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.'"
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:"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: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)
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.
Re:Linux Mag? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mirror: Any one got one? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh is that so? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My Macbook (Score:2, Informative)
You can use the LSPCI command to check to see where the video data should be going, and you can use
Sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg-plow
to change your settings, and then
Sudo
to restart the interface.
Hope that works for you!
Re:My Macbook (Score:3, Informative)
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:My Macbook (Score:3, Informative)
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: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:"both UNIX based" (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi#Terms_of_the_settlement [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.4BSD#4.4BSD_and_descendants [wikipedia.org]
And NOT be beholden to Microsoft, that is--NT (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My Macbook (Score:3, Informative)
wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you do.
Have you never heard of "Migration Assistant"? Not only does it copy your applications, it copies your system setting and documents as well.
Migration assistant copies from one Mac to another; that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about making a fresh install on an existing Mac.
Migration Assistant doesn't help new users; they need to install everything they want to use from scratch.
Migration Assistant doesn't work reliably: some applications never get copied, others end up missing configuration files or license keys.
And Migration Assistant blindly copies bad configuration files and rogue applications, which are often the reason people are doing fresh installs in the first place, so they can't actually use it.
Re:My Macbook (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More importantly is how they are vs Vista (Score:3, Informative)
Then we get to Compaq, which didn't exist until 82, and didn't have a machine until mid-83. There were many clones out on the market by 83, as I should know since I owned a Blackship Technologies 286 clone. About the only thing you got right in this statement is the effect of the clones on the market, and the fact that Compaq had the first legally cloned BIOS. As for PC clones being cheap, well, last time I checked, $3+K in the early/mid 80s was anything but cheap.
What we really have is the following timelines:
76 - 80: Apple - great computer
81 - 83: IBM PC - cheaper computer with tinkerer potential
83 - 87: PC Clone wars - IBM loses
87 - 93: MS rises to dominance via exclusive OEM licenses with all the major clone vendors
93 - 99: Dell rises. MS uses exclusive OEM licenses, purchase cycles, and 2 key upgrades to lock in a monopoly in both OS and Office
97 - 99: MS uses OEM licenses to bury netscape and gain the web
00 - 04: Dell peaks
00 - 01: MS peaks
99 - 03: Sun peaks
00 - 04: Linux begins serious inroads into network infrastructure, doing menial tasks such as DNS and firewalls.
03 - 05: Macs become really usable
05 - --: Linux becomes a suitable candidate for the entire data center.
06 - --: Macs switch to Intel, become about the best $ for performance laptops you can buy.
07: MS hits a new low with Vista, opening the door for Macs and Linux
07: MS screws up user interfaces with a totally new look that's received as well as news that you've won a 5 month trip to Siberia, starting in November....
07: Linux, in the form of Ubuntu, actually becomes a viable competitor for the user desktop.
07: OOo becomes a viable competitor for Office
This leaves out a lot, but covers some of the major players. While Compaqs were big hits with large companies that previously were used to IBM pricing and equipment restrictions, they blew big hairy chunks with the consumers that were looking for PCs. I never met a consumer that liked Compaq. I also never met a business person that liked Compaq that I really respected, it always seemed like a clone of the "you can't be fired for buying IBM" gang. (all puns intended)
So, MS really didn't do much of anything for the computing world, other than convince a lot of people they did. They did screw it over, that's a fact born out by the detritus of companies that tried to compete in an unlevel playing field. Apple did far more for computing, but it was all prior to 88, until about OSX 10.3. That's when Apple actually got back in the game.
To be honest, probably Sun and Cisco had more positive effects on the computer than any other entities, but it was all via third party additions, and not directly.
As to your last point: *nix doesn't need to find a niche, it already has one. The only thing that really needs to happen is for game developers to support it as well and the last wall will tumble like the Adobe wall in monsoon season. There's only 2 things holding people to MS right now other than marketing: games and MS Office, and the later is really more the perceived need via marketing than a real need. BTW - I work for a company that has everything running on *nix except our desktops... primarily a left over from the last sysadmin and the fact that you could only recently buy non-MS laptops commercially, excepts Macs, which we're only now starting to get. Matter of fact, my last 4 companies all run on *nix of various flavors, and none run production MS servers, with the exception of Exchange if they ran that (and I hate Notes).
Re:More importantly is how they are vs Vista (Score:2, Informative)
You're missing the years prior to open firmware when it was quite impossible to install another operating system without having Mac OS installed first.
Well, it was actually a technical issue. Apple designed the hardware and software themselves, so of course they did not build the early Macintoshes with the thought in mind that anyone would run a different operating system on it. Later on, Apple sponsored porting Linux to the PowerPC [wikipedia.org]. People like to think that Apple is more closed than Microsoft, but that is simply ridiculous. Darwin is still open source (though there is no requirement it remain so), and so is CUPs, and Apple's KHTML improvements, etc. I'm not saying they're as open as Sun or anything, but compared to Microsoft... well, there is no comparison.
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.
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 Macbook (Score:3, Informative)
installing software on Macs (Score:3, Informative)
Linux (Ubuntu, Debian and Redhat, as well as many others) have a nifty little package manager where you can install a program for almost anything you can think of. Where is that feature on your Mac? The Mac may come with a number of third party tools, but they still don't do 100% of what every user wants to do with their computer. Under Linux, it's much closer to "feature complete", as far as application availability.
There's MacPorts [apple.com] and Fink [finkproject.org]. Macports uses RPMs and Fink uses "Debian tools like dpkg and apt-get". Not only can I install Mac software but I can also install many programs for BSD and Linux.
Falcon