Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:09 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y If you're a Vista-wary Windows user who would rather switch than fight, should you move to a Linux distro or Apple's OS X? InformwationWeek asked a Mac fan and a Linux advocate to lead a guided tour of each OS.
Order by: Score:
Depends on the user
by Bit_Rapist on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:30 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

If you want fine grained control over your system, don't mind working around a few limitations (primarily hardware that might be more windows targeted) then I'd say Linux can be the stronger alternative.

If on the other hand you want to simply use a computer like an appliance, plug in your ipod, download some music etc. and nothing more then I'd say that OS X is the far stronger alternative for you.

With OS X you are getting what the manufacturer wants to feed you (just like windows), its just less problem prone and spyware is not included.

On linux you'll have total freedom, but freedom always comes with a price. You'll spend more time configuring your linux system for daily tasks than you likely will with OS X.

Really depends on the user and what the user wants out of the computer.

Ok enough of my rambling!

Reply Score: 24

RE: Depends on the user
by Matt Giacomini on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:16 UTC in reply to "Depends on the user"
Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it depends more on the apps you require then how much control you want.

I do a lot of graphics design, movie editing, and flash development. There are applications that allow me to work in Windows or on a Mac, but I'm out of luck when it comes to Linux.

I'm sure other people are in a similar position.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Depends on the user
by Bit_Rapist on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Depends on the user"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

I think it depends more on the apps you require then how much control you want.

True and this is a good point. The applications you require may well push you to a certain platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Depends on the user
by butters on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 05:40 UTC in reply to "Depends on the user"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

If you're going to leave Windows and take the inevitable productivity hit that goes along with changing platforms, then it's important to think about the future. You don't want to suffer through that migration just to find that the platform isn't moving in the right direction for your needs.

That's why I chose Linux. I switched over a few years in the late 90s. Those of you who ran Linux during this time remember that it wasn't a slam dunk experience. But I realized that this was a platform that was moving in the right direction for my needs. I knew that it would keep getting better and better all the time.

I think that proprietary software development is inefficient, and those costs get past onto the consumer. But more importantly, the commercial software industry has a conflict of interest between protecting its revenue stream and producing innovative technologies. This is why there's so much demand for iPhone and AppleTV hacks. Users often want features that jeopardize the gravy train.

Free software largely eliminates the barriers that keep users from the capabilities that they desire in their programmable devices. As post-PC gadgets become more central to our lives, proprietary vendors will want to limit these devices to specialized roles in order to build profit centers. An AppleTV has all the hardware to be a great thin client. But that's not what Apple had in mind, so only intrepid hackers can unleash the potential of their devices through dubiously legal means.

Right now, the computer industry at a crossroads. We have a lot of horsepower and some interesting new shapes and sizes, but it seems that proprietary vendors are reluctant to deliver the true promise of personal computing. Between DRM, format wars, closed development frameworks, and restrictive EULAs, consumers are lukewarm to the direction of these platforms. It's all about what they want. There's nothing personal about proprietary computing.

So, as computing changes, do you want it to become more about them, or more about you? In which direction would you like the industry to move? If you're going to commit time and energy to a platform, then you should think about where the platform is headed. Are you setting yourself up for empowerment or disappointment going forward?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Depends on the user
by psychicist on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Depends on the user"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

Could it be that because desktop operating systems licenses aren't a primary source of income for IBM and Sun that they are in fact in a far better place to see what direction the desktop should evolve into than the current self-appointed ones?

I already saw this happening a few years ago and now that new and second-hand hardware is pretty cheap to come by there is more of an incentive to acquire that, install an open source operating system on it and enjoy that until the hardware breaks.

That's why I have been developing a distribution based on Slackware for the last few years. Recently I have ported it to MIPS and I have started a SPARC port now with PPC, IA-64 and PA-RISC still to come.

I know Debian runs on all these architectures as well but with Slackware I have a lot more control over it and of course it's as stable and fast as you can get, maybe with the exception of AIX/HP-UX/Solaris/OpenVMS and mainframe operating systems.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Depends on the user
by kefkathecruel on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 19:40 UTC in reply to "Depends on the user"
kefkathecruel Member since:
2006-01-17

That's funny. I can run pretty much any GNU software, X11 apps, Windows programs, and Mac OS X applications under Mac OS X. I've got Apache, MySQL, PHP, and all the goods.

My hardware feels like it was manufactured for the default operating systems and I have less limitations than other platforms.

Apple's Mac is ...

a. arguably one of the best user centric platforms
b. a platform for running Windows software
c. a platform for running Unix/Linux titles.

No other hardware/software platform can really claim to do these things. Sure you can kind of run Windows with a runtime under Linux or use virtualization but the Mac OS X w/ Parallels or Bootcamp offers far more versatility. Of course a large part of the GNU/Linux crowd believes feature parity equates to quality parity so this point will be missed by many.

I have bash, csh, tcsh, zsh ... everything Linux has alongside a nice graphical UI, solid APIs under a single unifying authority, and the ability to run Windows apps.

To talk down of the Mac as an "appliance" simply shows a very narrow minded definition and a willingness to misrepresent the facts on your part.

Edited 2007-08-02 19:43

Reply Score: 4

RE: Depends on the user
by Robocoastie on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 17:02 UTC in reply to "Depends on the user"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

Agreed. It depends on what the user wants the computer to do. Do they want proprietary media such as movies, and music on it? If so then OS-X combined with Apple's iTunes and meager movie selection on iTunes is their answer.

As much as I dislike DRM it's here to stay. I like the movielink downloads for movie rentals and being able to get just the music I want rather than entire cd's so I'm stuck with Windows and I have a Linux box for file serving and other work.

As much as I like Linux, until apps are built to handle DRM for it, it remains a hobby or utility OS only.

Reply Score: 1

Linux vs. OS X
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:33 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

One quick thought: you can run Linux on your existing hardware (normally), but if you want to run OS X legally you need to buy new hardware.

Reply Score: 13

RE: Linux vs. OS X
by tweakedenigma on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:41 UTC in reply to "Linux vs. OS X"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

True but a mac is also the only Computer that can run just about every OS out there.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux vs. OS X"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, true.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X
by psychicist on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux vs. OS X"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

While I understand some people may have a preference for Apple computers because of their design and OS X I don't understand why the fact that it can run run all operating systems is considered a strength.

In my opinion it is rather a weakness. Mac OS X is the only operating system that requires a genuine Apple computer to run while I can install Linux and BSD on any hardware I want and Windows on any x86 system.

It's just another form of lock-in that I don't commend Apple for but it is probably a major reason to buy a Mac over a Dell, HP or whitebox system.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X
by drynwhyl on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux vs. OS X"
drynwhyl Member since:
2006-05-14

> True but a mac is also the only Computer that can run
> just about every OS out there.

The Mac ist the only Computer that is _allowed_ to run just about every OS out there.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux vs. OS X
by Bit_Rapist on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "Linux vs. OS X"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

One quick thought: you can run Linux on your existing hardware (normally), but if you want to run OS X legally you need to buy new hardware.

Agreed and thats really what sealed the deal for me on which 'alternative' to use. I already had some good x86 hardware around and was looking for a replacement for Windows XP on a laptop (Got sick of constantly updating a machine I used to do nothing more than surf while on my couch).

So I installed Ubuntu and haven't looked back. Its been awesome. No more virus scans at startup, messages popping up about updating .dat files and spyware scanners being out of date. I just use the machine and enjoy it. I never really did that with windows on the laptop.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X
by milles21 on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux vs. OS X"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

Here we go again with the you can run Linux on just about every piece of hardware. I am sure you can if you try hard enough, but damn a brand new T60p out the box ubuntu 7.10 fails without tweaking, Fedora 7 fails without google and tweaking, SUSE 10.2 completes but hell things don't work.

I am not bashing Linux but I am sure you can run Linux on a older system but it always appears that you have to run lats years model to install correctly. Anything else you hacve to fiddle sorry after 2200.00 I don't want to fiddle I want to be productive.

Welcome OSX, I will take it and my new Unix 03 certification and run with it.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X
by mesomaan on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X"
mesomaan Member since:
2006-01-04

>>>ubuntu 7.10 fails without tweaking,

You do realize that 7.10 means October 2007. Why do you expect something planned for future release to 'just work'?????

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: Linux vs. OS X
by milles21 on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

I do realize that I spoke of 7.10 That is because the t60p came out after 6.04. What I am saying is that it really is a pain when you have a hardware vendor such as Dell or IBM and you cannot upgrade the system without having to tweak and install this and that. However in the defense of Linux I recognize that the issue lies with the OEM's and that they could indeed select and configure hardware that has Linux ope n drivers out of the box. Or they could pre-install drivers and the way that they do with Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Linux vs. OS X
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 02:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux vs. OS X"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

However in the defense of Linux I recognize that the issue lies with the OEM's and that they could indeed select and configure hardware that has Linux ope n drivers out of the box.


If this is an issue for you, just select a distribution that provides closed drivers.

PCLinuxOS, Linux Mint or Siddux could be the go for you.

Any of those will install from a single liveCD, it will install without issues on a huge range of x86 hardware. You will very likely be up and running in less than 20 minutes with a complete set of applications and no need for CD-keys or activation or whatever.

Neither OSX or Windows are anywhere near as easy as this to get going.

If you are putting together your own box ... Linux is without doubt the way to go. Unquestionably.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Linux vs. OS X
by Wrawrat on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 05:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux vs. OS X"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

If you are putting together your own box ... Linux is without doubt the way to go. Unquestionably.


Even if you have needs that cannot be catered by software alternatives when they exist? A brand new Linux box that doesn't suit your needs isn't much better than a paperweight. Most people get computer hardware or specific operating systems for running applications, not the opposite. While I am a free software enthusiast, I have specific problems which are better solved with MS Windows, hence why it's running on my self-built desktop system. After all, a computer is a tool.

Building your box is an excellent opportunity to evaluate software alternatives, though. Still, the software repertoire around GNU/Linux isn't for everybody, let alone the unquestionable way to go.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X
by archiesteel on Wed 1st Aug 2007 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Here we go again with the you can run Linux on just about every piece of hardware.


Who said this, exactly? Anonymous Penguin said "you can run Linux on your existing hardware (normally)", which clearly does not imply that it runs on "just about every piece of hardware", while Bit_Rapist talked only of the x86 hardware he already had.

I am not bashing Linux


How do you explain the knee-jerk reply that misrepresented what the two previous posters had said, then?

it always appears that you have to run lats years model to install correctly


Appearances can be deceiving. The *smart* thing to do is to check if the hardware is compatible *before* buying it.

Welcome OSX, I will take it and my new Unix 03 certification and run with it.


Do you realize that you just criticized Linux for not running on all hardware, and then championed OSX? Surely you're aware that OSX runs on *less* hardware than Linux?

Look, all three big OSes have their advantages and disadvantages. These pissing contests are becoming quite tiresome...

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Linux vs. OS X
by milles21 on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

Do you realize that you just criticized Linux for not running on all hardware, and then championed OSX? Surely you're aware that OSX runs on *less* hardware than Linux


What I was saying that you clearly missed was that you can purchase a new system and have to tweak some Linux OS's to make run on that brand new system. I don't criticize OS X for it's lack of hardware support because I know that that is not the goal of OSX. However I do know that when I buy my macbook and go home and boot it up OSX recognizes all my parts in my macbook.

Also FYI constructive criticism is what I was supplying your interpretation was bashing that is why I made it a point to say that I was not bashing it. I use it on servers where I don't user OSX server as for the OS it is top notch once configured and tweaked. That does not remove the fact that in a server environment it took forever to get stable SATA support in major Linux distros when I had new servers already shipping with it. Therefor I prefer the power of unix in OSX on the mac hardware I don't see anything wrong with that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Linux vs. OS X
by archiesteel on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux vs. OS X"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The reason I said you were bashing is that you began your comment by falsely claiming the people you were responding to were saying that Linux ran on every piece of hardware, and then went on to challenge that notion. That is a textbook example of a strawman argument, and in this context it is clearly not "constructive criticism".

In any case, what was constructive in your post? I'm really curious, because I see a lot of complaining, but no constructive comments.

And if you don't expect hardware compatibility of OSX, why did you mention it at the end of your post, after harping on Linux' hardware compatibility?

I'm sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Linux vs. OS X
by milles21 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Linux vs. OS X"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

It is you that has mis-quoted me I said "just about " since you want to be technical you responded quoting me and interpreting me incorrectly. Therefore you so-called reason for responding was flawed in any case My criticism is that Linux still has a way to go and that more emphasis needs to be placed on the compatibility with manufactures and this is where OSX although one vendor has Linux beat. Linux needs backing like MS has from vendors.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Linux vs. OS X
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux vs. OS X"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Therefore you so-called reason for responding was flawed in any case My criticism is that Linux still has a way to go and that more emphasis needs to be placed on the compatibility with manufactures and this is where OSX although one vendor has Linux beat. Linux needs backing like MS has from vendors.


But you have simply got it wrong.

Linux installs correctly on vastly more hardware, and has working drivers for vastly more peripherals than either OSX or Vista.

This is true even if you do happen to have on hand the original CDs that came with the hardware peripherals ... most likely those CDs will only have an XP driver that doesn't work in Vista (or in OSX for that matter) ... but Linux has a working driver for it on the Linux install CD.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Linux vs. OS X
by archiesteel on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Linux vs. OS X"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

It is you that has mis-quoted me I said "just about " since you want to be technical you responded quoting me and interpreting me incorrectly.


I didn't misquote you. You really wrote "Here we go again with the you can run Linux on just about every piece of hardware", clearly implying that this is what the users you were responding were claiming, while in fact it wasn't. Until you recognize that basic error in your post, I'm afraid there's not much else to say.

My criticism is that Linux still has a way to go and that more emphasis needs to be placed on the compatibility with manufactures and this is where OSX although one vendor has Linux beat.


It hasn't got Linux beat because you can only run OSX on one type of hardware: Apple's.

In any case, go back and re-read your original post: there was nothing constructive in that criticism. A constructive criticism would have been to suggest ways in which the Linux community can get more OEMs to support Linux (though, in fact, the community is managing quite well on its own).

Linux needs backing like MS has from vendors.


That's the chicken/egg problem, isn't it? More vendors will back Linux when more people will use it. That means that one should not avoid using Linux because there is less hardware support than for Windows (albeit more than for OSX), but instead use Linux and buy only compatible hardware - therefore giving an incentive to OEMs that *do* support Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X
by anda_skoa on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

....a brand new T60p out the box ubuntu 7.10 fails without tweaking, Fedora 7 fails without google and tweaking [...] Welcome OSX, I will take it and my new Unix 03 certification and run with it.


OSX on an IBM Thinkpad T60p? Now this is what I would call tweaking!

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Linux vs. OS X
by apoclypse on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah, they forget to mention that OSX came pre-installed on their mac. People should really try to compare apples to apples (no pun intended). BTW, have they tried a vanilla install of windows on these machines, I've had issues with the images we have at work, the T60p has a lot of hardware, one of which I think is an ATI video chip.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X
by funny_irony on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X"
funny_irony Member since:
2007-03-07

I totally agree with you. With Linux, you must try to find out whether the distro can support the hardware.

Otherwise, you will end up installing 1001 distros of Linux and find the one that can work.

By the time you find one Linux distro that works, your hardware is obsolete.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Linux vs. OS X
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I totally agree with you. With Linux, you must try to find out whether the distro can support the hardware.

Otherwise, you will end up installing 1001 distros of Linux and find the one that can work.

By the time you find one Linux distro that works, your hardware is obsolete.


FUD. Pure and utter FUD. You have been called on it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Linux vs. OS X
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Linux vs. OS X"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Actually... there is *some* truth to that. I've had a hell of a time with wireless cards, for example. A cheap D-Link USB dongle drove me insane... never got that thing to work on Linux, and just gave up on it. When I decided to replace the USB POS in my mom's computer, I printed out a list of supposedly "Linux-friendly" internal wireless card, and took it with me to Staples and Wal-Mart. I ended up finding a whopping ONE card, at Staples, that was on the "compatible" list and reportedly had the friendly "Ralink" chip. Exact brand and model number and everything.

Got home. Put it in. What happened? Didn't work. I'm down to a measly TWO distros--Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS--that work with this card, and nothing else. Turns out that this card actually has the Atheros chipset, instead of Ralink, requiring MadWifi and some binary-only driver... apparently they changed the card without changing the model number, or something, but I got screwed over. The machine's a cheap piece of crap with a Sempron and only 192MB memory, so obviously these two distros are not very impressive on it.

As for installing Madwifi and the binary blob myself... I've had enough headaches with just trying to figure out the problem and trying to get it work (nothing but failures), I honestly don't feel like screwing around with it any more. One thing's for sure: wireless card support needs to improve dramatically before a chip ever gets installed in my system (which is unlikely to begin with--wired seems more reliable). It's honestly got to be the biggest PITA I've ever experienced in computing, right up there with adware.

Also, I might as well add, wireless has also been one of the biggest annoyances in Windows, too. But at least I can get it working. Well, for the most part. Thankfully, because I connect using an ethernet cable, I can install any distro I please and (usually) get instant Internet connectivity. Overall, I prefer Linux, but this wifi crap prevents me from replacing Windows on all the computers in the house (only one is mine anyway).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X
by tpchur on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X"
tpchur Member since:
2007-02-12

Ummm. My T60p installed and runs ubuntu perfectly and I'm a new linux user so I have no clue on how to tweak it. I still love my G5 iMac though. It's still my main computer and it probably will remain that way for years to come.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X
by psychicist on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

You are correct that this kind of things happens and it is largely a problem with quality assurance in the various Linux distributions.

Therefore for all the patching and breaking that the various "market leaders" are doing I'd rather have they thoroughly test their creations instead of putting out broken distributions that the end user has to patch and configure before it is usable.

I saw this kind of thing years ago and I'm sad that it's still happening when Linux should be a mature platform and not an everlasting playground anymore to at least cater to the mythical common user (there are developer/geek distributions for that such Debian unstable and Fedora).

A few weeks ago my dual-booted SUSE 10.2 installation even lost its network connection forever and that was the last straw to make me erase it and I will probably never run it again anymore despite its polish, userfriendliness and precompiled packages.

That's why I've been running Slackware for the last few years, one of the few distributions where quality is paramount even if there are not that many applications included. I have scripts and packages for all the things I tend to use and I'm very happy that it stays out of my way.

If this distribution was not around I'd probably be using Solaris or FreeBSD as my main operating system by now or even have (reluctantly ) bought a Mac. Debian and Ubuntu are also pretty nice and stable but not really to my liking. I will install either for anyone that wants any of them, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X
by KenJackson on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux vs. OS X"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

So I installed Ubuntu and haven't looked back.

Yes, and the article used Ubuntu for it's reference Linux, as most people seem to do these days. But I'm kind of disappointed that PCLinuxOS doesn't get more attention. I recently installed both it and Ubuntu on a test machine and they're both great, but I'm more impressed with PCLinuxOS

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, and the article used Ubuntu for it's reference Linux, as most people seem to do these days. But I'm kind of disappointed that PCLinuxOS doesn't get more attention. I recently installed both it and Ubuntu on a test machine and they're both great, but I'm more impressed with PCLinuxOS


Hear hear.

PCLinuxOS is easier than Ubuntu, especially for "newbies".

PCLinuxOS is a close second to Ubuntu in the level of interest (according to the page hit ranking anyway):
http://distrowatch.com/

Ubuntu does however have a far larger community and a larger repository. You are arguably more likely to find any given application for Ubuntu and also more likely to be able to find help for Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Linux vs. OS X
by Bit_Rapist on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

I recently installed both it and Ubuntu on a test machine and they're both great, but I'm more impressed with PCLinuxOS

Cool I'll check out PClinuxOS. Thanks for the recommendation!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux vs. OS X
by Kroc on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:18 UTC in reply to "Linux vs. OS X"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Yes, but that isn't /so/ wrong. Having a computer that looks good in the lounge is definitely a priority to some users. Maybe you're upgrading and want to replace old hardware, or want to use a new computer, for a new purpose (such as a Mac Mini for a home server). It's not to say that because you have to buy hardware, that it's a total non-possibility. ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Linux vs. OS X
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux vs. OS X"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. Of course there can be several reasons why you want to buy new hardware.
But if you want to simply ditch Windows and you don't need new hardware, with Linux you won't have any expenses.

Reply Score: 2

Hmm...
by Almafeta on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:37 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

No mention of any BSD. (EDIT: I should say any other BSD.)

No mention of SkyOS.

Edited 2007-08-01 20:54

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hmm...
by stestagg on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:38 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

That says a lot more about BSD and SkyOS than the article

Reply Score: 10

RE: Hmm...
by tweakedenigma on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:40 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

Don't get me Wrong I love BSD and think SkyOS is an interesting Idea but really BSD and other will have to make the same inroads to really be considered. Linux and Mac are both on fire right now and are expected to really Challenge MS in the near future and thats why the focus is on them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmm...
by Oliver on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

There is NO DESKTOP TO RULE THEM ALL. There is just everybodies very own "desktop", nothing more, nothing less. Maybe you should narrow your view on the >desktop environment< and not the whole operarting system.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
v RE: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:29 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
RE[2]: Hmm...
by Obscurus on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

- BSD is not broken, nor is it illegal under any jurisdiction I am aware of;
- it is just as secure as any other *nix - actually, as a server OS it is considerably more secure than most Linux distros - netBSD is considered one of the most secure operating systems around;
- it is as "complete" as any other *nix if not more so in many respects (exactly how you are defining "complete" I am not quite sure);
- while BSDs do offer slightly less hardware support than Linux, it makes up for it by being superior in other areas, particularly integration of core OS components, so it is hardly inferior in any general sense;
- BSD has active commercial backing: iXsystems and Wasabi for example are two companies providing commercial support, and while BSD certainly doesn't have the level of support that some other *nix platforms enjoy, it is grossly untrue to claim it is unsupported.


And while BSDs might not detect and work properly with every bit of hardware out there, I very much doubt it would fail to install on just about any x86 compatible PC.

BSD will run pretty much any software that runs on Linux or UNIX, it will work with most of the same hardware that most unices will work with, and is therefore as reasonable an alternative to Windows as Linux or Mac Os X is likely to be. And I highly doubt the proprietor of a computer reseller will take kindly to people installing operating systems on their display stock, so I would not recommend people try that if they don't want any trouble with the law...

Next time check your facts before posting, you'll save yourself some considerable embarrassment.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Hmm...
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And I highly doubt the proprietor of a computer reseller will take kindly to people installing operating systems on their display stock, so I would not recommend people try that if they don't want any trouble with the law...


Yet another reason to get yourself an OS on a liveCD.

When you go to a store, you can see if your OS will work in any given machine by putting in the Linux liveCD and trying to reboot. You won't change a single thing on the machine's hard drive with this test. If the machine doesn't come up in Linux, take out the liveCD and tell the salesman his machine is no good for you.

If the salseman won't let you put in your test CD, then don't buy his machine. Walk away.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Hmm...
by prince_seth on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
prince_seth Member since:
2006-11-22

netBSD is considered one of the most secure operating systems around;
- it is as "complete" as any other *nix if not more so in many respects (exactly how you are defining "complete" I am not quite sure);


Actually the distinction of being the most secure is attributed to OpenBSD, NetBSD is known for portability, though the lines do blur. OpenBSD can run on a myriad of platforms:

alpha Digital Alpha-based systems
amd64 AMD64-based systems
armish ARM-based appliances
hp300 Hewlett-Packard HP 9000 series 300 and 400
hppa Hewlett-Packard Precision Architecture(PA-RISC)
i386
landisk IO-DATA Landisk systems
luna88k Omron LUNA-88K and LUNA-88K2 workstations
mac68k Motorola 680x0-based Apple Macintosh with MMU
macppc
mvme68k Motorola 680x0-based VME systems
mvme88k Motorola 881x0-based VME systems
sgi SGI MIPS-based workstations
sparc Sun sun4, sun4c and sun4m class SPARC systems
sparc64 Sun UltraSPARC systems
vax Digital VAX-based systems
zaurus


and NetBSD can be very secure.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
RE[4]: Hmm...
by Almafeta on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

"nor is it illegal under any jurisdiction"

It is illegal and until they fix or remove what's illegal in it there is no chance of it to see any big deployment.


If BSD or any distro of BSD has been having legal problems, why not post about it here? That's definately something newsworthy.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm..."
RE[3]: Hmm...
by Wrawrat on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Just ignore him. Trust me, you'll realize why quite soon.

Edited 2007-08-02 04:24

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm..."
RE[3]: Hmm...
by Soulbender on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 05:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Dont feed the anti-BSD FUD machine.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm..."
RE[2]: Hmm...
by SReilly on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Call any hardware maker or respectable Computer OEM vendor :

BSD is broken , illegal , insecure , incomplete , inferior , unsupported.

[angry rant]
You truly are talking out of your rear end today, again!
I have never seen a single BSD installation that was in any way as messed up as you just mentioned.

There is nothing illegal about BSD, which anyone who has looked into *nix platforms knows to be the case. You are so purposely miss informed it's truly sad.

Why is it that every time somebody mentions BSD, you have to post such total flamebait drivel? Can you not let somebody voice a personal gripe about they're favorite platform without getting involved? Who asked your opinion anyway? Why is it that, to this day, you still have not understood that nobody gives a rat's ass about your opinion of any facet of the BSDs?

Just F**K OFF already!

[/angry rant]

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmm...
by netpython on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Nothing wrong with *BSD. On the contrary i wish OSX had more of it underneath the bonnet. for example address space randomisation and stack/heap smashing protection.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm..."
RE[4]: Hmm...
by nevali on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 08:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm..."
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

Don't expect me to sit still will you make bulshit comment , about GNU/Linux in a GNU/Linux based article.


You know that Mac OS X, which this thread is also about, contains significant amounts of both user-land and kernel-level BSD code, right?

This isn't just a GNU/Linux article. Darwin is a BSD-based operating system. Certainly, it's quite different architecturally from the “typical” BSDs, but that doesn't stop it being comprised of an awful lot that makes BSD what it is.

Regarding your patent trolls, you know that whole thing is Microsoft FUD, don't you? The onus is on the accuser to back up their claims, not the accused to demonstrate that unspecified claims are false; the opposite is a logistical impossibility in any realistic scenario.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

You known that discussing GNU/Linux and Mac OS X as a windows alternative is not an invitation to discuss or include BSD right ?

Because BSD is not an alternative to windows ... Dell did not seek BSD as an OS offer even do it's first choice was Mac OS X , it went to GNU/Linux when Apple said no.

Patent mater , I know for BSD's it's all a joke ( a troll to use your own words ) but it's one more reason among many why BSD is illegal.

The problem is it's not a scenario or a theory.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Hmm...
by netpython on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm..."
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

You known that discussing GNU/Linux and Mac OS X as a windows alternative is not an invitation to discuss or include BSD right ?

Why not? If BSD is related and relevant to the current thread i don't see why one can't bring it into the discussion. Unless someone blatantly lies or doesn't respect other people.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmm..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

That's it , BSD is not related or relevant.

Because its a **comparaison** between GNU/linux and Mac OS X , because it discuss the better windows alternative , BSD I am sorry to say is not a Windows alternative.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hmm...
by SReilly on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm..."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I tried to read your post, I really did, but frankly it's so hard to understand what your saying that I just gave up. Please, if you want to save yourself from further ridicule, go away!

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Hmm...
by Moulinneuf on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm..."
RE[2]: Hmm...
by jadeshade on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 02:08 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
jadeshade Member since:
2007-07-10

+ skyOS doesn't exist yet, at least not in a form that you can 'switch' to.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm...
by doctor_shim on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 04:51 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
doctor_shim Member since:
2007-01-17

They should've included Minix, because we all know how much more relevant to the desktop-user experience Minix is than OS X or Linux.

Reply Score: 1

Mac
by iskios on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:41 UTC
iskios
Member since:
2005-07-06

I say Mac because I quite frankly think the average user does not have the patience or the knowledge to do the configuring mentioned earlier.

I do, however, think that if a user buys himself a Mac, he has the best of all possibilities. He can still install an easy to use Linux like Fedora or Mint, install Windows, and run Mac OS X as well, and all on one machine.

Frankly, I love OS X, and it's powerful UNIX underpinnings make it more than capable of almost anything any other OS is, but as always, each person just has to experiment and find what works best for them.

Hector

Reply Score: 8

RE: Mac
by gentlemanfinn on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:49 UTC in reply to "Mac"
gentlemanfinn Member since:
2006-02-19

but as always, each person just has to experiment and find what works best for them.


QFT

Edit: sorry for offtopic, but it needed to be written one more time.

Edited 2007-08-01 20:51

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mac
by graigsmith on Wed 1st Aug 2007 22:30 UTC in reply to "Mac"
graigsmith Member since:
2006-04-05

come october when the next version of ubuntu comes out, all that configuring will be automatically done by the new version of xorg.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mac
by stestagg on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I'll reserve judgement untill I actually see it.

Reply Score: 2

What do you want, exactly?
by raynevandunem on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:43 UTC
raynevandunem
Member since:
2006-11-24

Linux is good for sysadmins and others who take non-GUI matters seriously, and don't really care for how an application looks or performs. OS X has always been about what you could do with the GUI, and they invest alot more into it, with Unix as a built-in option.

So if its ssh or sniffing out network holes or something like that, Linux is better than Mac OS X at that (And 100 other non-GUI features). If its creating your latest animation, CSS-laden blogsite, or iMovie video to display your dual-booted Ubuntu+Compiz Fusion demo, then, yeah, OS X would be it.

In reverse, though, its not as clear-cut, since OS X is rarely recommended for the server room, and the mythical "Year of Desktop Linux" from the Linux press since 2001 has become a subject of, and byword for, mockery and scorn: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=or...

Of course, for being two such anti-MS camps, they do have a severe love-hate relationship on which one can be the better/more popular/more useable desktop system: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/freetards-in-deep-denial.html

Edited 2007-08-01 20:52

Reply Score: 1

RE: What do you want, exactly?
by Crono on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:03 UTC in reply to "What do you want, exactly?"
Crono Member since:
2006-11-08

Of course, for being two such anti-MS camps, they do have a severe love-hate relationship on which one can be the better/more popular/more useable desktop system: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/freetards-in-deep-denial.html


What the fsck is that guy's problem? Is he actually ranting about some whiners who don't like MS dropping the prices in China? Ranting about some kiddos who whine about big MS-marketshare?
Yeah, like, everyone that uses Linux thinks so, right?

Also, I've been using Linux for a few years as a desktop system. What now? Tell me how stupid I am because I don't use the "superior" Windows or Mac? Tell me that it must have been a shitload of work (it was half an hour of work...) and that would justify buying a Windows-license instead?

What an idiot.
No sorry, he's not an idiot. He's too pathetic to be one.

Edited 2007-08-01 21:05

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What do you want, exactly?
by nevali on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE: What do you want, exactly?"
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

What an idiot.
No sorry, he's not an idiot. He's too pathetic to be one.


Sorry, I resisted, but I have to post this:

He's called fake Steve for a reason: it's a parody of Steve jobs. Fakesteve isn't real. It's made up. He's deliberately antagonistic.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: What do you want, exactly?
by Crono on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What do you want, exactly?"
Crono Member since:
2006-11-08

Thanks, I didn't know that ;)

Reply Score: 2

All about choice...
by CapEnt on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:48 UTC
CapEnt
Member since:
2005-12-18

Although i use opensuse and a software developer by profession, if in a parallel universe i'm a Vista-wary XP user (and only user that is, no computer related job) and hear any of these arguments, specially the ones in the second and thirty pages, full of technical and marketing terms, probably i will have choose to stay with XP.

Users fear what they don't know, and terms like "RAID", "X window", "virtualization" or "BSD system" doesn't help in anything.

Reply Score: 2

Thoughts
by Buck on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:53 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

It's a bit off-topic, but I'd say any alternative is better as long as you're ditching Windows.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Thoughts
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:00 UTC in reply to "Thoughts"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a bit off-topic, but I'd say any alternative is better as long as you're ditching Windows.


It is difficult to fully explain why, but i have always felt that Linux and OS X users are brothers. The two operating systems have a lot in common, but hardly anything in common with Windows.
I for one am a user of both.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Thoughts
by Kroc on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Thoughts"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

using either will give you more knowledge of the other than you could ever hope to learn from using Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Thoughts
by psychicist on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Thoughts"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

I am a Unix/Linux user and developer and not a Mac OS X user at the moment but would probably get one if I wanted to do some pro audio/video while keeping an eye to multimedia development in the Linux world.

It would only be a lot easier to recommend Apple if it wasn't so afraid of Linux and ported some of their applications to Linux. For now they seem to have adopted a policy of keeping their friends away and their enemies close.

There will always be a reason to own a Mac but at the moment it seems more based on rebellion against other platforms and vendors than delivering a "genuine advantage" over and above the others. Also they would be wise to ditch their kernel and adopt that of FreeBSD or Solaris to improve performance dramatically.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Thoughts
by ronaldst on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:43 UTC in reply to "Thoughts"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

I am always surprised at how much people will get so emotional when it comes to everyday mundane software. I pity people with that mental disorder.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Thoughts
by Kroc on Wed 1st Aug 2007 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Thoughts"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I pity people who can't feel a love for good engineering. Be that a car, or software.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Thoughts
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Thoughts"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
I am always surprised at how much people will get so emotional when it comes to everyday mundane software. I pity people with that mental disorder.
"""

Do you really mean that?

It's perfectly reasonable to view software as mundane. But it doesn't write itself. And once you get down into the details of writing it, it is anything but mundane. There is a passion to it.

When people ask me how to get into the computer programming business, I really don't know what to say. Because it's just not something that you get into because you hear that there are jobs there. It's a way of thinking; It's a way of life. And many of us get here, only to realize that we will only ever be mediocre programmers compared to others out there. But we still have the passion. It takes a while. But we discover that it's OK to be comparatively mediocre as long as we are still sincerely trying. Even though the sun, moon, and stars that shine above us may shine brighter than we.

Please do not call us mundane! Because we are not! And our interest in software related issues is not!

My answer to the original question of "Which is a better alternative to Windows" is "Both". Sometimes Apple is a better fit. Sometimes Linux is a better fit. And if Windows were wiped from the face of the earth tomorrow, by decree of the gods, then Apple, Linux, BSD and others would flourish.

It makes no difference which is a "better alternative".

Edited 2007-08-01 23:27

Reply Score: 8

RE: Thoughts
by Soulbender on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 05:43 UTC in reply to "Thoughts"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Why? If Windows works for you right now why would you change?
Because MS is "evil"? Well I hope you don't drink Coke because in the grand scheme of things Coca-Cola is a far more evil company than MS.
Because it's not "good enough"? Obviously it is good enough for many people. Granted, Linux/Mac would also be good enough for many people but since many of them already have Windows and is comfortable with it why bother?
Because some diffuse and obscure (for the average user) "freedom"? News at 11, most people don't care about the "software freedoms" since they have no interest in modifying and distributing code. It does not affect them (or so they think).
Here's another earth shattering revelation; some people actually LIKE Windows. You may have noticed that people drive different cars, listen to different music and like different food. Same with computers, some like Windows, some (like me) don't.

Change for the sake of change itself isn't a wise thing.

Reply Score: 4

Not a very deep comparison
by fretinator on Wed 1st Aug 2007 20:58 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Other issues involved:

Freedom - for those who actually care about the moral/ethical issues behind Free Software, the choice is obvious.

Cost - how much will my system cost - including upgrades, added features (server options etc)

Support - who offers the best support? What kinds of support are available?

I'm sure there are more issues. This article was just a sum of the current state of common beliefs - Linux Hard, Apple Easy, etc. Is Linspire harder to use for a Windows convert than a Mac?

Having said that, I basically ask a person what they want when I recommend an OS:

Don't want to think about it - Windows or Mac

Secure - Linus or Mac

Buy software at Best Buy - Windows

I have to admit, I haven't had anyone say to me - "I care about the Freedom of the software I use. Which OS better supports freedom?"

Unfortunately, most people jsut want to surf the net, play games, and plug in their Ipod.

Hello, Vista!

Reply Score: 8

RE: Not a very deep comparison
by roddog on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 00:25 UTC in reply to "Not a very deep comparison"
roddog Member since:
2006-03-24

I am wondering why people always bring up "support" as a reason for selecting an OS. How many people have actually called Microsoft, Apple, RedHat, to get support for an OS-related issue? Hardware issues are irrelvant, the provider must fix the kit. The only time I talk to any OS provider is when a BIOS upgrade comes down the pipe and I have to talk to India to reauthorize Vista (a rant for another time completely).

Has anyone really had an issue that they actually talked to the OS provider and the provider actually responded with something other than a) it is not supported hardware, or b) talk to the hardware provider for a driver.

Reply Score: 4

Definitely Macs
by WorknMan on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:11 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

There are basically 3 kinds of users out there:

1. Average user - Does basic tasks, just wants something that works.
2. Power user - Likes to exploit every bell and whistle available in the apps they use. The OS doesn't really matter. It's all about the killer apps.
3. Geek - Those who like to tinker under the hood. Are generally more concerned with how the computer works than actually using the damn thing.

Out of the above 3 user types, the majority of them are in category #1, and Macs are simply better for the 'just make it work out of the box' crowd, unless there happens to be a Linux guru nearby.

The users in category #2 will not be ditching Windows for quite some time, because that is where the most functional applications are, for the most part. If they did switch, they'd probably go to the Mac, because most of them aren't politically motivated and Macs have a lot of high-end commercial software, like the Adobe stuff.

The users in category #3 have probably been using *Nix/*BSD for the past 10 years anyway, and wouldn't touch Windows with a 10-foot pole ;)

Reply Score: 10

RE: Definitely Macs
by apoclypse on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:28 UTC in reply to "Definitely Macs"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I think that this is not true in all cases. If Linux is configured correctly for the user as they buy, then it would work just as well as a Mac for the most part, the same can be said about Windows. MacOSX doesn't have to deal with the huge assortment of hardware windows and Linux have to deal with so for the most part they avoid the issue by having users use just a subset of hardware. I think that if a user were given a laptop with Ubuntu pre-configured on it there would be no need for a linux guru to be around since they are most likely not doing much more than email, music, etc. ipods work just as well in linux as they do on a Mac, they even get mounted quicker (I have the latest MBP, and it takes forever to mount usb devices) it will open rhythmbox and let you listen to your music. I do love MacOSX though at first I was bored since I'm so used to linux and its week long task of configuring the system before I use (not usually because of hardware, but other things like apps I need isntalled etc. Compare this to the much, much longer task in windows, where I have to install drivers for EVERYTHING, and all my apps too). With a Mac everything was done for me so I had little to do on the machine except stare at how pretty it is.

Reply Score: 2

re
by Oliver on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:26 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

BSD ;)

Sorry couldn't resist, *my* desktop is perfect and *yours*?

Reply Score: 5

v RE: re
by Moulinneuf on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:38 UTC in reply to "re"
RE: Depends on the user
by Phuqker on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:29 UTC
Phuqker
Member since:
2005-07-17

If you want fine grained control over your system, don't mind working around a few limitations (primarily hardware that might be more windows targeted) then I'd say Linux can be the stronger alternative.

If on the other hand you want to simply use a computer like an appliance, plug in your ipod, download some music etc. and nothing more then I'd say that OS X is the far stronger alternative for you.

With OS X you are getting what the manufacturer wants to feed you (just like windows), its just less problem prone and spyware is not included.

On linux you'll have total freedom, but freedom always comes with a price. You'll spend more time configuring your linux system for daily tasks than you likely will with OS X.

Really depends on the user and what the user wants out of the computer.

Ok enough of my rambling!


Well intentioned but largely false, at least in regards to OS X. It's completely true that Linux gives you total freedom. It's completely false that OS X isn't extremely customizable. True, I can't recompile the kernel, but there's an immense amount of customization that can be done outside of that. I have access to a vast array of Unix command-line tools with DarwinPorts, just to name one thing.

For the record, my personal machine is a 15" MacBook Pro running the latest OS X. I have an Ubuntu Server for my Rails stuff and a Windows Server 2003 Web Edition box for my ASP.NET stuff. I know all three of these systems quite well. Many people who criticize operating systems have not used them extensively. I try never to make that mistake, because it often leads you to say things that are deeply misinformed, like Bit_Rapist has. I like and hate things about all three systems, but for day-to-day use, the Mac is my hands-down choice.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Depends on the user
by nevali on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Depends on the user"
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

True, I can't recompile the kernel, but there's an immense amount of customization that can be done outside of that


Actually, you can. You can't compile the very latest release until a few weeks after the binaries are available, but lots of people (especially driver writers) do Mac OS X run custom-compiled XNU. The secret sauce is in the binary-only drivers and userspace libraries, so the vast majority of Mac OS X doesn't really care if you roll your own kernel.

Granted, there isn't much mileage in doing it—the driver interface is relatively stable for most things, but support for SCTP, or doing old-fashioned (printf) kernel debugging require a recompile.

Needless to say, Apple doesn't actually support this configuration, but they don't stand in your way either.

Reply Score: 7

Version N-1
by pseudocode on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:29 UTC
pseudocode
Member since:
2007-05-30

The best Alternative to Windows Version N is probably Windows Version N-1 (*)


(*) rule verified since 1995

Reply Score: 3

RE: Version N-1
by Crono on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:35 UTC in reply to "Version N-1"
Crono Member since:
2006-11-08

Not if N happens to be Windows 2000.
In that case, it's N-2. Or would you exchange 2k against ME?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Version N-1
by pseudocode on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Version N-1"
pseudocode Member since:
2007-05-30

Predecessor of W2k is NT4.0, not ME :-)

Reply Score: 4

my 2 cents
by kristoph on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:31 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

I would so love to say Mac OS X in answer to this question. I own a number of Mac OS X machines, mostly laptops, and it is definitely the best OS IMHO.

However, the fact that Mac OS X is tied to Apple hardware means that if I want a decent machine without an integrated monitor I have to shell out at least $2500 ... at least $1.5k more than a (admittedly lesser but still decent) Newegg build.

That price difference is what keeps Ubuntu and Vista (which I _REALLY_ hate) on some of my hardware.

]{

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Wow, the world must be ending. The article is well reasoned, seriously lacking in ad revenue boosting trolling, and they managed to find BOTH an apple and a linux fan who are not zealots, and willing to admit not only that there are weaknesses on their platform of choice, but that it is possible that someone can choose an alternative and not be an idiot.

Linux gives you freedom on many levels: the freedom to tinker, the freedom to work without arbitrary constraints on your system setup, and the freedom to make decisions about nearly every aspect of your system.

That freedom does come at a cost, though -- the cost of a certain degree of effort. I haven't yet dealt with a single Linux install that didn't require me to edit some configuration file somewhere. That said, the amount of effort required to get the Linux system you want (or need) has gone down enormously with time.

If the freedom to use your PC in as unhindered a way as possible is important to you, that's what Linux delivers -- although keep in mind it comes with a learning curve, one that is still flattening out rather slowly


Bang on. If you are a "Power User" (i.e. someone who spends far more time tinkering with your computer then actually getting anything done), then Linux is your dream operating system. On other platforms, you hit barrier where it gets significantly harder to figure out how things work, on linux not only do these not exist, but every step of the way you will find well documented ways to tweak things. I love learning new operating systems, and i dont think i have ever had more fun then sinking my teeth into linux.

If you don't really care HOW things work, only that they DO work, then the zero cost of linux is vastly outweighed by the fact that if you don't spend a significant amount of time in learning how things work, you will always be a cripple on your computer. But that leads us to...

If you believe that open source is a moral choice -- and many people do -- then buying Apple is making a deal with the devil. Apple is arguably the most proprietary hardware / software company in the industry, despite Mac OS X's origins in BSD Unix, and the products' compliance with many industry standards.

You think Microsoft locks users in? At least with Microsoft you can buy a PC from a huge number of big and small vendors, or build your own from components. With the Mac, you buy your PC from Apple, you buy your operating system from Apple, and you're also encouraged to buy your mouse, keyboard, display, audio device, and smartphone from Apple, all at an Apple Store where you can get Apple service.

But if you're willing to live with lock-in, Apple is a great choice for computing. Installation isn't a problem -- Apple does it for you. Networking is easy. Productivity is a dream. The Mac offers a broad variety of entertainment options. It's a secure platform. It interoperates well with Windows. It's highly stable, and offers solid backup choices for the data losses that are inevitable on any computing platform.

Right now, Apple is smokin', and its customers are happy. But if the Apple gets rotten and starts coming out with inferior products -- as it did in the '90s -- its customers will have the choice of suffering, or making the painful switch to another platform.

Until then, I'm sticking with the Mac. It's a great computer.


The only part of the conclusion i disagree with is the first bit. The only people who care about source code being available are programmers and companies, and the only people who believe in technological morality are a very small subset of programmers. The vast majority of people who use open source do it for the zero cost, and the vast majority of people who develop for it do so because its fun, and its cool to be part of something that big.

That being said, what really shocked me about the mac guys conclusion is how he really emphasized the closed nature of the platform. He flat out tells you its a great platform, but you will be stuck in vendor lock-in the likes of which are virtually unseen in the industry.

What I would add to his conclusion is that there is a zen-like simplicity to using a mac. Many geeks look down on it because of that, but I don't think I have ever used another platform that so totally gets out of the way of getting real work accomplished. The other big point I would like to make is that there is very little free (as in beer) software available for the platform, compared to Windows or Linux. The overall quality of the small apps you get off the internet are
FAR superior, but you have to get used to shelling out 10-15 bucks a pop. If you are a penny-pincher, always looking for the best bargin, then the platform is not for you as you will end up spending quite a bit of money compared to the alternatives. But, if you want the most work efficient system out there, then spending a bit more to reduce the headaches in dealing with computers will seem like a small price to pay.

Edited 2007-08-01 21:43

Reply Score: 6

Forgetting the peope (again)
by rx182 on Wed 1st Aug 2007 21:56 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

All these articles seem the forget the people. You know, in real life, there're more reasons to use an OS than technical details.

I think the strongest points of an OS are:

1) Will the user be able to get help from peers? I mean, My mom can ask my 12 years old brother if she has a problem with Windows. If she used a Mac, it will be harder because not alot of people use a Mac. Still the Mac is easier to use than Windows (I don't believe this statement but that's almost a general consensus nowaday). If she used Linux, she would have to wait for me. If I wasn't there, she would even have Linux installed in the first place.

2) What happens when it fail real badly. If a 15 years old girl realize that her Windows is borken, she can insert the install CD in and install over. Maybe it will fix the problem. Maybe not. If it doesn't, there are tons of Windows techs that will format her PC for a small fee. She then can put the CD in and get everything reinstalled (on her own if shes able to download software, etc). I think it's the same thing for Mac users. However, if she use Linux, that will most likely never happen. Well not really. A bad auto-update can make a Linux box unbootable. What will happen to that girl? Nobody knows. Well, she will ask the guy that installed Linux for her (if she knows him)

3) Software installation. I'm not talking about what is the best way to install software but software availability in general. I'm not going to discuss this point. I think everyone here has a quite good idea. The only thing to consider is that most people find it hard to use alternative. I couldn't get my gf to use another IM than MSN (Gaim, Trillian, aMSN, ...). That matters too!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Forgetting the peope (again)
by apoclypse on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:47 UTC in reply to "Forgetting the peope (again)"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I don't know if I agree with you on the installation of windows thing. Yes re-installing windows would be pretty easy if she used an OEM install disk, but plain windows, she wouldn't get past formatting the harddrive unless she was taught how to do it. What about when she finally boots into windows and all her hardware is not working and she keeps getting those nice new hardware found pop-ups?

OSX install is as simple as they come, there is almost no overly technical task to do, other than formatting the drive after that it's just a matter of waiting until your desktop boots. That's it. You won't see any new hardware found pop-ups and everything will work without issue, this is almost a guarantee.

Distros like Ubuntu have worked hard to make installation easy, and I think the reason Ubuntu is so popular is because everything it needs is on one disk, reducing the margin of error, and the amount of setup user have to do. Installing Ubuntu is dead easy. It works very similarly to how OSX does it, very few questions are asked, and things pretty much go on auto-pilot. If you are able to boot the live CD chances are that all you hardware is working, so that isn't an issue at that point. Once you reboot the system you login and you should be up and running with no questions asked. So in the case of the girl she might actually have an easier time installing Linux than installing windows depending on who installed windows, and where she got the installation disk from. If she is properly trained in Linux(in this case Ubuntu) then installing software should be extremely easy for her.

I've been lucky enough not to have had any major issues with Ubuntu installs since I first started using the distro. I can't say the say for Fedore or OpenSuse, but I haven't really tried them in years so who knows.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Forgetting the peope (again)
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 02:22 UTC in reply to "Forgetting the peope (again)"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What happens when it fail real badly. If a 15 years old girl realize that her Windows is borken, she can insert the install CD in and install over. Maybe it will fix the problem. Maybe not. If it doesn't, there are tons of Windows techs that will format her PC for a small fee. She then can put the CD in and get everything reinstalled (on her own if shes able to download software, etc). I think it's the same thing for Mac users. However, if she use Linux, that will most likely never happen. Well not really. A bad auto-update can make a Linux box unbootable. What will happen to that girl? Nobody knows.


Have you ever tried a recent "live CD" install of a Linux distribution? PCLinuxOS, MEPIS, Ubuntu ... there are several that you could try ... I have listed them in order. PCLinuxOS is the easiest.

Your hypothetical 15yo girl would actually find that the Linux liveCD is by far the easiest OS install. It is far, far easier than Windows, and it also takes only about a tenth of the time ... and when you are finished with the one-CD one-reboot no-CD-key-required no-activation-required install of Linux from a live CD, you will also find a complete set of applications all ready to go, including a complete Office suite.

In Linux, it is possible to have the user's home directories on a separate partition. If you set it up that way, you can trash your OS (say by doing the equivalent of "format C:") ... then pop in your Linux liveCD and be fully up and running again with all your files and settings intact in less than 20 minutes.

Try recovering all your stuff for a Windows "format C:" in twenty minutes or less. Can't be done ... the activation phone call alone would take you that long.

Neither Windows or OSX comes even close to ease of install of Linux, both for the OS itself and for applications (check out Synaptic). Linux is streets ahead of the opposition here.

Reply Score: 2

How about...
by vondur on Wed 1st Aug 2007 22:49 UTC
vondur
Member since:
2005-07-07

Whatever floats your boat?

Reply Score: 2

The answer depends....
by jtrapp on Wed 1st Aug 2007 22:58 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

Are you leaving Windows because it is too hard to use? Then by all means get a Mac.

Are you leaving Windows because you are tired of the proprietary lock-in? Then use Linux.

The choice seems fairly clear to me.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The answer depends....
by exigentsky on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 00:10 UTC in reply to "The answer depends...."
exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

No, there is another option. I left Windows because "it sucked" too much. As a power user, I knew my way around and as a pragmatist, I was not all too worried about its proprietary nature. Instability (it was ME after all), filesystem corruption, poor performance and poorly constructed/designed software lacking integration or direction (with an obtrusive UI) is what drove me to abandon it. It felt like the whole OS was patched together overnight. It is not so simple after all.

BTW: I realize that 2000, XP and Vista are based on the NT kernel and far better than ME. However, I started searching for alternatives because after chugging through 98 and ME, I was fed up.

Edited 2007-08-02 00:15

Reply Score: 1

Combinations
by moleskine on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:00 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

It's not an either-or choice, surely. Unless you have reasons to use a Mac, or can afford the steep prices (where I live, anyway), the best thing is probably to dual-boot Win XP and the Linux distro of your choice. You can use Win XP for what you need to (e.g. games or a proprietary Windows app you can't do without) and Linux for everything else. It's a simple solution, and cost-effective. When Vista has shaped up after service pack 1, upgrade at a moment of your choosing or, if your hardware won't support Vista happily, run XP on it till it runs into the ground.

Horses for courses, then. Macs are clearly great computers, though perhaps not as great as Apple likes to claim, but they come at a heck of a price and all that lock-in would certainly be a headache for many folks. To me, dual-booting on standard Wintel hardware sounds the more sensible and flexible choice.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Combinations
by Tyr. on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 00:59 UTC in reply to "Combinations"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Horses for courses, then. Macs are clearly great computers, though perhaps not as great as Apple likes to claim, but they come at a heck of a price and all that lock-in would certainly be a headache for many folks. To me, dual-booting on standard Wintel hardware sounds the more sensible and flexible choice.


I hear a lot of folks complaining about lock-in and I just don't understand it. You can use all (or most of) your favorite open-source apps on OSX and there are no exotic Mac only formats out there anymore that I know of, so there is no reason you couldn't easily migrate your data if you chose to migrate to Linux or indeed Windows later.

Reply Score: 5

Sometimes there are dumb questions...
by exigentsky on Wed 1st Aug 2007 23:53 UTC
exigentsky
Member since:
2005-07-09

The idea that one OS is better than another is irrational considering the vast differences in philosophy and software. Both Linux and OS X have their fair share of strengths and weaknesses. Covering the relevant differences between OS X and Linux is too big a task, so I will focus primarily on their philosophies. Understanding the philosophy of each is more useful than a million details separated into pros and cons.

Linux is built by hackers with no unified direction (I'll probably be modded down for this) beyond a strong focus on freedom and choice. Choosing Linux does not dictate the hardware you use. Linux can run on anything from a wristwatch to a large grid cluster. Moreover, Linux itself and most of the software you are likely to use will be open source and free (most of the time). Beyond this, there is an emphasis on choice for seemingly mundane aspects. KDE vs GNOME vs XFCE vs WindowMaker... SUSE vs Ubuntu vs Redhat vs Mandriva vs Linspire ... and so on. This is exemplified not in just the number of alternative software, but in the software itself. Most of the software is VERY customizable.

OS X is limited to Apple's vision, direction and hardware. This is both a pro and a con. This makes it possible for Apple to choreograph every aspect of the experience. All your hardware will work with no tinkering and there is integration between the hardware and software (think WebCam and Apple Remote). Using Linux driver and software incompatibilities are not unexpected if the hardware is new or wasn't specifically selected for Linux. Setting up everything may require tinkering, community help and extra driver downloads or patches. This isn't Linux's fault. It is a product of its low marketshare (manufacturers don't care), its support for a huge number of platforms (PPC, x86, x86-64, Itanium, Sparc etc.) and the astronomical number of competing software packages and distributions. I've used over 30 Linux distributions for more than five years and having every piece of hardware and software (with all dependencies) work perfectly is a blessing, not the norm. For me, my Mistsubishi Diamond Pro 2045u only works at 1600x1200 and 85 Hz if I edit the Xfree86 config file. Although, Linux is improving in all of these areas (with more focus on standards like from freedesktop.org), its very nature makes it unlikely that it will ever match Apple. And if it does, something at the very heart of Linux has died. Still, while OS X's philosophy may seem like an advantage, it poses some uneasy questions. What if Apple decides to drastically raise prices? Jumping to a different platform means some relearning and usually buying replacement software (assuming you don't use Windows or Linux on Macs). Thus, there is some inevitable hardware lock-in. If you run Linux on an HP and don't like their machines or prices, you can simply buy a Dell or vice versa. This is largely true for Linux distributions too. While this scenario is unlikely to get too out of hand because Apple still needs to be competitive, it is nonetheless something to consider.

OS X is not as open or customizable as Linux (although more so than Windows). While large parts of OS X are open source, such as Darwin (mostly), WebKit, GCC, DTrace, Apache, and hundreds of other components, it is nowhere near as open as Linux. OS X also discourages choice in many aspects. For example, if you don't like Aqua, there isn't a whole new competing desktop environment like for Linux. It's true that one can run *nix software like KDE or GNOME on OS X using X11 and Fink, but that can hardly be called a competing desktop environment. It is no more integrated than if one used WINE on Linux (which is also available on OS X for Intel). The other DEs look out of place. Still, OS X is fairly customizable (yes, it doesn't have to look blue ;) ) and due to its FreeBSD internals, extremely powerful. Using the terminal does not feel foreign and there is nothing quite like Applescript and Automator.

In a nutshell, OS X compromises on some choice, customization and freedom in return for an OS, or rather an experience, with one elegant and coherent vision that has been meticulously polished over the years. It appeals to people from all walks of life as long as they are willing to accept this balance. It is in some ways, the most pragmatic approach. Linux offers unparalleled freedom and customization at an unbeatable price (given that most Linux distros are free). In addition, I see Linux improving more dramatically than either Windows or OS X. I also see Linux as the ideal to strive for in terms of user freedom. And sadly, I doubt that OS X or Windows will ever challenge Linux on this front.

Edited 2007-08-02 00:12

Reply Score: 5

The question is more...
by Alleister on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 00:47 UTC
Alleister
Member since:
2006-05-29

...are there Linux alternatives to the software i want to use. Unfortunately there are Mac versions but not Linux alternatives to many Windows apps. One app i want is Poser or Daz Studio on which i rely for my amateur game development graphic needs. Both are available for Mac, none of them have OSS alternatives (no, makehuman is not a replacement and blender isn't even remotely the same type of application).

DAZ Studio doesn't even start in Wine, Poser 7 starts but has so many problems that it isn't bearable. Both apps require extreme amounts of Ram and CPU and are a pain to use without hardware acceleration, so virtualization isn't an option.

So the winner for me is Mac... that is... it would if it wouldn't take a 2000$ Mac to compete with a 700$ PC (and please: no Mac zealots calculating the Price of a PC now if it would be build out of Laptop parts and came with a mandatory Monitor... i have a nice Monitor and i don't care if my pc is a couple of centimeters bigger than a Mac Mini).

So i guess i'll stick with Linux and dualboot to XP for my graphic needs, for as long as XP is a viable option for that.

Reply Score: 2

The third option
by chiwaw on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 01:03 UTC
chiwaw
Member since:
2006-02-05

"If you're a Vista-wary Windows user who would rather switch than fight, should you move to a Linux distro or Apple's OS X?"

Well I tried both, but I still prefer that third option: sticking to XP.

Reply Score: 3

All Depends on your situation
by hraq on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 01:56 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

If you are very obssessed with speed and you have all the technical department behind you, then go with solaris SPARC workstation or IBM/power5 based workstation.

If you have a weak technical support then go with Mac.
If still you have a problem with macs like money and hardware quality; then go with IBM Linux based workstation.

If this is so expensive then go with Ubuntu/Dell combo ..
If that is so technically challenging then go with mac mini with parallels installed and windows xp emulated.

If that is still a problem, then get someone to teach you computer basics at home (1h = 80$ = I know how to do it now).
Happy computing

Reply Score: 2

OS X Vs. Linux
by hitest on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 02:41 UTC
hitest
Member since:
2006-10-28

I'm an avid Linux user(Slackware/Debian), I also like FreeBSD. I also really like OS X.
I'm currently saving up for a new Macbook, printer and an airport base station.
Why choose between OS X and Linux?
I'll be happily running both Linux and OS X in the near future.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OS X Vs. Linux
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 02:46 UTC in reply to "OS X Vs. Linux"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm currently saving up for a new Macbook, printer and an airport base station.
Why choose between OS X and Linux?


That is a good option if you can go and get a specific set of new hardware.

On an arbitrary machine that already exists ... if you are looking at putting a fresh current install of one of Linux, OSX or Vista on it then you are far, far more likely to have success with Linux than the other two options.

Reply Score: 3

walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

I dual boot debian/w2k myself. But, I don't think that I'm a typical user.

You won't have much trouble finding popular hw/sw to work with Macs - except games.

Practically none of the major desktop software companies support Linux to any substantial degree: Autodesk, Intuit, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft. Smaller companies are even less likely to support Linux.

Apples have always been easy to set up and use. With Linux, it varies.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You won't have much trouble finding popular hw/sw to work with Macs - except games.

Practically none of the major desktop software companies support Linux to any substantial degree: Autodesk, Intuit, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft. Smaller companies are even less likely to support Linux.


This is a little bit misleading.

There is more software available for Linux than for Macintosh.

You can certainly get some Adobe software for Linux, and Intuit has also taken the first baby steps towards Linux.

It is a bit of a derrrrr statement to make to say that Apple & Microsoft doesn't support Linux ... I can just as well point out that KDE and GNOME don't run on Vista or OSX ...

Autodesk are very much a problem. They are so entwined with Microsoft that the pair of them are likely to sink together.

Fortunately, there are alternatives:
http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html
http://www.er-online.co.uk/s-cad.htm
http://www.varicad.com/

Reply Score: 3

The better alternative
by flywheel on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 05:34 UTC
flywheel
Member since:
2005-12-28

Is Windows the better alternative to Linux, Mac or eCS ??

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Depends on the user
by Phuqker on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 05:46 UTC
Phuqker
Member since:
2005-07-17

See, that's even better! The idea that the Mac is this simplistic, non-customizable brick is just absurd.

Reply Score: 2

better protection
by netpython on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 09:13 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

If security if also important linux is the better choice because OSX doesn't have any stack and or heap smashing protection mechanism such as vista,*BSD and some linux distros (redhat,gentoo-hardened,adamantix,etc).
http://video.google.nl/videosearch?q=toorcon

Edited 2007-08-02 09:16

Reply Score: 3

orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

I moved to a Mac for this very reason: being wary of Vista (for which I think a hardware upgrade would have been necessary anyway, so buying a second-user Mac was just as easy and perhaps less painless to consider).

I also moved to OS X becuase I hope still to understand better how an authentic Unix-like system works, and ostensibly OS X allows me to do this while remaining 'productive'.

I suppose some might say use Cygwin under Windows or dual boot any (other) flavour of Windows with Linux but I have tried both and the OS X option shines for me in comparison as a user.

However, I have to say that I have not been as impressed as I thought I would be as an ex-Windows user with Apple the company since I have had a rationale to scrutinise what it is doing and how it handles things.

Reply Score: 1

Anyone who works in the real world....
by polaris20 on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 13:03 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

knows neither is necessarily a good alternative to MS. There are far too many niche applications in many industries that can't run on OSX or Linux.

It's unfortunate, but it's the truth. If I could get any application for Linux that I can for Windows, then I'd say Linux, because I find it to be very stable and I can run it on any computer I build, as opposed to having to deal with whatever configuration an OEM will sell me.

If that day ever comes, then sure, I'll go 100% to Linux (Ubuntu please!)

Reply Score: 2

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

True but let's pretend we are naiv and choose from the given two a windows replacement,just for the hits:P

Edited 2007-08-02 13:26

Reply Score: 2

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem with these sorts of articles is that everyone's so different, comparisons are nearly pointless.

Yes, if everyone used their computer for spreadsheets/word processing/internet/photos, it would be an easy article to write.

But that's obviously not all what computers do.

Reply Score: 2

Edward
Member since:
2005-09-17

Hmmm...let me think ;)

Reply Score: 2

depends
by broch on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 18:49 UTC
broch
Member since:
2006-05-04

considering desktop:
if one wants to tweak and play with software or one is average home user then linux all the way.
for average user or when quality software required then chose OS X

linux still can't properly handle fonts.
to answer angry:
otf fonts (ps) not accessible under OO.org, koffice messing up things like otf (and ps) font weights.
problems with printing properly specific font weights
(thin, extralight, light for example looks exactly the same printed (from HP deskJet to hight quality Xerox printers) though on the screen one can see differences easily).
Under linux safe fonts are either xsf/esq (linotype/monotype commercial fonts tweaked for screen) or ms windows fonts (but these aren't any good except screen/web). Free notable exceptions are: gentium and fontin available for fownload on the net. These beat crap out of Bitstream Vera in terms of quality.

it seems that freetype2 can handle only basics and screen fonts that look as good as on OS X (similar soft rendering output).

No real DTP (Scribus vs InDesign CS3?), Office is limited, (OS X has MS Office).

Photoshop, Freehand, Illustrator: no real equivalent in the linux world.

Of course this comes for a price.

Linux (except tweaking) offers quality web browsing, email, best cd/dvd burning software (k3b), decent office (short letters, limited DTP) and has still lower requirements than OS X. But this gap (hardware requirements) is narrowing (I am not talking about command line distro or blackbox that except booting and web browsing can't do much).
Way better than OS X LAN browsing and general networking apps (Apple's "tweaked" samba and LDAP or cyrus are only annoyances)

Security nowadays is more in user hands (updating patches) irrelevant of OS.

At home (my laptop) I have linux only installed, at work linux, OS X and windows.
For me OS is only a tool so I don't get excited over presumed superiority of one OS over another.

Reply Score: 1

mac or linux
by Trikke76 on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 12:39 UTC
Trikke76
Member since:
2007-05-07

come on all you linux freaks
i use linux myself and i am verry happy with it
but admit at the end all we want is open osx

i mean open like linux and the ease of use of osx

Reply Score: 1

linux
by happycamper on Fri 3rd Aug 2007 15:52 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

Linux instead of the MAC os X. I don't like the hardware are being used in the MACs and i think the macs are way to expensive.

Reply Score: 1

Apple outside USA
by shiva on Sat 4th Aug 2007 12:07 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

The prices of Apple products outside of USA are even higher than in USA. In developing countries, Mac market share is ridiculous and people prefer to buy "gray PCs" (PCs mounted by the users or little vendors).

In my country (Brazil) linux is already the #2 operating system and the major limitation of linux expansion here is not the geekiness of linux but easy windows (and all proprietary applications for it) piracy. The inertia mantains pirated windows as #1 operating system and maybe "genuine" windows is the #3, after linux as the #2.

Edited 2007-08-04 12:08

Reply Score: 1