Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Linux vs macOS
- Thread starter babyexercise
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It depends on the purpose.
For my personal computing needs I only use macOS. For my servers I only use CentOS.
For my personal computing needs I only use macOS. For my servers I only use CentOS.
I don't own any machines new enough to run anything higher than 10.11 and 10.13. With that said, i dual or triple boot OS X (sometimes multiple versions for various reasons) and Linux. Linux will keep these old machines updated and secure for years to come while Apple doesn't give a crap about their perfectly capable older hardware. I just keep OS X around for some of the audio software i like (Logic, Garage Band, etc.). So in my case for daily usage.... Linux is the smarter and better choice.
Last edited:
Tried Linux many times, but I always found myself returning to macOS.
I would try some distro out there, and as soon as the honeymoon phase is over, I always return to Mac and Windows.
Maybe one day, but that day hasn't came yet
I would try some distro out there, and as soon as the honeymoon phase is over, I always return to Mac and Windows.
Maybe one day, but that day hasn't came yet
Currently MacOS is better for me but the tide is slowly shifting toward Linux. This is mostly due to my reliance on iWork Pages and CreateBooklet 2 for printed material. As I need to revise/reuse a Pages-based document, I'll take a little extra time to rework it in MS Word or LibreOffice. I have found that ONLYOFFICE is able to handle the .docx files I create that have advanced formatting.
My 2013 and 2017 iMacs are still going strong (internal harddrives replaced by external SSDs) but when the time comes to replace them, I most likely won't replace them with another iMac.
Migrating to Open Source software (or software that is cross-platform) allows me to have hardware options.
Linux for server stuff (web, file server etc.), embedded applications and re-purposing old hardware. The computing world would definitely be a poorer place without Linux.
...but I'd still choose MacOS as the daily driver, including some development stuff using Unix tools. Being able to virtualise Linux on the Mac is mostly useful for testing stuff in something as close as possible to the target environment (e.g. I have some websites running on Ubuntu 18.04 servers so it's handy to test stuff in a Ubuntu 18.04 container before uploading - but most of the development can be done under MacOS).
I don't think you can beat MacOS as a desktop Unix implementation with all the Unix command-line tools, a good (if proprietary) GUI, a good range of high-quality proprietary software - including key, unavoidable, things like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop etc. (and several good Adobe alternatives) - plus the ability to run most of the usual open source suspects either as standalone or via package managers like brew or macports, including XQuartz for anything graphical that doesn't have a native Mac UI.
For me, Linux (or any non-Mac Unix/X11-type system) falls down on anything GUI related - yes, there are desktop systems & powerful software packages - but I've found that, typically, Mac or even Windows desktop software is smoother, slicker, better designed (from the user POV) and easier to use. The Linux stuff is often more powerful and infinitely configurable - but tends to make the basic stuff unnecessarily hard & clunky with a "vertical learning curve" leading to the good stuff. E.g. given the choice of (to pick an example) Inkscape vs. Affinity Designer or gimp vs Photoshop/Pixelmator - the open source option will get the job done but the proprietary one is just easier and nicer to use. I'd only use (say) Inkscape if there were no other choice, if I had a strong conviction about only using open source or if I wanted to do some tricky SVG-related work using Inkscape's more obscure features (although Affinity isn't bad at SVG-fu). But then, Inkscape, gimp etc. will run on MacOS, anyhow.
I think this is more than just picking on one *nix GUI app - it's fundamental to a system where:
- The underlying graphics/GUI engine(s) - X11 et. al. - are over-engineered and clunky. Having a network-transparent graphics system is a great party trick, but it doesn't mix well with modern, graphically rich, composited desktops: I wonder how many people today are actually running individual X apps over a network vs. using vnc or rdp to stream the entire desktop?
- There are multiple permutations of display managers and desktop environments (even within a single distro) which works against consistent UI designs
- There's a conflict of "design philosophy" between traditional Unix (lots of small utilities that do just one job well & can be strung together) and monolithic Mac/Windows-inspired "big apps".
- Open source software that tends to be written by developers for developers (some of whom, I suspect, see a desktop as a way of having 8 copies of VIM running side-by-side
) - and to be fair there's no shame in this if you're not being paid to address any needs beyond you or your company.
I might have been tempted to go to Linux (or Windows + Linux subsystem) to get more hardware choices if Apple had continued making what were basically fancy PC clones at premium prices. With Apple Silicon, though, while they haven't got cheaper or more expandable, they are at least making unique hardware again - the only real desktop/full laptop class ARM systems on the market - and even the non-expandability comes with advantages (e.g. unified memory with LPDDR RAM and embedded GPUs with serious performance).
What?
MacOS is BSD-based, unlike anything that uses Linux kernel.
For C/C++ code targeting Linux (e.g. Docker, Raspberry PI etc) I use Jetbrains CLion on my Mac with a remote toolchain pointing to either a locally running headless VM (using Ubuntu MultiPass) or a Docker container. You can also remote into a PI or any other Linux machine. Docker is particularly useful as you can create custom container images for different versions of gcc.
That’s why the word “in simple” is there. For sure, macOS is not Linux plus good UI. The binary is also not compatible. But simplistic view, one can see they’re both have similar command lines and processes, with macOS has more advanced UI and better user experience.
Technically OK, but this is a case of calling a "BMW" a "Mercedes" because they both have 4 wheels each. They even do have parts named the same and performing same functions, but not interchangeable.
The graphics below quite accurately depicts systems that have been growing from the unknown root (pre-Unix), the great Unix/BSD split and then appearance of something that was from scratch designed as to mimic the (command line) behavior of these systems while not borrowing a single byte of code from them. Linux is "unix-like", it is a "closest approximation" (in fact, in several areas it is way better than the original) of how a Unix system would work.
Anyway, this is mostly an academical discussion nowadays.
The graphics below quite accurately depicts systems that have been growing from the unknown root (pre-Unix), the great Unix/BSD split and then appearance of something that was from scratch designed as to mimic the (command line) behavior of these systems while not borrowing a single byte of code from them. Linux is "unix-like", it is a "closest approximation" (in fact, in several areas it is way better than the original) of how a Unix system would work.
Anyway, this is mostly an academical discussion nowadays.
Both! For work I use Red Hat Enterprise 7/8 and for personal use I have Fedora KDE & POP OS! on my Intel Desktop. I do have a Windows boot for some Xbox Game Pass games.
However on my laptop I only use macOS with a UTM/Parallels running Fedora KDE on ARM64. I love love Linux, it was my love for the platform that got me into the career that I have.
I have a preference with Fedora because I spend a lot of time with RHEL at work, haven't used SUSE for quite some years now..
However on my laptop I only use macOS with a UTM/Parallels running Fedora KDE on ARM64. I love love Linux, it was my love for the platform that got me into the career that I have.
I have a preference with Fedora because I spend a lot of time with RHEL at work, haven't used SUSE for quite some years now..
Linux does more than mimic the command line behavior of Unix. It reimplemented many of the apis. Much of the software that is used on Linux was originally ported from Unix systems including most of the GNU tools (gcc, emacs, gmake etc).
It's biggest advantage over Unix is its ubiquity. Its free, open source and everywhere. Several of those proprietary Unix variants still exist but apart from MacOS and the other BSD variants, they aren't widely used anymore.
Nine. Or were you being ironic? 😆some of whom, I suspect, see a desktop as a way of having 8 copies of VIM running side-by-side
On servers? Linux. For gaming? Linux. For running on affordable hardware? Linux. For being sympathetic with the original mission statement if not the current progress? FreeBSD. For superior niceness in the UX/UI department and any UI driven media work? macOS.
Windows should be best for gaming except you only play games which have Linux version.
a) Since many years you don't have to have native Linux versions to play games on Linux. The absolute majority of my Steam and GoG catalogs play just fine on my Fedora based gaming computer thanks to Wine/Proton - and the rest I simply don't play. Add to this that in periods, a lot of my gaming is retro gaming, and during those periods I'm more interested in the state of sourceports or emulators (of which many admittedly are completely usable on the Mac too).
b) The question was about which was better for me. I remember Windows since very far back, and not at any point have I preferred it over the available alternatives given a choice: Windows 2 and 3 couldn't live up to the bar set by AmigaOS, I was obviously in the minority, but I preferred OS/2 to Windows 95. When my friends and colleagues were running Windows 98 or NT4 I had RedHat on my daily driver, and when 2000 and XP came along I had graduated to Slackware.
Linux won't gain mainstream popularity until it's as easy to install software as it is in macOS or Windows.
Plus there's still far too much snobbery from advanced users who tell you to open a terminal, add a repo, load a git, reticulate a spline, chmod this, chown that, etc etc. They assume you know what to do when the majority of people will just look at them, back away and re-install Windows.
Plus there's still far too much snobbery from advanced users who tell you to open a terminal, add a repo, load a git, reticulate a spline, chmod this, chown that, etc etc. They assume you know what to do when the majority of people will just look at them, back away and re-install Windows.
You obviously havent used any of the mainstream Linux distros in awhile i take it. Users never have to touch the command line these days. Installing software is as easy as point and click.
Yeah, I have.
I just googled "how to install apps in Linux 2022" and this was one of the first results.
Phrases like "Third party applications, such as Google Chrome, Slack, Zoom, Visual Studio Code are provided by their respective publishers. For Debian and Ubuntu systems these are provided as Debian package files (.deb) and for Fedora / Red Hat as RPM packages" is gibberish for anyone who's decided to load Linux just to try it.
Don't get me wrong, I have *counts* 12 headless Raspberry Pis here doing dedicated things, I've been faffing around with *nix since the mid 80s and I'm relatively confident finding my round the OS but to suggest that Linux is in any way a mainstream replacement for Windows or macOS is laughable. It's still incredibly niche.
I would argue we’re already there for most mainstream software, for most mainstream distributions: it’s usually not harder than installing from the App Store on a Mac, and definitely easier than locating valid installer executables and running them in Windows, with the added benefit of an (almost?) complete lack of scam apps.
No, what’s currently lacking is the availability of computers with Linux pre-installed. The majority of potential Linux users don’t even encounter us elitist snobs as they wouldn’t even think of nuking their boot device and installing a different operating system.