Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac or Linux?


  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .

~~Hello~~

macrumors 6502
Apr 27, 2007
291
17
I like Linux. Might switch over completely in the future. The support is a lot better these days. No reason why you can't use it as your main OS. My favourites are OpenSuse and Fedora.

But I like Mac OSX, because it rarely gives you a headache and mostly things just work. And you know you can open a terminal session up and have the power of BSD. So you can script and get a bit more technical if you wish to do so.

I'm not sure I like the way Apple is trying to take back control over Macbooks. They've stopped you upgrading the RAM and it's soldered on, and I think it is a little more difficult to replace the hard drive, and it has some sort of propriety connector. Though I'm sure there are probably more third party choices with hdd upgrades now.You might say well most people just add the maximum amount of RAM so what does it matter, but what happens when it's out of warranty and you need to replace the entire logic board?

So I'm not sure what my next upgrade will be.
 

skaertus

macrumors 601
Feb 23, 2009
4,232
1,380
Brazil
I like Linux. Might switch over completely in the future. The support is a lot better these days. No reason why you can't use it as your main OS. My favourites are OpenSuse and Fedora.



But I like Mac OSX, because it rarely gives you a headache and mostly things just work. And you know you can open a terminal session up and have the power of BSD. So you can script and get a bit more technical if you wish to do so.



I'm not sure I like the way Apple is trying to take back control over Macbooks. They've stopped you upgrading the RAM and it's soldered on, and I think it is a little more difficult to replace the hard drive, and it has some sort of propriety connector. Though I'm sure there are probably more third party choices with hdd upgrades now.You might say well most people just add the maximum amount of RAM so what does it matter, but what happens when it's out of warranty and you need to replace the entire logic board?



So I'm not sure what my next upgrade will be.


Well, the MacBook has all these restrictions, but it is still stellar hardware. Most premium Windows laptops are following the same route as well. There are of course some cheap plastic PCs that can have its RAM and HDDs upgraded, but they are mostly crap. I can imagine what a Linux distribution installed on one of those would be. You cannot just compare it to a retina MacBook Pro or to a premium Windows ultrabook.
 

mariotr87

macrumors regular
Aug 12, 2011
196
25
I used Linux at home for a while (a couple of years perhaps, before that, Windows for most of my life). I switched to OS X on 2011 with a MBA, the same machine I have today. At work, I use a mix of OSs, but as a person who works in the computer architecture and programming field Linux is everywhere.

My personal opinion, and sorry for those who think otherwise, is that Linux is not ready for the end consumer, and it will probably never be, because it was never intended to be. This is not a bad thing necessarily, not only do Linux has its uses, it's everywhere as I mentioned, from IT infrastructure to enterprise networking, servers, data centres...Its "openness" has created a collaborative environment that is completely vendor independent and creates opportunities for everyone in the industry.

Problem is, the user doesn't care about any of this. The user wants the computer to work, to update seamlessly, to provide simple and useful applications for day-to-day tasks, to become a door for content stored in the cloud, to enable communications in a simple manner. The overhead of managing the setup has to be literally zero, it should be a 100% productivity machine.

Turns out, the same things that make linux fantastic for the industry make it just bad for the user. Because of its philosophy, there is very little support from software vendors, hence applications are scarce and usually low quality. The same goes for drivers. Desktop managers are years behind OS X in ease of use and design. Linux has to work in every system, by definition, which makes the environment completely fragmented, and you end up having to fix things almost manually very often. Not to mention the complete lack of integration between hw and sw.

The list goes on. To sum up, Linux and OS X are just intended for different uses. OS X is pretty much perfect for productivity and entertainment, in my opinion. I do understand why someone would choose Linux over OS X for a home PC though. Some people don't want to spend that amount of money, or they simply enjoy tweaking things here and there, it's kind of a hobby. I get enough of that at work, so my mac stays:D
 

ostrykolesz

macrumors regular
Sep 10, 2014
164
147
Poland
I have been a Linux user since Vista's introduction. Now Window 8 pushed me towards OS X.

Linux is fun - you can tinker with it endlessly.

It's not stable. There was always something that corrupted Linux for me to a point where I would have to reinstall everything. Video card drivers were the usual culprits.

The lack of 3rd party support was also a problem. When you had it - the apps were poorly optimised.

Linux still has a lot of potential. I wouldn't count it out of the race.

So far I'm loving OS X. I just don't understand why Apple still hasn't created a Direct X competitor. I wish I didn't have to buy a Windows license to play a game once in a while.
 

michikade

macrumors regular
Sep 17, 2014
194
0
Somewhere in Texas
I run a Linux distro in a VM on my MacBook sometimes just to play around. I also run a Linux VM on my iPad sometimes if I need more desktop-like functionality (used to need it more at a previous job, now it's just for goofing off).

I HAVE exclusively used Ubuntu before for around a year - windows completely crapped out on a netbook and I had no restore disk or drive to get it back, so I created a partition, installed ubuntu with a thumb drive, got access to the files on the corrupt windows partition and moved them out, and then just kept Ubuntu. Learned a lot about programming and tinkering to get it to work (ancient Skype builds, anyone?) but it did the job and was more efficient than Windows was on that little netbook.

I like OS X more simply for stability reasons. You can always rely on windows and Linux to be unreliable.
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,923
17,399
I run a Linux distro in a VM on my MacBook sometimes just to play around. I also run a Linux VM on my iPad sometimes if I need more desktop-like functionality (used to need it more at a previous job, now it's just for goofing off).

I HAVE exclusively used Ubuntu before for around a year - windows completely crapped out on a netbook and I had no restore disk or drive to get it back, so I created a partition, installed ubuntu with a thumb drive, got access to the files on the corrupt windows partition and moved them out, and then just kept Ubuntu. Learned a lot about programming and tinkering to get it to work (ancient Skype builds, anyone?) but it did the job and was more efficient than Windows was on that little netbook.

I like OS X more simply for stability reasons. You can always rely on windows and Linux to be unreliable.

The bold on the former definitely leads you to the bold of your latter statement.

In the 20+ years I've been using Linux, reliability has never been a problem. I have had the occasional kernel panic (I can count them on 2 hands the entire time), which I've submitted the bug and a fix or to to the LKML, which went right into the next version of the kernel. But I have not had any loss of data that was software related on any of the machines I've built.

As far as usability goes, I've avoided Ubuntu because of how buggy it is, despite its popularity. RHEL/CentOS/Fedora have always been bloated and full of dependencies for a package. As I mentioned before, Slackware had been my choice of distros, and I would still use it to this day.

I migrated to OS X for personal reasons; I just didn't want to be tied to a desk and rolling my own additional programs outside of the distribution anymore. I get the best of both worlds in this; a Unix-like OS similar to what I've come from with Linux, and the GUI from OS X, and all the apps it can support.

Linux is great, and has been great this entire time; my change was simply personal.

BL.
 

CarreraGuy

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2013
149
0
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.

Unix is a specification which OSX and some BSD descendents abide by. Again OSX complies with the spec, so be it money was involved recently as to "once upon a time", however it's still Unix.
 

SlCKB0Y

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2012
3,426
555
Sydney, Australia
Unix is a specification which OSX and some BSD descendents abide by. Again OSX complies with the spec, so be it money was involved recently as to "once upon a time", however it's still Unix.

Again, which supports the notion that "UNIX" is now a completely meaningless concept, except for marketing uses.
 

osiris7

macrumors newbie
Oct 1, 2014
1
0
Patents is the reason Linux will never crack the desktop. Google tried with the chrome books, but all the manufacturers have to pay Microsoft patent fees.
Then you have fanboys hating any distro that obtains any success. I thought Ubuntu would become main stream, but the Linux community is so against them. So what if they wanted to use their own display server. Steam boxes will be based on Ubuntu so they can't afford to have buggy open source display manager.
I recently brought a Mac mini and I feel right at home coming from Arch and Debian. Things just work and nothing beat scrolling on Mac osx. I love the gestures with the magic trackpad. Also the terminal is still there if you want it. Software while not free is put together better then other OS's. If Linux ever want to compete, someone need to build an is on Arch or Gentoo as they have the best hardware support and get timely updates.
 

skaertus

macrumors 601
Feb 23, 2009
4,232
1,380
Brazil
Patents is the reason Linux will never crack the desktop. Google tried with the chrome books, but all the manufacturers have to pay Microsoft patent fees.

Then you have fanboys hating any distro that obtains any success. I thought Ubuntu would become main stream, but the Linux community is so against them. So what if they wanted to use their own display server. Steam boxes will be based on Ubuntu so they can't afford to have buggy open source display manager.

I recently brought a Mac mini and I feel right at home coming from Arch and Debian. Things just work and nothing beat scrolling on Mac osx. I love the gestures with the magic trackpad. Also the terminal is still there if you want it. Software while not free is put together better then other OS's. If Linux ever want to compete, someone need to build an is on Arch or Gentoo as they have the best hardware support and get timely updates.


Everybody has to pay patent fees to everybody. This is why cross-licensing agreements exist. However, Linux developers have no patents and, therefore, they have nothing to exchange with Microsoft or Google or IBM or Apple or anyone else. So, Linux is basically out of the game.
 

fluffy

macrumors member
Aug 7, 2003
73
44
I was a UNIX diehard; before Windows was ever really usable for anything I got a shell account on a Cray running UNICOS, and then later my high school got a DECstation running Ultrix. In college I definitely preferred the AIX and SunOS boxes compared to the Windows ones. I primarily ran Linux (Yggdrasil, then Slackware, then Debian) on my home systems. I always loved the configurability, the consistency, the power, and the programmer-friendliness of it all.

When I was in grad school I had a laptop running Debian. At the time, getting Linux running on laptops was a dicey proposition. I spent many, many hours figuring out all of the tweaks for getting it to work, which was device-specific and painful and often involved hacking on kernel modules to do anything useful, and even then I never got a lot of things working quite right (such as WiFi, which was just starting to become widely available), and it was frustrating to have to deal with USB device enumeration issues (especially since at the time XFree86 - this was WAY before X.org - had no hotplug support, and most Linux distributions still used generated device inodes instead of devfs).

The laptop got stolen.

A few months earlier, OSX 10.1 had come out, and I was vaguely curious in it, because here was a UNIX distribution written by the same people supporting the hardware it was supposed to run on, and I figured, hey, at least it'll be easier to get working, right?

I got an iBook (lended to me by the university), installed 10.1 and XDarwin on it, and was a happy camper with a decent BSD-based UNIX on a laptop that Just Worked, and since it had XDarwin I could still do everything I would have normally done on Linux (as long as I didn't need the GPU, as XDarwin had no OpenGL support at the time).

There were certain things that never quite worked right, though; Mozilla/X11 (this was before it was even named "Phoenix," much less "Firefox") was pretty bad, so I usually ended up running the Mac version of IE or Opera instead. And I found that Mail.app was a lot easier to deal with than sshing to my shell account and running mutt there, as was my usual approach. And slowly I started using more and more OSX apps and fewer and fewer X11 apps.

When it was time to give the iBook back to the university, I realized that I hadn't even booted my high-end Linux workstation in months, and I... didn't want to go back to that.

So I bought a used PowerMac G4, and I've been pretty much a full-time Mac user ever since, at least at home. Even at work I'll try to work on a Mac whenever I can, and if that's not an option, will do Xubuntu (the least-bad of the Linux distributions IMO) as my distant second choice, and if I have to do Windows I'll rather run it Windows under virtualbox or Parallels or even a remote desktop rather than running Windows directly if I can get away with it. (Sadly, that's not always an option.) But if I have to run Windows on the metal for some reason, I usually just mount its filesystem remotely from a Mac, do all my editing over the network, and only use the Windows box to actually run the build tools and so on.

Of course, most of the time I'm either in Terminal or Sublime Text (which has only very recently replaced Emacs for me, which I always found more useful for programming than the One True Editor, vi). I mean, I do have my limits.

----------

So far I'm loving OS X. I just don't understand why Apple still hasn't created a Direct X competitor. I wish I didn't have to buy a Windows license to play a game once in a while.
Ostensibly, that's what Metal is intended to be. Personally I'm looking forward to wide support for OpenGL 4.5's Direct State Access, though, as it gives you most of the advantages without losing cross-platform capabilities (not that it matters all that much since most games are written against middleware like Unity or Unreal these days anyway).
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,923
17,399
Again, which shows that Unix is a nothing but a useless marketing term.

You may want to read up on the Novell v. SCO lawsuit from the past 15 years. You'll find that it definitely is not a marketing term, especially how SCO sued everybody they could because they believed they found Unix code in every Unix-like OS, and that they believed they owned Unix.

BL.
 

SlCKB0Y

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2012
3,426
555
Sydney, Australia
:rolleyes: OSX is based on Unix. it is not a marketing term.

OS X has ZERO UNIX code in it and until they gave an organisation a whole bundle of money to use the term UNIX, they were simply "Unix-like", just like Linux and just like the later BSD's on which it is partially based.
 

SlCKB0Y

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2012
3,426
555
Sydney, Australia
You may want to read up on the Novell v. SCO lawsuit from the past 15 years. You'll find that it definitely is not a marketing term, especially how SCO sued everybody they could because they believed they found Unix code in every Unix-like OS, and that they believed they owned Unix.

BL.

What I am getting at is that there is Unix and there is UNIX®.

Most technical people would consider "Unix" to be any OS which contains copyright-encumbered AT&T Unix code. This is the most meaningful definition of what Unix is. Current operating systems which fall into this category are Solaris (and it's opensource distro's - OpenSolaris, illumos and OpenIndiana), HP/UX and AIX.

On the other hand we have UNIX®. This is simply a certification an OS much reach in order to call itself UNIX®. It involves conforming to a set of standards and giving the Open Group a bucket load of money.

OS X is not based on AT&T Unix code and until Apple paid the Open Group all that money, OS X simply Unix-like. FreeBSD or Linux could make some changes, conform to the required standards and pay the Open Group for the privilege of calling themselves UNIX®.
 
Last edited:

sjinsjca

macrumors 68020
Oct 30, 2008
2,238
555
There's no right answer.

I have no dog in the fight, really. I use Linux, OS X and Windows all the time for specific tasks. My thoughts:

If you're doing server work, Linux is truly hard to beat.

If you're working on the desktop, OS X is the one that's hard to beat... especially if you want to be productive, be supported and be focused on your work as opposed to focused on enjoyably geeky computer-centric support activities. The least little difficulty will bring your productivity on a Linux desktop to a halt. For example, just attempting to run a scanner took me through three "free" scanner utilities from my distribution's repo, two of which failed to work outright and the third was only semi-operative and wildly unstable. OS X, by comparison, Just Worked. (Windows' support of my very major manufacturer's all-in-one printer's scanning capability was every bit as bad as Linux's). Other examples abound.

If you're not an expert, OS X wins hands-down. Else the first hint of trouble will lead you down the rabbit-hole. Linux has nothing like a Genius Bar.

If you value your eyes, the design attention paid to OS X wins, too. Font management, display rendering... it's all there, leaving even the fanciest, most desktop-centric Linux distress to look unfinished and crude. And forget about things like making a compelling presentation on Linux that is even in the same time-zone as Keynote on OS X. Which, incidentally, is now free.

For me, the breakdown is: OS X for everyday desktop use; Linux for server functionality; Windows for specialty applications such as instrumentation control where equipment may not have software available for anything else.
 

SlCKB0Y

macrumors 68040
Feb 25, 2012
3,426
555
Sydney, Australia
You are very mistaken! OS X is based on BSD Unix!

BSD Unix started life as a licensed version of AT&T Unix. Over time, faculty and staff replaced much of the system with their own rewrites. Over a long period of time and a number of lawsuits, it was determined that the BSD operating system no longer contained any copyrighted AT&T code - it was essentially a new OS with no Unix code in it.

This was released as 4.4BSD-Lite and made open source. From this code base, we get FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin (on which OS X is partially based).

OS X does not contain Unix code...
 

Alrescha

macrumors 68020
Jan 1, 2008
2,156
317

Please, allow me:

"Although for legal reasons FreeBSD cannot use the Unix trademark, it is a direct descendant of BSD, which was historically also called "BSD Unix" or "Berkeley Unix"."

And:

"OS X is based upon the Mach kernel. Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in NeXTSTEP, the core of Mac OS X. "

Source: wikipedia

A.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.