Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
OS X Software Operating Systems Linux

Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon vs. Mac OS X Leopard 669

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon vs. Mac OS X Leopard

Comments Filter:
  • Oh god (Score:5, Funny)

    by TitusC3v5 ( 608284 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:35PM (#21690662) Homepage
    I think I just had a geekgasm from just reading the title.
  • My Macbook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Selfbain ( 624722 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:35PM (#21690676)
    I dual boot Mac OS and Ubuntu now and I have to say I found it far easier to install than previous linux distributions I've tried. That being said, it took me hours of work just getting it up to what I would consider basic functionality.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pjt33 ( 739471 )
      I got a new laptop a couple of days ago, so I thought I'd try Ubuntu. Once I got the live CD to actually boot (which required some digging on the 'net and fiddling to change the driver loading order) X wouldn't start. At that point I gave up and installed Debian Etch, which worked first time.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )
        Funny, I had the exact opposite experience because edgy wouldn't recognize my hardware but the newer installer in gutsy would. By the way, if it's the graphical installer giving you trouble you can install it using the alternate CD and a very debian-like text installer (which also offers more advanced options not possible in the GUI install). I guess you're just one of the few unlucky ones it doesn't work for, but for the great majority it's much friendlier. Of course if you wanted real friendly, you'd buy
    • Re:My Macbook (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Brad1138 ( 590148 ) <> on Thursday December 13, 2007 @08:03PM (#21691068)
      Off and on for about 10 years I have tried various Linux distros (Red Hat, Mandrake, and now Ubuntu). In the past I always ended up going back to Windows because I was not able to handle all the issues I ran into. I tried, usually for weeks/months but in the end became so frustrated I gave up. Feisty and Gutsy have been the first Linux distros that I had virtually no problems with. I have no thoughts of getting rid of Ubuntu. I Dual Boot, XP/Gutsy mainly for games and my wife's college requires office 2003 or newer. I much prefer Gutsy to XP.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MightyYar ( 622222 )
        The deal-breaker for me is always wireless support. I know that I could (and should) go out and buy a Ubuntu-supported card, but eh...

        Prior to that, it was setting up the Nvidia driver to make Gnome/KDE anywhere near usable, but I think that was resolved the last time I played with it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sqrt(2) ( 786011 )
          It's always been graphics that fall short for desktop/laptop use for me. I use mostly ATI, their linux support just isn't good enough. The problems are more basic than just not having compiz, even 2d stuff is horrible. Tearing and lag for basic things like scrolling a damn web page, just not acceptable. OK, admittedly that's the worst single example computer I have, a laptop with integrated ATI graphics.

          Lack of graphics support isn't a problem for servers (neither is wireless) so that's where I'm most likel
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by goatpunch ( 668594 )
          I just installed Gutsy on an 4 year-old Fujitsu laptop that'll sit in the corner. Auto-detected everything; built-n Centrino wireless, battery meter, trackpad, etc. Easiest and quickest OS install that I've seen in ages.
      • Re:My Ububook (Score:5, Interesting)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Thursday December 13, 2007 @09:26PM (#21691972) Journal
        Not only has Gutsy (Ubuntu Studio style) been my first installation of Linux that I've actually been able to do music production work with, but this Tuesday I finished my first musical cut that was completely performed, recorded, produced and rendered in Linux. I'm still not ready to ditch my main production system, but I'm doing a lot of production work and rendering on the Linux box, which frees up the other system for what it does best. I've got the two system connected via TOSLINK cables, so I don't have to do any AD/DA conversion at all. The Linux drivers I found for the Mark of the Unicorn audio hardware are slick as hell, stable and sound great. I even use the Linux system as my clock master, and the systems sync up nicely.

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by calebt3 ( 1098475 )
      That is interesting. I used to read those posts that talked about difficulties of installing XP, finding drivers, etc. It had been several months since I last installed it, and my memory had faded. Two days ago I installed XP because I was tired of the hit-and-miss nature of Wine for Starcraft, Civ4, SimCity 4, etc. Updates took quite some time, and they never seemed to end. I would restart, just to have more updates that needed installing. I now have most of the drivers, but Device Manager is being very va
  • factual errors. (Score:4, Informative)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:37PM (#21690698) Journal

    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JonJ ( 907502 )
      So, being based on UNIX ideas, wouldn't that constitute as being based on UNIX? In fact, several certified unices doesn't share any original AT&T code at all. And FreeBSD, which is based on one of the original unices, is NOT certified UNIX. I don't think having the same code as original UNIX should be a criteria for being UNIX-based.
      • Re:factual errors. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ickoonite ( 639305 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:58PM (#21690996) Homepage
        So, being based on UNIX ideas, wouldn't that constitute as being based on UNIX?

        Absolutely not! Were you asleep for the whole SCO lawsuit thing?

      • Re:factual errors. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by xant ( 99438 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @10:35PM (#21692668) Homepage
        The UNIX pedigree (I use the term loosely) derives from having a chain of descendents that reaches back to AT&T Unix. BSD (on which OS X is based) has this, but Linux does not.

        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."

    • by PaulK ( 85154 )
      Wouldn't know,it's been slashdotted. Care to post the Cliff Notes version?
  • Oh is that so? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) * <slashdot@ja w t h e s h a r k . com> on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:39PM (#21690732) Homepage Journal

    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....

  • This is getting a bit weird. I'm all for Linux, but c'mon.... What in Linux "just works" like the Unified Mac Experience?

    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
    • by LingNoi ( 1066278 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @08:39PM (#21691478)

      What in Linux "just works" like the Unified Mac Experience?
      That is a good point.

      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.
    • by 4e617474 ( 945414 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @09:03PM (#21691720)

      This is getting a bit weird. I'm all for Linux, but c'mon.... What in Linux "just works" like the Unified Mac Experience?

      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.

  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:42PM (#21690776)
    The Ubuntu OS exceeds the Mac OS in Gibboniness, whereas Apple seems to have cornered the market on Leopardiness. The overall Toucaniness and Salamanderiness of the offerings is about the same.
  • Linux Mag? (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by snl2587 ( 1177409 )
    I don't think they would ever do it, but I'd like to see the same article in a Mac mag. I have a feeling they wouldn't be reviewed as equals, personal opinions aside.
  • by bifurcation ( 152542 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:44PM (#21690804)
    ... Leopard wins!
  • by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @07:46PM (#21690822)
    Isn't this like comparing apples to apes? :P No, seriously, the blurb was too stupid for me to bother reading anything more. Someone was really just digging for three-part stereotypes for the two OSes.
  • by delire ( 809063 )
    The article is slashdotted, so I cannot comment with knowledge here. That said, I do hope the fact that OS\X is artificially tied to a particular hardware platform is considered when comparing. This artificial anchor makes OS\X a particularly risky OS to become dependent upon, married to the economic ambitions of a hardware business now dependent on near identical components as so-called 'PC's' (Asustek, Quanta make around 70% of the worlds portables, including Apple's). Similarly the need to go to website
    • Risk (Score:5, Funny)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @08:21PM (#21691304) Homepage Journal
      Yep, counting on apple is pretty risky, you never know how long those startup tech companies might last.

    • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @09:58PM (#21692330)
      OS\X? I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking seriously most posts that misspell or miscapitalize the common topic of their point. And to people who spent a lot of time working with the stuff it's like reading a post that confuses 'loose' and 'lose' or 'whose' and 'who's'

      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.
  • by bobdotorg ( 598873 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @09:06PM (#21691754)
    It's comparing Apples to Orangutans.

    Except that Apple users are not so humor impaired as to feel compelled to point out that gibbons aren't orangutans.
  • by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @09:09PM (#21691786)
    (I can't comment on TFA, it seems slashdotted but here's my opinion.)

    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.
  • by MMC Monster ( 602931 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @09:27PM (#21691982)
    When comparing OS X and Ubuntu, it's really a tie. Both OSs are relatively stable, secure, and have a great set of applications available for them.

    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)

    by PhotoGuy ( 189467 ) on Thursday December 13, 2007 @09:33PM (#21692058) Homepage
    I've been a Linux user/fan from the very start, having used many distros (Slackware, Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, several others), including in very large production sites. I've also used Solaris in a large deployment. In the past year, I've become a Mac user, and done all my development on it.

    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? :P), and with a bit of hacking, it works great. I will keep the distro up, using it to manage my home's central storage array, and as a sunray server, general purpose testing and such.

    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 .kext approach better than linux's modules; just seems to work better and more consistently.)

    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.)
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dvNull ( 235982 )
      Out of curiosity, what modules did you need to compile and what files did you need to edit? I installed Gutsy as well and I did not have to do these things that so many people here on /. apparently have to do. I even tried it on a few different PCs but everything just worked.

      Can you please list your hardware so I can get something similar and have all this editing fun I am clearly missing out on. Simply put, I feel left out of the fun club :(
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PhotoGuy ( 189467 )
        Well, one example was for my storage array, I had to pop down, do a bunch of mdadm, lvchange, etc., commands to get it up and mounted. Then I had to edit fstab to mount it, and have it automounted at boot. There might be some gui that would have done all that for me, but I couldn't find it. It was no big deal, and it was an advanced use that Joe Consumer wouldn't need, for sure. But on OS X, Disk Manager does this type of thing, the Disk Manager gui does all this stuff for you, much more easily.

  • by apparently ( 756613 ) on Friday December 14, 2007 @12:03AM (#21693426)
    Is that noted in the comparison?
  • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) * on Friday December 14, 2007 @07:57AM (#21695932) Homepage
    Ubuntu people have abandoned PowerPC from official distro including G5, Apple introduced pure 64bit OS X for G5 with release of Leopard. If you upgrade to Leopard, you will have a pure 64bit capable OS which also happens to run 32bit stuff just fine.

    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. []

    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 can measure a programmer's perspective by noting his attitude on the continuing viability of FORTRAN. -- Alan Perlis