Re: linux vs mac

Timberwoof wrote:
In article <dLPji.29673$19.17396@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <none@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article <1183769448.309265.117780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

cyloaft...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, I'm new to computers. Which is the better: ubuntu or apple
operating sys.?
Ubuntu can run on cheap Intel boxes, while to run Apple's OS X, you
need a genuine Macintosh computer. They cost more money.

There is a lot of software you can get to run on Linux, and the Ubuntu
distribution is a Linux distribution packaged so as to be useful for
relative novices to computing. Generally, speaking, though, that
software will be things like FORTRAN compilers, editors, mathematics
software, and so on. GIMP, a nice picture editing package, is
available for it, though.

If you're looking for the kind of software you can buy at a store in a
box - popular games, utilities - and if you would like to do things on
your computer like play DVD movies, or purchase and listen to
legitimate (and hence DRM-protected) music downloads - then the
Macintosh is a better solution.

Of course, if getting popular software in a box is what is important
to you, while the Macintosh certainly has Ubuntu beat hands down...
you might also want to consider another operating system, made by an
outfit in Redmond, Washington. This operating system, because it is
somewhat more popular than Apple's OS X, would let you choose from a
wider selection of packaged software at lower prices.

However, it is true there is a downside - this other operating system
is _so_ popular that most viruses and spyware are written to run on
it, so indeed you might still decide to go with a Macintosh. Just
check around your city to ensure that there is more than one store
with a good selection of Macintosh software that is reasonably easy to
get to.
John forgot to mention that all that free/open-source software that's available for Linux is also available on the Mac.
Though if you consider it difficult to install this software on Linux,

Hunh? I just upgraded PHP and MySQL on OS X Server from 4.whatevers to 5.whatevers. I got nice precompiled packages with installers.

Now, try something a little more esoteric. Like, say, Cinelerra. Any time you have to build these apps from source on OS X, you're going to have problems. Even Fink is only a marginal improvement, since the packages are so out of date. Certainly, you get some of the heavy-hitter server packages and a mostly-up-to-date KDE, but as soon as you start digging, you start finding holes in software availability.

Yet again, OS X users get yesterday's technology. For some reason, they seem to think this puts them ahead of the people who actually get updates to their software.


you might as well consider it impossible on OS X. Not to mention, the OS X versions are often lacking features,

Cites, please.

Anything involving integration with Linux kernel functionality is either unusable or lacking in features on OS X. QEMU, for example. GNOME for OS X is a few *years* out of date, as is Xorg. Need more?


or do not perform as well as the same software on Linux.

Cites, please.

OOo has always been painfully slow on Macs, compared to the Windows and Linux versions. This is especially true for the X11 version. For that matter, X11 and Xorg hardly perform well on OS X. MySQL has had performance problems on OS X for years now, and no fixes seem to be on the horizon (the problems are fundamental and specific to OS X). Need more?


Plus, many of these applications require the use of X11, which creates a very disjointed user experience on OS X.

IOW, it would be just as disjointed as when running Linux.

Not at all, since I wouldn't have the whole X11-Apple dichotomy going on. X11 on OS X is extremely disjointed, far more than X Windows on platforms where X Windows is the primary environment. When using X Windows as the primary desktop environment, I can pick one desktop environment and stick with it throughout. I can't do that on OS X, at least not without a lot of work (and forgoing all Mac-specific benefits).

Not to mention, Apple is using an extremely out of date version of Xfree86. None of the major usability and consistency developments of the past few years have made it into Apple's version. None of the freedesktop standards have made it into Apple's X11, which is incompatible with software built against the version of Xorg in Fink.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: linux vs mac
    ... There is a lot of software you can get to run on Linux, ... you might also want to consider another operating system, ... I got nice precompiled packages with installers. ... This is especially true for the X11 version. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: linux vs mac
    ... There is a lot of software you can get to run on Linux, ... distribution is a Linux distribution packaged so as to be useful for ... you might also want to consider another operating system, ... Even Fink is only a marginal improvement, since the packages are so out of date. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Best Linux version to port from OpenServer 5.0.5/6
    ... > We are embarking on a project to port from OpenServer 5.0.5/6, to Linux. ... something that doesn install aload of crap you don't need... ... The package management allows easy installs of packages, ... Debian will never die!,See the social ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • Re: Linux Applications for OS X
    ... I hear that you can get most Linux applications installed for OS X. ... If you're willing to live with an ancient version of GNOME or build GNOME yourself against Apple's X11. ... You just named a large portion of the *nix apps with specific Mac ports, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Get your Mac, its raining Trojans
    ... What is really needed is an entirely new operating system from ... Linux distros have almost daily security updates you need to apply to ... Windoze boxes are attacked because it is so easy and possible to attack ... think any Linux Distro that became the dominate OS would not be the target ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)