

OS X is very nice, but I feel it is limiting and at times even frustrating for a more advanced user.

[bwhsh8r]

This isn't entirely true; if you set someone who knows how to use Windows or OSX in front of a working KDE or GNOME session, they will stumble around a little bit maybe, but they will figure out how to get into what they need to do, mostly.

 

The problem is setup. Installing in Windows? Stick in a CD, run an EXE, click "I agree" on porn adware install, whatever, you just follow directions. Installing on a Mac? Get a .dmg in Safari, drag something to the /Applications folder, easier done than said. Installing in Linux?

 

Run xterm and su. Okay, ubuntu/debian users do this: apt-get install blah. Gentoo users need to emerge blah and run etc-update, and screw you evil RPM bastards use SUSE and YaST at least. Oh, and you BSD guys? Yeah, you're kind of SOL.

 

Well, let's just say that's not quite as intuitive as it could be.

 

 

Naw, pc-bsd has like a .exe except its a .pbi, its not like the traditional bsd... its the same.... :pirate2: pwned

 

oh and sandmanfvrga, i agree with you, except for the fact that my mom cant even turn on a pc.... butyea, i think that they both have theyre ups, and downs, and have diferent target users that forms them diferently

[sandmanfvrga]

This isn't entirely true; if you set someone who knows how to use Windows or OSX in front of a working KDE or GNOME session, they will stumble around a little bit maybe, but they will figure out how to get into what they need to do, mostly.

 

The problem is setup. Installing in Windows? Stick in a CD, run an EXE, click "I agree" on porn adware install, whatever, you just follow directions. Installing on a Mac? Get a .dmg in Safari, drag something to the /Applications folder, easier done than said. Installing in Linux?

 

Run xterm and su. Okay, ubuntu/debian users do this: apt-get install blah. Gentoo users need to emerge blah and run etc-update, and screw you evil RPM bastards use SUSE and YaST at least. Oh, and you BSD guys? Yeah, you're kind of SOL.

 

Well, let's just say that's not quite as intuitive as it could be.

 

That is it. I didn't read all the replies (haven't bee in this thread for a while) but only a FEW linux distros have the ability to install stuff easily. Most are a pain in the ass. I haven't tried the newest Ubuntu, but the one a year ago you had to edit the f***ing text files to get the RIGHT sites to get your updates and programs. Uh, what? Stupid.

 

Again, linux is great and I do like the linux users in that they are also sticking it to MS, but linux doesn't have the ease of use OSX does and thus why it is not going to catch on with normal users. Argue all you want, that is the cold hard facts.

[INFNITE]

for the ordinary day to day user, OS X is as good as it gets. What's better than drag and drop application installation? Besides, due to the tight integration of Apple hardware and software, if you have ANY sort of problem with your computer, just bring your Mac to an Apple Store and they'll fix it for you.

[Suzuka]

I think OS X is better, but its expencive if you wanna run it good (Buy an imac, mac pro etc)

 

linux is good because most distros are free

[sandmanfvrga]

Normal users can get a Mac Mini (with 1 gig ram) and never have a problem. I do agree most Macs are high, thus why I am hackintosh, but I will get me a Mac Pro when I save up since those aren't over priced and uber powerful.

 

INFNITE is right. Though OSX is also for those that want a great OS and not have to "hack" or "tinker" with it.

[bwhsh8r]

That is it. I didn't read all the replies (haven't bee in this thread for a while) but only a FEW linux distros have the ability to install stuff easily. Most are a pain in the ass. I haven't tried the newest Ubuntu, but the one a year ago you had to edit the f***ing text files to get the RIGHT sites to get your updates and programs. Uh, what? Stupid.

 

Again, linux is great and I do like the linux users in that they are also sticking it to MS, but linux doesn't have the ease of use OSX does and thus why it is not going to catch on with normal users. Argue all you want, that is the cold hard facts.

 

 

 

i agree with you, but i use bsd and im not sticking it to microsoft.... i use both, because most of my favorite programs are windows only! also i agree with you that linux/bsd does not have the n00b friendlyness or ease of use..... your really have to have alot of time to dedicate to learn it and that you really need to be in school or something because the normal person does not have the time to dedicate to learning a new os if they allready know windows or osx.

 

max

[sandmanfvrga]

Great reply. Most Linux guru's just throw down on non Linux users. Linux has it's strengths, but for the masses OSX wins.

[bwhsh8r]

Great reply. Most Linux guru's just throw down on non Linux users. Linux has it's strengths, but for the masses OSX wins.

 

 

I agree totially, and alot of linux users are more full of themselves then most.... i think that most oss have theyre stregnths and weaknesses and that everyone has theyre own os that they should stick with, im a mostly bsd/windows user, adn i think for alot of people, the majority of people, bsd/linux are bad for the average person, whial windows/osx are perfect, or better than the others for the average person.

 

 

 

max

[clockworks]

Yes, but you also have to be open to change. Just because Linux is difficult to use now doesn't mean it always will be. It has made gigantic leaps and bounds in terms of ease of use in the last few years and it will only continue.

 

I'm a die hard Linux fan, but even so, I'm still not closed to the idea that Windows might one day shape up...

 

On a side note, we just got a Core Duo Mac Mini to play with at work. Everyone here who has used it for 5 mins is extremely disappointed. The interface is so sluggish it has been deemed unusable. We're going to get it an extra gig of RAM in hopes to alleviate the problem. Also, Paralells is god awful compare to VMware...

 

IMO, if it takes min of a gig of RAM to run Tiger well, then Apple shouldn't ship their computers with anything less.

[bwhsh8r]

Yes, but you also have to be open to change. Just because Linux is difficult to use now doesn't mean it always will be. It has made gigantic leaps and bounds in terms of ease of use in the last few years and it will only continue.

 

I'm a die hard Linux fan, but even so, I'm still not closed to the idea that Windows might one day shape up...

 

On a side note, we just got a Core Duo Mac Mini to play with at work. Everyone here who has used it for 5 mins is extremely disappointed. The interface is so sluggish it has been deemed unusable. We're going to get it an extra gig of RAM in hopes to alleviate the problem. Also, Paralells is god awful compare to VMware...

 

IMO, if it takes min of a gig of RAM to run Tiger well, then Apple shouldn't ship their computers with anything less.

 

 

Ill agree with you on the fact about linux, and i think that it is coming along quite nicely and has made leaps and bounds since the last fiew years, but i still prefer my bsd/windowze setup because i played around with linux first stumbled on bsd, and ive loved it since, and much prefer it over linux, although i still provide support in alot of forums for linux, idk bout the gig of ram thing, never owned a mac....

 

 

max

[Eric C]

Yes, but you also have to be open to change. Just because Linux is difficult to use now doesn't mean it always will be. It has made gigantic leaps and bounds in terms of ease of use in the last few years and it will only continue.

 

I'm a die hard Linux fan, but even so, I'm still not closed to the idea that Windows might one day shape up...

 

On a side note, we just got a Core Duo Mac Mini to play with at work. Everyone here who has used it for 5 mins is extremely disappointed. The interface is so sluggish it has been deemed unusable. We're going to get it an extra gig of RAM in hopes to alleviate the problem. Also, Paralells is god awful compare to VMware...

 

IMO, if it takes min of a gig of RAM to run Tiger well, then Apple shouldn't ship their computers with anything less.

 

Excellent point.

 

Compare linux 3 yesars ago to linux today. Imagine 3 years from now! What if then, and even now, you could buy a computer with Linux pre-installed and all hardware configured? Maybe there could even be classes that show you how to install programs. (Not using the command line, but something like Synaptic) Then I don't think it would be that difficult for the average Joe.

 

This is a major difference in the main 3 OSs. Linux does not (I know it does, but it's not at all common) come preinstalled on computers. Look at all the problems we're having installing OS X on our own...

[bwhsh8r]

Excellent point.

 

Compare linux 3 yesars ago to linux today. Imagine 3 years from now! What if then, and even now, you could buy a computer with Linux pre-installed and all hardware configured? Maybe there could even be classes that show you how to install programs. (Not using the command line, but something like Synaptic) Then I don't think it would be that difficult for the average Joe.

 

This is a major difference in the main 3 OSs. Linux does not (I know it does, but it's at all common) come preinstalled on computers. Look at all the problems we're having installing OS X on our own...

 

 

 

hp offers linux preinstalled on some laptops i think.... and taht is true, its advancing alot faster than windows or osx, but it still has to catch up a bit....

 

max

[sandmanfvrga]

Yes, but you also have to be open to change. Just because Linux is difficult to use now doesn't mean it always will be. It has made gigantic leaps and bounds in terms of ease of use in the last few years and it will only continue.

 

I'm a die hard Linux fan, but even so, I'm still not closed to the idea that Windows might one day shape up...

 

On a side note, we just got a Core Duo Mac Mini to play with at work. Everyone here who has used it for 5 mins is extremely disappointed. The interface is so sluggish it has been deemed unusable. We're going to get it an extra gig of RAM in hopes to alleviate the problem. Also, Paralells is god awful compare to VMware...

 

IMO, if it takes min of a gig of RAM to run Tiger well, then Apple shouldn't ship their computers with anything less.

 

No offense, but I have used Linux on and off for a while. The only thing that has got better is X windows and some driver support. Most Linux still runs like Mandrake 7.0: ass. Some, like Suse, Ubuntu, and PCLinux are really great but for a common user like my mom, how the hell are they going to know which to get?

 

Eric C: Yes there have bee advances but until Linux and the Linux Community get standards in place, Linux will be scattered for the common user to pick up.

[A Nonny Moose]

I think a lot of Linux users would be happy with "sandbox *nix" that OS X offers. It also offers the one thing the previous poster said Linux doesn't have yet: conformity. You get OS X and you have one distro of it (as opposed to the myriad of Linux offerings). It's that uniformity that might even draw a lot of *nix developers over ot OS X and keep them there.

 

That being said, Linux has this really good developer community that OS X only wishes it would have. I mean REALLY good. I am amazed at what the Linux community offers in terms of its free software. They create suitable replacements (suitable, not 100%) for nearly every kind of software imaginable.

 

In terms of which OS I use more, I use OS X more, but that is because of the applications I use (Sibelius is not on Linux and never will be). This is about a 75-25 split in terms of time used. If I weren't using that one piece of software, there would be a good chance I'd be on Linux all the time.

[MikeBee]

i agree with most of the above.

 

for me i use windows because i have to (work). i use mac os at home because it has the best interface and runs suprisingly well on my 2 year old dell laptop! i used to use ubuntu at home before osx86 came along (thank you chaps) and to be honest although it's not as nice as mac os, it does run well.

 

for those of you fed up with tough installs in linux, try ubuntu dapper drake. it has the easiest install method of the lot. you go to system and click 'install software' select it from the vast list of packages and click install. piece of {censored}.

 

for me though, mac os has by far the better user interface, so it wins hands down over linux and windows. the osx86 project has let me run it on my meagre budget hardware and now i have decided to save up for a proper mac as my next system, so i'm sold hook line and sinker!

[A Nonny Moose]

Dapper Drake doesn't seem to like the PPC version. So we're all stuck in earlier versions of Ubuntu

[amdprophet]

SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop costs something like $50, but it's worth it. The installation was easier than a windows installation (my brother can even do it). Everything works right out of the box. Installing applications is very simple, just open up YaST2 and search for what you want to install. If you want XGL, simply go into the control panel, click on desktop effects, click a button to install 3D accelerated drivers, then click enable desktop effects. It's so simple to use, my brother uses it now instead of windows. I do agree that other distributions are a pain in the ass for people not willing to put some effort into getting things to work. SLED is comparable with OS X, and it is the reason I'm finally windows free.

[johnniecarcinogen]

SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop costs something like $50, but it's worth it. The installation was easier than a windows installation (my brother can even do it). Everything works right out of the box. Installing applications is very simple, just open up YaST2 and search for what you want to install. If you want XGL, simply go into the control panel, click on desktop effects, click a button to install 3D accelerated drivers, then click enable desktop effects. It's so simple to use, my brother uses it now instead of windows. I do agree that other distributions are a pain in the ass for people not willing to put some effort into getting things to work. SLED is comparable with OS X, and it is the reason I'm finally windows free.

 

Its actually free to use, you only pay if you want to get support and recieve the automatic updates. However, you can use smart to handle any updates though for free if you wanted to.

 

I agree that SuSE is the way to go. Though I prefer openSuSE with the latest versions of apps, SLED is a great choice for businesses and beginers that want the most solid/usable linux experience avaliable.

[Devil]

IMO, if it takes min of a gig of RAM to run Tiger well, then Apple shouldn't ship their computers with anything less.

 

I don't know what your doing with your Mac but I have the most basic Mini available (core solo, 512mb ram) because I'm a college kid and didnt have the cash to upgrade but I run OS X fine. Sure it bogs down sometimes with 4 or 5 apps running (safari, itunes, acquisition, adium and transmission) and it usually lags for a second when I use expose for the first time in a while (while using itunes or something else, not with nothing running) but overall it runs very well. i do intend to put a gig in there and a coreduo (ive heard i could put a core2duo in it but im not sure) in a year or so, but I get by just fine with a half gig of ram.

 

On topic: Ubuntu is the only linux ive ever liked. i've tried several over the last 4 or 5 years and its the only one that is a decent desktop os. if it keeps up with the way its going now, then in a year or two it could possibly be a major contender with windows and osx as far as usability goes. With that in mind, OS X still wipes the floor with linux. Linux is way to dependant on the terminal (not that the terminal is a bad thing) for the average user and its a {censored} and a half to install stuff, especially if your not very comfortable with the terminal.

 

Ubuntu gets a B for effort. OS X gets an A for being the best desktop OS available. Windows gets an FU for sucking ass.

[DarkCarnival]

This topic is absolutely useless.. You're asking which of OSX and Linux is better.. in an OSX FORUM!!!!

 

d'uh, what did you expect the outcome would be ? Try asking the same question @ linuxquestions.com and I'll guarantee you that you'll get the same ratio although Linux would be in the lead..

 

It's like asking Windows users whether or not they'll prefer linux over windows on a windows-only forum, like asking die-hard christians (like bible-belt christians) if they're pro-abortion etc etc..