Ubuntu Linux vs. Mac OS X 479
An anonymous reader writes "An article on InformationWeek pits an Apple user against an Ubuntu Linux user (although he talks about other distros as well) as to which OS makes a better desktop operating system. As might be expected, the conclusion seems to be "different strokes for different folks," but it's interesting to see Microsoft cut (mostly) out of the equation."
They're not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
Print Version (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableAr
One Button Mouse Charge Stale (Score:4, Informative)
iTunes for Ubuntu (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you can via virtualization (Parallels, VMware, etc).
Re:It's about switching. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.dell.com/open [dell.com]
Re:Going from skiing to snowboarding (Score:3, Informative)
It took me about 3 weeks to stop booting into Windows on laptop after I installed Ubuntu. And that's considering that I've never ever hadn't even laid my eyes on any flavor of *nix before.
Your analogy of skiing and snowboarding is flawed, because you're comparing both levels of skill and levels of difficulty that are not applicable to OS usage. The fact is that (again following your analogy) most of us are not doing the black diamonds on our Windows systems. We're doing the blues (yes, I know). And after having switched about 10 people to Ubuntu, I can conclude that anyone who has a reasonable understanding of the concept of how to use an OS, will not have any trouble using Linux, and will happily finish out their vacation on a snowboard.
Now this may be different for a grandmother who relies strictly on memorized procedures to check her email. But anyone who has a dynamic understanding of what they're doing, should have the basics covered in a week or less.
Summary of conclusion is wrong (Score:3, Informative)
So how does this article say "different strokes for different folks"? It's clearly states that OSX is the winner for most people looking to switch away from Microsoft.
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:1, Informative)
Yeah, damn them! And screw their drivers too! How dare Apple actually put out a product that works better than Windows and Linux by virtue of controlling the hardware platform thus allowing unprecedented integration! Bastards!
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, you can get cheaper hardware elsewhere, but you normally get exactly what you pay for.
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:3, Informative)
Ubuntu is NOT discontinuing PPC (Score:1, Informative)
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/feisty/r
Re:from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
The new Core Duos pull more current than you'd expect.
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:1, Informative)
I also use both (Score:2, Informative)
File/print sharing is impossible to setup through the GUI (even though the GUI will let you tinker and give you the impression that samba is supposed to work). You have to edit smb.conf radically to get anywhere. Luckily I have a running Xandros Linux system that produces working samba configurations that I can copy to Ubuntu.
Once you basically get sharing working, the GUI still provides no convenient way to actually mount shares.
OS X has all this covered in the GUI, and quite elegantly too.
Security: Ubuntu is very poor in this area and I do not recommend it for any laptop user who is not an IT expert. They only recently got WPA working, and the rest of the OS lacks standard firewall, VPN and disk encryption configurations. In OS X, these capabilities are built-in controlled with the click of a few checkboxes.
As for other Linuxes, SuSE also covers the above essential features although samba is rather awkward (at least it is workable). Xandros covers these features in spades (especially samba). Unfortunately both distros are now in bed with Microsoft and I am helping a friend switch to Ubuntu as a result.
I'll only touch on the mishandling of widescreen monitors and getting different sound apps to coexist-- these are typical Linux maladies. The rotten sound architecture alone (where access implies an exclusive lock on the sound card unless special precautions are taken by the app programmers, the exact opposite of how audio should be handled on personal computers) pretty much makes Linux ultimately unsuitable for 70% of the desktop users out there.
The Ubuntu "just works" philosophy seems to operate on the assumption that ease of use is achieved by avoiding any features that might possibly cause problems or confusion. IMO the clean interface lulls people into a reverie that raises their tolerance for all of the frustration and CLI work they'll be lured into. Granted, a GUI ought to be clean, but also must be capable, and Ubuntu's does not achieve the latter.
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:1, Informative)
Mac OS X doesn't even use modelines, silly. If you're talking about modelines, you're talking about XFree86 or X.org. You may have heard that the native windowing system in OS X is not any form of X11. (If you haven't, you're hearing it now.)
You are almost certainly confused.
Cloning Mac OS X (Score:5, Informative)
So if your hard drive dies, you have a bootable backup that works just as well as the internal drive (if you're using FireWire, USB is a little slow). If the computer dies and you have access to another Mac, you can boot from your backup drive and it will be just as if you were still using your own computer, barring any extreme differences in memory and processor speeds. With enough RAM available the processor speed makes very little difference under general usage like web browsing, email and office applications. When you get your computer fixed (or replace a failed hard drive) you can then clone your backup drive back onto the drive in the computer, reboot, and it's like nothing ever happened. Click a button, walk away for about an hour, and get back to work.
With a properly implemented cloning schedule you can recover any system, including a Mac OS X server, in about 5 minutes (as long as it takes to restart the computer, hold down the Option key, and choose to boot from the latest backup drive). I could teach a monkey to do it.
No resetting hidden magic identifiers.
No reinstalling a hundred different drivers for different motherboards, video cards, network cards, etc.
No, "I'm going to refuse to work at all because there is too much different hardware." (I tried to Ghost a Win2K system from one laptop to a virtually identical laptop once. The clone failed to function, ended up having to reset the registry and reinstall most of the pre-installed software.)
No, "This copy of your operating system needs to be reactivated because the hardware changed, you dirty pirate." The non-server version of Mac OS X doesn't even require a serial number, so of course there is no product activation crap to make your life more difficult. Even the server version can be freely cloned and moved to a different system. It requires a serial, but there is no product activation.
No shutting down the system and booting from some special magic CD just to do a clone. That's right, Mac OS X can be easily cloned LIVE, while it's running. It can be cloned automatically on a schedule, so the user doesn't have to even have to think about it.
The target media can be smaller than the source media, as long as there is enough room for the data. It's a smart clone, only the relevant data gets copied. That's all automatic too, the user never needs to go through any complicated preferences or command-line arguments. No need for defragmenting the drive or anything like that either.
In short, Mac OS X is the first operating system I have ever encountered where it is incredibly easy to make a complete USABLE system backup that doesn't require jumping through hoops for hours to restore the system. Any non-technical user can be told in one short paragraph how to keep their system backed up and how to recover from a typical hardware disaster in a matter of minutes. Observe:
"Here is your external backup drive. Her
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the Rolls Royce analogy may be apt. But really I think it's more like a BMW analogy. Both Toyotas and BMWs are nicely built, one has more luxury trimmings than the other, but all in all they still get you from point A to point B. Both are likely to experience problems during their lifetimes, and the difference comes out then. With the Toyota you will receive adequate service after bitching at the warranty guy, whereas with the BMW you will receive prompt, courteous service that addresses your concerns quickly and completely.
Having owned both Macs and PCs (guess which one I'm on now), I can tell you without a doubt that this is true. When my Toshiba broke down I had to bring it to the retailer, deal with a support tech who was more than unwilling to help me, and in fact tried to deflect every malfunctioning bit as normal behaviour, or somehow make it seem like accidental damage. I was extremely dissatisfied.
Compare and contrast to when the hinge on my MacBook Pro broke. I phoned it in (no Apple store where I was), my call was answered in less than 5 minutes (try THAT with any other major consumer laptop manufacturer!). The tech took my serial, verified my warranty coverage, and immediately passed me off to a product expert who is more familiar with case issues. The other tech answered in less than 2 minutes, and the first tech even stayed on the line to summarize the problem for him, so I don't have to repeat myself. The second tech immediately gave me an authorization number for the repair, and my laptop was back to tip top shape in a couple of days.
Time taken with PC: 2 hours.
Aggravation: 10
Time taken with Mac: 15 minutes.
Aggravation: 0
Many people will feed you with BS about how Macs are unbreakable or such other BS. They break like any other laptop. The difference is in how you're treated after that fact.
Re:They're not mutually exclusive (Score:1, Informative)
You can't compare an Inspiron to an MBP (Score:3, Informative)
If you go for 15", a Latitude D820 built to the same specs as an entry level MBP 15" comes to within single digit percentages of costing the same. (If you include Apple Care, which you should as Dell warranty as standard on these things is superior to Apple's, otherwise the Apple is cheaper.) Again, anything less than a Latitude does not compare to the MacBook Pro on anything other than specs on paper.