Slashdot Log In
Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon vs. Mac OS X Leopard
Posted by
Zonk
on Thursday December 13, @06:31PM
from the who-is-king-of-the-jungle dept.
from the who-is-king-of-the-jungle dept.
walterbyrd writes "Linux magazine has up a decent article comparing Gutsy Gibbon to Leopard. 'The stereotype for each OS is well known: Mac OS X is elegant, easy-to-use, and intuitive, while Ubuntu is stable, secure, and getting better all the time. Both have come a long way in a short time, and both make excellent desktops. So we have two great desktop operating systems out at roughly the same time. Let's see how they stack up against each other.'"
Related Stories
Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon vs. Mac OS X Leopard
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 669 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Oh god (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh god (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh god (Score:5, Funny)
Just remember...there's no such thing as "nowhere to go but up", especially in software. No matter how bad it is, it's possible to make it worse.
Microsoft proves that all the time!
Re:Oh god (Score:5, Funny)
That's what people said about XP.
My Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My Macbook (Score:4, Insightful)
I should have to sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg-plow to get a GUI, ya know? Yet, it's nice to know I can if I have to.
I don't think either OS is poaching much from the other's pool of users.
Re:My Macbook (Score:4, Insightful)
OSX is designed to run on Macs.
If I came out with a new CPU and wrote an operating system around it, yeah, I bet it'd run pretty well there, too.
</fanboy>
Re:My Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you sometimes have to work around things on exotic hardware, very new hardware, or if you're trying to do something very specific that is outside the mainstream. In order to get a system that 'just works', you have to buy hardware that's known to work well on Linux. That's it. Stick with hardware that's been around a bit or has vendor support (like Nvidia graphics cards). Get an Epson or HP printer (and install Stylus Toolbox [sf.net] if you have an Epson printer). Use the well-supported Connectix Webcams. Get a scanner that's known to work with SANE. You get the idea. If you follow these guidelines, you will find that Ubuntu 'just works' every time. Or, if you're not quite so ambitious, go out and buy a machine that has Ubuntu pre-installed. Dell sells them.
Unfortunately, people don't realize this and then dismiss integration issues as Linux being 'too immmature.' That's crap. If all your hardware is known to work well under Linux, you won't run into these integration issues.
Re:My Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you sometimes have to work around things on exotic hardware, very new hardware, or if you're trying to do something very specific that is outside the mainstream. In order to get a system that 'just works', you have to buy hardware that's known to work well on Linux. That's it. Stick with hardware that's been around a bit or has vendor support (like Nvidia graphics cards).
The first sentence seems to contradict the others... and the implication that Linux 'just works' on any hardware that's not 'exotic' or 'very new' is laughable.
I mean i like Ubuntu and everything, i've used it (and several other varieties) fairly extensively, but there are still a lot of things that don't work. WPA encryption didn't work on my not-new and not-exotic wireless card, or any of the different but also not-new and not-exotic wireless cards of the two people i know who've played with Ubuntu at work. ATI video cards are also not new and not exotic, so that arguement doesn't really apply there either. Couldn't figure out how to get my HP printer to work (maybe it ultimately would have if i was smart enough, but jeeze), and although i did eventually get my sound card to work it took about 2 hours of trouble-shooting and research and locating and re-compiling drivers and so on, et cetera et cetera
It's clear that OS X kind of cheats by having a small pool of 'blessed' hardware that it's explicitly designed to run on, so it isn't really fair to compare Linux in general to that particular set-up. But let's be serious, it is not a 'just works' system on common hardware yet.
Re:My Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
"you have to buy hardware that's known to work well on Linux" is not necessarily the same as "my not-new and not-exotic wireless card, or any of the different but also not-new and not-exotic wireless cards" due to that.
Re:My Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that having to buy very specific devices in order to achieve a usable system does not make Ubuntu an 'it just works' operating system on common hardware; at best it makes it an 'it just works' operating system on restricted hardware, in the same vein as OS X. Given the discussion in this article comparing the negatives of Apple's 'closed' system to the beauty and freedom and elegance of Linux's 'open' system i think this is relevant (unless you are the type of person who can write your own drivers). Linux is, again like OS X, definitely not a viable option for many many people unless they want to go out and buy specific hardware for it.
Re:My Macbook (Score:4, Insightful)
If the GUI of OSX fails, you get dropped to a commandline shell, i have had this happen to me when the videocard in my G4 wasn't seated properly, also OSX will not try to run the gui if it doesn't detect a videocard (like in a server).
What linux does need, is a "recovery mode", where it loads a minimal X using vesa or generic vga drivers and lets you reconfigure it properly (this is exactly what windows does with safe mode).
Re:My Macbook (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My Macbook (Score:4, Informative)
Intel produced the ACPI specs, and people implemented those specs into linux/bsd/etc even before there was much ACPI supporting hardware...
Microsoft implemented ACPI too, but not quite according to the specs...
Hardware manufacturers follow microsoft's implementation, and use microsoft's dsdt compiler etc, instead of the standard intel one. And ofcourse the specs aren't published for the broken microsoft implementation.
End result is that ACPI works fairly poorly almost everywhere. If you have a laptop that still supports APM suspend on linux usually works pretty well (i always used apm suspend on my older thinkpads), modern windows no longer supports apm at all (and amusing things happen if you install ibm's apm suspend drivers on xp).
Re:My Ububook (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if I could get Gigasampler or any of the Native Instruments synths or samplers to work in Linux...
I don't really care for the whole "Jack" audio engine thingie, which seems pretty kludgy, and it took a good while for me to figure out what it wanted from me, but some of the open source music apps that came with Ubuntu Studio are definitely for real, once you get past the fact that they didn't have some big corporation pouring money into making them look slick. After Christmas, when I've got some disposable cash on hand, I'm going to check out some of the professional, non-free (as in "expensive") music applications that are starting to become available.
No, it's not as smooth as Leopard, but it's getting there. And now that Eve-Online has a Linux client, I don't care if Microsoft ever fixes Vista. I just don't need it.
Re:wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Hang on, you originally implied that with Linux, you didn't have to install third-party applications. So, it turns out you do have to manually install applications.
Where is this feature on a Mac? Well, www.versiontracker.com would be a start. And that helps you decide what to install. On Linux, how does a new user decide which package to use? A package manager in itself is not going to help much. Most Mac apps are extremely simple to install (usually drag-n-drop to applications folder) - so I don't see how that is any more difficult than installing using a package manager.
How does having a package manager equate to applications being "automatically installed", as you imply in your earlier post?
Tell me - what application bundle does do 100% of what every user wants to do with their computer? There are certainly plenty of things I want to do that I can't under Linux. Hell, there are tons of things that I want to do, that I can't do on any platform, because those applications simply haven't been developed yet.
Utter horseshit. under Linux, you can't even get many types of app - for example, there are no Photoshop-class image editing apps, and no professional video editing apps. Frankly, your contention is ridiculous. Consistency of quality and usability is also much better with Mac apps. If a new user chose a Mac or Linux app at random, it's likely that the Mac app is of better quality and usability. Having a ton of average-to-poor apps available hardly compares to having many first-class apps available.
Re:wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S:
The point of my posts was not to say that the Mac is superior in every way, or has all software covered. My point was that the way that the "finding and installing applications" argument was presented was too simplified, and out of touch with reality. It's not a task that something like a package manager can solve. It requires social solutions, like support networks, and reliable software review sites.
The other thing i disagree with is the idea of "the average user." I don't think such a person exists. If so, I've never met him. Most people have their own interests and tastes, and don't want to be constrained by what's "average." I think it's this attitude that stops many people from trying new things. I think some of these average users are pushed into that role, because of talk about "complex or specialized" software. What is special to one person, is normal to another. If you grew up playing a musical instrument (and having never used a computer) then music composition software might seem completely normal to you - but seem weird and specialist to somebody else. Likewise, Excel is considered "normal" software by many - but if somebody has never had any need for a spreadsheet, it wouldn't really make any sense to them.
I think the "average user" is a myth that should be abolished. It's insulting to both people and software. It's the kind of thing perpetuated by the corporate world, who want every employee to fit a mold, and for everybody to use the same thing.
factual errors. (Score:4, Informative)
both UNIX- based
OS X Leopard *is* certified Unix (r). Ubuntu (and Linux) is not based on original AT&T Unix code nor is it certified Unix. It is a unix-like kernel.
Re:factual errors. (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely not! Were you asleep for the whole SCO lawsuit thing?
Re:factual errors. (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux, BTW, is proud of this, and it also helps when they get sued by stupid copyright trolls like SCO. Linux is UNIX reimplemented from scratch, and thus, technically, is not UNIX but Unix-like.
I tediously explain this to every one of my employees when I'm training them on using their new Ubuntu laptop.
And then I tell them, "But basically, it's Unix."
Re:More importantly is how they are vs Vista (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows has a monopoly on a software method of jury rigging a bunch of hardware from different manufacturers into something resembling a modern computer. Apple turns the computer into something more resembling a television.
Apple aren't better than Windows when it comes to freedom and monopoly. Far from it, MS has always been the lesser evil, that's why they succeeded in the marketplace. Apple is a bullet dodged that is currently ricocheting back.
Re:More importantly is how they are vs Vista (Score:5, Interesting)
Computers are cheap because Compaq reversed engineered the IBM PC and fought the battles against IBM. MS did supply the OS, but this was the essential issue. Compaq still had to come up with a legal BIOS, which is did. One has to imagine they could have come up with an OS as well. In any case, this started a boom, lead by the likes of pheonix technologies, to create a clone market.
In the midst of this, Apple kept it's original mission to supply a good competing computer. The architecture was different, which meant it did not IBM software, and therefore most people went with the cheap clones, which happened to have MS DOS. Those that were not attached to IBM, went to other machines. Apple competed in an environment that included many different platforms. Apple did not compete in the IBM PC market. It just had to keep prices and quality high enough so that people who were not satisfied with IBM PC market, and were looking for a better choice, would include Apple in the search.
It is a anachronistic mistake to assume the state of the world in 1980 was similar to the state of the world today. It was a much more dynamic time with competition sparking genuinely interesting innovations. Unix was still a big player, and ATT developed a Unix microcomputer which was really cool. Apple did not kill this machine, MS did not kill this machines, cheap clones did, which happened to often run MS DOS, as MS Windows was still quite a joke.
In fact in the midst of all this, Apple was a good citizen. The machines could run CP/M, for example. The machines could boot without a DOS, and one could load any number of options. The machine could buy EEPROMs. Later, when the machines were powerful enough, and the chips included a PMMU, Macintosh user could run Unix.
What most people focus on it the Linux connection, which is philisophically opposed to the Apple philosophy. open standards, build your own box, do everything yourself, which is where we were in the 70's. This philosophy has it's place, but is not the entire world. Apple machines could run *nix, and a damn sight better than most of the PC junk, but the code is not there. Likewise, in every story about *nix, some fool always complains that *nix won't run because some driver does not exist, or it takes forever to set up. That is the whole point!. *nix is a build your own system. It offers the ultimate flexibility, but at a price. If you need a driver, write it. That is was OSS is all about!
In the end we lost a lot of good functionality due to the MS shenanigans, but also gained some accessibility. Apple is part of the old culture, which has it plan. MS is quickly becoming the Nouveau riche neighbor you wish would move away. At some point *nix will mature, and run well, and at that time it will support all the cool hardware, not just the cheap hardware. MS does a good job supporting cheap hardware. Apple does a good job supporting mid price systems. *Nix needs to find it's own niche.
Re:More importantly is how they are vs Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
It boils down to this: "Apple turns the computer into something more resembling a television." That's exactly right, and framing it as a Bad Thing(tm) is not unexpected, but certainly ludicrous. Linux wouldn't have gotten off the ground on Apple machines, no. That would be contrary to the computer-as-an-appliance model.
Under no contorted version of reality would Apple ever be the sole vendor of computers. If everyone followed the Apple model, you can be absolutely certain that Linux would have a better hold on the marketplace. Getting the hardware and software from the same people (IBM, Apple, Amiga, SGI--the "dinosaurs") would have ensured that some cross-compatible development would go on; a common reference design for low-end competitors to cut costs, and customizable for each vendor.
Most computer resellers wouldn't have had the resources to develop an end-to-end solution on their own; the thought of using something free and not having to get in bed with another corporation would have clearly been desirable. Microsoft won because it got there first, not because it is or was the "lesser evil" (are you kidding me?!). Microsoft solved the problem of manufacturers having to do their own OS and support, making it cheap for them to enter the market. There was no such thing as Linux; there was no cheaper option, so they sucked it up and signed on with MS. It was the cheapest, easiest path.
If the other model had succeeded, you'd see all kinds of companies jumping at the chance to have a free OS that they could have tweaked to their desires, and be beholden to Microsoft for security, connectivity, or making their products functional. It's the detached expectations that created the 800-pound gorilla. If each company were expected to develop and sell a wholly working product like Apple does, the budget brands would be using Linux to do it, and there'd be no OS monopoly--just several different OSes that worked together.
Here's a video version of the article (Score:5, Funny)
Gutsy indeed!
Re:Here's a video version of the article (Score:5, Funny)
From TFA (Score:1, Redundant)
Well, that's one way of putting it. Then again, perhaps "One is UNIX, the other is like UNIX" would have been more accurate.....
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Oh is that so? (Score:5, Interesting)
The stereotype for each OS is well known: Mac OS X is elegant, easy-to-use, and intuitive, while Ubuntu is stable, secure, and getting better all the time.
Well, I'd say that Ubuntu is elegant, easy-to-use and intuitve, while Mac OS X is stable, secure and getting better all the time.
I don't want to troll... But both visions are true....
Surreal Suppositions? (Score:2)
I'd rather see all-out WINE/Cedega funding to take *doze binaries and make them run better in Linux so I don't have to buy a version of XP or 2K to run CAD apps I want to buy in the next 3 months. (yep, I'll buy a 2nd hard disk and keep the main for any necessary warranty problems, but I'll clone it, suck it into Virtual Box or Win4Lin, and corral the bitch and never let it run native on MY hardware... I've had 8 computers at once back around 2001, and only ONE had windows 98 running natively for SOF/CS/HL/Apache Longbow, and after those got the boot, no more *doze booting)
Macs are HELLA nice, but short of winning one, I won't be paying for one.
Yeh, I know I could buy a Mac and use parallels, but I prefer hardware I can interchange or mess with inside, and even if a laptop, I can only afford maybe a $499 laptop or a bit more to get a CAD-friendly graphics card.
Re:Surreal Suppositions? (Score:5, Informative)
Mac runs on Mac hardware. Hardly what I would call a fair test to what Linux has to stand up against.
Although Macs have switched to Intel processors I bet OS X wouldn't be as easy to install on all the PC configurations that Ubuntu has to deal with which I think is a point that most people miss out on.
Even if you were comparing Gutsy to Windows, even XP doesn't have driver support for my old web cam and TV tuner card which is really out of date. Gutsy does it out of the box because the support for the third party hardware is kept there, which keeps me from having to buy new hardware just to get back what I already had after an upgrade.
Re:Surreal Suppositions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I move a window to the edge of my screen and it snaps into place at the last second so that it's exactly at the edge of my window. I can keep any window I want on top of or behind other windows so that I can work with two windows at once without having to constantly Alt-Tab between them or make them ridiculously small. When I browse an audio CD, it displays the tracks in a series of folders that shows me what the files look like ripped and encoded in all of the audio codecs I have installed ready for me to drag and drop onto my hard drive. When I zoom in on a jpeg, my photoviewer applies an algorithm to blow it up without pixelating it. When I want a piece of software I just pick it out of a list and it's there... oh wait. I don't remember any of that from using a Mac.
Okay, "Just Works" just like on a Mac... hmm... I put my thumb drive or a data CD in and the mounted volume appears on my desktop? Media just plays for me right in my browser? My music organizing software recognizes my MP3 player and offers to load it for me? No wait, it didn't care what brand I used. I actually had a much easier time mapping to a printer shared from Windows than any of the dozen or so attempts I've heard of people making on a Mac, but I'm willing to assume they were all nincompoops or picked a printer that wouldn't have worked for me either and call it a push.
But seriously, I can't hardly think of a Linux user-unfriendliness headache that I haven't seen dramatically improve in the last two or three years, at least not one I care about. If you don't believe me, try installing the new Nvidia manufacturer drivers. It prompted me to kill my X server first, warned me that it didn't mean by dropping to single-user mode, found my kernel sources without any help, said something about them being a little off and creating a new kernel interface for me (again without any help on my part), then offered to update my xorg.conf file for me, which it did, beautifully. I swear the only reason that driver install didn't do everything it had to do without asking or informing me is that the average Linux user would have considered it rude. Maybe if (assuming you haven't) you used a Mac long enough to discover all its warts and you weren't trying administer 8 machines, use Win98 as a webserver, and get Linux to run CAD software on a shoestring budget, you wouldn't have Macs up on a pedestal.
Mirror: Any one got one? (Score:1, Redundant)
Comparison results (Score:5, Funny)
Linux Mag? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Connection timed out ... (Score:4, Funny)
Oooh, I'm all a-tingle (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oooh, I'm all a-tingle (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, look at the ESR rant about cups. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html [catb.org] Part 2 goes on to say how cups developers contacted him as well. And have you seen cups lately? It got better. So, I think the article will point out some significant faults. And I bet you won't find many of them next year...
The real fun part will be looking at this article in a year and see how many Linux faults got fixed, and how many Mac faults are still there.
Comparing apples to ... (Score:5, Funny)
mirror? (Score:1)
OSX vs. Ubuntu (Score:1, Funny)
There you have it: validated, quantitative and qualitative proof that OSX does not work.
Unlisted advantages? (Score:2, Insightful)
While I use OS\X fairly often, these two factors - along with the inflexible bolt-on windowing environment - rule out OS\X as a good general purpose operating system. OS\X is super if you believe you're dependent on proprietary software, but for those that no longer are it offers very little over a modern Linux OS these days.
Risk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unlisted advantages? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been out for 6 years now at no point have I ever seen it referred to as OS\X. In the same manner It's not Windows\XP or X\P or ViSTA. They're not MACS or MACs or MaCs. It's not an IPOD or an Ipod or an iPOD. FreeBSD is just that, not FREEBsd or FREEBSD or FreEBsD. Macintosh System * was used before the clones came out at which point it was changed to Mac OS 8, then 9 and X followed.
Capitalization and punctuation as important to my built in English parser as spelling and grammar.
Fair Comparisons (Score:2)
Both similar, but different enough in intent to not be a truly useful comparison either.
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Once again, we come to the conclusion, that different operating systems do the same things differently! Wow! Yet another person wasted another few days trying out two OS's rather than getting any real work done. So cool!
Ubuntu for Me... (Score:1)
Where possible, I use Ubuntu. I haven't had experience with Apple products since I was forced to in highschool. Yeah, LOGO experience sure has been a big help....
Anyway, Ubuntu. I like it. Quite a bit. There are issues, to be sure, but I've mostly not had them.
I run 7.10 on my desktop(Windows won't even install, anymore) and things have been pretty problem free. The exception(s) are when I'd get cocky and tinker with something I really shouldn't have.
My laptop(well, my fiancees laptop. She gives it to me except when she's on business trips.) dual boots Windows XP Pro, strictly for playing City of Heroes [cityofheroes.com], and Ubuntu 7.04. I tried 7.10 on it, but due to some kernel(?) issues it was ridiculously slow to boot(I also couldn't get Compiz working on it, though it works just fine under 7.04).Even then, if the laptop had a better video card(It has an ATI Radeon Xpress 200M), I could probably do without Windows and run it under WINE. The card's just barely enough to run it under Windows.
IF (Score:2, Interesting)
So apple has an unfair advantage as it doesnt work on anything
also:
If the Ununtu interface isnt to your liking you have the choise to install kubuntu (more gui configurable) or xfce + mac style stuff
If the apple interface isn't to your liking your screwed
If you buy a linux certified pc/laptop it will outperform a mac in the same price range
If you want to spend you could pay for a years support on a good linux distro, or pay a linux friend to tweak your system acording to your spec
If you dont want to spend anything, you could get your linux friend to tweak your system for free
Linux supported hardware is growing, mac supported hardware is growing more expensive!
i should also ad that apparently gutsy was quite a buggy release so you should try feisty or another distro before giving up
apples and oranges (Score:2, Funny)
Bogus comparison (Score:4, Funny)
Except that Apple users are not so humor impaired as to feel compelled to point out that gibbons aren't orangutans.
As a longtime OS X user with one Ubuntu machine.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I can say that they are both impressive, and both have their share of problems. Both could learn from each other (OS X probably more so from Linux)
OS X.. it's polished, integrated, (UNIX) powerful, and easy to use (stays out of my way).
But if you have a problem... start hunting for preference files and deleting them.
Why an addressbook would completely crash mail and iChat, in this day and age is beyond me. Restarts due to updates are entirely too frequent.
Ubuntu... it's good, again (UNIX) powerful, extremely easy to keep updated. Editing config files is a blessing and a curse. With one edit of a file, I've configured a Microsoft mouse (they make good mice) in under 30 secs. On OS X I had to download a file, install, restart and configure.. yawn.
I needed to connect to the Mac for file sharing and Ubuntu presented me with a GUI scp! I hadn't been that excited about an os, since working on UNIX for the first time. I was very impressed.
But on the other side, my screen resolution is different each time I restart...
Considering that I only use Ubuntu for one thing and one thing only (ET:QW) it doesn't bother me too much, since the game sets its own resolution.
All that being said, they are both light years ahead of at least XP. Not sure about Vista, since I've never used it.
Did anyone else notice... (Score:1)
Slashdot pastimes (Score:1)
The original site is slashdotted, so none of us relative latecomers can read and(&/or) comment on the substance of the article. Are we dismayed?
No! Helpfully, there's an extended discussion of the way the OSs are characterized in the article (presumably by people who've RTFA) and speculations about thew article based on the publisher.
So... (Score:2, Funny)
Unbalanced article. (Score:2, Insightful)
The article presents Ubuntu and MacOS as equals, if even only recently.
The author, as such, appears to have slept through the last 30 years, in which the original Macintosh established the desktop metaphors Microsoft poorly reimplemented and Linux re-re-implemented many many times over.
Many commenters are also operating under this illusion; the statement that 'While the Mac may present a more unified visual appearance, that's the only benefit it has over Ubuntu' is unbalanced for quite a number of reasons - the design and construction of MacOS and Macintosh human interface guidelines shape aspects of the use of a Mac from the subtle to the impressive. By comparison, there are few if any human interface guidelines or cohesive metaphors between multiple pieces of free software that are not driven by the egotism of their authors. I won't even touch on the pandemic of duplicated effort caused by the free software community's inability to collaborate, and the fractured, partly functional selection of software that has emerged as a result.
When speaking of user interface quality it's important to be objective. Try not to state subjective experiences like snap-to-screen-edge or focus-follows-mouse being far more efficient when this clearly can only be true for you. While Linux software attempts to satisfy the whim of every computer geek who ever used it, Apple spends an incredible amount of time and energy making a single, unified interface that will work as best as possible for the entire range of users.
Ubuntu just as good? No. Free software just isn't there yet. If it were, Dell, HP and Acer would have dumped Microsoft quite some time ago in the home market. People want cheap and easy. Not necessarily good, just cheap and easy. Linux doesn't even qualify as that yet - the market has spoken as always.
The Mac is capable of empowering users (even seasoned Linux users) to do far more with much more efficiency, but one must accept the application of its metaphors rather than demanding that it work the way they want and complaining bitterly when it won't.
Troubling that slashdot always posts articles like this. Slashdotters are by far the worst enemies of good user interface design. :P
Re:Unbalanced article. (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the statement that there exists no meaningful HIGs in the *nix desktop world, that's just not true. Gnome and KDE both have their own HIGs, and if you stick to that software, the HIG is consistently obeyed. Ubuntu by default presents a pure Gnome environment, and generally you have to pick something out special to deviate. OSX and Windows are not immune to this. In OSX, if running an X11 app, it sticks out like a sore thumb and almost certainly doesn't follow the Apple HIG. Even without X11, some companies like Lotus release software that doesn't follow the HIGs (Notes looks equally hideous and out of place on all platforms). The point being, you can't fault a wide architecture for giving choice, and compare it against a specific implementation. You must compare a distribution to OSX. If you said Apple lays a better framework than Gentoo for a coherent HIG, then I'd have to admit it. Among the various Ubuntu flavors, each has picked and preferred a HIG. OSX, Windows, and Linux platforms can all be subject to misfit applications that refuse to obey HIGs or even use the most common toolkit. The following behind HIGs in the Linux desktop world is not so small as to be counted out.
Re:Unbalanced article. (Score:5, Insightful)
This was rated +5 Insightful? How is it insightful to say that you can get the most out of an interface by using it the way its designers expected you to?
The rest of the post is just a trollish assertion that if you don't recognize the inherent superiority of the Macintosh, you either have no taste or just don't get it.
Here's an idea that platform partisans will never get: Tastes differ. To each his own.
It's a matter of taste. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you like getting your hands dirty, they both have a good shell and can be scripted with little difficulty. They both have a nice set of apps in the default installation.
Ubuntu is somewhat ahead with application installation, with synaptic, while OS X is somewhat ahead with commercial application support.
It's hard to compare the default installation on each of them, because it's really a matter of taste.
My Comparison (Score:3, Interesting)
This past week, my Macbook was off for service (battery issue, power cord, and cracked edges), and I installed Gusty for the heck of it, to see how the distros were coming along these days.
It's definitely the nicest Linux distro that I've tried. But I still find myself popping to the command line, editing GNU configuration files, compiling modules, editing sources.list with additional repos, fighting isues with Flash not working on the latest Opera (still unresolved), and so forth.
I do like it. I even managed to get up SunRay server up with it to play with a few of the dozens of surplus SunRays I have (takers anyone?
But when my Mac is back tomorrow, it will become my primary desktop, hands down, once again. The user interface, the clean design, and so forth, make for a better daily experience. (I've done some hacking with drivers for a test hackintosh, and I do like the
So as impresed as I was by Gutsy, I will stick to my "develop on OS X, deploy on Linux" approach. (And for deployment on a server, the distro is less important; I generally prefer Debian as first choice; often I have to use CentOS for virtual dedicated hosting, which works, too; for a server, Ubuntu is probably third choice. As a Linux desktop, it's first choice, but as discussed, I just keep falling back to using OS X as the desktop, and Linux as the server.)
I use both (Score:1)
I use both OSX and Ubuntu.. (Score:1)
I use both OSX and Ubuntu on my home computers. They both are excellent OS's. I use OSX more then Ubuntu though. Mainly this is because I use my MacBook Pro more then I use my desktop PC. I love the MacBook Pro so much so its hard to think outside the box.
haha PUN INTENDED!
Anyways I give both two thumbs up. OSX for Apple Hardware and Ubuntu for PC Hardware.
You are a winner either way!
Mac OS X still rules. (Score:2, Flamebait)
There are some other details. To be honest, I think one of the biggest problems I see is X. Not that X isn't cool with networking and 'runs on an old Irix box' and all that, but the weedyness of the X enviroment is starting to annoy me. Not only is modern style font management still a crampy thing to get running - the mere though of opening XF86Config to set modelines, gfx drivers and whatnot appears to me so bizare and strange, even though I'm still quite proficient in it.
Kubuntu7.04 still has serious trouble handling resolution switching and X allways intervenes with strange scrolling and zooming behaviour. Running a VNC server puts me right back to 2001, configuration wise. It's not only that, but X is symptomatic for some of the old stuff that Linux still carries around.
That said I do believe a well configured KDE + GTK2 combined with a well-designed theme and a well-balanced setup of stable OSS desktop gadgets can kick OS Xses ass up and down the street. It's just that you have to spend a week setting it up. Even for an expert like me that becomes tireing after all those years. Nevertheless, a regular PC laptop with a neat Kubuntu setup as my next piece of hardware isn't entirely rules out. Especially with a 17" MacBook Pro costing north of 2500 Euros.
Once KDE removes the last glitches, gets it's integrated koffice into fastlane and starts diving a bit deeper than kwin and fixing some of the X anachronisims closed source vendors are going to have a hard time selling their stuff. Slowly but shurely they're getting there. Until then - if Apple doesn't screw up - cheap macs like the iMac or the MacMini will still be the best bargain for solid enviroments built to get work done.
My 2 cents.
Great.... (Score:1)
Mac OS X isn't free. (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:1)
umm... (Score:1)
I know ! (Score:1)
hmm (Score:1)
RTFA here, not slashdotted (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.linux-mag.com.nyud.net:8080/id/4641/ [nyud.net]
http://www.linux-mag.com.nyud.net:8080/id/4641/2/ [nyud.net]
Thanks to The Coral Content Distribution Network
http://www.coralcdn.org/ [coralcdn.org]
I'm a Ubuntu GNU/Linux user and love it. Freedom is my main argument.
Screw the Mac (Score:2, Interesting)
As soon as I can I'm heading back to Linux.
*1. YMMV
*2. For Mac users who share my pain, may I recommend using a start up script to kill the Dock and use Butler to show tasks as icons in the menubar. Best solution I've come up with so far...
Let me tell another difference (Score:3, Interesting)
Their reason was "Lack of new hardware". That was really noted by PowerPC users, not just iMac G5 people, XServe G5 and Quad/Dual G5 Workstation users too.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PowerPCReview [ubuntu.com]
You can't compare OS X Leopard to Ubuntu Linux for a simple reason. It doesn't exist "officially" on PowerPC Mac. Ubuntu showed something real bad for its image after that decision.
Of course, there is always real Debian, Yellow Dog and others for PPC people.
You're all missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
OSX - 1
Ubuntu - 0
In other news... (Score:2)
http://www.buffalogapoutfitters.com/storefrontprofiles/processfeed.aspx?sfid=110172&i=236887056&mpid=7349&dfid=1 [buffalogapoutfitters.com]
http://www.medexsupply.com/surgical-supplies-scalpels-blades-knives-feather-sterile-disposable-scalpels-15-x_pid-3538.html [medexsupply.com]
Come on folks, these are different tools which do different jobs. I run more OS'es than I can count at the moment. Being able to make an informed choice in OSes is great. Why limit yourself to one? Ubuntu is nice for dropping on an old PC you don't want to purchase an XP license for. Or running in VMWare to have access to free software in *nix. Personally, I prefer OpenSuse. But I use both.
I love OS400. My favorite OS. Windows XP is excellent. What I am tired of is all the crappy hardware that causes BSOD's. And all the incompatible issues with drivers, lowerfilters, upperfilters, etc. So I just bought a Mac. I will still have PC's though. I still run Windows 9x (not networked) on a highway sign. It can run on a much smaller, cheaper industrial PC with DOC .
Whatever makes the most sense.
Observations of a user new to both - (Score:1)
It's not a viable replacement yet. (Score:1)
Ubuntu and many linux distros lack in some fundimental area's. For starters I'm well aware that you can write scripts for ubuntu, but how many applications are scriptable? How do you even find out if they are? On Windows and OS X I can script the OS and applications. So I can have MS Word on both platforms scripted. This is a major utility for me and I don't even know where to begin scripting applications with linux. That is the first major roadblock for me.
Second, there are many mature applications for Ubuntu, but I don't see much integration or cross application capability. On OS X, I have iLife and the applications work well with each other. There are great applications on linux, but each one is it's own entity and they don't play together. OS X has it's core services and flat xml files which allow application developers to take advantage of the system easily and aid in cross application compatibility. This isn't necessarily Ubuntu's problem, it's the lack of communication and cooperation between development communities and the vision to see how things could improve.
One of Apple's biggest flaws is that they have consumer lock-in. iLife applications are not opensource and therefore it's much more difficult to build applications that work with them or at least as seamless as the suite itself. OpenSource could easily trump this by having an open core services architecture and allow any application builder to easily work with another, but this has to start from the core of the system. You need to have a few standard databases for consumer based applications, something like sqlLite, and some xml files that define application properties. You should be able to have any MP3 application read an XML file of another application and have immediate access to the same library without having to examine the library. That library could also be used for a video application to make it easy to add a soundtrack to a home movie or a photo application to allow you to make a cool slideshow with your music files. Obviously if the application has some rather unique features it could be put in a separate file or added to the original.
OpenSource is great, but it has a lot of barriers for your average consumer. Applications are one, but codecs are another. Granted licencing is a problem, but I think people would give it a go even if they had to pay a nominal fee. But unless you can have some standarized services or an address book that works with any application, you're always going to have this barrier. I'm certainly not saying there should be one way of doing things, but the foundation needs to be very accessible and running any application should be a very simple and intuitive to the end user.
ohhhh (Score:1)
mirror (Score:1)
Re:"both UNIX based" (Score:5, Informative)
Admittedly, though, no, Linux is a clone of a clone of UNIX, and shame on them for it.
Re:"both UNIX based" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"both UNIX based" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"both UNIX based" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"both UNIX based" (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, how many times does this need to be said before people stop claiming OS X isn't UNIX or UNIX-based? Leopard is a certified UNIX 03 product [opengroup.org].
Re:"both UNIX based" (Score:5, Informative)
OSX is to an extent the exact opposite. Technically speaking, it derives from BSD code (actual Unix code). Technically speaking, it implements the appropriate APIs and can run a program that runs on Unix. I want to say even before X11, Apple legitimately got the Unix moniker to describe their platform, but I recall there being confusing around this point. The addition of X11 out of the box makes it more complete, and less of a technicality. However, the fact of the matter is the extensive use of a non-X based graphical architecture and the almost universal situation is that NeXT derived APIs are used and required, and the underlying pieces that are true to a Unix heritage are nearly moot. A user accustomed to Unix will find OSX fundamentally different.
Technically speaking, OSX has a valid claim to being Unix, but could be accused of not necessarily being true to the 'spirit' of Unix. Linux is absolutely not a Unix, but on the other hand, people can certainly fairly claim Linux to being true to the spirit of Unix.
absolutely right! (Score:4, Interesting)
>necessarily being true to the 'spirit' of Unix. Linux is absolutely not a Unix, but on
>the other hand, people can certainly fairly claim Linux to being true to the spirit of Unix.
Absolutely! After all, if it isn't hard to use, it isn't in the spirit of unix. Really, lacking compatibility with other versions of unix makes it *more* in the spirit on unix, as historically and currently unixen have had huge compatibility problems (thus autotools/autoconf).
Also, since OSX takes a subsystem that was horribly designed and whose implementations were buggy and broken, X11, and replaces it with a modern, slick, robust, and efficient subsystem, aqua, it is *clearly* committing the cardinal sin of unix. Given historical precedent it would be *much* more unixy to instead standardize on the bad design, and then try to fix it with a bunch of extensions which are in themselves problematic and inconsistently implemented.
Seriously, people who talk about how great the unix system design is have no understanding of the internals and how they compare to other modern operating systems. Everything is inconsistent and many things are fundamentally broken. Linux's approach to unix has been largely to take something broken, and add more broken and incompatible parts to it.
Now, I use and develop on Linux quite a bit, which is why I *know* there are so many things wrong with it. However, there is a reason why I use it, and it has its strong points. Permissive licensing, lots of drivers for commodity hardware, and a very efficient kernel are some of Linux's strong points compared to other OS's. System architecture is just not one of linux's strong points. Comparatively, OSX and solaris have a *much* more impressive unix architecture. Windows also has some strong points in some of its API's, although not the core win32 windowing API, which is disgustingly crufty).
Re:"both UNIX based" (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux is not UNIX. Linux is UNIX-like. Linux is modeled after UNIX, and could be said to be "based on UNIX" if by "based on" you mean "intended to function similarly", but not, of course, "based on" the code from either AT&T UNIX or from BSD.
Mac, however, *is* UNIX, seeing as how BSD counts as UNIX (to me). I'm not clear on how you deny that. You can boot straight into a standard BSD command line, or access one any time. Most importantly, it meets both definitions of "based on UNIX": it works like UNIX and was also developed from the same code.
Windows meets neither of the definitions for based on. It's not UNIX.
That's why there are standards for these things... (Score:5, Informative)
The other thing that came out of this effort is a means to verify conformance. Note that word, "conformance". This is the term used in the standard, and if you want to talk about whether some operating system meets the standard, it's the word you should use, too. When you hear someone say 'compliant', you should ask them if they mean "conformance, as defined in the standard, or just some term made up by the marketing staff to confuse the buyer/user." An informed technical person will know the difference.
Conformance is rigorously defined in the standards, but I can informally summarize it this way:
-- Conforming Application uses only facilities within the standard.
-- A Conforming Implementation implements the whole standard (no subsets, unless allowed by the standard!).
From the POSIX effort and X/Open merged activities, there's a "Single Unix Specification", which is a proper superset of the POSIX standards and includes facilities not formally standardized by ISO. The Open Group (http://www.opengroup.org) both maintains the SUS and conducts a certification program against the specification.
It is good to see Apple go through this and pass (apparently Apple tried earlier and hit a roadblock/inconsistency.)
So when someone -now- says "Unix" they should mean a conforming implementation of the Open Group's Single Unix Standard. That includes POSIX conformance. And it should mean that the vendor has the certificate to prove it.
Now what about Linux? Last I heard, there were still inconsistencies between Linux and the SUS, so LINUX won't pass the POSIX part of SUS, and therefore isn't legally "Unix", nor is it a POSIX Conforming Implementation. My understanding these differences aren't trivial, but are in corners that the average user won't bump into. But the differences in the API specifications does have a significant impact on the implementation (kernel), and that's why the Linux community has stuck to its incompatibility with the POSIX standard.
dave (worked on POSIX standards from 88-94, primarily the Ada binding...)
Re:Ubuntu != secure (Score:2)
More importantly, what is your job? And what happens when you find those exploits?
Re:Gibbon is to own, MacOS is to be owned ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will never use ubuntu (Score:3, Insightful)
Enough said!
Re:"both UNIX based" (Score:2)