MAC vs Ubuntu (Minus Third Party Software)

[MasterNetra]

How does mac & ubuntu match up in areas like security, usability, etc? What do the systems have in common and whats differant, and when it comes to a balance of secuirty and usablity which one comes out on top?

[SunnyRabbiera]

You mean minus Wine or Crossover correct?
Or flash, realplayer adobe reader?
Whats the definition of third party software in this topic?
PPA's?
Added software not incuded in the repositories?

[MasterNetra]

You mean minus Wine or Crossover correct?
Or flash, realplayer adobe reader?
Whats the definition of third party software in this topic?
PPA's?
Added software not incuded in the repositories?

Again OS's by themselves. All third party software. I want to know how the OS's compare on a base level.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Very well, my vote still goes to Ubuntu.
The main reason why is that personally I think Gnomes interface is easier to use, I always had issues loading applications in OSX, its a pain in the @$#%

[MasterNetra]

Very well, my vote still goes to Ubuntu.
The main reason why is that personally I think Gnomes interface is easier to use, I always had issues loading applications in OSX, its a pain in the @$#%

Any thoughts on the security/vulnerability front?

[SunnyRabbiera]

In terms of security Ubuntu and OSX are equal, they both use a variation of Sudo.
Only hardware will matter here, obviously OSX has more upfront support then linux as you go out to the store and get a device it usually says Windows or OSX.
But honestly that doesnt matter much, as ubuntu does have pretty good hardware detection.

[tc3000]

The main difference at the lower, low, low level (kernel) is that Linux is a monolith kernel and OS X's kernel, Darwin, is a microkernel.

[MasterNetra]

The main difference at the lower, low, low level (kernel) is that Linux is a monolith kernel and OS X's kernel, Darwin, is a microkernel.

Not talking about the Kernals.^.^

[tubezninja]

Very well, my vote still goes to Ubuntu.
The main reason why is that personally I think Gnomes interface is easier to use, I always had issues loading applications in OSX, its a pain in the @$#%

Just curious: What exactly was painful about loading OS X apps?

[tubezninja]

Ubuntu & Linux Bias aside, which of the two OS are superior? How do they match up in areas like security, usability, etc? And as my title suggests minus Third Party Software. Also minus the cost factor, just purely OS vs OS...

To be perfectly frank: no one can answer that question, for anyone.

I am an avid mac user. I am also an avid linux and solaris user. I would never say that any of them are "superior." It all depends on your use case and you usage habits.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Just curious: What exactly was painful about loading OS X apps?

You have to open apps in finder, I rather like having a button or something to go into a menu.

[toupeiro]

If underneith the hood, Mac OSX is enough like unix to have some form of a runlevel (SYSTEM-V or BSD based), a defined single user and multi-user init level a security model similar to any other UNIX or Linux based OS, and CAN run without a GUI, then I would say there is little differences between them. Understand though, since you removed all basis of software from the discussion, I'm going strictly on stability and security. I've run UNIX/linux servers and workstations over 400 days without reboots and passed security audits without a single finding whatsoever. Can anyone truly say they've done the same with a MAC?

[tubezninja]

You have to open apps in finder, I rather like having a button or something to go into a menu.

There's a dock, which kinda makes opening apps as easy as it can get. Putting your apps folder in a stack also eliminates the need to go directly through Finder.

I've run UNIX/linux servers and workstations over 400 days without reboots and passed security audits without a single finding whatsoever. Can anyone truly say they've done the same with a MAC?

I can and have.

[schauerlich]

Ubuntu is composed almost entirely of "3rd party woftware". Pretty much every linux distro is. So, by your definition, OS X is superior because Ubuntu would be stripped down to a handful of patches and a couple programs with nothing to run it on.

[MasterNetra]

Ubuntu is composed almost entirely of "3rd party woftware". Pretty much every linux distro is. So, by your definition, OS X is superior because Ubuntu would be stripped down to a handful of patches and a couple programs with nothing to run it on.

x.x Point taken. In that case the comparsion is between Ubuntu Vanilla and OSX Vanilla, minus still the differance in price and the driver differances.

[toupeiro]

I can and have.

I think you would be one of the few. If I can ask, what guidelines was your audit defined by? Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA, GLBA etc?

I'd also be interested in knowing what your server was doing. Mine was hosting shared application services for about 40-50 users simultaneously. Having a server powered on, idling for 400 days doesn't count. :P

Its not that I don't believe you, but if MACs truly had this kind of stability, I think that should be far more publicised.

[SunnyRabbiera]

x.x Point taken. In that case the comparsion is between Ubuntu Vanilla and OSX Vanilla, minus still the differance in price and the driver differances.

you mean Ubuntu in command line then, I would still say ubuntu because of the useful command line tools like apt.

[tubezninja]

I think you would be one of the few. If I can ask, what guidelines was your audit defined by? Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA, GLBA etc?

Being an organization that caters to higher-ed institutions, who store financial records, we are governed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLBA). In addition, based on the datacenter's physical location, the users it serves and the data it stores, it and the staff responsible for it are also bound to comply with the New Jersey Identity Theft Prevention Act.


I'd also be interested in knowing what your server was doing.

And you shall continue to remain interested. :) But it wasn't idling.


Its not that I don't believe you,

Which means you don't. But that's okay, because I don't care if you do. :)

but if MACs truly had this kind of stability, I think that should be far more publicised.

It has been, actually. But the OS X server platform tends to have a small niche that Apple is just fine with, and within that niche, it's pretty well known.

[MasterNetra]

you mean Ubuntu in command line then, I would still say ubuntu because of the useful command line tools like apt.

Nice for sure to know, though I did still had the GUI in mind..it kinda slipped my mind that Ubuntu and most Linux distros are mostly built off od third party stuff. And by vanilla i mean as it is when you first install from CD/DVD.

[Compucore]

Even though I don't use Mac OSX over here. But tried Sun solaris and open Solaris over here to see the difference between them. And I agree with you that you cannot say one is better than the other. They all have their up's and down's to certain degree depending on what you want to do with the OS itself and the tools and applications that you want to use with the OS itself.

Whenever I ask a customer and not to get them confused either. I basically ask them in what way they want to use the computer for and what expericence they had if any on previous operating system if any. If they have never used a computer before. I would show the three side by side to let them try it out there. to see what they like as for the interface and all that. So that they would choose themselve. Myself I am always flexible in any of them. Since it is a tool that I need to use at that given time.

:D


To be perfectly frank: no one can answer that question, for anyone.

I am an avid mac user. I am also an avid linux and solaris user. I would never say that any of them are "superior." It all depends on your use case and you usage habits.

[MasterNetra]

Even though I don't use Mac OSX over here. But tried Sun solaris and open Solaris over here to see the difference between them. And I agree with you that you cannot say one is better than the other. They all have their up's and down's to certain degree depending on what you want to do with the OS itself and the tools and applications that you want to use with the OS itself.

Whenever I ask a customer and not to get them confused either. I basically ask them in what way they want to use the computer for and what expericence they had if any on previous operating system if any. If they have never used a computer before. I would show the three side by side to let them try it out there. to see what they like as for the interface and all that. So that they would choose themselve. Myself I am always flexible in any of them. Since it is a tool that I need to use at that given time.

:D

I suppose my idea on whats superior most likely needs to be explained. When I say superior I mean which has more advantages, I guess or something along those lines anyway.

[toupeiro]

And you shall continue to remain interested. :) But it wasn't idling.

No, not really. Mysteriousness in this topic doesn't impress me. If you can't share there's either one of two reasons. Legal obligation, or self importance. I can understand the first, but I won't feed into the later one.



Which means you don't. But that's okay, because I don't care if you do. :)

Self-righteousness takes a new step here. I was being sincere. If you don't care, fine, then don't reply, but don't insinuate I meant anything other than what I said.


This seems to be the direction every conversation I've ever had about MAC goes. Someone speaks up about how stable they are, but when they are asked to dive any deeper, its 100% stand-offish responses and "wouldn't you like to know"-like comments.

I can promise you this. If OSX is that stable, they owe it to their adoption of UNIX. Prior to that, Mac could never boast anything close to what you are talking about.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Nice for sure to know, though I did still had the GUI in mind..it kinda slipped my mind that Ubuntu and most Linux distros are mostly built off od third party stuff. And by vanilla i mean as it is when you first install from CD/DVD.

I see, well then Ubuntu in any case.
Mainly because for new users I feel Ubuntu has many cool toys for new users.

[tbroderick]

I suppose my idea on whats superior most likely needs to be explained. When I say superior I mean which has more advantages, I guess or something along those lines anyway.

I would say OSX has a better multimedia experience out of the box, while Ubuntu has a better all in one desktop experience.

[tubezninja]

No, not really. Mysteriousness in this topic doesn't impress me.

It has nothing to do with being mysterious. The server does real work. That's all you need to know. I would rather not disclose the nature and purpose of the server because of what it does. Maybe that's being too cautious, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. That's all.


This seems to be the direction every conversation I've ever had about MAC goes.

I wonder why that is. Maybe it's because you start the conversation making these rather passive aggressive challenges, where you "doubt" the stability of another platform while the other side is simply expected to accept as undisputed fact that the platform you champion is infallibly stable.

Someone speaks up about how stable they are, but when they are asked to dive any deeper, its 100% stand-offish responses and "wouldn't you like to know"-like comments.

No, it's more like, I really don't want to get into a 'whose-implement-is-bigger' contest, which this type of discussion inevitably degenerates into.

Again, my OS X server experiences have proven as stable as your linux server experiences have been. I will accept your assertions without challenging them. You refuse to accept my assertions to the same. Sorry you feel that way! But your bias is clear, and I have better things to do than try to correct them.


I can promise you this. If OSX is that stable, they owe it to their adoption of UNIX. Prior to that, Mac could never boast anything close to what you are talking about.

... why is this a "promise?" It's an accepted fact by Mac users that there had to be an evolution away from from what Mac OS was.

And while we're on the subject, since you are aware of the UNIX underpinnings, I'm at a loss to understand why you are unwilling to accept that OS X is stable. maybe it's just not "unix-enough?" I don't get it.

[toupeiro]

It has nothing to do with being mysterious. The server does real work. That's all you need to know. I would rather not disclose the nature and purpose of the server because of what it does. Maybe that's being too cautious, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. That's all.




I wonder why that is. Maybe it's because you start the conversation making these rather passive aggressive challenges, where you "doubt" the stability of another platform while the other side is simply expected to accept as undisputed fact that the platform you champion is infallibly stable.



No, it's more like, I really don't want to get into a 'whose-implement-is-bigger' contest, which this type of discussion inevitably degenerates into.

Again, my OS X server experiences have proven as stable as your linux server experiences have been. I will accept your assertions without challenging them. You refuse to accept my assertions to the same. Sorry you feel that way! But your bias is clear, and I have better things to do than try to correct them.




... why is this a "promise?" It's an accepted fact by Mac users that there had to be an evolution away from from what Mac OS was.

And while we're on the subject, since you are aware of the UNIX underpinnings, I'm at a loss to understand why you are unwilling to accept that OS X is stable. maybe it's just not "unix-enough?" I don't get it.

I am at a loss to understand why you are unwilling to accept that the reason I asked is because you obviously had a real world example to go by. Just because something is fundamentally based on something else doesn't mean it will automatically inherit all the benefits of the source. If all of a sudden Microsoft decided to start using a Linux kernel in Windows, should I assume it will be as stable as a RHEL or Ubuntu server? It depends on what you do to it. I don't get why that concept is so difficult to understand? From my vantage-point, you presented a real oppurtunity to help not just me, but many people who might stumble on this thread to understand how MAC servers are used in high-visibility scenarios successfully, but you're insinuations about my intentions turned that opportunity into what appeared to me as an arrogant way to say "OH YES IT CAN!" I was hoping for something more, but got what I usually get. oh well.

I didn't state the load on my server to imply "my implementation is bigger than yours" but I was using it as some sort of a baseline to understand what your MAC server was doing. It could be doing something completely different than my Linux servers, but that doesn't mean it wasn't busy, or that I was going to demerit it as a stable server. You assume WAY too much!


Maybe, its easier to accept that I've said "I've had my UNIX/Linux servers run over 400 days" because there are plenty of documented examples of other admins and companies who have done the same thing. Its not really saying something about linux and unix that isn't known. A Mac, however, that same acceptance doesn't apply because of their "niche" market as you put it. I never thought it was an impossibility, but I've never had the pleasure of seeing it done, reading about it done, or talking to anyone supporting MAC servers who has done it that is willing to divulge.

edit:
Finally, I said that if Mac kept the UNIX-like things under the hood in OSX unmodified, that there is little reason it would be any less secure or stable than Linux or UNIX. How on earth do you see that as passive-aggressive? To me, it seems like your reaction is much more passive aggressive.

[joninkrakow]

You have to open apps in finder, I rather like having a button or something to go into a menu.

Actually, in Tiger and Leopard, you can invoke Spotlight, type the name of the app (or partially) and hit return and it launches. No mousing necessary. And I haven't brought up QuickSilver, because the challenge is to do it with just the OS.

And since I spoke up, I'll add that MacOS has the Services menu, easily modified and invoked Exposé, the Dock (not my fav, but it's useful when you right-click--especially for quitting, or the occasional force-quitting of an app).

On the other hand, Ubuntu (Gnome, at least) has the wonderful right-click-create-iso-file, or burn-iso-file feature that I like. So, I think that, overall, at the raw user level, it's a wash. It comes down to what you are used to, how you prefer working, etc. I'm used to the Mac, but honestly, find many things to like about Gnome. I feel much more comfortable in Gnome than in KDE (but I also like icewm, which is a far cry from Leopard!), but Gnome always feels more Mac-like than KDE. :-)

-)on

[tubezninja]

I am at a loss to understand why you are unwilling to accept that the reason I asked is because you obviously had a real world example to go by.

I'm not sure what world-changing experience you expected for me to provide you, here. I have a server. It's been running for 438 days. It runs OS X. Evidently, my saying this isn't evidence enough for you, so I'm not sure what else I can tell you. Since you know, clearly I must be lying through my teeth...



I didn't state the load on my server to imply "my implementation is bigger than yours"

Then what was it? What, my job's gonna let me run a server and do nothing on it, letting it take up energy and rack space for over a year? I'd have been axed a long time ago if that were the case.

Maybe, its easier to accept that I've said "I've had my UNIX/Linux servers run over 400 days" because there are plenty of documented examples of other admins and companies who have done the same thing.

I see. So at some point, it's acceptable for someone to say that their linux server has run for x number of days and counting without the need for any verification wahtsoever. But if an OS X admin says it, well, we need proof of this. Point taken.


A Mac, however, that same acceptance doesn't apply because of their "niche" market as you put it. I never thought it was an impossibility, but I've never had the pleasure of seeing it done, reading about it done,

Well, I'm sorry to deprive you of that "pleasure," but since it's unlikely you'll be sitting at its console anytime soon, and since I'm don't have time or inclination to write up a peer-reviewed dissertation on "What I did With My Mac for the Past Year and a Half," I guess you'll just have to remain smug in not having proof that satisfies you that OS X is stable.

[koshatnik]

Ubuntu & Linux Bias aside, which of the two OS are superior? How do they match up in areas like security, usability, etc? And as my title suggests minus Third Party Software. Also minus the cost factor, just purely OS vs OS...

Why? Without apps, an OS is nothing.

[MasterNetra]

Why? Without apps, an OS is nothing.

I did adjusted it down the line as Ubuntu Vanilla vs OS X Vanilla minus differences in price and hardwire drivers and I have fixed the first post to avoid this confusion again.

[toupeiro]

I'm not sure what world-changing experience you expected for me to provide you, here. I have a server. It's been running for 438 days. It runs OS X. Evidently, my saying this isn't evidence enough for you, so I'm not sure what else I can tell you. Since you know, clearly I must be lying through my teeth...





Then what was it? What, my job's gonna let me run a server and do nothing on it, letting it take up energy and rack space for over a year? I'd have been axed a long time ago if that were the case.



I see. So at some point, it's acceptable for someone to say that their linux server has run for x number of days and counting without the need for any verification wahtsoever. But if an OS X admin says it, well, we need proof of this. Point taken.




Well, I'm sorry to deprive you of that "pleasure," but since it's unlikely you'll be sitting at its console anytime soon, and since I'm don't have time or inclination to write up a peer-reviewed dissertation on "What I did With My Mac for the Past Year and a Half," I guess you'll just have to remain smug in not having proof that satisfies you that OS X is stable.

Wow.. Take a pill, then a breath, and RELAX!

1) I never said you were lying, but you are hell-bent on believing I said this. Believe whatever you want to believe. Excuse me for having the audacity to ask you more questions about your completely vague "I can and I have" statement. If this is all you have to go on that makes you think I believe you are lying, then I really don't have anything more to say except "maybe a technical forum isn't for you!"

2) For people who actually care about a server running over 400 days, that doesn't always imply its busy. Weeding through your sarcastic response, I'll simply say that if your server was doing something like, license hosting, this isn't incredibly intensive, in fact, it pretty much sits there and listens on various TCP ports, but if it goes down, all hell breaks loose in your company! I was curious what sort of things your MAC server did. Now, I've really lost all interest in hearing anymore about it because its not worth putting up with the attitude that comes with it.

3) So, knowing that MANY papers are published about system stability referring to how stable UNIX and linux are, and an OSX admin on a Linux forum in a thread titled MAC vs. Ubuntu, responds with (and I am summarizing now) yeah, they're stable, but I won't share anything more about it, and I don't care if you think I'm lying," ... yeah maybe being willing to put up a little more than what you did would be constructive for everyone given the topic. But, do whatever you want, by all means. You don't owe anyone anything. But I really fail to see your point in responding to my question at all if you weren't willing to .. discuss it?

I don't want proof of anything you're or anyone else isn't willing to share. I thought I was going to engage in a technical conversation with another adult in my industry. I was grossly mistaken. I'm done. Have a nice day!

[koshatnik]

I did adjusted it down the line as Ubuntu Vanilla vs OS X Vanilla minus differences in price and hardwire drivers

Then, all OS's are of equal merit. They only become "good" when a decent app gets developed for it. Until that point, they are useless.

[tubezninja]

I did adjusted it down the line as Ubuntu Vanilla vs OS X Vanilla minus differences in price and hardwire drivers

It should be pointed out that, depending on how you acquire OS X, some apps come "built in." Things like basic photo editing tools, video and audio editing tools, and podcasting software, come pre-installed when you buy mac hardware.

On the other hand, ubuntu comes with its own tools pre-installed. Including OpenOffice, which might be of more use to some.

I guess it depends on what your meaning of "vanilla" is. And again, this is why it's hard to just say hands down, one is superior to the other.

[MasterNetra]

Yea...Switching to a comparison thing, reread first post. Sorry for the confusion folks, trying to figure out how to word what I want to know. ^.^

[koshatnik]

Also - why does it matter? Who the hell runs an OS with no apps on it? It's like buying a Wii, plugging it into the TV and never buying or playing any games on it.

[bryonak]

As has been said, both systems have their strengths. You'll obviously get more votes for Ubuntu here.
I'll highlight Ubuntu's customisability whereas OSX is still a bit more polished out of the box.

You require "without third party apps"...
Keep mind that the repositories are one of Ubuntu's big strengths and an integral part of the whole system.
Both OSes have third party software, e.g. Skype or Opera, but this is quite different from a native interface with free access to thousands of applications you can download/install in simple steps within a few seconds...
I've recently set up a complete LAMP stack with a single aptitude line ;) (OK, the following website setup took quite some time)


I see no reason for OSX to be less stable, they do have a good base system and they certainly do lots of testing before a release.
As for security... personally I greatly prefer GNU/Linux.
You can test much better for stability than security (at least, I can) and it's not that OSX is insecure, but it simply isn't as thoroughly time tested as RHES/SLES/Debian, which are much more widely used by high profile "targets" like stock exchange servers, military networks, banks, ...

Given that the most efficient way of disabling a Linux machine is to root a couple of thousand Windows boxes and ddos it, as compared to simply rooting a fully patched recent OSX build by just letting it open a website... ;D (yep, ignore that bait)


@toupeiro & scaredpoet: Why not carry out your quarrels via PM? Obviously you wouldn't get to indulge in showing off your debating (bashing?) skills in public, yet I'm not sure how this going on would benefit the thread ;P

[MasterNetra]

Also - why does it matter? Who the hell runs an OS with no apps on it? It's like buying a Wii, plugging it into the TV and never buying or playing any games on it.

Because the performance and security of the OS itself is important to me thats why.

[PartisanEntity]

To be perfectly frank: no one can answer that question, for anyone.

I am an avid mac user. I am also an avid linux and solaris user. I would never say that any of them are "superior." It all depends on your use case and you usage habits.

I'd have to agree there. I use them both on a daily basis and am happy with both of them. No problems at all.

Each is used for specific tasks.

[MasterNetra]

I'd have to agree there. I use them both on a daily basis and am happy with both of them. No problems at all.

Each is used for specific tasks.

Be that as it may, that post was based off of my original first post I've sense revised it. ^.^

[tubezninja]

Be that as it may, that post was based off of my original first post I've sense revised it. ^.^

I think unfortunately, you're going to find that this is an endless debate, based on lots of people's differing opinions on the matter. You aren't going to get a definitive answer without bringing more information to the table (and even then it's still doubtful).


Let me ask you this: why are you asking the question? Are you weighing out the security issue because you want to buy a Mac or set up a linux box, are are trying to decide which way to go? Again, the answer depends on the use case, and if we don't have that, we're just going around in circles here with our discussion and not getting anywhere.

[zakany]

I've run UNIX/linux servers and workstations over 400 days without reboots and passed security audits without a single finding whatsoever. Can anyone truly say they've done the same with a MAC?

Yeah. I had a Mac run a test for 1168 days without a reboot. I think it was running System 7. :P

[SunnyRabbiera]

Because the performance and security of the OS itself is important to me thats why.

Well in terms of performance and security OSX and Ubuntu are on par with eachother.

[MasterNetra]

I think unfortunately, you're going to find that this is an endless debate, based on lots of people's differing opinions on the matter. You aren't going to get a definitive answer without bringing more information to the table (and even then it's still doubtful).


Let me ask you this: why are you asking the question? Are you weighing out the security issue because you want to buy a Mac or set up a linux box, are are trying to decide which way to go? Again, the answer depends on the use case, and if we don't have that, we're just going around in circles here with our discussion and not getting anywhere.

A couple reasons actually, For starters I am considering running a mac at some point in the future, second I am curious about how they stand up to each other, and along with being curious I would like to be able to verbally compare them to others as necessary.

[toupeiro]

Yeah. I had a Mac run a test for 1168 days without a reboot. I think it was running System 7. :P

hehe. Kudos!

[toupeiro]

A couple reasons actually, For starters I am considering running a mac at some point in the future, second I am curious about how they stand up to each other, and along with being curious I would like to be able to verbally compare them to others as necessary.

Well to put a finer point on it, the types of comparasons you are asking for aren't typically done. Asking which is better ultimately depends on what you're going to end up doing with it. You've mentioned system security and stability as one point you are interested in. You've heard me talk about how long I've kept heavily loaded Linux and UNIX servers up. You've heard SacredPoet say he's done the same. We both have use cases. An untouched MS-DOS 6.22 machine sitting by itself unplugged from the world loading devices into upper memory blocks would be pretty stable too. If you take usage loads and use case out of the picture, they're both probably the same, but are you really not intending to do anything on said systems you are wanting comparisons with?

Here is a contest done back in 2008 where techies (or hackers, whatever you want to call them) had three days to break a Mac machine, a Vista machine, and a linux machine. They got to keep it if they hacked it. Both the vista machine and the mac machine were compromised. The linux machine wasn't. I'm not saying you should weigh everything on this, but it should also not be discounted. Especially considering you were interested in a security comparison.



http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131059

[koshatnik]

Because the performance and security of the OS itself is important to me thats why.

Security is down to the user, not the OS. People bitch about Xp security, well, in 5 years of using it i never had a single virus or problem, because im not an idiot. People are the weakest link in computers security, not the OS.

[hanzomon4]

I think that both are equal in terms of security. I know macs have been in the press lately for security issues but I think the same would happen if linux was more popular. As far as stability I find OSX to be rock solid.. Ubuntu not so much. As a desktop. I don't know about server performance. Also OSX has so much polish, Ubuntu is getting there but as it stands I'd say OSX is better for me.

[MasterNetra]

Well to put a finer point on it, the types of comparasons you are asking for aren't typically done. Asking which is better ultimately depends on what you're going to end up doing with it. You've mentioned system security and stability as one point you are interested in. You've heard me talk about how long I've kept heavily loaded Linux and UNIX servers up. You've heard SacredPoet say he's done the same. We both have use cases. An untouched MS-DOS 6.22 machine sitting by itself unplugged from the world loading devices into upper memory blocks would be pretty stable too. If you take usage loads and use case out of the picture, they're both probably the same, but are you really not intending to do anything on said systems you are wanting comparisons with?

Here is a contest done back in 2008 where techies (or hackers, whatever you want to call them) had three days to break a Mac machine, a Vista machine, and a linux machine. They got to keep it if they hacked it. Both the vista machine and the mac machine were compromised. The linux machine wasn't. I'm not saying you should weigh everything on this, but it should also not be discounted. Especially considering you were interested in a security comparison.



http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131059

lol that results from that hacking contest make feel even more safer with Ubuntu. Vista...not surprised, Mac to me was the question mark ^.^

[chris200x9]

Here is a contest done back in 2008 where techies (or hackers, whatever you want to call them) had three days to break a Mac machine, a Vista machine, and a linux machine. They got to keep it if they hacked it. Both the vista machine and the mac machine were compromised. The linux machine wasn't. I'm not saying you should weigh everything on this, but it should also not be discounted. Especially considering you were interested in a security comparison.



http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131059

in all fairness the linux machine *would* have fallen (depending on software installed) it was a hole in flash...thus cross platform.

[CJ Master]

in all fairness the linux machine *would* have fallen (depending on software installed) it was a hole in flash...thus cross platform.

Nope... check the comments on the article. It wouldn't work.

[toupeiro]

Nope... check the comments on the article. It wouldn't work.

Agreed. The exploit could not be reproduced on ubuntu. Thats been well discussed and covered over the last year with regard to this specific contest on several sites if you want to google it for yourself.

[ahmatti]

I use both OS at work and ubuntu also at home daily and the systems are quite even in average, but both have certain advantages for me. Both systems are stable and fairly fast and I've never run into any security problems. Some comparisons:


Linux is faster if you do heavy number crunching and you can speed it up a bit by compiling your own kernel.
I have easy remote access with ssh to both systems, although OSX doesn't support X forwarding which is a major benefit in using Ubuntu for me.
I do have to reboot OSX for updates more often than ubuntu, because the system asks for it. This is not a problem for me, because it is a laptop that I shutdown anyway.
OSX doesn't have focus follows mouse behavior, which I like in jobs like programming. I got used to that fairly quickly, but sometimes I miss the ability to paste text to terminal with 3 button or quick execution of command without mouse clicks.
X applications look bad on a MAC
Ubuntu has better package management so you can manage almost all updates through the repos
IMO OSX is easier to use for noobs, but that is largely because a lot of things have been decided for you. In Linux you have more choise, which sometimes makes things harder.
I do like the appearance of OSX, but Compiz doesn't behave well on my fglrx and I guess it could bring most of the features.


Third party software and propietary format support is the real reason I have a MAC... Also if you compare OS's without considering the available software I think FreeBSD is the best :) But a lot of my apps don't run on it with reasonable effort!

[MasterNetra]

I use both OS at work and ubuntu also at home daily and the systems are quite even in average, but both have certain advantages for me. Both systems are stable and fairly fast and I've never run into any security problems. Some comparisons:


Linux is faster if you do heavy number crunching and you can speed it up a bit by compiling your own kernel.
I have easy remote access with ssh to both systems, although OSX doesn't support X forwarding which is a major benefit in using Ubuntu for me.
I do have to reboot OSX for updates more often than ubuntu, because the system asks for it. This is not a problem for me, because it is a laptop that I shutdown anyway.
OSX doesn't have focus follows mouse behavior, which I like in jobs like programming. I got used to that fairly quickly, but sometimes I miss the ability to paste text to terminal with 3 button or quick execution of command without mouse clicks.
X applications look bad on a MAC
Ubuntu has better package management so you can manage almost all updates through the repos
IMO OSX is easier to use for noobs, but that is largely because a lot of things have been decided for you. In Linux you have more choise, which sometimes makes things harder.
I do like the appearance of OSX, but Compiz doesn't behave well on my fglrx and I guess it could bring most of the features.


Third party software and propietary format support is the real reason I have a MAC... Also if you compare OS's without considering the available software I think FreeBSD is the best :) But a lot of my apps don't run on it with reasonable effort!

Perhaps Free-BSD will rise to the point where it will be a strong competitor along side Linux and everything else one day. ^.^

[windows-killer]

OS X= usable and not very secure
Ubuntu= partially usable and secure

[harry2006]

my vote goes to ubuntu,,,btw mac is good as well...