OSX vs UBUNTU

[luist3k]

Hi y'all,

Sorry to post this question in advance, but just for curiosity (I am not too savvy ), only talking about code and under the hood stuff, what are the greatest differences between OS X and Ubuntu ?

I know nothing about the topic but I prefer to take damage and ask than die an ignorant!

 

[Intell]

One's Linux and the other is BSD. Similar, but still very different.

 

[luist3k]

One's Linux and the other is BSD. Similar, but still very different.

Thanks for your answer!

Could you please extend your answer a little more, specifically in terms of those implicit differences and similarities ?

 

[kot]

Thanks for your answer!

Could you please extend your answer a little more, specifically in terms of those implicit differences and similarities ?

Here's an excellent post on the matter: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/ancient/whatismacosx/index.html

 

[GermanyChris]

What is making you ask the question?

Linux is an open source kernel developed by Linus Torvalds.

BSD or Berkley Unix is proprietary and after many battles with ATT (?) has split into many forks...

Linux is Unix like.

OS X at least until Leopard was certified Unix.

I am a Linux guy I make the effort to convert wayward windows users to Linux constantly. If your asking the question to figure out which is better for you, you need to look at your needs. While I'm not a big fan of Ubuntu nor the Unity interface I just installed it for my 62yo. father-in-law and he understood it intuitively. Canonical in my mind is about as open source as Google which is to say not at all but you can't argue with results.

 

[luist3k]

Here's an excellent post on the matter: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/ancient/whatismacosx/index.html

Thanks!!!

----------

What is making you ask the question?

Linux is an open source kernel developed by Linus Torvalds.

BSD or Berkley Unix is proprietary and after many battles with ATT (?) has split into many forks...

Linux is Unix like.

OS X at least until Leopard was certified Unix.

I am a Linux guy I make the effort to convert wayward windows users to Linux constantly. If your asking the question to figure out which is better for you, you need to look at your needs. While I'm not a big fan of Ubuntu nor the Unity interface I just installed it for my 62yo. father-in-law and he understood it intuitively. Canonical in my mind is about as open source as Google which is to say not at all but you can't argue with results.

Thanks for your answer.

It's just for curiosity since I used Windows since 3.1, then I moved to dual Ubuntu/Windows and finally I am typing on a MBA. Just noticed the similarities and thought if OS X experience-performance could be achieved by Ubuntu if comparable resources where pumped into it. Again, just for curiosity.

 

[GermanyChris]

Thanks!!!

----------



Thanks for your answer.

It's just for curiosity since I used Windows since 3.1, then I moved to dual Ubuntu/Windows and finally I am typing on a MBA. Just noticed the similarities and thought if OS X experience-performance could be achieved by Ubuntu if comparable resources where pumped into it. Again, just for curiosity.

Yes, Linux will be just as fast as OSX with the same resources IMHO though I'm sure someone will argue that point. The only issue that seems unresolved in any Linux distro I've used to date is power management. Linux doesn't seem to do at as well as Windows and Windows not as well as OSX though I may not be looking hard enough. I switched to Linux at the Windows 95 release. My computer couldn't hang with 95 and I couldn't afford a new one sooo off we went. I was at Ohio State at that time and there was a healthy linux user group so I too my computer there one evening and a nice girl got me all set up.

 

[MisterMe]

...

BSD or Berkley Unix is proprietary and after many battles with ATT (?) has split into many forks...

Linux is Unix like.

OS X at least until Leopard was certified Unix.

...

You have it backwards. Up through MacOS X 10.4 Tiger, MacOS X was a POSIX-compatible port of BSD. Beginning with MacOS X 10.5, MacOS X has been a certified port of the UNIX 03 Unified Specification. The Unified Specification ends the bifurcation of UNIX by joining the AT&T and BSD forks of the OS.

You have some understanding of Linux. To be clear, Linux is only the kernel of the GNU operating system. GNU is a recursive acronym for GNU's Not Unix. GNU was developed with the intent of developing a Unix-workalike OS without using a line of AT&T code.

The notion that Unix is proprietary is misinformed. Without a doubt, there are proprietary ports of Unix. However, MacOS X was built on a combination of opensource ports of BSD--primarily NetBSD and FreeBSD. Apple created its own port and released it as opensource under the name Darwin. GNU, the project most noted for Linux, supported Darwin with its own GNU-Darwin distribution.

Now that Darwin is certified UNIX 03, it is no more proprietary than it ever was. UNIX 03 is supported by Apple (MacOS X 10.5, MacOS X 10.6), Fujitsu (Solaris 10), HP (HP-UX 11i), IBM (AIX 5L, AIX 6), and Oracle (Solaris 10, Solaris 11). The standard is maintained by The Open Group, not by a Apple or any other hardware manufacturer.

 

[GermanyChris]

You have it backwards. Up through MacOS X 10.4 Tiger, MacOS X was a POSIX-compatible port of BSD. Beginning with MacOS X 10.5, MacOS X has been a certified port of the UNIX 03 Unified Specification. The Unified Specification ends the bifurcation of UNIX by joining the AT&T and BSD forks of the OS.

You have some understanding of Linux. To be clear, Linux is only the kernel of the GNU operating system. GNU is a recursive acronym for GNU's Not Unix. GNU was developed with the intent of developing a Unix-workalike OS without using a line of AT&T code.

The notion that Unix is proprietary is misinformed. Without a doubt, there are proprietary ports of Unix. However, MacOS X was built on a combination of opensource ports of BSD--primarily NetBSD and FreeBSD. Apple created its own port and released it as opensource under the name Darwin. GNU, the project most noted for Linux, supported Darwin with its own GNU-Darwin distribution.

Now that Darwin is certified UNIX 03, it is no more proprietary than it ever was. UNIX 03 is supported by Apple (MacOS X 10.5, MacOS X 10.6), Fujitsu (Solaris 10), HP (HP-UX 11i), IBM (AIX 5L, AIX 6), and Oracle (Solaris 10, Solaris 11). The standard is maintained by The Open Group, not by a Apple or any other hardware manufacturer.

That I didn't know, and should have.

I just wasn't going to ge there is all while this is factually correct..

It is propietary all the way..it's owned by bell labs hence the GNU's Not Unix. Stallman wanted to creat a unix like operating system but wanted to use a micro kernel for the flexibility. Linus got his monolithic kernal done first, everyone dumped GNU on Linus' Kernel and the rest is history.

 

[MisterMe]

That I didn't know, and should have.

I just wasn't going to ge there is all while this is factually correct..

It is propietary all the way..it's owned by bell labs hence the GNU's Not Unix. Stallman wanted to creat a unix like operating system but wanted to use a micro kernel for the flexibility. Linus got his monolithic kernal done first, everyone dumped GNU on Linus' Kernel and the rest is history.

AT&T does not now own UNIX and has not done so for more than a decade. BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) is based on code licensed by AT&T to the University of California and has been the property of the University of California Regents.

GNU is owned by the Free Software Foundation. BSD was owned by a different non-profit. BSD was opensource while the FSF was still casting about for a kernel. However, that misses a larger point.

Proprietary in computer software has traditionally meant that you were tied to a single vendor. The big iron and midrange computers that handled the vast majority of computing tasks when Unix was developed ran operating systems provided by their manufacturers. Furthermore, you could not purchase IBM operating systems, you rented them.

Unix changed all that. It was inherently opensource. Being written in C rather than assembly language, the OS could be ported to any manufacturers hardware. This is why scientists and engineers flocked to Unix for the computers that controlled their laboratory instruments. Unix enabled the rise of engineering workstations because workstation manufacturers could concentrate on building their hardware. Instead of having to develop a new OS for their hardware, they could port Unix to it.

BTW, lest I leave the impression that only BSD was free Unix, that is not the case. Prior to the U. S. Government's break-up of AT&T, AT&T was prohibited from selling computer operating systems. AT&T owned its fork of Unix, but it could not sell it. Several legendary computer companies got their start because they had ready access to AT&T Unix code.

 

[maflynn]

The easiest answer is that the job of an operating system is to run Apps.

The apps available for OSX far exceed what's available for ubuntu. Not to stay that there lack of apps for ubuntu but for me, apps for OSX are better then ubuntu in quantity and quality. (photoshop vs. gimp for example).

One thing that I found with my usage of Linux was upgrades, I've always found it problematic to upgrade ubuntu or fedora. In fact some distros recommend not upgrading but a clean install which then requires re-application of tweaks and drivers. I don't want to spend my time tweaking the OS to get it to work but rather spend my time using my apps.

 

[GermanyChris]

AT&T does not now own UNIX and has not done so for more than a decade. BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) is based on code licensed by AT&T to the University of California and has been the property of the University of California Regents.

GNU is owned by the Free Software Foundation. BSD was owned by a different non-profit. BSD was opensource while the FSF was still casting about for a kernel. However, that misses a larger point.

Proprietary in computer software has traditionally meant that you were tied to a single vendor. The big iron and midrange computers that handled the vast majority of computing tasks when Unix was developed ran operating systems provided by their manufacturers. Furthermore, you could not purchase IBM operating systems, you rented them.

Unix changed all that. It was inherently opensource. Being written in C rather than assembly language, the OS could be ported to any manufacturers hardware. This is why scientists and engineers flocked to Unix for the computers that controlled their laboratory instruments. Unix enabled the rise of engineering workstations because workstation manufacturers could concentrate on building their hardware. Instead of having to develop a new OS for their hardware, they could port Unix to it.

BTW, lest I leave the impression that only BSD was free Unix, that is not the case. Prior to the U. S. Government's break-up of AT&T, AT&T was prohibited from selling computer operating systems. AT&T owned its fork of Unix, but it could not sell it. Several legendary computer companies got their start because they had ready access to AT&T Unix code.

I'm not going to argue more with out more research..Now I gotta go on and internet tear tonight because of you

We moving far enough back in my computer memory I must be getting hazy..

----------

The easiest answer is that the job of an operating system is to run Apps.

The apps available for OSX far exceed what's available for ubuntu. Not to stay that there lack of apps for ubuntu but for me, apps for OSX are better then ubuntu in quantity and quality. (photoshop vs. gimp for example).

One thing that I found with my usage of Linux was upgrades, I've always found it problematic to upgrade ubuntu or fedora. In fact some distros recommend not upgrading but a clean install which then requires re-application of tweaks and drivers. I don't want to spend my time tweaking the OS to get it to work but rather spend my time using my apps.

I always clean installed until last year when the upgrades started going well..The Lion Delta didn't do so it must not be to hard to mess this up..

 

[r0k]

I've been a Linux user since 1998 and a Unix user before that. I started with Slackware 2.0 and went on from there. I had been using NT 3.51 for my home server and had an active MSDN subscription. I used Windows on my desktop. NT used to die almost daily. I abandoned NT for my home server and started using Linux. Linux only needed resetting for upgrades and power failures.

I was interested in Mac OS but never seriously interested because I had heard file formats were mostly different and it was difficult to exchange files between Mac and Windows. I obtained a used Mac Quadra and "played around with it" but most of my non-Windows time was spent on Linux and Unix.

I found moving from distro to distro and even from version to version of Linux to require some effort. Suse and Redhat and Fedora and Ubuntu used to all do things differently. Almost all my work on Linux was done on the console. On most of my installs, I never even bothered launch or even install X11. I guess this was out of distaste from the era where I had to describe my monitor's refresh rate and pixel geometry in arcane X11 config files.

At work I used Solaris and HPUX and these again were different in many ways. I longed for a *nix with a graphical user interface that didn't suck that was powerful enough for me to actually configure things and have them actually work. Just about every Linux distro I tried was largely a disappointment in this regard but OS X finally answered my prayer.

When the Mac mini came out, I bought one on almost the first day. I had been waiting for a Mac price point that wasn't over a thousand dollars so I picked up a 1.25 Ghz G4 Mac mini. I used it remotely via VNC but my primary desktop was still Windows and my primary server OS was still Linux.

The reason I've given this bit of history is I want to talk about the experience of using Solaris vs Linux vs OS X from the prospective of the owner/admin/guy who has to get stuff done. As an admin, I don't use Solaris any more but I still deal with little upgrade snafus on Linux from time to time. The little snafus we put up with on OSX are nothing by comparison. Perhaps it's the fault of my iPad, but I stopped switching on my Ubuntu based netbook very often and the few times I do switch it on, I'm always faced with hours of upgrades, which I often cancel outright. By comparison, even my old and moldy G4 mini with its pathetic little full 40 GB drive is easier to manage and upgrade than my Ubuntu netbook.

So while Linux got me interested in OS X, I'd find it very hard to go back to using Linux for things I now use OS X. If I'm setting up a "headless" server, Linux is fine. I can ssh into it using a terminal in OS X and it's like an extension of my Mac. For every day use, including documents, web browsing and the like, I'll keep my OS X.

 

[luist3k]

I've been a Linux user since 1998 and a Unix user before that. I started with Slackware 2.0 and went on from there. I had been using NT 3.51 for my home server and had an active MSDN subscription. I used Windows on my desktop. NT used to die almost daily. I abandoned NT for my home server and started using Linux. Linux only needed resetting for upgrades and power failures.

I was interested in Mac OS but never seriously interested because I had heard file formats were mostly different and it was difficult to exchange files between Mac and Windows. I obtained a used Mac Quadra and "played around with it" but most of my non-Windows time was spent on Linux and Unix.

I found moving from distro to distro and even from version to version of Linux to require some effort. Suse and Redhat and Fedora and Ubuntu used to all do things differently. Almost all my work on Linux was done on the console. On most of my installs, I never even bothered launch or even install X11. I guess this was out of distaste from the era where I had to describe my monitor's refresh rate and pixel geometry in arcane X11 config files.

At work I used Solaris and HPUX and these again were different in many ways. I longed for a *nix with a graphical user interface that didn't suck that was powerful enough for me to actually configure things and have them actually work. Just about every Linux distro I tried was largely a disappointment in this regard but OS X finally answered my prayer.

When the Mac mini came out, I bought one on almost the first day. I had been waiting for a Mac price point that wasn't over a thousand dollars so I picked up a 1.25 Ghz G4 Mac mini. I used it remotely via VNC but my primary desktop was still Windows and my primary server OS was still Linux.

The reason I've given this bit of history is I want to talk about the experience of using Solaris vs Linux vs OS X from the prospective of the owner/admin/guy who has to get stuff done. As an admin, I don't use Solaris any more but I still deal with little upgrade snafus on Linux from time to time. The little snafus we put up with on OSX are nothing by comparison. Perhaps it's the fault of my iPad, but I stopped switching on my Ubuntu based netbook very often and the few times I do switch it on, I'm always faced with hours of upgrades, which I often cancel outright. By comparison, even my old and moldy G4 mini with its pathetic little full 40 GB drive is easier to manage and upgrade than my Ubuntu netbook.

So while Linux got me interested in OS X, I'd find it very hard to go back to using Linux for things I now use OS X. If I'm setting up a "headless" server, Linux is fine. I can ssh into it using a terminal in OS X and it's like an extension of my Mac. For every day use, including documents, web browsing and the like, I'll keep my OS X.

Great story r0k! Thanks for sharing.

All the info you all guys have shared is very interesting. So Linux has much more similarities with OS X than I tough. Thanks!