just curious OSX vs ubuntu

[ubuntu_demon]

suppose money isn't an issue

Would you prefer a laptop with ubuntu or an ibook with OSX ?

For me money is an issue so I've never worked with one.

[jdodson]

ibook.

[ubuntu_demon]

I added a poll.

[amoser]

I am going to split the fence, and ibook running Ubuntu

~Alan

[ubuntu_demon]

amoser: Why ?

[ubuntu_demon]

And how do I add an extra option to the poll ?

[ralph_ubuntu]

My ibook is running gentoo, so how do I fit in?

[Magneto]

I'd get a dell inspiron 2.8ghz with 512mb ram 40gb hard disk cdrw/dvd builtin wireless and buy a brand new clone pc with 120gb harddisk for the same price and put ubuntu on both
But since I have a fairly new 2ghz p4 laptop- id buy a nice PC with a 250gb drive and nice vid card and another to make into a media center and take the other $500 bucks and let it sit in the bank

I dont see any benefit in apple products unless you are trying to fit in with an already existing infrastructure- or do publishing/printing etc.
What's the benefit of OSx? I'm aware of it's performance claims which can be duplicated on other operating systems. The software for it is limited so what's so great about it?

[jdodson]

I dont see any benefit in apple products unless you are trying to fit in with an already existing infrastructure- or do publishing/printing etc.
What's the benefit of OSx? I'm aware of it's performance claims which can be duplicated on other operating systems. The software for it is limited so what's so great about it?

do you consider movie making publishing? there are a few things that shine on apple: iMovie and iTunes and garageband. ok well audacity does everything garageband does, but that doesnt make garageband a bad program. personally i use audacity, it is great. iTunes, well you have rythmbox(which i use exclusively) but you cant buy music(i know its DRMed but it is a nice legal way to purchase music imo and you can break the DRM anyway(see hymn) :-) ). iMovie is great. its easy to use and very cool. i have searched long and hard for the iMove killer(gpl program) and i have not found it or was able to get it to work. i have tried kino(which i got working in ubuntu) and it is great for extracting video and doing simple editing, however if you want to overlay music or titles, you are kinda SOL, those features will come later, which i am waiting for. i have not been able to run ceinerella(SP?) or lives yet. ceinerella(SP?) and lives both look like good programs i just havent hacked around to get them working yet. anyone had any luck in that area, let me know.

just my .02.

[Magneto]

Multimedia - movies publishing audio composition etc

Valid point Jdodson but we are comparing free software to very expensive software and there's only dvd composition where you couldnt find a good replacement in GNU. Kino looks good- You can try Polidori for a iDVD replacement.

I really just don't see the advantages for most end-users. I use amarok/xmms, Limewire, Azureus, gmplayer, xine, realplayer10, evolution, firefox1, gaim,xchat, openoffice.org, grip and k3b day to day - those probably cover the main functionalities all people use and I think those are as good or better than most other equivalents
I would like to see a good GNU pdf authoring app though

not arguing, apple makes nice eyecandy I just don't see spending the extra - for me at least

the iTitle iCrap iWhich iIs iSimilar iTo iA iCertain KDE kcould kget kto kme

[jdodson]

right, i agree. for my day to day use, ubuntu rocks my world. apple does do eyecandy well, and stability well, though you do mention(and rightly so) that it comes with a hefty price tag and loss in freedom. however i have found gnu/linux to be plenty stable and feature rich. in the years to come, the features will only get richer.

[BWF89]

Mac OS's are the worst thing that has ever happened to computers. I can't believe ANYONE would want to use a Mac when they could use Windows or Linux. I hate the 1 button mouse. I just hate everything about it. Sorry if I got a little extreme there but I am just getting tired to useing those stupid iMacs everytime I want to surf the net at the school library during studyhall (which is everyday so I know what I'm talking about)...

[ubuntu_demon]

I found a relevant story :

"Why Install Linux on Your Mac?"
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/11/30/linux.html

[macewan]

Multimedia - movies publishing audio composition etc

Valid point Jdodson but we are comparing free software to very expensive software and there's only dvd composition where you couldnt find a good replacement in GNU. Kino looks good- You can try Polidori for a iDVD replacement.

I really just don't see the advantages for most end-users. I use amarok/xmms, Limewire, Azureus, gmplayer, xine, realplayer10, evolution, firefox1, gaim,xchat, openoffice.org, grip and k3b day to day - those probably cover the main functionalities all people use and I think those are as good or better than most other equivalents
I would like to see a good GNU pdf authoring app though

not arguing, apple makes nice eyecandy I just don't see spending the extra - for me at least

the iTitle iCrap iWhich iIs iSimilar iTo iA iCertain KDE kcould kget kto kme
I'm use to Linux now, comfortable with any of the 'box window managers, waimea(sp), KDE or GNOME desktop environments or plain 'ole command line. I see no reason to switch to OSX from Linux. The ibook on the other hand is welcomed.

:)

[Readis]

I'm going to go the other route then most people here, and say that I miss my mac. I can understand replacing Windows on a PC, but OS X just worked. I had no problems with the thing. OS X ran great and the software was stable. I was using a 12" Powerbook with a Super-Drive. At that time, there was no chance of finding the equal of that system for the same price. Mine was still under $2000.00. That was with 5 hour batter life, CDR/DVDR, crystal clear screen, 512 Meg RAM, 60 Gig HD, wireless, and bluetooth built in. I don't think you could still touch that price with a PC laptop. For the stability though, Linux still has it issues on the PPC platform. Also I have yet to find an app that will replace DVD Studio Pro 2, or have the simplisity of installing or uninstalling software. If I had a Powerbook now, would I replace OS X with Umbutu? Not a chance. But not because I don't like Umbutu, I love it in fact. It is because OS X works. Some people don't like it at all, and they have made the change. And as long as OS X is still Unix, I was more then happy to stick with them at the time. As for the mouse... you can toss a 3 button on a Mac and it will run fine. That's my two cents...

-Readis

[Sorin Paliga]

After years of using MAC OS (all versions, beginning with 6), Windows (all, beginning with 3.1) and Linux (since Dec. 2003). I may say that no Linux distro can now really compete with MAC OS X. Of course, things may change in the future. I refer to those who do not buy a PC for playing all the time, but for specific, 'serious' needs, like word processing, DTP, graphics etc.
The poll Ubuntu v. MAC OS X, or vice-versa, is - I'm afraid - simplistic. What may happen if Apple succeeds in porting MAC OS X to intel and amd pc's? I suppose that the last combo Darwin installer is a step towrds that goal, otherwise it makes no sense...
If Ubuntu or other Linux distros may port the elegance and simplicity in use, including installation (apps, fonts, keyboard layouts, scripts...), then we may really consider a radical question like Ubuntu v. MAC OS X. Ubuntu ppc is good indeed, and perhaps with a large disk why not using both? A future MS Windows PPC will surely close the circle :)

[Magneto]

After years of using MAC OS (all versions, beginning with 6), Windows (all, beginning with 3.1) and Linux (since Dec. 2003). I may say that no Linux distro can now really compete with MAC OS X. Of course, things may change in the future. I refer to those who do not buy a PC for playing all the time, but for specific, 'serious' needs, like word processing, DTP, graphics etc.
The poll Ubuntu v. MAC OS X, or vice-versa, is - I'm afraid - simplistic. What may happen if Apple succeeds in porting MAC OS X to intel and amd pc's? I suppose that the last combo Darwin installer is a step towrds that goal, otherwise it makes no sense...
If Ubuntu or other Linux distros may port the elegance and simplicity in use, including installation (apps, fonts, keyboard layouts, scripts...), then we may really consider a radical question like Ubuntu v. MAC OS X. Ubuntu ppc is good indeed, and perhaps with a large disk why not using both? A future MS Windows PPC will surely close the circle :)
I agree, taken in proper context there is no comparison, Ubuntu is clearly better. :)
You may say what you like, but linux has far more market share than OSX, so for all intents and purposes OSX cannot compete with Linux. :) Of course things may change in the future. I refer to those who do not buy a PC for playing all the time, but for those who make animated movies that generate billions of dollars, "serious" needs, like file and application servers, 3d workstations etc.

If Apple can gain market share then we may really consider a radical question like Ubuntu v. Mac OSX, or the question of Linux v. Mac OSx which seems to have permeated a great deal of this discourse.

Different people need/want/like different tools. Don't assume that those serious about computing do not like Linux or Debian over Macs. I wonder how many systems on this planet run Debian compared to OSx. I work in I.T. and I have never seen an enterprise data center with any macs(not that it can't be done, it is a rarity), nor have I seen a fortune 500 manufacturing company using mac's for CAD.
OSx does what it does, I know Apple wishes all those ipod sales were Mac sales.

It's all perception. :)

[ubuntu_demon]

I agree, taken in proper context there is no comparison, Ubuntu is clearly better. :)
You may say what you like, but linux has far more market share than OSX, so for all intents and purposes OSX cannot compete with Linux. :) Of course things may change in the future. I refer to those who do not buy a PC for playing all the time, but for those who make animated movies that generate billions of dollars, "serious" needs, like file and application servers, 3d workstations etc.

If Apple can gain market share then we may really consider a radical question like Ubuntu v. Mac OSX, or the question of Linux v. Mac OSx which seems to have permeated a great deal of this discourse.

Different people need/want/like different tools. Don't assume that those serious about computing do not like Linux or Debian over Macs. I wonder how many systems on this planet run Debian compared to OSx. I work in I.T. and I have never seen an enterprise data center with any macs(not that it can't be done, it is a rarity), nor have I seen a fortune 500 manufacturing company using mac's for CAD.
OSx does what it does, I know Apple wishes all those ipod sales were Mac sales.

It's all perception. :)


The poll Ubuntu v. MAC OS X, or vice-versa, is - I'm afraid - simplistic.


true. But it's a nice discussion.



Different people need/want/like different tools.


agreed

[comctrl6]

Before I type anything here, I have to say that I really like Ubuntu and Linux in general. I have it installed on my laptop and desktop. I also believe it's one of the best distributions out there. But I have to say that I would go with OS X. The reason is because of their clean and organized API (Application Programming Interface). Steve Jobs really gave a new life to Apple and Mac OS X. Everything on that platform is designed carefully and based on world accepted standards. You can see that GNOME somewhat followed in the same footsteps. (The GNOME User Interface Design Guide, the top panel, the curved window borders, etc.) So I would go with OS X.

[Quest-Master]

Before I type anything here, I have to say that I really like Ubuntu and Linux in general. I have it installed on my laptop and desktop. I also believe it's one of the best distributions out there. But I have to say that I would go with OS X. The reason is because of their clean and organized API (Application Programming Interface). Steve Jobs really gave a new life to Apple and Mac OS X. Everything on that platform is designed carefully and based on world accepted standards. You can see that GNOME somewhat followed in the same footsteps. (The GNOME User Interface Design Guide, the top panel, the curved window borders, etc.) So I would go with OS X.
As I've said in another topic, until OS X is available on AMD/x86, and the price falls a bit, I wouldn't use it.

Ubuntu is PERFECT once correctly set up. :)

[fng]

Voting for MacOSX.
I got myself a powerbook 12'' and OSX is really the best os available today, both for powerusers and beginners. I can't wait when Tiger hits the shelfs. SPOTLIGHT!

[BWF89]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!?

ARE YOU FORGETTING THE REASON RMS DEVELOPED THE GNU OPERATING SYSTEM?
FREEDOM!

Macintosh is the same as Windows it's proprietary software. With proprietary software you don't have freedom, without freedom you can't do the following:

*Take a look at the source code...

*Change the source code so that it fits your needs or because it is nessessary for the survival of the program...

*Restribute the program to help your neighbors...

*Form a real community where people help each other...

And lets not forget this RMS quote:


"If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have."
And I believe that quote. I would rather use a program that doesn't work as well but is free than sign away all my rights by agreeing with the EULA and being a bad person and not being able to share with anyone else...

[tiiim]

im running a 14" iBook and have ditched OS X for Ubuntu. Linux is far superior.

Sure you got the lovely iCandy (see wot i did ;) ) but at end of the day i wanted a system that worked. OS X is nice but very restricted in what you can actually do under the hood. Sure they got a UNIX system underneath but it is very well hidden and tucked up and if you did muck it up you cant easily put it back together.

The thing as what has been mention, Linux under the GNU area is FREEDOM. Apple may come the next Microsoft then we all be fighting that. Apple hardware is way better than PC hardware and if you tweak Linux it will use the hardware very well. The thing about Linux is it runs on everything, OS X only runs on apple hardware...

There is many reason but i can say being on OS X and running Linux, Linux is far superior for custmoziable to admin to everything....

[CowPie]

Mac OS's are the worst thing that has ever happened to computers. I can't believe ANYONE would want to use a Mac when they could use Windows or Linux. I hate the 1 button mouse. I just hate everything about it. Sorry if I got a little extreme there but I am just getting tired to useing those stupid iMacs everytime I want to surf the net at the school library during studyhall (which is everyday so I know what I'm talking about)...
HEhe agree :) Of course the worse thing for me is Mac laptops don't have a trackpoint . I refuse to use touchpads on latops, they cause hand strain and are annoying when typing. I need to switch my hands on PC mouses already, and touchpad doesn't do it sorry!

Only IBM have trackpoint laptops though.

[BWF89]

When I posted that anti-Mac post that has been my experince for Mac OS through Mac 9.2. I have yet to try OSX...

[Zundfolge]

What may happen if Apple succeeds in porting MAC OS X to intel and amd pc's?
Its not a "what if" or "when" ... Apple is currently running OSX on Pentium based machines at Apple ... its all just a matter of them deciding to box the darn thing up and sell it.


When I posted that anti-Mac post that has been my experince for Mac OS through Mac 9.2. I have yet to try OSX...
There is a night and day difference between 9 and X. To be honest, other then the words "Macintosh" and "Apple", Mac OS X and OS 9 aren't even related to each other.

I'm a graphic designer, and have been doing design on computers since the late '80s ... I've been both a Mac and Windows user as long as Sorin Paliga and frankly I've always thought Mac OS was overhyped trash until OSX. With OSX Apple took a quantum leap over Windows ... Prior to OSX, I'd say OS 9.2 was about as sophisticated as Windows 3.1 (hell, it didn't even multi-task)

Since OSX is based on BSD Unix, there's lots of stuff that Linux users will love ... for one thing there's a terminal that runs all the same bash commands that Linux/Unix does. And you can install X-11 and run all the GNU *nix software you like now.

[nocturn]

Ubuntu

Because it is GPL'ed and it is free (as in speech).
Apple does a good job slapping a GUI on FreeBSD though (the downside IMO to the BSD license).

[nocturn]

Mac OS's are the worst thing that has ever happened to computers. I can't believe ANYONE would want to use a Mac when they could use Windows or Linux. I hate the 1 button mouse. I just hate everything about it. Sorry if I got a little extreme there but I am just getting tired to useing those stupid iMacs everytime I want to surf the net at the school library during studyhall (which is everyday so I know what I'm talking about)...

Well, the Mac GUI is actually superior to Windows from a design perspective. Have you ever seen someone who's first computer was a Mac use Windows?

I do agree that using windows for several years does make it harder to conform to the Mac interface.... but that is another issue. If you were using the Mac only, your habbits would quickly follow.

Technically, OS X is great, it is a modified version of FreeBSD which is famous for it's stabiltity and security.

Note to flame anyone, but IMO Microsoft is the worst thing that ever happened to computing, not because of the terrible quality of their products, but their agressive monopolisation of the industry.

[tomchuk]

Lets set a few things straight. Apple has done as much for free software as many of the current lot of companies publicly jumping on the open-source bandwagon.

Ever hear of
Rendezvous/Zero-conf?
Darwin?
Khtml?
Open Directory?
Kerberos?
CUPS?
OpenPlay?
GCC?

All open-source projects either run by, or contributed to by Apple. Almost the entireity of the core of OS X is available in source form under an OSI approved license. With the exception of Quartz and the iApps you can build a fully functional (in RMS's terms) system from source.

And to clarify, Apple uses software from a few BSD-licensed projects and releases their modified source under the OSI-approved APSL, which has more in common with the GPL than the original BSD license. This is a rare move as it is not required under the BSD license - just ask Bill Gates to see the Windows TCP stack (taken from BSD ages ago).


quoted from above:

*Take a look at the source code...
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/index.html

*Change the source code so that it fits your needs or because it is nessessary for the survival of the program...
See section 2.2 of the APSL
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php)

*Restribute the program to help your neighbors...
See section 2.2(c) of the APSL
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php)

*Form a real community where people help each other...
Been to ADC (http://developer.apple.com/index.html) lately?

[nocturn]

Lets set a few things straight. Apple has done as much for free software as many of the current lot of companies publicly jumping on the open-source bandwagon.


AFAIK Apple has given back to GPL projects that it used in it's products (amongst others, the KHTML core it used from the KDE project).
It does not however give back the many enhancements it made to the FreeBSD system (decent USB2 support comes to mind) and it is not required to do so.

Apple combines technologies from other organisations (such as MIT Kerberos) into it's products. I do not know if they give back modification they make to it.
Again, AFAIK, Open Directory is based on MIT kerberos and OpenLDAP which are not Apple projects.

Now, I'm not flaming Apple for doing this, they are complying fully with the licenses of the projects the incorporate and that is nice.
And I do commend them for using open standards in their products, so we can integrate with their systems.

Yet, I do not consider them strong supporters of the Free Software movement.

[Magneto]

Yet, I do not consider them strong supporters of the Free Software movement.

dont Ipods only download music from Itunes? and isnt it super proprietary?
dont sound to gnu friendly to me

I like apple - I have grown up using apple computers and I like their involvement in educational environments but that's where it ends. Jobs is Bill Gates with half the ambition.

[nocturn]

dont Ipods only download music from Itunes? and isnt it super proprietary?
dont sound to gnu friendly to me

I like apple - I have grown up using apple computers and I like their involvement in educational environments but that's where it ends. Jobs is Bill Gates with half the ambition.


I agree completely, that is why I do not consider them to support Free Software. (although they do play nicer than MS).

[tiiim]

I agree completely, that is why I do not consider them to support Free Software. (although they do play nicer than MS).
apple do dabble in the free software side but at the moment development is slightly open not all of it. Like even though Darwin is open maybe the rest is not. Apple are just clever it taking a bit of open source because we all and the rest of the world no its the future just Gates does not realise that yet.

But apple are very strict in there software, and there software can only run on their hardware. There agreeement wont permit dabbling on the x86 platform. Remember Apple are a bussiness.

Im not against apple computers i run Linux on my iBook and I enjoyed and boasted about OS X for ages before the switched. In computer wise apple do rival Windows in technology etc. But at the mo apple are not fully open source and are very on the other side with a tiny bit open source to keep everyone happy. The day apple make OS X under the GPL is the day OS X will be torn apart and they will loose the quality of OS X their strong hold which case they be another hardware manafature. Do you really see OS X coming GPL? I don't either.

They prob keep the partitial restricted open source approach for a while. I found the UNIX system on OS X very restricted and tucked away. Open up the HDD in the gui then cd / in the console and you'll see the difference. Apple dont wont you the common user tampering under the bonnet its apple's. And every release they play about underneath more and more. So i agree apple is very very much propriety. But then again i rather use OS X than windows anyday. But i rather use Linux than OS X. And im a living testimony of this i prefer Linux because of the freedom of the GPL and admin stuff.

[Sensebend]

The reason I voted Ubuntu was philosphy, FREEDOM.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Except from this document:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

[ctt1wbw]

About 6 months ago I would have voted for a new ibook or powerbook anyday. Now I'm loving my Dell Inspiron 8600. Yep, you heard that right. I'm loving it. Ever since I put Ubuntu on there, that is. :)

[Viro]

When I posted that anti-Mac post that has been my experince for Mac OS through Mac 9.2. I have yet to try OSX...
So then your complaints lose a lot of validity, since OS X is a very different beast compared to OS 9.2.

[Viro]

I was have to suggest using a laptop with OS X installed. OS X is quite possibly the best OS you can install on a laptop (desktops are a different issue, and there I recommend Linux). Here are my reasons:

a) Functions like sleep work just perfectly. Sleep on Linux pretty much 'feels' like a hack at the moment and it doesn't work for lots of laptops. On the powerbooks that support the sleep function, you need to manually unload the USB modules before putting the laptop to sleep. Hello, how inconvenient is that? On OS X, close the lid on your laptop and it goes to sleep in under a second, open the lid and it is up and running in about a second too.

b) Price. Mac laptops are cheap compared to anything x86 can throw at them. Try comparing the 12" iBook to any other PC laptop in the same size. It blows them away.

c) Software. Most (all?) of the UNIX tool-chain is available on OS X. This includes GCC, X11 (with full 3D acceleration), all the command line tools, KDE and GNOME and their respective apps, anything else that fink doesn't have, you can always compile from source. OS X is based on UNIX and practically *all* Linux software can be compiled to run on OS X.

d) Great commercial apps. This may not be an issue for the FSF camp, but it is for others.

It's a fast and stable OS with loads of useful features like Expose which has no equal on Linux. No, Kompose isn't close.

Unless you have some agenda against commercial software, there is nothing morally wrong with OS X. Software isn't written in sweatshops where innocent children are exploited. It's funny how while the Free software advocates shout FREEDOM!!! at the top of their lungs, many of them do not respect the freedom others exercise when choosing proprietary software.

[BWF89]

OSX=For bands & creative types.

[Viro]

OSX=For bands & creative types.
That's funny. In my department, all the computer vision researchers and a few neural network researchers(including me) are Mac users. Guess we qualify as creative :)

OS X caters to two target markets. Those who like UNIX, and those who don't.

[Mike Nasvadi]

My desktop runs Ubuntu, and I have an ibook. While OSX is cool, it just gives me problems. If I could find a good program for newsgroups I would be happy. I tried Unison (for OSX) but most of the articles come back broken, or not available, but the same articles are perfect on my Ubuntu desktop. I know this sounds lame, but I have to have my newsgroup access. There were various other things that kind of turn me off but then again I have been using Linux for years now and it is hard to want to change. I think I enjoy terminal rather than drag & drop.

[jwb]

b) Price. Mac laptops are cheap compared to anything x86 can throw at them. Try comparing the 12" iBook to any other PC laptop in the same size. It blows them away.

Yeah, but the problem there is I can only *afford* about $750..... Dell always has something in that price range. (Right now an Inspiron 9200 is listed at $1319- the 12 inch iBook is $1,499. I got a flyer in the mail for an Inspiron 1000 for $699. Sure, it's a sale, but man what a deal.)

Apple, I'd use your stuff at home except for 1 thing and one thing alone- price. I have a wife, 2 kids, a house payment, 2 cars and college looming in the future. When my daughter needs a computer because her shoolwork volume requires one in her room, and not just a shared one, I can drop $459 at Dell for CPU and monitor (with delivery and 2 year at home service). Yeah, the mini-Mac is $499- but I don't have an extra monitor......

Anyway...... not ranting at you Viro.... :-) Steve Jobs is the target.

Apple makes great stuff- but I simply can't afford it.

[kassetra]

jwb: I hear you on the price issue.

All of the "software" I need to run to do my job costs a lot of money, plus the mortgage, and the cats (what? the cats are my kids... sure they don't go to college, but they're expensive in their own right!), and the business... and I just can't see spending the extra cash on the very wonderful mac hardware, when I could have as nice of a system with Ubuntu and still be able to treat myself to new toys... like a new digital camera...

That doesn't mean I don't want/like the mac hardware, I just want too many other things first. heh.

And the osx interface drives me crazy, so ok, maybe it's a little more than just a cost issue for me...

[Campitor]

jwb: I hear you on the price issue.

I've been wanting to buy an ibook for over a year now...but once I crunched the numbers, I realized it would take me over 1700 dollars to get the system where I want it, with the software that I need. Plus, about twenty of the scientific applications I need to work on, are only available on linux, so a lot of recompiling was in my near future. Just for eye-candy? :?

Ubuntu is running on my old Dell Inspiron...PIII500 Mhz laptop: 150 dollars; Ubuntu operating system: 2 dollars (cost of CD); getting over 3000 free software applications...priceless. :-)

If money was absolutely no issue what so ever...I still would go UBUNTU. Love the phyllosophy of Linux and Opensource...Plus, scientific software specially bioinformatics is slowly being developed more in linux than any other OS (sadly OS X is a close second).

[K6-III]

Well, I still can't get Planner for OSX. That, and nice GUI effects are coming to linux...

For the time being, I would pick OSX for a notebook, and keep my desktop running Ubuntu...

[Daz]

I have to say that I really like OS X - it looks gorgeous and is very easy to use - iTunes, iDVD and iMovie are great little tools for multimedia work!

But I have to say that I prefer Ubuntu...


If money was absolutely no issue what so ever...I still would go UBUNTU. Love the phyllosophy of Linux and Opensource...Plus, scientific software specially bioinformatics is slowly being developed more in linux than any other OS (sadly OS X is a close second).
I use Ubuntu day-in day-out as my work PC, (I work in Bioinformatics research) and I have to say it would make my life sooo much more difficult if I were using OS X as my primary system.

Even when I want to do a bit of work from home, rather than setting my Mac up to do my tasks, it was far less painfull to set up FreeNX so that I could log-in to my work PC and carry on using Ubuntu!

[macewan]

I am going to split the fence, and ibook running Ubuntu

~Alan


same here - osx looks pretty and I've used it a little but Linux is the only OS I'm really familar with.

[jerome bettis]

the thing that drives me nuts about osx is when you click the maximize button, it doesn't MAXimize the window!!! what's up with that?

[defkewl]

I would get OSX thank you. Who wouldn't want it? Hahaha

[primeirocrime]

my first contact with computers was with apple macs, and I still work with them now and then,but to tell you the truth I find them offensive and a too much eye-candy and that makes me sick. And they are an elitist corporation. They do have rock solid hardware. But I'm to much of an anarchist to go and drool over a G5. People always scorn and flame at Ms Windows, but windows is like volkswagen [maybe more like Fiat...crap cars with good suspension], and apple is like ferrari [humm maybe more like jaguar in the 60s] they make luxury things, just like jewells and designer parfum, and that also makes me sick. Mostly because I find it morally wrong to use such expensive hardware and software.

I wouldn't buy one. And if I did I would get trid of OsX and burn it's hard-drive with ubuntu.

Ubuntu [or any other gnu/linux] is my choice for my computers.

Even though Final Cut Pro =D> and a G5 really purr working on Digital Video exporting an EDL at the click of a button. It's so easy any moron can make [hum not make, but edit (???) a film these days.

And I have the urge to ccommit murder everytime I see someone in the streets with a goddam iPod plugged in the brain. Alienated. Sometimes it looks like I live in a David Cronenberg movie.

[TjaBBe]

I would love to have an iBook, and if I had one, I would certainly run OSX on it. Though on a pc-laptop I would, offcourse run Ubuntu. I will allways keep a desktop running linux though!

[MaZiNgA]

my first contact with computers was with apple macs, and I still work with them now and then,but to tell you the truth I find them offensive and a too much eye-candy and that makes me sick. And they are an elitist corporation. They do have rock solid hardware. But I'm to much of an anarchist to go and drool over a G5. People always scorn and flame at Ms Windows, but windows is like volkswagen [maybe more like Fiat...crap cars with good suspension], and apple is like ferrari [humm maybe more like jaguar in the 60s] they make luxury things, just like jewells and designer parfum, and that also makes me sick. Mostly because I find it morally wrong to use such expensive hardware and software.

I wouldn't buy one. And if I did I would get trid of OsX and burn it's hard-drive with ubuntu.

Ubuntu [or any other gnu/linux] is my choice for my computers.

Even though Final Cut Pro =D> and a G5 really purr working on Digital Video exporting an EDL at the click of a button. It's so easy any moron can make [hum not make, but edit (???) a film these days.

And I have the urge to ccommit murder everytime I see someone in the streets with a goddam iPod plugged in the brain. Alienated. Sometimes it looks like I live in a David Cronenberg movie.
Hah! Funny! I've never seen anyone with an iPod!
Is it that famous in other countries?

[primeirocrime]

yeah like a plague. What I don't understand is where do they get the money for that crap. I mean my country is in a crisis right now, we are below Ireland and Greece. everyone is up to their necks with credit. still is see people here going out to get plasma tvs and 21" Tft screens. It's a mad world.

[totalshredder]

Although I voted Ubuntu, I just realised that if I got an iBook, I'm really only five seconds away from an install CD of ubuntu.. Why not have the best of both worlds!!

I must say though, I'm one of those guys who LOVES macs, but I like to go farther ;) I would take a mac over windows any day now (and not because windows is "evil" because it isn't)

Luke

[SAMsan]

Ibook G3 300 on Ubuntu more stable and more efficient
But I miss iTunes and shared music :/

[jdonnell]

I'm a mac os x user and a linux user. I'm also a programmer, so my perstpective may be different than most peoples, but here is where I stand. For programming I use linux, for everything else I prefer the mac. The user experience on the mac is far better and it doesn't take as much time to get things working. There is more to it than eye candy! Also, I would never recomend linux to anyone that isn't into computers. My grandmother needed a new computer so I got her a mac for christmas. She is absolutely addicted to iphoto and loves the way that she can make a slide show of photos with music from here itunes playlist.

[panickedthumb]

the thing that drives me nuts about osx is when you click the maximize button, it doesn't MAXimize the window!!! what's up with that?
Different definitions of the word maximize. In OSX you set the maximize and restore dimensions yourself, so it's a lot more versatile.

[BWF89]

Why did the people at Apple make the minimize, maxamize, and close buttons be on the left side of the window? Is there a way you can move them to the right?

[Zundfolge]

Why did the people at Apple make the minimize, maxamize, and close buttons be on the left side of the window? Is there a way you can move them to the right?

IIRC Apple put them on the left FIRST ... it was Windows (and then later various *nix distros) that put them on the right some time later.

I don't know if its possible, but Shapeshifter by Unsanity (http://www.unsanity.com/haxies/shapeshifter) might be able to move the buttons to the right [wrong :razz: ] side.

[localzuk]

I wouldn't use OSX or any other proprietory OS if I could help it. Even if I could afford all the software that would make life easier for me, I would still use GPL'd software.

Specifically, Apple is just as bad as Microsoft, it monopolises its tiny niche - by locking its OS to proprietory hardware. It also charges way too much for everything - compared to any other PC. (It's like a car manufacturer saying that a driver can only use their own brand fuel, because they have altered it a bit and normal stuff isn't compatible).

Also, I wouldn't go round buying new hardware just because it ran slightly faster. Re-use old hardware, rather than fill the planet with unwanted techno-waste.

Finally - OS X is still lacking in features - such as no ability to cut and paste files in the file manager. This is slightly fundamental to miss out. (It might have changed since I last used it).

[BWF89]

Plus the fact that you can get a hell of alot more hardware if you but it in PC hardware then you can get if you buy it in Mac hardware.

[bk452]

suppose money isn't an issue

Would you prefer a laptop with ubuntu or an ibook with OSX ?

For me money is an issue so I've never worked with one.

I've got a Mac with OSX. It's Ubuntu, hands down.

[jdonnell]

Specifically, Apple is just as bad as Microsoft, it monopolises its tiny niche - by locking its OS to proprietory hardware. It also charges way too much for everything - compared to any other PC. (It's like a car manufacturer saying that a driver can only use their own brand fuel, because they have altered it a bit and normal stuff isn't compatible).


I disagree with this a bit. I'm a web programmer and I love my mac because it runs apache, php, and python just like the servers I use and I'M NOT LOCKED IN at all. All the software that I must have is on linux if apple pisses me off. It also comes with all this software. The gui is the only part you could get locked in to and that doesn't really affect me.



Finally - OS X is still lacking in features - such as no ability to cut and paste files in the file manager. This is slightly fundamental to miss out. (It might have changed since I last used it).
You can copy and paste! How is cut and paste fundamental? cut and paste is the same thing as moving a file like 'mv myfile myfolder'. Plus you can drag it and the spring loaded folders makes this far nicer than cut and paste. Why cut and past when you can drag it or 'mv' it?

[CRCampbell]

Last time I heard, M$ still makes a profit off of Apple, and is therefore evil. The aesthetics of Apple is proof that they're evil, because those purty flatscreens you see in CompUSA seem to cast a spell on you, drawing you in to fondle their beautiful hardware.

Before you know it, you're opening up your wallet to see how many credit cards you have that aren't maxed out. Once you hit the registers, you're history.

Stay away from Apple. M$ and Apple are the twin-headed dragons of Hell.

[opcode]

As a Linux distro Ubuntu is nice, I used Gentoo before this, but got the feeling that it always was in beta mode and found myself spending more time tweaking the OS rather than actually doing some serious work.

What I think is a pity is the lack of a KDevelop equivalent for Gnome, I know it's possible to install it, but then the system gets filled up by KDE libraries, it's more geared towards KDE anyways. Anjuta or what it's called doesn't make it.
I chose the Eclipse road with its plugins and combining this with vim/emacs. Eclipse seems cool enough to use, especially things like PyDev and CDT make it worthwhile. So far so good.

Saying that Ubuntu beats Mac OS X with regards to integration and ease of use is hilarious. OS X is one sexy beast with lots of *nix stuff, things like fink.sf.net make things even more shiny. Developing with XCode is sheer joy and productive, I Just wished there was something like this for Linux. Or something akin to Visual Studio from MS. Perhaps there was a time when vim or emacs was enough, but seriously this is 2005 and not all of us have the initials RMS. Seriously it takes quite an amount to get things up and running, editing config files and the like.

With regards to open source code, most average users don't even care if the source isn't available, they just need to get their work done and move on. Fiddling with config files and stuff like this may perhaps appeal to a tiny fragment of users. I don't think it's very attractive that you need to spend most of your time getting your tool up and running or maintaining it.
Btw, Apple is a business and has a different agenda that involves IP. I applaud them for getting involved in OSS and actually giving the community source back, this is far better than MS ever has done.
With OS X it just works (They don't have to support a gazillion different setups, the control both hardware and software, which from this POV is a good thing). Ubuntu shows sign of moving in this direction, for example by having one desktop environment like Gnome and sticking to that. Most users want consistancy.
I think Apple hardware really reflects good craftsmanship, all those small "aah that's nice" things they manage to come up with is just incredible. I wonder if Linus Benedict Thorvalds likes his new G5 (of course with Linux on it :-D )

I prefer OS X on my PowerBook, getting things like instant wake-up, autodetection and configuration when moving between networks, the tight integration across all the apps that they supply, just to name a few nice features.

But to sum it up, I think you should get an Apple PowerBook or iBook, you could always install a Linux distro on it ;-)
I use Ubuntu on my x86, because there doesn't seem to be anything better. Linux is good at many things, but belittling OS X without having any really good arguments isn't the right path to a sensible discussion, IMHO.

[Randabis]

Specifically, Apple is just as bad as Microsoft, it monopolises its tiny niche - by locking its OS to proprietory hardware. It also charges way too much for everything - compared to any other PC. (It's like a car manufacturer saying that a driver can only use their own brand fuel, because they have altered it a bit and normal stuff isn't compatible).
The only thing proprietary would be the processor and motherboard. Macs use pretty standard hardware everywhere else (they use the same buses, etc...). So I don't really know where you're going with that. Apple is primarily a hardware company though, so your car analogy sort of works.

To the people wanting OSX on x86 hardware...I highly doubt Apple would offer it to the public. They make their money on the hardware they sell, not the OS. If OSX was available on the x86 platform, then no one would have any reason to buy their hardware, and it would drive them out of business.

As for me, I'd take an Powerbook with OSX any day of the week. They are sleek, stylish, and have great hardware under the hood. OSX is a solid unix environment, and "just works"...if there is a way to dual boot, then I would consider adding ubuntu as a secondary OS, but OSX would definitely be my primary on it.

Desktops? Ubuntu, definitely.

[Digitallysick]

my ideas on the os's not that it matters much to anyone, I have tried to run linux since i was 15 years old, now im almost 24, it has came a long way!! since the days of slackware on a 56k modem trying to put the packages tg, and get x11 to work with my video card on my packard bell 300 mhz pc haha. Ubuntu is the best linux i have ever used by far, i find myself switching between xp and ubuntu, it now does everything i want it to for the most part, but I think linux is to hard to use for the majority, partitioning a hard drive, and learning commands, i mean its for certian people.

Windows is lame, i mean you get xp, then you have to download firefox , anti virus, and spyware removal software, more stuff to bring down your memory, and time, i spend more time trying to "fix" windows than getting anything done.

Mac os, I had a mac g3 laptop back in the day, it was great in way, simple, easy enough for a 8 year old to use, or a pro, it never froze up, and didn't take alot of time and dedication to use, i think it will win overall os's because of its wide audience, and ease of use, linux is great, but most peeps dont wana learn commands and run scripts etc. I can't wait till i get my new dual G5 , i dont care who makes it, ripping dvds in 10 mintues i would enjoy on any comp/os

[bbgun]

I recently bought a ThinkPad T43 (which I love) after seriously considering an iBook/Powerbook. I could've been pretty happy with OS X running on such nice hardware but for one thing: Apple stubbornly refuses to equip their notebooks with high-res screens like SXGA+, etc. But then again, maybe a ThinkPad running Ubuntu really is bliss....

[Hamman]

Ubuntu. It's free (speech), Mac OSX is not. Apple feels like mini-MS (but they make much better software) in some regards (bad VGA-cards that doesn't handle all the features of OSX, DRM on songs, suing people who spread rumors). I also don't like the idea of having someone restricting the compatible hardware to such an extent as Apple does.

[WirelessMike]

I've heard great things about OSX, but the fact that I've never really used it myself skews my opinion too much to be impartial, so I vote Ubuntu. I've found it more stable than my Windows box, more versatile, and in the most general definition of the term, much more user-friendly.

That doesn't mean much in a comparison with Mac OSX, but I know that OSX is typically compared to Windows, which categorizes the 2 together and relates them more closely than either relates to Ubuntu. In such a case, my favor goes to Ubuntu on all benchmarks.

There's also that bit about Al Gore being associated with Apple, but I don't hold that against Apple...

;)

[Kvark]

Ubuntu or OSX, what would I perfer... Thats a question I have tried to guess the answer to for quite some time. I've never used OSX so I'll make assumptions, someone please tell me if these assumptions are correct or not.


Some things makes me very curious about trying OSX...
1. If there is an image editing program for OSX that beats the Gimp and Photoshop, which I assume there is since OSX is said to be for creative people, then I'd love to have a mac laptop.

2. It's said to be easy to use, which I assume means it goes fast to do what you want to do on it, saving some time is always welcome.


And some things makes me doubt I'd like it...
1. With Windows you don't get any useful programs. You have to buy MS Office and all other programs separately. I simply can't afford Photoshop. If it's the same situation that you buy expensive programs separately with OSX, which I assume it is since it's a propriarity platform, then it will never be an option for me.

2. The least user friendly situation I know of is when you can't even find the option you want to change. Like removing programs from auto start in Windows XP. From what I heard I assume OSX hides a lot of things from the user, which would confuse the hell out of me.


And then there is the issue of freedom. When it's limited on the paper it doesn't matter for the average user, I can still use it in any way I want. But when my freedom is limited by various 'protections' then I can't. Like ripping a copy protected CD, buying a DVD while on vacation in another region or playing a game without switching CDs. So freedom is an issue even if I just want to use the stuff.

[aysiu]

Some things makes me very curious about trying OSX...
1. If there is an image editing program for OSX that beats the Gimp and Photoshop, which I assume there is since OSX is said to be for creative people, then I'd love to have a mac laptop. There is Photoshop. What's better than GIMP and Photoshop--I don't know. But you can also use Fink and X11 to install GIMP. I've got Gnocatan running on Fink/X11 on my wife's Mac Powerbook. Go to the Fink website for more info:

http://fink.sourceforge.net/



2. It's said to be easy to use, which I assume means it goes fast to do what you want to do on it, saving some time is always welcome. It won't be any easier to use for a longtime Windows user than Linux is. In fact, it's harder. Linux usually gives you options (do you want to raise windows or focus on them when selecting them? should windows shade or not? do you want to double-click or single-click to open documents/applications?) to accommodate either XP or X ways of thinking. OS X is just totally different from Windows. The Dock/Expose are not like the quicklaunch/taskbar at all. Will you do any permanent damage by clicking the wrong thing? No. It's a lot like Ubuntu that way. It prompts you for your user password when you install stuff, but you have to enable root separately (I had to enable root to install Fink). It's "user-friendly" that way.



And some things makes me doubt I'd like it...
1. With Windows you don't get any useful programs. You have to buy MS Office and all other programs separately. I simply can't afford Photoshop. If it's the same situation that you buy expensive programs separately with OSX, which I assume it is since it's a propriarity platform, then it will never be an option for me. To a certain extent, this is true in OS X as well. At least they have Garageband and some other multimedia stuff (iPhoto's cool), but there's no office productivity suite, and OpenOffice sucks for OS X.



2. The least user friendly situation I know of is when you can't even find the option you want to change. Like removing programs from auto start in Windows XP. From what I heard I assume OSX hides a lot of things from the user, which would confuse the hell out of me.. Yes. My wife and I had to download third-party software to turn off the loud bootup noise. I had to hack a .plist to show hidden files in folders. It's crazy how much it hides!



And then there is the issue of freedom. When it's limited on the paper it doesn't matter for the average user, I can still use it in any way I want. But when my freedom is limited by various 'protections' then I can't. Like ripping a copy protected CD, buying a DVD while on vacation in another region or playing a game without switching CDs. So freedom is an issue even if I just want to use the stuff. Yeah, DRM for Apple sucks. They allow you to play iTunes-purchased songs only for a limited number of computers. I reformatted my XP at one point, and then they wouldn't let me play a song I had purchased from that same computer. Apparently, if you're planning a reinstall, you have to deauthorize the computer, reinstall, then reauthorize the computer again. F'ed up if you ask me.

[Kvark]

It won't be any easier to use for a longtime Windows user than Linux is. In fact, it's harder. Linux usually gives you options (do you want to raise windows or focus on them when selecting them? should windows shade or not? do you want to double-click or single-click to open documents/applications?) to accommodate either XP or X ways of thinking. OS X is just totally different from Windows. The Dock/Expose are not like the quicklaunch/taskbar at all. Will you do any permanent damage by clicking the wrong thing? No. It's a lot like Ubuntu that way. It prompts you for your user password when you install stuff, but you have to enable root separately (I had to enable root to install Fink). It's "user-friendly" that way.
The similarity part of user friendliness is very unfair towards anything you've never used before and can be cured with time. To objectively compare user friendliness between systems I'd clock how long it takes for a long time OSX user on OSX vs a long time Ubuntu user on Ubuntu vs a long time Windows user on Windows to do random tasks such as copy/paste/move stuff, change an option, start a program. write a pretty document, correct brightness on a photo etc.

So you can't choosing between double and single click... That is a medical issue just like being able to use either hand for the mouse to avoid mouse arm. My click finger is worn out. Single clicking all day is no problem but double clicking or playing a game that involves clicking several times very fast causes a burning pain.

Thank you very much aysiu for clearing up my various wonderings about OSX! Now I don't have to go around pondering about that. I'll vote Ubuntu here since Gimp suits me better then Photoshop and because hiding everything instead of making it easier just makes it harder to understand whats going on, at least for me.

[aysiu]

The similarity part of user friendliness is very unfair towards anything you've never used before and can be cured with time. To objectively compare user friendliness between systems I'd clock how long it takes for a long time OSX user on OSX vs a long time Ubuntu user on Ubuntu vs a long time Windows user on Windows to do random tasks such as copy/paste/move stuff, change an option, start a program. write a pretty document, correct brightness on a photo etc. That was my point, exactly--that switching to Mac is harder than switching to Linux because in Linux, if you're used to the Mac way of doing things, you can adjust your Gnome or KDE settings to fit that; likewise, you can switch your KDE/Gnome settings to fit a Windows schema.



So you can't choosing between double and single click... That is a medical issue just like being able to use either hand for the mouse to avoid mouse arm. My click finger is worn out. Single clicking all day is no problem but double clicking or playing a game that involves clicking several times very fast causes a burning pain. That's why you should stick with Linux. I don't think it's easy in X or XP to switch to single-click mode.



Thank you very much aysiu for clearing up my various wonderings about OSX! Now I don't have to go around pondering about that. No problem. I use OS X, XP, and Ubuntu about the same amount each week, so I'm about as objective as you get!



I'll vote Ubuntu here since Gimp suits me better then Photoshop and because hiding everything instead of making it easier just makes it harder to understand whats going on, at least for me. You can run GIMP in OS X--it just needs X11 and Fink, that's all.

[xequence]

I would probably take the ibook, though thats just because ive never used OSX for very long before... But then the novelty would go away and id want ubuntu again.

I choose dual booting XP and Ubuntu :)

[Brunellus]

Hate to say it, but I voted for OSX, because, well, you were buying.

The thing is that you'd be buying me more than the OS--you'd have to buy me some hardware, too, and that's the big-time cost. The OS? negligible compared to the hardware itself.

of course, nobody ever buys me hardware, so since money is ALWAYS a consideration, it's ubuntu.

Ubuntu is free, and it runs on cheap hardware. it makes things possible for me that otherwise would not be possible.

OSX is glittery, but it costs. I can't afford it, or its hardware. And the vendor lock-in is no more insidious than Microsoft's just because it's glittery and chicks dig it.

[drizek]

Hate to say it, but I voted for OSX, because, well, you were buying.

The thing is that you'd be buying me more than the OS--you'd have to buy me some hardware, too, and that's the big-time cost. The OS? negligible compared to the hardware itself.

of course, nobody ever buys me hardware, so since money is ALWAYS a consideration, it's ubuntu.

Ubuntu is free, and it runs on cheap hardware. it makes things possible for me that otherwise would not be possible.

OSX is glittery, but it costs. I can't afford it, or its hardware. And the vendor lock-in is no more insidious than Microsoft's just because it's glittery and chicks dig it.
no matter what kind of megahurtz myth crap you(not you personally) pull out of your ass, the fact is that a pc will match or outperform a comparable mac which costs twice as much.

so would i rather have an uber highend dell gaming notebook, or a super small and sleek sony vaio laptop, or a very durable and dependable IBM thinkpad or a powerbook? DUH! id take a pc any day of the week. plus, i can also run windows on it too.

that is assuming that you gave me a 3000 dollar present, not that you said you would buy me any computer of my choosing no matter what the cost. if that was the case, i would still buy a pc, but itd have it made out of gold and have diamond keys on the keyboard, and id also put some more money on top to end world hunger, and pay some people at ATI to fix their god damn linux drivers.


As for the user friendliness discussion, if you want to talk about the time it takes for an experienced user to do task X, then linux wins every time. three letters: CLI

[Chareos]

OSX.

Tried, and simply I like it. that's all.

[Brunellus]

no matter what kind of megahurtz myth crap you(not you personally) pull out of your ass, the fact is that a pc will match or outperform a comparable mac which costs twice as much.

so would i rather have an uber highend dell gaming notebook, or a super small and sleek sony vaio laptop, or a very durable and dependable IBM thinkpad or a powerbook? DUH! id take a pc any day of the week. plus, i can also run windows on it too.

that is assuming that you gave me a 3000 dollar present, not that you said you would buy me any computer of my choosing no matter what the cost. if that was the case, i would still buy a pc, but itd have it made out of gold and have diamond keys on the keyboard, and id also put some more money on top to end world hunger, and pay some people at ATI to fix their god damn linux drivers.


As for the user friendliness discussion, if you want to talk about the time it takes for an experienced user to do task X, then linux wins every time. three letters: CLI
My take on Apple's hardware is this: each model serves certain needs. If those specificatiosn match up with your needs, well, great....but if not, there isn't much else left to think about.

Also, have you actually sat down to use OSX? underndeath all the glitter, there is actually a real CLI--a happy corrolary of their decision to go to a BSD core.

[mstlyevil]

Any operating system designed to work only on that manufactuers equipment is useless to me. I like my freedom to be able to change my hardware and software at will. OSX is worse then windows as far as I am concerned. Now if Steve Jobs would swallow his pride and offer the OS for all x86 pc's, Then I might be swayed to run osx.

[drizek]

My take on Apple's hardware is this: each model serves certain needs. If those specificatiosn match up with your needs, well, great....but if not, there isn't much else left to think about.

Also, have you actually sat down to use OSX? underndeath all the glitter, there is actually a real CLI--a happy corrolary of their decision to go to a BSD core.
but it doesnt work for everything AFAIK. i can control amarok with a terminal, i can use apt from a terminal, etc.

do itunes and the OSX updater thing support being used from a command line?

if not, then really the only thing it is good for is just rm, mv, ls, etc. things id rather do in a GUI anyway.

[4bit4]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!?

ARE YOU FORGETTING THE REASON RMS DEVELOPED THE GNU OPERATING SYSTEM?
FREEDOM!

Macintosh is the same as Windows it's proprietary software. With proprietary software you don't have freedom, without freedom you can't do the following:

*Take a look at the source code...

*Change the source code so that it fits your needs or because it is nessessary for the survival of the program...

*Restribute the program to help your neighbors...

*Form a real community where people help each other...

And lets not forget this RMS quote:


And I believe that quote. I would rather use a program that doesn't work as well but is free than sign away all my rights by agreeing with the EULA and being a bad person and not being able to share with anyone else...

This is the whole reason I got into Linux. And to take a different perspective on all of this, IT'S FUN TO PLAY WITH. Yeah it's great to have freedom when you need it for something, but half the reason I have a computer is to break it. The other half is to fix it. It's just plain fun. My wife got an ibook last year and it's pretty and all. It does neat things and is damn stable (except the complete crash where we have to replace the HD), but all you can do with it is what you're supposed to. Now I haven't played with the command line at all on it becuase I am not allowed to break her toys, just mine, but I learn nothing when I'm using it. When I have to try and build my own driver for something, I usually fail, but I learn a hell of a lot getting there and then there is this whole community to help me to the next step. A-friggin-men.

[manicka]

I use OS X extensively at work in an educational setting and it's great. Setup and maintenance of the entire network is abreeze. My little iBook does a magnificent job and I'm extremely productive with it. work pays for all the upgrades which keeps everything up to date

But given a choice when my hard earned is on the line I'll stick with Ubuntu. I know that with Ubuntu that I can keep maintaining the OS just the way I like it and it won't cost me a penny. Ongoing cost after the initial purchase is a huge factor as is being in compete control of what I want to do.

[FNM]

iBook/OS X. OS X is a better, more polished OS than any Linux distro. Don't get me wrong, Ubuntu is great, but you get what you pay for with OS X.

[brian.reading]

Philosophy and cost aside, I think OS X is a better operating system hands down, although I can easily say that Ubuntu Linux comes in second place easily. This is coming from someone who runs both Ubuntu and OS X, so I have a bit of insight.

1) Software. I can run tons of commercial software, free software, OS X software, and X11 software. I've got the best of both worlds here. I can run Photoshop natively as well as the GIMP. I can run GarageBand as well as Audacity.

2) Core Audio and Quartz. I'm speechless.

3) Everything just works right out of the box. So far no Linux distribution I've ever seen has been able to do this, and with good reason. It's no easy feat with such a variety of hardware out there. Ubuntu is probably the closest distro I've ever seen come near this though.

4) iCandy is nice too ;)

I've seen a lot of Linux users who hate OS X for not being "configurable enough", but honestly this isn't the point here. I think Apple has done a spectacular job putting together an OS designed for consumer use. Chances are, I already like the default settings used everywhere. I can still run KDE and GNOME, but I choose not to.

[brian.reading]

It seems that a lot of people are talking about cost here. The first post specified that we should respond as if money was not an issue.

[poofyhairguy]

Philosophy and cost aside, I think OS X is a better operating system hands down

....for the desktop. Linux wipes the floor with OSX on the server.

Do one thing, do it well.

[a-nubi-s]

Originally Posted by brian.reading
The first post specified that we should respond as if money was not an issue. Maybe so but that's not the world most of us live in. Free is a very good price.

[Galoot]

I'm more interested in the "money isn't an issue" side of the equation. If I ever find myself in that particular boat, you can bet your bippy I'd want to stay there. That means I'd continue my frugal ways. Thus, Ubuntu wins.

If they both cost the same, however, I'd probably switch to OS X after a few more years learning Ubuntu. I simply like tinkering and learning new things, and I have very little experience with OS X. So I'll add it to my to-do list.

Then I'd switch back to Ubuntu. Freedom holds great appeal for me.

[Brunellus]

....for the desktop. Linux wipes the floor with OSX on the server.

Do one thing, do it well.
umm, poofy, if your statement held true, then we shouldn't be using ubuntu on the desktop ....which is where i'm typing this reply right now.

General consensus is that, money no object, (OSX + nice apple boxes)>ubuntu, it seems.

[xequence]

umm, poofy, if your statement held true, then we shouldn't be using ubuntu on the desktop ....which is where i'm typing this reply right now.

General consensus is that, money no object, (OSX + nice apple boxes)>ubuntu, it seems.


I think what was meant was that although linux is great on the desktop, OSX beats it. But linux beats it extremly on the server...

And I wouldent doubt if everyone was offered a free ibook they would take it :)

[Freddie]

I have ubuntu on my iMac and OS X on my iBook. I think that OS X is better. OS X is Unix based (Darwin) as it is basically FreeBSD under the hood. It just looks so much nicer and feels polished. Linux is not made for the desktop and the result of this is many competing GUI toolkits and no standards. On OS X I can install X11 and then using GCC can recompile any *nix application and have it work perfectly on my Mac. It is not that I do not like Ubuntu but OS X gives me more.

[Kirin]

In reply to those saying that OS X hides things from the user: sure, the Finder (OS X's file manager) hides /etc, /usr and a few other top level directories, but no-one really wants to see those during everyday use. (When you want one, just choose 'Go to Folder' from the Go menu and type what you want.) Heck, even Nautilus in Gnome goes a fair way towards hiding them, tucked under 'Filesystem' in the Computer place.

Other than that, Apple go a long way towards showing the options you actually need. Adding new users, changing the power saving settings, starting httpd or samba—all is done from the System Preferences application. And if there's something you want to change that doesn't have a setting, the config file is usually in the same place as in Linux. What I love about OS X is that all your user specific settings are stored in ~/Library/Preferences/, named in a standard reverse DNS format (com.apple.Safari or com.nisus.NisusWriterExpress, for example). All app-specific files which you don't want to stuff into the user's home folder (a browser's Bookmarks.html file, for example) get stored in ~/Library/Application Support/App Name/. To compare, did you do an ls -a in your home directory in Linux recently? You might want to pipe it through less, if you've been using it for a while!

I do like Linux, and the freedom it allows, but right now, for various reasons—think WPA and WiFi roaming (and I do know of NetworkManager)—OS X is the best for me.

[xequence]

I have ubuntu on my iMac and OS X on my iBook. I think that OS X is better. OS X is Unix based (Darwin) as it is basically FreeBSD under the hood. It just looks so much nicer and feels polished. Linux is not made for the desktop and the result of this is many competing GUI toolkits and no standards. On OS X I can install X11 and then using GCC can recompile any *nix application and have it work perfectly on my Mac. It is not that I do not like Ubuntu but OS X gives me more.

What do you mean by not made for the desktop? I think its better for desktops then laptops. And by competing GUI toolkits, you mean Gnome, XFCE, etc? The Gnome programs work in KDE and KDE programs work in gnome. They all work in XFCE.

Its just 90% of KDE applications start with K and substantially less start with G on Gnome.

[thelung]

Powerbook because of the awesome (and durable) metal design. Ubuntu would be my primary OS, and i could boot into OSX for videogames and photoshop, when the gimp just isnt cutting it.

[poofyhairguy]

umm, poofy, if your statement held true, then we shouldn't be using ubuntu on the desktop ....which is where i'm typing this reply right now.


I was more quoting a marketing term than creating economic theory. If that was true, there would be no MS server OSes.

[Kvark]

What I love about OS X is that all your user specific settings are stored in ~/Library/Preferences/, named in a standard reverse DNS format (com.apple.Safari or com.nisus.NisusWriterExpress, for example). All app-specific files which you don't want to stuff into the user's home folder (a browser's Bookmarks.html file, for example) get stored in ~/Library/Application Support/App Name/. To compare, did you do an ls -a in your home directory in Linux recently? You might want to pipe it through less, if you've been using it for a while!
Yeah, I absolutely hate all the hidden crap Ubuntu puts in /home/kvark/. All I want is a directory that is mine to store only my files and no other junk in. Why oh why can't the programs put their files in /settings/kvark/xchat2/ or something instead of /home/kvark/.xchat2/...

BTW. Did you notice the lack of a dot in my suggestion for an alternative? Yes, thats right, if you have to hide something then you know it is in the wrong place and just gets in the way, thats why you have to hide it in the first place! If you tuck it away into the right place where it is easy to find but isn't in the way for everyday use then you will not have to hide it.

[poofyhairguy]

Yeah, I absolutely hate all the hidden crap Ubuntu puts in /home/kvark/. All I want is a directory that is mine to store only my files and no other junk in. Why oh why can't the programs put their files in /settings/kvark/xchat2/ or something instead of /home/kvark/.xchat2/...


Actually I like that. It allows me to keep all my Gnome settings and stuff in my home folder (which is on another parition than the root folder). When I upgrade (using CD) I get the same settings back as before with clean Gnome. Its cool.

[Freddie]

What do you mean by not made for the desktop? I think its better for desktops then laptops. And by competing GUI toolkits, you mean Gnome, XFCE, etc? The Gnome programs work in KDE and KDE programs work in gnome. They all work in XFCE.

Its just 90% of KDE applications start with K and substantially less start with G on Gnome.
By Desktop I mean for non-server usage, as a replacement for a family PC. By GUI toolkits I mean things like Qt and GTK, if one of your applications uses one of these toolkits and the other one uses a different one your computer will slow down. Look at OS X and every application will have a sleek and polished interface, with programs all having generally the same look and feel as each other. Everything feels as if it has been bolted-on in Linux, as if it is not meant to be there. The result of turing an operating system geared for use in servers into a desktop operating system. Now, do not get me wrong I love ubuntu, and will keep on using it, however I like OS X more, thats all. I run both KDE and Gnome, if I run a KDE app in Gnome it uses my current KDE theme, but if I use a Gnome (GTK2+) app in KDE it looks like a pile of crap. Which is quite annoying just because different GUI toolkits do not share the same theme. Linux has a long way to go before it is a 'true' desktop OS which looks and acts like it is meant to be one.

[aysiu]

Actually I like that. It allows me to keep all my Gnome settings and stuff in my home folder (which is on another parition than the root folder). When I upgrade (using CD) I get the same settings back as before with clean Gnome. Its cool. Likewise. When my wife's Firefox profile in Mac OS X was corrupt and kept crashing every time she visited a Yahoo! page, we had a time trying to track down exactly what library to find her profile in. I like all the .settings folders in Linux--I see that as one of the advantages. Of course, to each her own.

[poofyhairguy]

By Desktop I mean for non-server usage, as a replacement for a family PC. By GUI toolkits I mean things like Qt and GTK, if one of your applications uses one of these toolkits and the other one uses a different one your computer will slow down.

Like Java on OSX, Windows, or any platform. Problem with different toolkits.



Look at OS X and every application will have a sleek and polished interface, with programs all having generally the same look and feel as each other. Everything feels as if it has been bolted-on in Linux, as if it is not meant to be there.

Thats because everything is bolted on.



The result of turing an operating system geared for use in servers into a desktop operating system. Now, do not get me wrong I love ubuntu, and will keep on using it, however I like OS X more, thats all.

Thats cool.



I run both KDE and Gnome, if I run a KDE app in Gnome it uses my current KDE theme, but if I use a Gnome (GTK2+) app in KDE it looks like a pile of crap. Which is quite annoying just because different GUI toolkits do not share the same theme.

Two ways around it:

1. Run the program "gnome-settings-daemon" in KDE

2. (better option) Install the package: "gtk2-engines-gtk-qt" It will make your GTK apps use the KDE theme. Works pretty well, but it is not the default because it kinda messes up Gnome use. But if you just stick to KDE, it works great.

Problem solved.



Linux has a long way to go before it is a 'true' desktop OS which looks and acts like it is meant to be one.

You say that, but I like using it on the desktop. When I stick to all GTK or QT apps (easy to do) things look like they go together a lot more than Windows XP (with its media player, web browser and Office software all having very different looks). And no one would dare call XP "not a true desktop OS."

I understand your point....an OS does not have to be the best desktop OS to be a desktop OS.

[brian.reading]

I think what was meant was that although linux is great on the desktop, OSX beats it. But linux beats it extremly on the server...

And I wouldent doubt if everyone was offered a free ibook they would take it :)
I agree. Linux wipes the floor with OS X as a server.

[Freddie]

I agree. Linux wipes the floor with OS X as a server.
Linux is the server OS. It is perfect for it, it is stable and is something that I reliable. Windows is a desktop OS with server features added in at a later point (permissions etc) while Linux is built from the ground up to support those kind of things. But, saying that, OS X is nothing more than a modified version of FreeBSD with a sleek GUI added on-top of it. While I do still get all of those things on OS X I never need them as such. They are hidden from me, while there are still permissions they are something that you do not need to know about to be able to use the operating system. My user which is an administrator can do most things, like delete files (no more sudo chown -R freddie <folder>).
A while ago one of my friends who was thinking about switching to Linux asked me "So, when will Linux be a 'true' desktop operating system like OS X or Windows" and I said "When you are able to use it for a week without having to touch the command line!" Now, Linux is no longer hard to install, some might say that Windows is easier, however some Linux distributions have amazing installers (Ubuntu has a mostly fire-and-forget install system, but I did have to skip a stage to get it to install) but it is no longer a hard thing to do. The scrolling text that you see as your computer boots up also 'scares' newbies, as sometimes when you boot-up you will get a warning which can send people nuts, making them think that there is something really wrong with the operating system. Saying that, there is a project to replace it with a nice loader, complete with progress bar and all (I have not had a chance to see it yet, however).
Another thing which can make Linux less attractive as a beginner desktop OS is that not every program has a GUI, which is very important, on OS X and Windows you can expect 99% of the programs that you download with have some sort of GUI, but you can not be sure of that for Linux, most of them do have GUI-admistation programs that you can download for them, but often you are required to look for them. A better way would be to check if you currently have a GUI (e.g. have X) and if you do bundle the GUI admin program with it.
Just my £0.2

[poofyhairguy]

"So, when will Linux be a 'true' desktop operating system like OS X or Windows" and I said "When you are able to use it for a week without having to touch the command line!"

Sooooo.....SUSE 9.3. Right now.