Ubuntu Linux vs. Mac OS X

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."

Comments

They're not mutually exclusive

[Heftklammerdosierer!]

Ubunutu is easy to install on a Mac.

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[gEvil (beta)]

I know next to nothing about Ubuntu, but I'm assuming you can't run it from within Mac OS X...

Actually, you can via virtualization (Parallels, VMware, etc).

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[jellomizer]

You sound angry at Apple... Why? If you can't afford it then you are not forced to buy an Apple. If you like what apple has to offer and you wan't one save up a little longer for the money. The point of the article was to show that there are alternitives available to windows and the Pluses and Minuses of each. The reason why Macs don't cover 90% of the market like Windows does is because of the hardware lockin, it is no suprise. If you want a Rollsroyce for a Car you are not going to find many off the shelf parts at your local garage. and you are going to pay more for such a car. But that doesn't mean I have to hate Rollsroyce. And say my Toyota is far superior to that Rollsroyce just because I can get parts for my Toyota easier.

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[gb506]

Overpriced hardware? Go price out the Macbook Pro 17" w/ WUXGA screen (1920x1200) in standard config (2.4G SantaRosa, 160GB HD, 2GB Ram, etc), then go to Dell and price out a similarly configured M90. The Mac is $333.00 cheaper, and the Dell doesn't even have the latest Santa Rosa chip set!

Sure, you can get cheaper hardware elsewhere, but you normally get exactly what you pay for.

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[sgant]

Well, no. We can sit around all day and compare prices for components till the cows come home, but what I use my Mac for is about the same price I would pay for an XP system. 24" monitor blah blah blah. I won't go into the details.

But the thing that this system runs is OS X, which other systems can't run. (and I'm not talking about hacked OS X running on Dells or other such things). So, I could with a restart run either OS X, XP, or Linux if I wanted. Another Intel based system would only have (mainly), XP/Vista or Linux to choose from.

So even if I agree with your "overpriced, proprietary" hardware analogy, it's still a system I can run any OS I want on.

But hey, if you don't like it, don't like it. But it amazes me why some people take things so personally. Why do you care if people want a Mac? I don't care that people want a PC or a Pontiac or a Big Mac with super-sized fries.....more power to 'em I say!

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[RockoTDF]

Errr....you don't have to hack anything to use non Apple monitors, stop spreading FUD

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[Dread Pirate Skippy]

I shared this article with one of my co-workers, and I think he said it best:

A PC and a Mac are actually the same car, except the Mac has the passenger door(s) and the trunk welded shut.

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[gb506]

Well, if that's all you want to do, web browsing, email, and a little word processing, I suppose you can get by just fine with the cheapest piece of dung you can haul out of a Wal-Mart.

Using your logic, since in most cases all anyone has to do is transport themselves from point A to point B, we should all be content with a Chevy Aveo5. Or maybe, according to your worldview, we should all be quite content covering our genitalia with used burlap sacks, because, really, in the end you're just covering your junk, right? What should quality, comfort, style or utility possibly have to do with anything?

Look, bs, you're just a person who doesn't mind living life surrounded by inferiority. And that's fine, you're entitled to your way of living, but don't try to compare a $179.98 redlight special with a capably designed machine, it just makes you look foolish. But, then, I'll bet you look foolish a lot, don't you?

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[snoyberg]

Firing up a tank to go buy some milk at the store would be pretty silly,

Doesn't mean I wouldn't do it if I had the option.

Re:They're not mutually exclusive

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

A PC and a Mac are actually the same car, except the Mac has the passenger door(s) and the trunk welded shut.

A PC and a Mac are actually the same car, except the PC needs its windows replaced each week because vandals keeps smashing them in.

Print Version

[decipher_saint]

Easier to read print version:
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArt icle.jhtml?articleID=201002048

It's about switching.

[ozmanjusri]

but it's interesting to see Microsoft cut (mostly) out of the equation

MS isn't out of the equation at all. The whole point of TFA is about switching AWAY from Vista.

Re:It's about switching.

[Yvan256]

People would need to install Windows Vista in the first place to be able to switch away from it.

The fact that Dell and others are still selling computers with Windows XP is not a good sign for Windows Vista.

Mod article flamebait

[morgan_greywolf]

Queue the flamewars in 3...2...1...

Seriously, religious wars aside, you pick the tool that will best meet your needs. That's largely going to be based on applications. Increasingly, there are good choices on both platforms here for a wide variety of different things. The one thing I will say -- if you're looking to do video editing, buy a Mac. 'cause the state of video editing on Linux right now still sucks. If you need Microsoft Office, buy a Mac.

For me, I do a lot of software development work and audio production. I could pick either platform, really, but lots of factors make me choose Linux over Mac OS X -- software freedom, hackability, and cost are my 3 biggest reasons. OS X is nice, don't get me wrong, it's just not for me.

Re:Mod article flamebait

[Cobralisk]

It's more like the difference between a rotary saw, a hack saw and a chain saw. All three cut wood, but do it in different ways. Which one is most effective for a given task is left to the judgement of the craftsman.

Re:Mod article flamebait

[Stamen]

Truly, if I'm speaking to a tech oriented person asking me what OS to choose I always say learn Unix, which one is less relevant. If you learn *nix, you can easily use OS X, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. If you learn Windows, you can well, use, um, Windows.

In addition to learning the GUI stuff, learn some of the command line; you are most productive with a mixture of the two. Also, the shell (command line/cli) is fairly static, and your knowledge transfers to every OS, er, except, for, um, Windows.

As for OS X vs Ubuntu. At work, I use both on the desktop (an OS X box right next to a PC running 7.04, using synergy to span my mouse and keyboard), and I prefer OS X; but mainly that is because I love TextMate so much; if I still used VIM primarily, I wouldn't prefer one over the other (although Cream in LInux is very nice, so that may sway me). On servers, it's Linux all the way, period.

For home, it's a no brainer, I use OS X. I'm a programmer, so I want to tweak my shell and my editor to a very fine point, but for stuff like music and movies, I just want the stuff to work, frankly. Oh and Quicksilver, Linux really needs a Quicksilver clone (no, you don't have one, if you think you do then you've never actually used Quicksilver)

Re:Mod article flamebait

[geobeck]

I only own one hammer: a 16-ounce claw hammer with a fiberglass shaft and the proper balance to give a good, powerful swing.

And it worked great on my last Windows box. :p

Oh...

[Mazin07]

From the description I thought the Ubuntu user and the Mac user were going to fight to the death. Too bad.

Do something less controversial

[athloi]

Like Ubuntu versus Islam.

from TFA

[penp]

Likewise, Apple takes pains to make setting up a Mac as simple as possible. When you buy a Mac, it comes in a box with a minimum of packing materials, and an envelope of documentation. You unpack the Mac; plug the CPU into the wall socket; plug the keyboard, mouse, and monitor into the CPU; and switch it on. It detects an Internet connection (if one is available), and walks you through a two-minute configuration and setup with an easy-to-follow wizard. You want me to do what with my processor?

Re:from TFA

[CautionaryX]

plug the keyboard, mouse, and monitor into the CPU Goat-cpu. *shudders*

Re:from TFA

[Just Some Guy]

You want me to do what with my processor?

The new Core Duos pull more current than you'd expect.

Going from skiing to snowboarding

[Mr_Silver]

I'm a skier, been skiing for over 7 years now and (if I dare say it) I'm pretty reasonable. I'm not an expert, but as long as it isn't icy moguls (or moguls for that matter) can handle most of the pistes ... and I enjoy it.

Now snowboarding looks cool. You can do things you can't do with skis, it certainly looks like fun and you can do some great tricks. So I gave it a go, several times. The problem was that here was I, standing at a resort with my snowboard on and looking at what I could do. The black down the mountain? Nope. The long red? Nope. The winding blue through the trees? Nope. The rubbish green which snakes past the lifts. Well, sort of as long as I didn't mind falling over a bit.

So here am I, completely unable to go off and explore the mountain because the tool I was using to do it, I couldn't use properly. I hadn't invested the time and the effort to learn and here was I, unable to get the best out of it.

So what should I do? Spend the next week (and only week of my holiday) falling about on a green run? Or slap back on my ski's and head off and explore the mountain, try all the runs, get to the summit and check out the blacks down the back - plus a little off piste?

I did what, I suspect, a lot of people did. I put my ski's back on. My weeks holiday in the snow is precious. I don't have the time and money to fly abroad to ski again multiple times a year so in the end I wussed out, picked what I knew was comfortable and that I could do and went with that.

I rationalise that my holiday was too short to be sitting face down on a green run when I could be taking full advantage of what the mountain had to offer. I did the training and the falling over 7 years ago when I was learning to ski - it's taken me years (literally) to get where I am now and, in one fell swooop, I don't want to go back again to that.

I think a lot of people consider Windows vs something else in the same way that I consider skiing vs snowboarding.

Re:Going from skiing to snowboarding

[starglider29a]

Great analogy.

Now, imagine that someone skied up beside you, turned your skis the way they wanted, stole your lift ticket, and finally broke your skis halfway down a black diamond run.

Then imagine that on the way up the ski lift, you are informed that in order to prevent ski theft, you will have a slope protection agent. "You are trying to turn left. Cancel or Allow?" But when you get to the top of the lift, you learn that you have to replace your favorite skis with more expensive skis. Then you need to upgrade your boots to this special limited selection. And none of them will fit into the bindings on the skis.

Now, you are realizing that the choice of an expensive-ish (not really) snowboard ready-to-ride, or a roll-your-own board shop will get you down the hill in one piece. Cancel or Allow?

so sick of the os wars everyday

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu, OS X, Vista, who gives a fuck, use what you want to use, stop wasting everyones time.

No, no, no.

[MoxFulder]

I'm afraid you all have it completely wrong...

Windows is like a mid-size luxury SUV. Apple is like a Fox Terrier. And Ubuntu is like a Pomegranate. Except, not in the *same* analogy, of course.

Don't you get it now?

Cloning Mac OS X

[RedBear]

I am blown away by the fact that the Mac OS X reviewer failed to mention SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner on the page about backups. They linked to a page that mentions it, but it should have been at the forefront in big, bold letters. This IMHO is one of the best features of Macs and Mac OS X, that any idiot can make a clone of their entire system onto any internal or external media. If that media is a FireWire hard drive, the clone will be bootable on any Mac with a FireWire port (and the same processor type, PowerPC and Intel can't boot from each other's drives without some hacks). This means that for any PowerPC Mac going back about 8 years to the first iMac with a FireWire port, you will be able to clone the system drive of any other PowerPC Mac onto a FireWire hard drive and boot from that drive on any other PowerPC Mac in that range. The same goes for Intel machines, although they can also boot from USB devices. (There are reports that some PowerPC models can also boot from USB drives since about Mac OS X 10.4.5 came out, but FireWire is a much better choice speedwise anyway.)

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:*** It's not JUST about the button ***

[Doctor O]

it would not change the fact that the code just isn't there in most applications to exploit the second button...at least well

That's simply not true - I use the right mouse button in all applications I use, and I notice almost no differences between my OSX, Ubuntu and Windows boxes.

Maybe you care to name a handful of applications which fall under your above mentioned category? Maybe I'm just getting you wrong or you haven't even used a Mac much.

(And about that middle mouse button - I have set it up with Exposé's "show all windows" feature, and that boosts my productivity with a lot of open windows *greatly*. Just middle-click to see all windows and left-click on the one you want to switch. I'm eagerly awaiting an Exposé clone for X11, it just ain't coming...)