Difference between Mac and Ubuntu?

[solwic]

Is there one? I just watched the "intro" video on apple's website (video is called "Anatomy of a Mac"), and I'm seeing style differences, but functionality looks eerily similar.

I understand the hardware is different, and Mac's cost far, far too much...but I'm talking about actual usability, functional differences between the OSes - Ubuntu and OSX.

Sorry for the noob post, but I've never used a Mac, and from what I see in that video, it's just Ubuntu with a Mac theme and a few visual tweaks.

Anybody? Thanks!

[Kimmik]

Is there one? I just watched the "intro" video on apple's website (video is called "Anatomy of a Mac"), and I'm seeing style differences, but functionality looks eerily similar.

I understand the hardware is different, and Mac's cost far, far too much...but I'm talking about actual usability, functional differences between the OSes - Ubuntu and OSX.

Sorry for the noob post, but I've never used a Mac, and from what I see in that video, it's just Ubuntu with a Mac theme and a few visual tweaks.

Anybody? Thanks!

Differences:
The windowmanagement on OSX sucks.
Good Applications for OSX are expensive (even little tools).
The finder looks awesome, but is not very good (compared to Nautilus...).
Apps almost always look beautiful.
When you close an application on the mac, you don't actually close it (you need to quit it with cmd+Q, or the menu), you just minimize it to the dock (which behaves like a tray+windowlist).

[Washer]

Well there's this, for one.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7818/compiz1md3.th.png (http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=compiz1md3.png)

[aysiu]

There are so many differences, I don't even know where to begin. It'd be much easier to talk about the similarities.

Ubuntu is free. Mac OS X costs money.
Ubuntu is free. Mac OS X is restrictive.
Ubuntu comes with no non-free codecs by default. Mac OS X comes with many proprietary codecs by default.
Ubuntu is brown by default. Mac OS X is blue/silver by default.
Ubuntu has closed windows close the application. Mac OS X keeps apps open even after the last window is closed.
Ubuntu has a package manager to manage software installation. Mac OS X has an Applications folder you have to drag applications into to "install" them.

That's a start. One could probably make several pages full of more differences.

[solwic]

There are so many differences, I don't even know where to begin. It'd be much easier to talk about the similarities.

Ubuntu is free. Mac OS X costs money.
Ubuntu is free. Mac OS X is restrictive.
Ubuntu comes with no non-free codecs by default. Mac OS X comes with many proprietary codecs by default.
Ubuntu is brown by default. Mac OS X is blue/silver by default.
Ubuntu has closed windows close the application. Mac OS X keeps apps open even after the last window is closed.
Ubuntu has a package manager to manage software installation. Mac OS X has an Applications folder you have to drag applications into to "install" them.

That's a start. One could probably make several pages full of more differences.

Well yeah, I knew that. What I meant was, Mac and Ubuntu are both UNIX based, right? So the setup is going to be similar. But you use Windows, and then come to Ubuntu, and there's so much different: security, operating speed, file system structure, etc. I was wondering if Mac and Ubuntu had similar differences, because they looked like pretty much the same thing to me.

Also, I noticed the Mac thing had "stacks". Can we do that with Ubuntu?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not thinking of going to a Mac...I'll not pay that much money for a computer. Windows PC's are half the price of the cheapest Mac, and Ubuntu will run on ten year old computers. I was just wondering if there were such stark differences between Mac and Ubuntu like there are between Mac and Windows.

Sorry for the confusion. :D

[owlgorithm]

This being an Ubuntu forums discussion, you would expect a biased view towards Ubuntu, right? Hopefully this will stay neutral, though ;-)

Many consider Apple arrogant and even a bit snooty: their salesmen are unknowledgeable, their users are often obnoxious and computer-illiterate, and their feelings on DRM and the like are not encouraging at all. (The iPhone bricking comes to mind.) What's not to hate about basically the same product in a pretty package?

I use Mac almost exclusively, and I contribute to these forums from a Mac. That's how similar they are, if you're a Linux-style user. Command-line is almost exactly the same (there are a few quirky differences), and free software is still free in ports to the Mac. Almost all of the technologies that are cool in Linux or Mac are available in both, but it depends how hard you want to hack to get them to work (both can be a real pain, depending what you're trying to achieve). I haven't seen a Spotlight equivalent in Ubuntu, but there may be one I'm not aware of. In the end, I use Mac not because of ideology (point: Linux) or for eye candy and usability (point: Mac) but because it runs far better on my Mac (laptop) with Mac hardware (like the iP*).

Note that this is not a statement on what I believe or a sales-job or anything of the like. This is only a forum answer -- that you are right in noting the similarity between Mac and Ubuntu, that the differences are small, and that overall you have the right to choose for yourself.

And, the difference between Windows and anything else is far greater than the difference between the Mac and Linux, from almost every standpoint. The technologies and kernel of Windows are very different, but I don't know the exact ins and outs. Hopefully a developer or port maintainer for a cross-platform app can enlighten us :-)

[cyberdork33]

note that there are not both based on UNIX per se. OSX is a variant of BSD which is a style of UNIX. Linux was designed to be similar to UNIX, but there are a few differences. They are probably most similar in that they use a POSIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX) environment. This in itself is what makes any *nix trump windows.

[eldragon]

if linux didnt deliver, id be using a mac anytime, thats for sure.

i dont personally agree with the philosophy of rights restriction.
selling a drm crippled computer is like selling a gun that only shoots blanks.

[Windsurfer619]

Macs are UNIX based, yes.
GNU/Linux is NOT UNIX. In fact, the acronym itself sums it up: GNU's Not Unix. (that's really what it stands for!)
The whole reason for GNU's conception was due to the restrictions UNIX had at the time. Nowadays, you can get Unix kernels for free, sure, but the idea is still the same: in GNU's eyes, restrictions like those on a mac are not desirable in any software platform.

[solwic]

This being an Ubuntu forums discussion, you would expect a biased view towards Ubuntu, right? Hopefully this will stay neutral, though ;-)

Many consider Apple arrogant and even a bit snooty: their salesmen are unknowledgeable, their users are often obnoxious and computer-illiterate, and their feelings on DRM and the like are not encouraging at all. (The iPhone bricking comes to mind.) What's not to hate about basically the same product in a pretty package?

I use Mac almost exclusively, and I contribute to these forums from a Mac. That's how similar they are, if you're a Linux-style user. Command-line is almost exactly the same (there are a few quirky differences), and free software is still free in ports to the Mac. Almost all of the technologies that are cool in Linux or Mac are available in both, but it depends how hard you want to hack to get them to work (both can be a real pain, depending what you're trying to achieve). I haven't seen a Spotlight equivalent in Ubuntu, but there may be one I'm not aware of. In the end, I use Mac not because of ideology (point: Linux) or for eye candy and usability (point: Mac) but because it runs far better on my Mac (laptop) with Mac hardware (like the iP*).

Note that this is not a statement on what I believe or a sales-job or anything of the like. This is only a forum answer -- that you are right in noting the similarity between Mac and Ubuntu, that the differences are small, and that overall you have the right to choose for yourself.

And, the difference between Windows and anything else is far greater than the difference between the Mac and Linux, from almost every standpoint. The technologies and kernel of Windows are very different, but I don't know the exact ins and outs. Hopefully a developer or port maintainer for a cross-platform app can enlighten us :-)

Very knowledgeable reply. Thank you.

I figured Mac would be pretty restricted; they're a business, after all, and any decent business wants to make money. In the computer world, usually making money means restrictions (after all, why pay for anything if everything is free?).

What you're saying, in essence, is that each has its pros and cons, and that the decision of which to use is entirely personal; one system is not generally, or overall, "better" than the other. Right?

As for Windows being radically different from everybody else, well, that's their MO, isn't it? Wonder how long it is before they see that, in the end, that'll cost them their business?

We can hope not until it's too late, right? :)

Thanks again for the helpful reply. Think I'll save the $1,000+ and stick with Ubuntu. :)

[Phonan]

In the end, I use Mac not because of ideology (point: Linux) or for eye candy and usability (point: Mac) but because it runs far better on my Mac (laptop) with Mac hardware (like the iP*).
Eye candy? point: Linux for me- Compiz takes the cake over pretty much everything I've seen.

But seriously, about Stacks, I think that cairo-dock (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CairoDock) can do them pretty reasonably. Take a look if you're interested.

[almahtar]

I just bought a macbook pro because it's a good deal, no seriously: price out the same hardware (bluetooth, infrared, firewire webcam, etc) and it ends up costing the same no matter who you go with.

I installed Ubuntu on it because after a bit of configuring, I get more done with it than OSX.

I dual boot. For flash CS3 I need OSX, for anything else, I get things done faster with Ubuntu. It just has a better interface in my opinion.

[hanzomon4]

I just bought a macbook pro because it's a good deal, no seriously: price out the same hardware (bluetooth, infrared, firewire webcam, etc) and it ends up costing the same no matter who you go with.

I installed Ubuntu on it because after a bit of configuring, I get more done with it than OSX.

I dual boot. For flash CS3 I need OSX, for anything else, I get things done faster with Ubuntu. It just has a better interface in my opinion.

It all depends on what you do. I like my Ubuntu install on my macbook pro but it's unreliable. I'm always losing sound, are needing to do a cold reboot. I can count on this every single time I boot ubuntu.

But wait, OSX and Ubuntu are nothing a like. The both use the bash shell, and a Unix type tree file structure where everything falls under /. But what you see and actually use couldn't be more different.

[bailewen]

Well there's this, for one.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7818/compiz1md3.th.png (http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=compiz1md3.png)

off topic but please oh please give me a link to where I can learn how to configure that ultra cool spherical 3-d enviroment. I love compiz-fusion / beryl for the cube but I never saw a way to make it rounded out like that.

[owlgorithm]

It all depends on what you do.
...
But what you see and actually use couldn't be more different.


This discussion is always a difficult one :-)

Mac and Linux are homologous, but Windows and Linux are only analogous. Mac and Linux, therefore, can be converged quite closely if a user so desires, in such a way that a transition in either direction is near-seamless in every aspect. How closely they can be converged depends on the user's willingness to hack, but at the end of the day, most users' actual configurations will have converged more closely than they may realize, and out-of-the-box differences will have all but disappeared.

[hanzomon4]

They seem totally different to me. Granted when first started using Linux I did so because I knew osx was "Unix based" and in my ignorance though Linux would be similar.

Now that I actually own a Mac and have used the system after years of running only Ubuntu I can see that they are just different animals. Bash, X11, all our favorite CLI tools "even apt-get" can be had on osx. But once you get away from the names they really do behave differently.

Ther is no /home, only /Users. You don't find mounted media in /media or /mnt it's in /Volumes. /etc, which to a Linux users is an important directory, does not exist. X11 does not control the gui and you don't need to configure xorg.conf. The apt-get provided by fink has outdated packages and won't satisfy most Ubuntu users.

Now you move to the actual UI. The menu bar looks a lot like Ubuntu's top panel. But they work very differently. OSX's menu bar is really a menu bar for every single app. Closing an application in OSX is not the same as quitting the app like it is in Ubuntu. The audio system is transparent in OSX just like the effects, they are just there and work. In Ubuntu they work(hardware considering) but you are very aware of processes that control them. You can't customize OSX nearly as much as you can do with Ubuntu. You may be able to make Ubuntu look like OSX but not behave like it.

Now you can some of the same apps and Utilities. For instance in OSX I have libpurple(Adium/Pidgin), Firefox, the fuse filesystem, Jack, Handbrake, VLC, nfs, ssh... etc.

[Brightbelt]

I'm going to take a different path here, but before I do, be assured I am a big fan of Linux. This is a point, however, that few would emphasize in this forum....

Mac will handle almost any Pro Application you can throw at it; Ubuntu (not to mention many other Linux distros) won't.

Examples:

- Want to run Pro Audio programs like Logic, or Pro Tools?
Mac's do them; Ubuntu has Ardour which doesn't come anywhere close in quality or hardware compatibility.

- What about Pro Web Applications like Flash CS3, Dreamweaver CS3, Photoshop CS3 and Fireworks CS3 ? Macs do them fine; Ubuntu can run older versions of these programs through 'wine' (windows emulator program) or CrossOver (the pay version of Wine). But you're usually a version or 2 behind (like Flash MX 2004 or Flash CS2 at best) and the reliability and performance is often shaky. Go ahead and take a chance with your year-end web presentation...

- What about the top music notation program Finale? Macs do it; Linux versions of music notation pale in comparison.

These are just a few that I'm familiar with. I'm sure others in different pro application fields can come up with more examples.

I'm aware that I may get hounded for this post. And while the systems do have similarities, I find that the Mac OS is much more stable.

And if you really take into account the unique ergonomic designs of Macs plus all the software you get - which is usually better quality than the bloatware on new PCs, the price is not that bad.

Garageband is an awesome program for the Recording Audio Hobbyist - it synced with my Mackie Onyx 1620 firewire driver right away plus it handled many of my waves audio plugins: amazing. IMovie and iDvd are both very good programs.

For me, Linux is pretty much for play and experimentation. I like to explore and see what I can run on CrossOver etc.

Thanks, Frank B.

[davemolloy64]

I have to agree with Brightbelt. I've been using Macs in college for three years now for graphic design (in the college newspaper), and they really do excel in the visual arts department. The efortless functioning of professional programs such as QuarkXpress (page layout) and Adobe's Creative Suite is really wonderful.

In contrast, Ubuntu's closest alternative is Scribus, which, despite being a fine program for many purposes, isn't really suited to high-volume professional work.

People here have talked about technical differences, appearance, and ethics. But surely, if we accept that there are a great number of similarites, then the big difference we can see between them is, simply, money. Apple can pump millions into their project, market it, and entice software studios to port the big programs to OSX. Linux distributions (the free ones, anyway) by their nature, can't.

What that results in, in my opinion, is better usability and pretty much seamless integration on a Mac. There's a lot of prosfessional, full-time workers behind OSX, and it does show.

Like Brightbelt, I fear the backlash, so as a disclaimer, I'm using Ubuntu pretty much exclsuively at home, and using OSX in the office for design work. What attracted me to Ubuntu was its OSX-like qualities- and I've since found that it in fact performs better for many day-to-day tasks. Hope that appeasses the overzealous among you!

[cyberdork33]

But once you get away from the names they really do behave differently.

Ther is no /home, only /Users. You don't find mounted media in /media or /mnt it's in /Volumes. /etc, which to a Linux users is an important directory, does not exist.
ah, but this is again, just a name. home and Users are pretty much equivalent in function, and the same is true for Volumes. Also, etc does exist, it is just hidden. open a terminal and navigate to /etc. You can even put an fstab file here and mount volumes on bootup wherever you like :)

Mac will handle almost any Pro Application you can throw at it; Ubuntu (not to mention many other Linux distros) won't. What you say is true, but just to counter-argue, these applications do not run in Linux because they are closed-source, and the developers do not create Linux-compatible versions of the software, thus this cannot be held as a fault of Ubuntu/Linux.

I'm aware that I may get hounded for this post. And while the systems do have similarities, I find that the Mac OS is much more stable. I have to say that this is true for the most part, but you can create a much more stable linux system if you seek to build a stable system. Most desktop distros use "in developoment" code and packages to get the "coolness" factor up. Using a base Debian or Gentoo install and building from the ground up with stable software can make one rock-solid system. However, comparing apples to apples (or apples to ubuntu in this case) we have again the case of Apple having the priviledge of developing as OS solely for a limited numer of hardware combonations and can easily create workarounds and solutions to problems that arrive. (If you have ever read anything about running OSX on non-Apple hardware, you would see that it can be not so stable...)

And if you really take into account the unique ergonomic designs of Macs plus all the software you get - which is usually better quality than the bloatware on new PCs, the price is not that bad.
Macs are not priced too bad. I would still argue that I can get a cheaper, similar-equipped PC if I wanted to, but then it wouldn't have OSX. :) Macs are definitely not the bargin-bin laptops that you can get at your local walmart, but Apple is not trying to get into that market either.

[Brightbelt]

Hi,
In response to Cyber...
What you say is true, but just to counter-argue, these applications do not run in Linux because they are closed-source, and the developers do not create Linux-compatible versions of the software, thus this cannot be held as a fault of Ubuntu/Linux.

Point well taken and I meant to mention that but I got carried away into other thoughts. Really I swear...:)

Given all the stuff I've said about Mac's OS, there's the obvious thing about Ubuntu that Mac cannot touch...it's hard to argue with 'FREE'.

[hanzomon4]

It's hard to argue with free but why can't FOSS developers develop apps on par with Closed Source? Some of these projects receive funding, but is it really money?

CD33, you cherry picked my statement a bit but yeah you're right about /etc there's even a home but it's empty. But really Aqua provides the same function as Gnome but you can't say they're close to being the same.

[solwic]

It's hard to argue with free but why can't FOSS developers develop apps on par with Closed Source? Some of these projects receive funding, but is it really money?



I don't think money has anything to do with it. Marketing doesn't change the function of the OS that much (if at all) and a programmer is a programmer, no matter how much you pay him. Sure, maybe he'll work harder if you pay him, but that makes the bad OS the fault of bad programming, not lack of money.

Personally, having read the posts in this thread, I think comparing Ubuntu and Mac as far as stability and such goes is impossible, because OSX is running only on hardware designed for OSX, whereas Ubuntu has to try to hack together the PC market.

But as many here have wisely said, it's really hard to argue with "free", and until Mac cuts the price of their stuff at least by 50%, I'll stay with Linux. :)

[2cute4u]

Differences:
When you close an application on the mac, you don't actually close it (you need to quit it with cmd+Q, or the menu), you just minimize it to the dock (which behaves like a tray+windowlist).

This seems to be the most ridiculous thing, that ubuntu users constantly say about the mac. As every mac user knows you close WINDOWS, you QUIT applications. THE WINDOW IS NOT THE APPLICATION!

On a mac an application can have many windows, and all the windows belong to a single process, which is not dependant on the presence of a window. On ubuntu every time you open a window it spawns a separate process and when the window is closed it kills the process.

[dark_harmonics]

It's hard to argue with free but why can't FOSS developers develop apps on par with Closed Source? Some of these projects receive funding, but is it really money?

CD33, you cherry picked my statement a bit but yeah you're right about /etc there's even a home but it's empty. But really Aqua provides the same function as Gnome but you can't say they're close to being the same.


People think its not about money? Thats just crazy thinking. Programmers need to eat. Sucks to face this reality buts its truth. Hard to complain to people who are donating their time and efforts. I am amazed and appreciative that this even exists. Alot of times the programmers who excel at making wonderful applications are bad at one aspect of programming. So somebody who write beautiful code may be bad at interface design or vice versa. Alot of FOSS apps are made by very limited number of individuals who are not paid to do so in most cases. Hard to compare this with applications like those from the mac that have bundles of cash and teams of specialized programmers behind it.

That being said, I find that i actually prefer alot of the FOSS apps over commercial versions. Sweet and to the point is a common theme.

I do like MACs but they are actually a bit too simplistic for me. Everything is just so proprietary and not customizable. Linux is not used enough yet. We all need to be out there spreading the word. When we want an app and its not supported, we need to send emails and make phone calls to the application writers. They will get the picture when they get enough calls.

Demanding that apps be open source? Another great idea that application vendors will only embrace with user insistence.

[CarlosNYB]

Interesting thread. I just wanted to highlight the importance of separating the hardware issues from the os issues from the application programming issues.

Ubuntu and OSX are operating systems. As operating systems, they do have significant similarities when compared to Windows. The one (OS X) is customized to a limited set of hardware and is closed sourced, not free, lots of paid programmers involved. The other (Ubuntu) is available for a chaotic assortment of hardware and is open sourced, free, lots of volunteer programmers involved. But then you have Dell offering computers pre-loaded with Ubuntu, customized for the hardware, and one could try to customize a machine oneself which ran OSX.

The application issue amounts to this, IMNSHO. Having done some professional programming, I can tell you the same sorts of technical people write software for Wall Street and for Linux and for Microsoft and for Macintosh and for Adobe, etc. Some of the big projects can be really stupidly organized and be bloated and crappy, whether there is big money involved or not. But it takes LOTS of continual focus to work on a large project and do it well, professionally, with all the sophistication you find in something like Framemaker, Photoshop, or Logic. What is amazing is that there are programs like Scribus, Gimp, Ardour, and Rosegarden at all -- every year they get tweaked a bit more, are tested continually, and they are free, requiring lots of volunteer effort, passion, and technical prowess. Often, if one program is rough around the edges in one department, some other program can pick up the slack.

In the past, I was amazed that the open source community was able to come up with modest tools for audio and graphics, that they were able to innovate so well, and to copy/emulate/mimic lots of professional features and ideas, on free, volunteer-made operating systems with a huge variety of hardware. It astounds me that so many drivers are handled in linux nowadays, out of the box. Compiz was done in the open source community! Amazing!

In time, subtle incremental changes/improvements accumulate, and the result is macro-evolution, frankly. A few years ago, there were just some quirky audio and midi tools available in the open source community. Now there are much more matured offerings which provide enough functionality to really get serious work done. And it will get even better in time.

If a challenging project is on the radar screen, and enough time, effort, and organization is put into it, there will be significant results. How significant is a matter of personal judgment, taste, pragmatic goals, etc. Linux has done amazingly well given the challenges it faces with closed source drivers, constantly changing technologies, volunteer workers, competition with the marketing of big businesses, etc.

[cyberdork33]

really Aqua provides the same function as Gnome but you can't say they're close to being the same.
IDK if it is necessarily aqua that is equal to gnome, but yes... There are also several different window managers / desktop environments for linux. Ubuntu us different on that level even with itself... Kubuntu vs Ubuntu vs Xubuntu, etc.

Personally, having read the posts in this thread, I think comparing Ubuntu and Mac as far as stability and such goes is impossible, because OSX is running only on hardware designed for OSX, whereas Ubuntu has to try to hack together the PC market.
Exactly.

Interesting thread. I just wanted to highlight the importance of separating the hardware issues from the os issues from the application programming issues.

Ubuntu and OSX are operating systems. As operating systems, they do have significant similarities when compared to Windows. The one (OS X) is customized to a limited set of hardware and is closed sourced, not free, lots of paid programmers involved. The other (Ubuntu) is available for a chaotic assortment of hardware and is open sourced, free, lots of volunteer programmers involved. But then you have Dell offering computers pre-loaded with Ubuntu, customized for the hardware, and one could try to customize a machine oneself which ran OSX.
While I agree with what you are saying, it is very common to associate a Mac and OSX as one and the same simply because you really can't have one without the other (until recently, and within the realm of the law).

[CarlosNYB]

While I agree with what you are saying, it is very common to associate a Mac and OSX as one and the same simply because you really can't have one without the other (until recently, and within the realm of the law).

Right.

I find it interesting to consider how well Linux performs given all the variety of hardware. But also, testing stability of the two systems should be compared between on well-tweaked linux systems with well-considered hardware (either one's own custom job or a pre-loaded system).

As far as security, there's practical testing in hacking competitions, there's actual security comparisons on business servers in actual use, etc.

[DGortze380]

*Note haven't read the whole thread yet.

IMO, OS X and Ubuntu are similar in that they are both UNIX based. But honestly, the average OS X user using Ubuntu is never going to see the similarities. OS X is still very much a 'point and click' OS. I've found it has all the capabilities I love in Ubuntu, but you have to dig into the command line a bit, compile some of your own software, and most OS X users just don't utilize the system like that.

Coming from Ubuntu with some linux experience into OS X you will notice many similarities (again, if you have some real working knowledge of linux/unix... not just the GUI).

I'm going to get a lot of opposite opinions on this forum but more and more I tend to use OS X for daily tasks. It begin non-free and including all the codecs and really nicely finished programs makes it easier to user day to day. I use Ubuntu to cut my teeth on so to speak. I'm able to really dive into the OS, learn how it works, modify things to suit my needs, or just to learn how. (Don't get me wrong, I CAN do everything I want/need on Ubuntu... I just prefer OS X day to day... ubuntu for work/play).

[aysiu]

I've found it has all the capabilities I love in Ubuntu, but you have to dig into the command line a bit, compile some of your own software, and most OS X users just don't utilize the system like that. I think you have the wrong pronoun in that sentence. It's not the generic you who has to compile software. It's the specific I (meaning DGortze380, not aysiu).

[DGortze380]

I think you have the wrong pronoun in that sentence. It's not the generic you who has to compile software. It's the specific I (meaning DGortze380, not aysiu).

LMAO. better?

I've found it has all the capabilities I love in Ubuntu. One has to dig into the command line a bit, compile some software from source, and most OS X users just don't utilize the system like that.

[cyberdork33]

I think you have the wrong pronoun in that sentence. It's not the generic you who has to compile software. It's the specific I (meaning DGortze380, not aysiu).
I didn't think you used OS X much at all!

[stream303]

As far as security, there's practical testing in hacking competitions, there's actual security comparisons on business servers in actual use, etc.

I found it very interesting to read about this on the rixstep.com site in the Industry-Watch section. It might help explain a BIG difference between Mac and Ubuntu. :)

[CarlosNYB]

Yes, not all the OS Holes are associated with Microsoft...

[n00b0.5]

Of course there are differences, but all these OSes are using GUIs (graphical user interfaces).

Here are some pages with a somewhat historical overview of these systems:
http://toastytech.com/guis/index.html
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/guis

[mfox]

The biggest difference for me between the two is the amount of time it takes to get things operating as you want them to. Although Linux, and specifically Ubuntu, has come a long way towards things "working out of the box", it's still a ways away from the convenience of the MacOS. As others have pointed out, there are good reasons for this - money invested in the MacOS, legions of paid programmers, limited equipment to program for, lack of open source drivers for many peripherals, etc. Given those differences, it amazing how much works "out of the box" with Ubuntu. But for the average user, none of this matters except for cost, and I don't think you'll see a mass movement from Mac to Ubuntu/Linux just because the latter is free.

For me it's a different story. I've been a Mac user since 1986, with one very brief attempt to try try SUSE about 10 years ago. (There was not much to offer a Mac user back in the days of SUSE 6.5!) But I got interested in Linux about a year ago when I first got frustrated with Apple's limited hardware offerings. No mid-range desktop model, no GPU options for the mini, no netbook and most recently, no matte displays on laptops. I decided it was time to look into alternatives to the Mac, and not wanting anything to do with Windows, that led me to Linux and specifically Ubuntu.

I bought my first non-Mac computer three months ago, an MSI Wind netbook which I'm using with Ubuntu (8.04.1) Netbook Remix. For what I use it for, it's every bit as nice as MacOSX. Even with the limited use I make of it, I have to recompile the wireless drivers every time there's a kernel upgrade, something you would never have to do on the Mac. With the help of forums like this one, I'm learning a lot about how to make Linux/Ubuntu work the way I want it to, but it will still be awhile before I'm comfortable enough to give up the MacOS altogether.

[WaeV]

Ubuntu gives you an OS for free and says "This is a good OS; you perfect it."

Apple charges you top dollar for OSX and says "This is perfect, and we made it as hard as possible for you to change or break it."

[stream303]

After awhile, the Ubuntu experience transcends specific hardware needs, that is, you find some reason to run Linux on whatever hardware is available, be it X86, PPC, Sparc, what-have-you.

As long as you have a cpu, keyboard, display, and some storage, the rest becomes somewhat secondary. :) It no longer becomes an Apple / Intel contest.

Agreed - the average user may not care about freedom - just that the hardware and interface works for the $$ they spent on it.

I'm still amazed that Linux runs on Apple hardware at all, as I think it would have been very easy to just lock it all out at the outset. What some forget, especially in the case of PPC, is that there is no motivation to make it easy for Linux to work with the hardware as the system wasn't really designed to be Linux-friendly, and solely rely on hardware probing during install. Much of it comes from an internal database of hardware capabilities, and therefore a lot of the ppc hardware isn't required to respond properly to Linux probing for initial setup.

I guess the "walled garden" of having the OS tightly coupled to specific hardware has it's pros and cons. This is one of the reasons why you can't "downgrade" OSX to anything earlier than what came originally with the computer - however I could put Warty-Warthog on my box if I really wanted to. :)

[hanzomon4]

The biggest difference for me between the two is the amount of time it takes to get things operating as you want them to. Although Linux, and specifically Ubuntu, has come a long way towards things "working out of the box", it's still a ways away from the convenience of the MacOS. As others have pointed out, there are good reasons for this - money invested in the MacOS, legions of paid programmers, limited equipment to program for, lack of open source drivers for many peripherals, etc. Given those differences, it amazing how much works "out of the box" with Ubuntu. But for the average user, none of this matters except for cost, and I don't think you'll see a mass movement from Mac to Ubuntu/Linux just because the latter is free.

For me it's a different story. I've been a Mac user since 1986, with one very brief attempt to try try SUSE about 10 years ago. (There was not much to offer a Mac user back in the days of SUSE 6.5!) But I got interested in Linux about a year ago when I first got frustrated with Apple's limited hardware offerings. No mid-range desktop model, no GPU options for the mini, no netbook and most recently, no matte displays on laptops. I decided it was time to look into alternatives to the Mac, and not wanting anything to do with Windows, that led me to Linux and specifically Ubuntu.

I bought my first non-Mac computer three months ago, an MSI Wind netbook which I'm using with Ubuntu (8.04.1) Netbook Remix. For what I use it for, it's every bit as nice as MacOSX. Even with the limited use I make of it, I have to recompile the wireless drivers every time there's a kernel upgrade, something you would never have to do on the Mac. With the help of forums like this one, I'm learning a lot about how to make Linux/Ubuntu work the way I want it to, but it will still be awhile before I'm comfortable enough to give up the MacOS altogether.

Upgrade to 8.10 it includes dkms so you don't have to recompile on every kernel ugrade

[mfox]

I've been thinking about it, hanzomon4. But reading the big thread about the 8.10 upgrade experience, there seem to be a lot of problems upgrading an 8.04 distribution, and mine is working very well. I think i'll wait awhile longer, perhaps until 8.10.1 is issued, and then I'll back up my home file and install 8.10 from scratch. I have some software installed (mostly for Wine) that doesn't come from repositories and would take some work to add again from scratch.

What I really wish 8.10 included was out of the box support for the Realtek 8187 wireless card that comes with my netbook. Then I wouldn't have to worry about recompiling.

[OliverN]

I just bought a macbook pro because it's a good deal, no seriously: price out the same hardware (bluetooth, infrared, firewire webcam, etc) and it ends up costing the same no matter who you go with.

what?

I... You...

what?

[MikeSz]

My initial view is that this thread seems to have wandered off-topic. I think the original poster was looking for technical differences between OS X and Ubuntu/Linux. I think predominantly on the Unix theme.

I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable yet to answer that, though I have started studying Unix. And I am also a the owner of an iMac for which I have OS X and Ubuntu dual booting so I hope I can offer something by the way of informed opinion.

For me, the Mac is a gorgeous piece of kit, though it was bought from the refurb store at a good discount which made it cheaper than an equivalent PC that I would have had to build to suit my requirements. It was also bought after I had done some research on the software that comes with it as I was only drawn to the Mac because of bundled software like the iLife suite which I use for video editing (iMovie).

Ubuntu is absolutely fantastic – and the community behind it is second to none. I cant accept how anyone could even think of complaining about it when all this is free, unrestricted, versatile, rich in free software and the support offered by people in their spare time. Like on here. It does fall down on some things but so what? I do a lot of high end desk top publishing and I needed commercial software to do it – that’s just me and everyone else will need to make a valued judgement based on what they want. Which is why I went for the Mac. It should be the first rule of any computer buying– what do you want it to do, do you have to pay for it and if so, is it worth the price. For most people, Ubuntu is more than sufficient though if you want to do more with it and learn then it becomes like anything else - you get out what you put in

[mfox]

I dunno, Smeags; you chose to post this in an Apple Users forum. Unless you didn't think before you posted, your comments more or less apply to everyone who posts here. I don't want to get into a rant about Mac vs Windows, but every platform, and Windows no less than any other, has its share of individuals who are in your words, "the noob of noobs". Assuming of course that there's something wrong with that. Personally, I don't expect most users to care anything more about their computer than they would a toaster. It's an appliance that should just work. Most of us on this forum are more interested in how it works or making it work the way we want to, but I don't look down on anyone who thinks otherwise. That's why there's chocolate and vanilla! :)

FYI, my local Linux users group in Peterborough has several Mac-Linux users in it and I wouldn't call the Mac users in the group noobs (other than me, perhaps).

[DGortze380]

Sorry to be off-topic with this but I can't resist. I could not agree more with this statement. Apple and its users have made me more pro-Windows than ever before. This part is especially true in my opinion. Sorry to those of you that use an apple system; I mean no offense to you.

In my view Linux and Windows are near the same level when it comes to required knowledge to operate, with Linux having a bit more of a learning curve than Windows. Then there's Mac. We're talking the noob of noobs when it comes to systems. Apple says, we'll sell you a system but it has to have this and this and that. Don't worry about doing anything to it because it'll just work as is, the way we want it to.

At least with Windows and Linux you have a choice when it comes to hardware and software. That's big for me since I like putting my own systems together.

I know this is a big rant and I hate to stereotype, but I just can't help not liking Mac users. When I think about them I picture some really annoying tweens with their iPod earbuds glued to their ears and chatting it up on their IM program and on Facebook at the same time on their Macbook. Either that or the musical-guru-trying-to-be-different-wannabe and they can only have a Mac, because that's what the music gurus and people that want to be different (anti-Windows because everyone uses Windows) use. I hope that illustrates it...kinda hard to describe my feelings on that sometimes.

Ok. I'm going to put this as nice as possible.

This is an in appropriate, prejudicial, and offensive post.

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to generalize and insult those using this forum.

I refuse to debate any of the gross generalizations you've made in this post. You are clearly not familiar with the OS or hardware choices. And clearly just want to perpetuate a self-conceived stereotype rather than discuss real differences in operation.

Reported.

[cyberdork33]

I know this is a big rant and I hate to stereotype, but I just can't help not liking Mac users.
I couldn't agree less with most of your statements. While you admit that what you are saying is stereotypical, you have seemed to fail to digest what that means. Stereotypes are often not the reality. This is ESPECIALLY true here in a Linux support forum for Apple Hardware.

How can you say that those of use here helping other users install an OS on their Mac that it is not intended to run are computer-illiterate? Doesn't the fact that users here are writing drivers to support hardware in Macs (a lot of which is not only found in Apple Hardware) and advancing the software and tools of Ubuntu to utilize such new hardware mean there are truly technical and knowledgeable people here?

In fact, I have to say that your final statement quoted above is the most anti-"Spirit of Ubuntu" statement I have seen on this forum. Ubuntu is all about acceptance, and including everyone (Apple Users fit in there).

I had never even used a Mac until about 2 years ago. I was a power Windows user and dabbled with Linux. Linux is, in fact, one of the largest reasons I switched to the Mac. Just the concept of a POSIX-compliant system is just so much better than the Windows model that I couldn't believe I had used Windows so long. I still have a Windows machine in my house operating as a Media Center sharing with extenders on various TVs. And it is quite good for that.

You are entitled to your opinion about the Mac. Nobody is forcing (or even suggesting) that you try a Mac, so please take your hateful statements elsewhere.

[Smeags]

Listen, I apologize for my comments...obviously they were not well looked upon, and I understand why. I can get pretty spirited on that subject and obviously my emotional side got the best of me, and you all as well.

I did not think about my post being a part of the Ubuntu forums which, as cyberdork33 pointed out validly, is about acceptance. I hope you will all accept my sincere apology and rest assured that I will think before I post in the future.

Again, I apologize.

[MikeSz]

Listen, I apologize for my comments...obviously they were not well looked upon, and I understand why. I can get pretty spirited on that subject and obviously my emotional side got the best of me, and you all as well.

I did not think about my post being a part of the Ubuntu forums which, as cyberdork33 pointed out validly, is about acceptance. I hope you will all accept my sincere apology and rest assured that I will think before I post in the future.

Again, I apologize.

I think thats fair enough to be honest??

I love Macs, I love Linux and I used to love Windows (well, 3.1 anyway) So I guess - try everything, LEARN ABOUT IT and see what works. Its all valid.

[mfox]

... I hope you will all accept my sincere apology and rest assured that I will think before I post in the future.

Again, I apologize.Mistake made, apology given. That's good by me.

[mfox]

.... Just the concept of a POSIX-compliant system is just so much better than the Windows model that I couldn't believe I had used Windows so long. ...
Following your posts, cyberdork, I always learn something interesting. I tried googling POSIX-compliant system and I got an explanation but it was over my head. I understand the bit about standards and some of the standard-specifics, but otherwise, why is it an advantage to work with a POSIX-compliant system? According to the WIKI, MacOSX is POSIX-compliant, but Linux not fully so.

[cyberdork33]

Listen, I apologize for my comments...obviously they were not well looked upon, and I understand why. I can get pretty spirited on that subject and obviously my emotional side got the best of me, and you all as well.

I did not think about my post being a part of the Ubuntu forums which, as cyberdork33 pointed out validly, is about acceptance. I hope you will all accept my sincere apology and rest assured that I will think before I post in the future.

Again, I apologize.

Thank-you for taking the high road here. It says a lot about your character.

[cyberdork33]

Following your posts, cyberdork, I always learn something interesting. I tried googling POSIX-compliant system and I got an explanation but it was over my head. I understand the bit about standards and some of the standard-specifics, but otherwise, why is it an advantage to work with a POSIX-compliant system? According to the WIKI, MacOSX is POSIX-compliant, but Linux not fully so.

well, let's not get into specifics about what is compliant and what is not... I am not talking about the standards, but the concepts behind the standards. It is really a UNIX thing, and since Linux was created to be Unix-like, it inherits much of this.

Many of the items that are under POSIX govern how the shell works, and the utilities that we tend to take for granted like "echo" and piping data. Having system variables and hardware interfaces accessible in the filesystem is a great advantage (/sys and /dev). The concept of "mounting" something in your filesystem. It is just SO flexible.

In OS X, much of this is a bit hidden, but it is there.

Comparing with windows, it is just the usage of the shell that is so much better for me. (and I like the concepts of open source).

[Mattventura]

One thing about OS X is that it is simple and easy to use, but the problem is that sometimes the simple, non-advanced interface gets in the way. For example, it hides hidden files and some important system folders and does not provide an easy option to show them. OS X and other *nixes are basically the same under the hood, but OS X just chooses to hide that all under its GUI.

One thing I have noticed about OS X is that while it tries to hide everything technical from the user, it does provide advanced utilities and a good command line. The problem with it is that what is quite possibly the most important utility, the Finder, lacks some important functionality in the interest of simplicity.

Now, as for the hardware, because Apple makes their hardware and their OS, they can make quality drivers so that almost everything just works. There is not a single piece of hardware I have thrown at OS X without it working. The only things I have had to actually do stuff with to make it work in Linux were a Broadcom wifi card and dual monitors. Now, Windows (for me at least) has choked on graphics cards, hard disks, etc, and so some users that want to do hardware tweaking but are not willing to do stuff with the software to make it work have problems. I was even willing to do whatever I needed to do with Windows to get my hardware to work, but my attempts failed. Now, going back to Apple, I still don't think that the fact that their hardware will always work flawlessly with their software gives them an excuse to charge ridiculous hardware prices ($1,500 for 8GB memory from apple vs <$150 elsewhere), but such a system has proven itself to work, as people still buy Macs because they know that they are easy to use.

The average Linux user is very technical. Typically, Linux users want to customize and examine their system, whereas many Mac users just want a computer that they can do things with and not have to worry about what goes on under the hood. The only problem is that if some not very technical Mac user suddenly got some error messages (like "Failed to open RFCOMM channel") the only solutions they would know of would be to simply dismiss the error or get tech support. I think part of the reason Mac users tend to be less technical is that OS X does not encourage or people to be technical. Linux does because of all the tweaking that is possible.

Overall, both OS's could be used by (but maybe not installed by novices. But OS X is much easier to learn the basics of and learn how to use to a fairly high degree. However, even a fairly experienced Mac user might not know what a command line if. Since most people will want to tweak and explore their Linux systems, they will probably figure out the command line fairly quickly. OS X is good if you are not highly technical, but you want an OS that still has the under-the-hood *nix power. But if you are already fairly technical, the benefits probably will not outweigh the cost of running OS X versus running Linux. But remember, if you do decide to get a Mac, remember that you can still install Linux on it.

[n00b0.5]

I disagree about macs being without problems. I have various problems with a G4. I think it started when there was this virus, maybe not a virus, but files with absurd names would download once in a while. It's not a big deal, but sometimes you can't empty the trash unless you restart. More recently I upgraded the mac software and there's only a few programs which still work (disk utility closes automatically every time I try to open it). I am not convinced it is a virus though, it could be just the software "updates" are incompatible.