OS X vs Linux?

skaertus said:

[snip]
Because Linux may be great, but it's not ready for the desktop. And, frankly, it will never be. It's good, stable, light and fast. As an OS, it may be the best in the world. But then you need the desktop environment, the software, and everything else to have a whole platform. And then Linux fails miserably, while OS X and Windows succeed.

Click to expand...

That's the biggest problem with most Linux disributions. It has lost its way by trying to be a replacement for Windows and OS X. They never should have tried to go down that road. Now distros are packed with all kinds of bloated software that may or may not be necessary, drivers that were poorly and hastily written to support as much hardware as possible because someone might complain if their special snowflake laptop isn't supported, free versions of proprietary software that offer 50% of the functionality, etc. In some cases, they just throw in proprietary software anyway.

I may ruffle some feathers with this, but trying to attract the Windows and OS X crowd means they have to hold the user's hand and do everything for them. All the software must be preconfigured to work immediately for every hardware combination possible and replace the user's favorite Windows/OS X tools perfectly, all without forcing the user to touch the command line. That's an impossible task without a dedicated development team working full time on the issue. Stuff ends up being thrown together from hundreds of different sources, inevitably doesn't work properly, and the user complains about it.

A better aproach would be to do what Arch, Gentoo, and some of the BSDs do. This is the OS and if you don't like it, use something else.

556fmjoe said:

That's the biggest problem with most Linux disributions. It has lost its way by trying to be a replacement for Windows and OS X. They never should have tried to go down that road. Now distros are packed with all kinds of bloated software that may or may not be necessary, drivers that were poorly and hastily written to support as much hardware as possible because someone might complain if their special snowflake laptop isn't supported, free versions of proprietary software that offer 50% of the functionality, etc. In some cases, they just throw in proprietary software anyway.

I may ruffle some feathers with this, but trying to attract the Windows and OS X crowd means they have to hold the user's hand and do everything for them. All the software must be preconfigured to work immediately for every hardware combination possible and replace the user's favorite Windows/OS X tools perfectly, all without forcing the user to touch the command line. That's an impossible task without a dedicated development team working full time on the issue. Stuff ends up being thrown together from hundreds of different sources, inevitably doesn't work properly, and the user complains about it.

A better aproach would be to do what Arch, Gentoo, and some of the BSDs do. This is the OS and if you don't like it, use something else.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. You cannot replace Windows or OS X with open source software. You have thousands of companies working to produce software that runs on Windows and on Mac. It's serious business and people dedicate their lives to that. You have Adobe producing desktop publishing software to sell on large numbers. You have Microsoft developing Office to run on millions and millions of computers. And you have several other companies, each one of them focusing on producing different pieces of software. No matter how hard you try, you cannot achieve that with open source software that will be distributed for free.

skaertus said:

Yes, you are right. You cannot replace Windows or OS X with open source software. You have thousands of companies working to produce software that runs on Windows and on Mac. It's serious business and people dedicate their lives to that. You have Adobe producing desktop publishing software to sell on large numbers. You have Microsoft developing Office to run on millions and millions of computers. And you have several other companies, each one of them focusing on producing different pieces of software. No matter how hard you try, you cannot achieve that with open source software that will be distributed for free.

Click to expand...

I think it's possible to replace Windows and OS X with FOSS, but users have to be willing to roll up their sleeves. I haven't had Windows or OS X on any computer in 5 years and have never wanted or needed either.

The problem lies with trying to alter Linux to work with people who won't work with Linux. It just never comes out the way the designers hoped and loses what makes Linux good in the process.

The problem started from 80's. The fact of SELL software and having issues with copy rights infringements it's just so bad. Really. I could spend hours on this but I will be quick.

Myth about good software being proprietary and bad software:

• Linux itself for servers is the proof of this is a myth.
• Blender, is also a free (both) and open source software, for 3D modelling, used a lot, and what software that is paid for is good or better?
• nginx is also a awesome software for load balancing in data centres and important networks. It is very used in many companies.
• Apache is other software that runs basicly the world wide web
• Firefox is a great browser and chromium too, and they are open source and free. Still awesome.
• VirtualBox is a virtual machine emulator and works nice. I think is better than hyper-v but not that better than VMware (this vmware from oracle are used for a lot of server virtualization)
• Speaking on virtualization, what about OpenVZ and XEN? Almost forgot. free and open, runs the world.
• Filezilla is free and open, used by a lot of web programmers to upload their pages to the web servers
• Audacity is also a very good software for music people. you know what I mean.
• GIMP. Do the same as photoshop. I really don't know why people just pay for PS. I think it's about what companies tell them to do. Like windows, companies selling PCs with their software. I can't buy a PC without OS. It's impossible. That's a great advantage for microsoft and their closed source OS. anyway,
• VLC is another open source and free software. What beats VLC?
• Truecrpt beats also everything to be honest.
• MySQL and MariaDB. Runs the world again, and still open and free.
• Openshot do basicly what iMovie do (i guess). I know iMovie is now free, but cmon, it wasnt...
• nmap is used a lot by network and system administrators. Is the BEST network tool ever created and is free and open source.
• Wireshark is really powerful packet analyzer. I use it.
• Website platforms as joomla and wordpress. How many blogs you saw based in this platforms? Free and open source.

Quality is just a myth. What isn't good for you can be awesome for me. If you (all) pay for software great! If not, the same : great!. Save the wallet as I said earlier.
And saying there isn't a UI better than aqua, lol I find KDE better than aqua ui. Not for being customisable. But, is just great for me. It fits everything.
Once again, "What isn't good for you can be awesome for me."

int3 said:

And saying there isn't a UI better than aqua, lol I find KDE better than aqua ui. Not for being customisable. But, is just great for me. It fits everything.
Once again, "What isn't good for you can be awesome for me."

Click to expand...

And KDE 5 did beat Apple to that flatness, too!

int3 said:

The problem started from 80's. The fact of SELL software and having issues with copy rights infringements it's just so bad. Really. I could spend hours on this but I will be quick.

Myth about good software being proprietary and bad software:

• Linux itself for servers is the proof of this is a myth.
• Blender, is also a free (both) and open source software, for 3D modelling, used a lot, and what software that is paid for is good or better?
• nginx is also a awesome software for load balancing in data centres and important networks. It is very used in many companies.
• Apache is other software that runs basicly the world wide web
• Firefox is a great browser and chromium too, and they are open source and free. Still awesome.
• VirtualBox is a virtual machine emulator and works nice. I think is better than hyper-v but not that better than VMware (this vmware from oracle are used for a lot of server virtualization)
• Speaking on virtualization, what about OpenVZ and XEN? Almost forgot. free and open, runs the world.
• Filezilla is free and open, used by a lot of web programmers to upload their pages to the web servers
• Audacity is also a very good software for music people. you know what I mean.
• GIMP. Do the same as photoshop. I really don't know why people just pay for PS. I think it's about what companies tell them to do. Like windows, companies selling PCs with their software. I can't buy a PC without OS. It's impossible. That's a great advantage for microsoft and their closed source OS. anyway,
• VLC is another open source and free software. What beats VLC?
• Truecrpt beats also everything to be honest.
• MySQL and MariaDB. Runs the world again, and still open and free.
• Openshot do basicly what iMovie do (i guess). I know iMovie is now free, but cmon, it wasnt...
• nmap is used a lot by network and system administrators. Is the BEST network tool ever created and is free and open source.
• Wireshark is really powerful packet analyzer. I use it.
• Website platforms as joomla and wordpress. How many blogs you saw based in this platforms? Free and open source.

Quality is just a myth. What isn't good for you can be awesome for me. If you (all) pay for software great! If not, the same : great!. Save the wallet as I said earlier.
And saying there isn't a UI better than aqua, lol I find KDE better than aqua ui. Not for being customisable. But, is just great for me. It fits everything.
Once again, "What isn't good for you can be awesome for me."

Click to expand...

Good list. A lot of open source software is the best out there at its job.

OpenSSH is the best SSH software ever written. IIRC it has over 95% market share. GnuPG is probably the most widely used PGP tool as well. The HAMMER and HAMMER2 filesystems from DragonflyBSD are outstanding at what they do.
The pf firewall is the best I have ever used. Even Apple uses it in OS X.

556fmjoe said:

Good list. A lot of open source software is the best out there at its job.

OpenSSH is the best SSH software ever written. IIRC it has over 95% market share. GnuPG is probably the most widely used PGP tool as well. The HAMMER and HAMMER2 filesystems from DragonflyBSD are outstanding at what they do.
The pf firewall is the best I have ever used. Even Apple uses it in OS X.

Click to expand...

Forgot gnupgp and openssh you right !

556fmjoe said:

I think it's possible to replace Windows and OS X with FOSS, but users have to be willing to roll up their sleeves. I haven't had Windows or OS X on any computer in 5 years and have never wanted or needed either.

The problem lies with trying to alter Linux to work with people who won't work with Linux. It just never comes out the way the designers hoped and loses what makes Linux good in the process.

Click to expand...

Well, while this is true, it also makes Linux not suitable for the vast majority of computer users. I could never use Linux because I cannot compromise and I do not have the time to work around issues that may come up.

556fmjoe said:

I think it's possible to replace Windows and OS X with FOSS, but users have to be willing to roll up their sleeves. I haven't had Windows or OS X on any computer in 5 years and have never wanted or needed either.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I was this way for nearly 20 years. There really wasn't anything that Windows or MacOS had that I either didn't already know or personally needed. The only reason I got tired of Linux (for personal use) is that I just got tired of maintenance. I just didn't want to do it anymore, and was able to get the best of both worlds (exceptional hardware, Unix-derivitave OS, nice UI (I used Afterstep; yes, dated, but worked) ) with OS X. Linux isn't bad for me (I'm a Linux Sysadmin at work); it just didn't fit personal needs anymore.

The problem lies with trying to alter Linux to work with people who won't work with Linux. It just never comes out the way the designers hoped and loses what makes Linux good in the process.

Click to expand...

Agreed totally. A college classmate once told me this. There is only 1 pre-requisite needed to use a computer: the ability to make fire. No matches, no flamethrower, no lighters; if one can take two sticks, or flint and build them a fire, they have the know-how to use a computer.

To Linux takes some problem solving skills and isn't really for the convenient, "I want it and want it NOW" crowd. That is because it causes you to get involved with the hardware you have and not just the eject button on your CD/DVD drive, the reset button, or the power button. Most common people don't want to understand that. Their loss, because it can lead to 6-figure jobs, but there you have it.

On the other side of it, it's going a bit overkill if you build a linux box just to jump onto Facebook.

BL.

maflynn said:

I have, but this thread is about desktop operating systems not mobile platforms.

Click to expand...

The thread starter didn't mention the word desktop in the opening post, so I guess people are just taking the thread title at face value. However just for the moment, we can ignore the fact that Linux is a kernel used on everything from smartphones, tablets, embedded devices, supercomputers, mainframes and other non OS X categories...

OS X
Great hardware/software integration - if you use Mac hardware of course.
No official support for non Mac hardware.
Great performance on modern hardware.
Limited range of server/enterprise features.
Good selection of open source software via Xcode command line tools, plus Homebrew and others.
Good selection of commercial applications.
But one or two important applications still missing. e.g. VMware vSphere client.
Consistent look and feel between applications.

Linux based OS
Good hardware support on mainstream desktop/server hardware.
Good hardware support for some peripherals. e.g. TRIM on all SSDs.
Poor hardware support for some others.
Great performance even when resources are limited. e.g. minimal RAM.
Great selection of enterprise features such as free KVM Hypervisor.
Great selection of open source software.
Some commercial applications available, but a number of others lacking altogether.
Somewhat inconsistent look and feel between applications.

Overall my preference depends on the device and intended use. Once again, ignoring the non OS X categories of hardware.

New MacBook: OS X
Older MacBook: Linux
Server: Linux
Intel Desktop: OS X is nice, but somewhat limited range of Mac desktop hardware means a narrow win for Linux.
PowerPC Desktop: Linux

bradl said:

On the other side of it, it's going a bit overkill if you build a linux box just to jump onto Facebook.

Click to expand...

I think what you are talking about is called a Chromebook and it runs a Linux based OS.
Overkill would be getting a MacBook just to jump onto Facebook.

matt2053 said:

I've said this before and I'll say it again:

I was an Ubuntu user for a long time. I had never used anything but Windows or Ubuntu (or a few other Linux distros from time to time). I had never used a Mac before.

Well, I kept hearing over and over about how amazing the MacBook Air was. So I bought one, expecting to probably wipe it and install Ubuntu or Mint or Arch on it. And then I tried OSX.... And it became immediately clear that this was exactly what Ubuntu was trying so hard to be.

So I stuck with it. Now I love it. I can still use all those mad terminal skillz I learned in my Linux days (although I find them much less necessary now). I spend much less time Googling how to fix ****. And it's generally better in every way. So, yeah, I'm now a convert!

Click to expand...

You sir (assuming) could've read my mind and spelt everything out for me. This is exactly how I feel about Mac vs Ubuntu.

maflynn said:

Because the Mac has superior tools. Its much easier to update OSX then it is Linux, it also require a lot less "tweaking" to get it to work.

Simply put, because apple creates the hardware and software they are able to achieve a high level of integration that linux cannot attain unless you heavily update the system. Sometimes "upgrading" just plain failed and I had to install as new and remember all the tweaks just to get the system working.

Click to expand...

This was my biggest dilemma with this system, all the Terminal lines I had to execute to get it to work. It must have been between 15 or 20.

I mean it was not that difficult, but Linux will never cater to the regular consumer who just want a running, working machine. I just don't see it happening.

Does Linux run better on PC hardware than Apple hardware?

andersmj said:

This was my biggest dilemma with this system, all the Terminal lines I had to execute to get it to work. It must have been between 15 or 20.

I mean it was not that difficult, but Linux will never cater to the regular consumer who just want a running, working machine. I just don't see it happening.

Does Linux run better on PC hardware than Apple hardware?

Click to expand...

I have Ubuntu 14.04 running on a 2011 iMac. In my experience, the sound is a bit goofy but Ubuntu understands all the hardware, and will happily connect to WiFi, use Bluetooth devices, etc. That being said, if I was to switch the iMac to external speakers, I suspect the sound problems I'm having would go away too.

I think this is a complete red-herring, because OS X and Linux are good for different things. For example:
If you want to build a web server, then the last platform I would pick is OS X. I would use CentOS, Redhat, or Ubuntu, etc.

On the other hand, if I want to edit video, then I am going to use OS X.

Linux is not better or worse than OS X, nor can one in the abstract answer a question of why one would choose OS X or Linux. In my own case: I use Linux and OS X all the time. I don't just use one platform, because no single platform does everything I need.

Mac OS is way better than something Linux-based on a home PC. For support and compatibility alone, I'd use a Mac. And then there are the huge advantages of ease of use, lots of included tools, stuff "just working" when you need it to, a way nicer desktop environment, tons of automation, System Preferences instead of nano'ing into config files everywhere, actual good support for AMD/ATI GPUs, no dealing with drivers, no having to use the command line every 10 seconds… POSIX compliancy can also come in handy. The only thing I ever envy on Debian is apt-get.

You know what else really ticks me off about Linux-based OSs? They try to push me away from "non-free" software. "Dudeman, this software isn't free as in freedom". So I have to go around adding "non-free" repos to my lists file just to get the proper drivers. My (insert hardware here) doesn't work with open source drivers; hang me.

For a server, it's a different story. But on a server, FreeBSD > anything Linux.

matt2053 said:

I've said this before and I'll say it again:

I was an Ubuntu user for a long time. I had never used anything but Windows or Ubuntu (or a few other Linux distros from time to time). I had never used a Mac before.

Well, I kept hearing over and over about how amazing the MacBook Air was. So I bought one, expecting to probably wipe it and install Ubuntu or Mint or Arch on it. And then I tried OSX.... And it became immediately clear that this was exactly what Ubuntu was trying so hard to be.

Click to expand...

Ha, I would have switched anyway after updating to the latest Ubuntu. I use Linux-based OSs from time to time, and recently, I've had to avoid Ubuntu like the plague. I remember using it a while ago and kinda liking it, so I tried it again recently. In one of the versions, apparently, it was ruined and never repaired. So I use Debian instead. It's faster, easier to install (embarrassingly), and lets me install something besides Unity as my desktop environment by default.

----------

maflynn said:

I have, but this thread is about desktop operating systems not mobile platforms.

I have used both and found that Linux to be wanting in a number of areas. While Android is based off Linux its not fully open source as play google is proprietary as is other portions such as google maps. etc.

Click to expand...

There is, for some unknown reason, a version of Android for desktop PCs.

----------

kunaicode said:

You have much to learn, young grasshopper. Also, calling world-class open source software "amateur" and assuming it's inferior purely because people develop it for the greater good rather than to get cash, cash, cash, cash, cash, and more cash, is nigh infuriating. I've had to deal with many people like you, and it's gotten very tiring over the years.

Click to expand...

He only said that they look amateur. Really, they do. I admire lots of open source software, but I've never seen an open source desktop environment that actually feels good to use compared to Mac OS X or even Windows in some cases. Sure they work great under the hood (often times), but that's not where the problem is. <rant>But LinuxMint with Cinnamon is so **** slow!</rant> And yeah, all the major non-GUI-related open source software is great. I'm truly thankful that cURL, SQLite, and the like exist and use them in my own software.

Regarding GIMP and LibreOffice, I have used them and find them totally crippled compared to Photoshop and Office, respectively. They're free, and I appreciate that, but I prefer not to use them. Most versions of Firefox are really good, and Chromium was always decent, but I like Safari a little more.

MattInOz said:

Follow-up Question(s).
What software has the most productive value to you?

If both platforms offer competitive options to replace that software then either is good for you.

Click to expand...

Nothing replaces Xcode, Pages, Excel, Keynote, Photoshop, iTunes, iChat/Messages, Mail, Automator, iPhoto, Final Cut Express, or most of the games I play from time to time.

I also haven't found a decent GUI archive expander for Linux, but I haven't looked that hard and just use the terminal instead. I just about lost it when Squeeze improperly expanded a TAR twice in a row, leading me to try and debug the software it contained for an hour before realizing it.

I've been a Mac OS X convert for about eight years, but I'm a computer hardware hoarder and a good Kubuntu install makes all my old machines feel new again.

0092284 said:

Be unbiased.
Why do you choose Mac over LInux?

Click to expand...

Heheh, no bias there I'll treat that question as
What makes you prefer Mac or Linux?

----

A few weeks ago I would have voted for an Apple operating system on Mac hardware.

Since the appearance of Yosemite has not met my expectations, my vote too late now would have been for Linux.

(I also spent a week or so recently testing FreeBSD and PC-BSD on Apple hardware and other hardware but as Windows is off-topic, so I also treat the other BSDs (and iOS and so on) as OT.)

Why OS X? It took me a few weeks to get close to the cores of my passion for Apple's operating system. I now realise that those core values include a pleasing blend of coherence, consistency, constancy and innovation.

Why Linux? Amongst other things: the option of reasonable support for a storage system/file system that is far superior.

Long-term dissatisfaction with the side-effects of the HFS Plus file system effects, often hidden, on Mac users in general became an origin of my long-term preparation for possible abandonment of OS X. February 2014. The tipping point, a decision to gradually abandon OS X, came in July after weeks of growing frustration by the appearance of Yosemite Apple not blending the four core values in a way that could please me.

Back then, the primary reason for my abandonment of Apple's operating system was described as Apple's abandonment of title bars.

If the appearance of Yosemite is somehow an end to a visionary approach to OS X by Apple, then it should be easier for me to make the break.

----

Will Linux be my 2019/2020 operating system of choice on a summer 2014 Mac? I can't guess

I am very open-minded about Linux and have given it a try several times, most recently a couple of months ago. I went with Linux Mint and Ubuntu as the most consumer-friendly branches of Linux.

What I dislike about Linux is the constant tinkering, both to solve problems and to modify the UI to your needs. Whenever something doesn’t work, the solution isn’t often easy to find. Example: getting Netflix to work. I spent hours trying to get it to work on both systems and the eventual performance was just not very good (e.g. screen tearing). When tweaking the UI, I thought that Linux Mint was almost as terrible as Windows with its virtually countless menus and settings panes as well as hidden options at some places. To me, it’s just a mess. Ubuntu on the other hand has more of an OS X approach, but it is just too rigid in terms of UI, requiring messing with Terminal or downloading additional plugins and themes (some of them out of date, requiring yet additional tweaking). I felt dissatisfied with both after a couple of days, because the end result was not completely to my liking and I couldn’t be bothered anymore to tinker further.

OS X just has that straightforwardness. Finder, Dock and Mission Control are my absolute favourites; powerful and simple. All settings are either in system settings or in application-specific settings. There is nothing else to do. Making a clean install of OS X is not a pain, it’s so trivial because most of it works right from the start and doesn’t require tinkering. OS X also has a finishing touch everywhere, the smooth scrolling, the subtle animations. It brings the OS to life and doesn’t appear as static as Linux still does. Linux ist just not meant for me, but I still think it is an absolutely great system, if you are willing to put the time into it.

skaertus said:

I want whole teams of qualified people working on software. I don't want development to get stopped suddenly.

Click to expand...

MacWrite Pro, Claris Emailer, AppleWorks, HyperCard, iWeb, Shake, Aperture, and the list goes on.

Linux is hit or miss... In my experience It just doesn't like some hardware, for example my MBP works terribly under Linux, so I deleted my Linux partition and now I'm using a virtual machine instead. I used to use Ubuntu, but half of the time doing an OS upgrade would ruin the entire install. I moved to Arch Linux which is a rolling release distro, meaning there are no OS upgrades, you just run a single command and you have the latest packages for everything. Another good rolling release distro is Debian which is much more user friendly. However, there are a lot of applications I rely on that stent available for Linux because of the small user base, and because a lot of those apps aren't available, it has a small user base. Hopefully Valve's steam machine and it's effort to bring gaming to Linux will change this, not just for gaming but for professional software as well.

OS X on the other hand just works, despite it's occasional (and sometimes terrible) bugs. Even on a couple of my hackintoshes it works better than both Linux and Windows which is really saying something for a PC.

They totally different animals... I'm a multi-OS user, and I use them all for different things. OS X for audio/music, Linux for android development + hacking + the occasional data rescue or partitioning, and Windows for gaming. Despite it's bugs and the fact it needs to be fixed a lot, I think Arch Linux is my favorite OS, the power of personalization on Linux is unmatched. I hope that someday I will get to the point where I can use it for everything.

I've been using OSX for more than 6yrs and all my ecosystem at home are OSX (iphone, ipad, mac mini+27 inch thunderbolt", 3 units macbook pro and one mac air) after fed up with slow Microsuck (will slow after 6mth and need to reformat and clean installation) and just install Kali in my older Dell inspiron 710m (cant upgrade ram/hdd, not in the market anymore and stuck with 80Gb ide hdd) Debian 7 on my brand new PC AMD 6core, MSI Gaming MB, 16GB Ram with GPU Radeon Hawk R9 2GB, Corsair 650D, and falling in love with Linux after 10yrs ignore it!

CarreraGuy said:

What is your definition of 'proper Unix derivative'?



Well to be nit-picky MacOSX is not a Unix derivative because it *is* Unix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_03

Click to expand...

Well sorry to be nit-picky but that is meaningless bollocks.

Once upon a time, a UNIX distro was a UNIX distro because it contained and licensed AT&T UNIX code (or was a variant of a UNIX that did), not because they paid some organisation a heap of money for a "certification". Every UNIX 03 certified OS is a direct descendant of, and shares code with AT&T UNIX except OS X.

The modern BSDs do not contain UNIX code and therefore neither does OS X.

0092284 said:

So for the sake of my quesion i ask 2 things:
1) Leave windows out of this, it's not a free-for-all fight.
2) Be unbiased. We're at a mac forum, try to not cheer up for mac just because you like it.

So my question is: Why do you choose Mac over LInux?
I'm actually doubting if i should change over to Linux, as it seems to be made more for the programmer. (What i like)

Click to expand...

Mainly 3rd party apps and preference. I could use Ubuntu for work but as far as third party would miss out on apps