M series hardware should only get patch for 6 to 10 years, while Linux is free forever. Besides, most of us cannot tell the difference between fastest M4 series and 10+ years medium speed hardware like I5 with 8GB ram with latest mainstream Linux distros, both are fast and smooth for most applications nowadays.
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.
MacOS 6-10 yrs vs Linux Free Forever
- Thread starter drugdoubles
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I choose not to try it again. I'm pretty sure the average computer user would bail during installation!
Although Linux has gotten much more user-friendly over the years, I abandoned my Linux dabbling a few years ago and really don't have any inclination to try again.
By the way, macOS hardware is more like a 7 years lifespan from day 1 when it is available from Apple Store since people talk about Apple uses app version to control the real lifespan of mac hardware. After 7 years almost all apps cannot be installed.
Linux has strengths. It’s good for a server, a production-like environment for full-stack development, AI/ML development, etc. Gaming on Linux has gotten much more capable in recent years thanks to Proton. It can rejuvenate old Macs after MacOS support runs out.
But color management on Linux window managers is a disaster. I don’t know why MacOS has been doing this right for over a decade but no other OS seems to be able to figure it out.
But color management on Linux window managers is a disaster. I don’t know why MacOS has been doing this right for over a decade but no other OS seems to be able to figure it out.
Sorry - I couldn't resist.
I mean, sure: if you're all about gaming on your computer, Linux is probably about as ‘good’ a choice as macOS. (There are reasons why Windows is still so popular.) But what Linux is really pathetic at is anything to do with multimedia. What do you use to create graphics on Linux? GIMP? Inkscape? I'm sitting here in front of my Mac and giggling silently into my Affinity...
It's not much better for audio production. Linux is only suitable for productive use as a replacement for macOS if you just want to surf the internet a bit and maybe play a simple game. For everything else, it's a clear step backwards in my opinion.
Your mileage may vary.
One could debate whether Linux on a server really has any significant advantage over more mature, stable systems like Solaris and *BSD. But that would probably go beyond the scope here.
For modern server setups with containerization Linux is basically the only option.
Not quite, both Solaris and the BSDs had containers long before software like Docker even existed. (And Docker exists on other platforms.)
Personally, I wouldn't want to run any pre-containerized software on a server for which I am legally responsible, as those are basically black boxes which won't receive critical security updates automatically, which is a bad thing. I agree that Linux on a server makes some sense for those who absolutely require a Docker-specific software. However, I usually file an upstream bug whenever I come across such software, because most of those work just fine with chroot and/or jail.
Personally, I wouldn't want to run any pre-containerized software on a server for which I am legally responsible, as those are basically black boxes which won't receive critical security updates automatically, which is a bad thing. I agree that Linux on a server makes some sense for those who absolutely require a Docker-specific software. However, I usually file an upstream bug whenever I come across such software, because most of those work just fine with chroot and/or jail.
Linux can be a replacement for MacOS for the development tasks I mentioned above. I use both MacOS and Linux, preferring MacOS for everyday use but Linux for development.
I moved to Linux full time almost 10 years ago. For my needs and workflows, there isn't anything on macOS or Windows that I cannot do on Linux. I use Linux not only at home, but on my office PC as well.
Installing Linux today is much easier than it used to be. Most distro's have nice installer setups that work the same as installing macOS and Windows.
Installing Linux today is much easier than it used to be. Most distro's have nice installer setups that work the same as installing macOS and Windows.
You need to keep your Docker conainers up-to-date with security updates just like any other software. Running them in containers is more secure than running them on the root system, especially with rootless Docker. If set up properly and kept up-to-date, one infected service shouldn’t result in the entire server being compromised. And you can build your own containers if you really don’t trust the prebuilt ones.
What Docker has enabled me to do with my little server is run 5 different apps all on port 80 or 443. I can’t imagine doing that with everything on the root system. I guess theoretically it’d be possible, but far more difficult with lots of potential for things to complain about ports being in use, etc.
Like I said - Docker and others are not much more than chroot (first release: 1979) with some GUI on top of it; or, if you wish, jails or zones, all of which predate Docker by quite some time. The huge advantage of encapsulating your software with tools that come with your operating system is that it is notably easier to get security hotfixes without having to wait for a container maintainer to come back from their vacation.
That, indeed, is a generally good idea.
No. Linux is a better choice for gaming. It's dead simple to use Proton + Steam on Linux. Click a check box and that's it. The Steam Deck is fantastic. Really, besides kernel based anti-cheat MP games, stuff just works. macOS has some copycats that aren't quite there or as polished.
If you define "productivity" only as multimedia creation, perhaps Mac is better. But for MY productivity use cases it was frustrating and annoying. Apple would regularly update and break my workflow for no real reason. Couldn't move away faster from that platform. And nothing helps productivity like forgetting your external SSD you need because Apple is so cheap with storage.
I think it's pretty obvious that Linux has pretty big software and documentation advantages over Solaris and *BSD for server use cases.
Last edited:
- Software:
Which software that you run on your servers that's available on Linux absolutely requires Linux? (The Docker discussion aside, as the technology behind containers predates Linux by 12 years, see above.)
(FWIW, as "Proton" which is a Windows emulator seems to count as a reason to use Linux, FreeBSD has a pretty good Linux emulator built-in.)
- Documentation:
Linux manpages are much worse than BSD manpages. The Solaris/illumos ones are decent, at least.
Why would I want to waste a bunch of time figuring out how to compile some random program on FreeBSD/Solaris vs. just installing the .deb or .rpm? Would it probably work? Yeah. Do I want to put in the effort? No.
Documentation isn't just manpages. Think tutorials, books, READMEs, etc.
You don't. The BSDs and Solaris have package repositories and package managers, and they have had them for quite a while now.
You claimed that Linux has important server software available that BSD and/or Solaris does not. Can you name that software? I mean, it's a pretty big claim, it would be nice to see what could be improved here.
Don't worry: You don't need to.
Which Linux documentation is better than its counterpart?
Debian has about twice as many packages as FreeBSD for example. Not all software is in repositories either. Here's an example, it's used by universities for doing online course work:
LON-CAPA - Wikipedia
Install LON-CAPA
LearningOnline Network with Computer Assisted Personalized Approach
install.lon-capa.org
Note they have no FreeBSD or Solaris instructions. There's lots of little niche server software for doing stuff like this.
To understand the numerical differences, it may be helpful to realise that FreeBSD is a complete operating system and its repository is only a supplement, whereas Debian's complete system consists of (mostly third-party) packages.
For example, FreeBSD does not have "kernel packages" - you get a new kernel via system upgrade directly from the vendor, not as third-party software from the repository. Mere numbers are therefore misleading as far as the question of suitability for production servers is concerned.
Hmm, indeed. They ran just fine on FreeBSD in the early 2000s though.
Listing niche software whose installation process only applies to a small subset of Linux distributions (so does it even matter which version of Linux you use for a particular software? Then you would have to run countless servers at the same time, one for each software... sounds extremely impractical!) does not necessarily fulfil my interpretation of your original theory that Linux is fundamentally much better suited for servers than all other systems, but I suggest we leave it at that.