Give me one reason why Mac OS X is better than Ubuntu...

[pksings2]

Recently received a new Macbook Pro for my work machine. Everything just worked, no problems with anything except an update that made me have to revert to my "Time Machine" backup a month or so in. My single favorite thing is that I haven't had to search out a fix for VMware so that the kernel module with recompile even once through a few kernel updates. Even that "just works". Best laptop I have ever had, hands down.....and Time machine is awesome.... There really should be something like it for Linux....

[joyousjake]

Does Ubuntu have easy installation? Yes
Does it have an easy way to get applications and packages? Yes
Can it support multiple proprietary drivers? Yes
Does it have countless ways to make your desktop look amazing? Yes, more than Mac and Windows combined, most likely
The only reason for Mac is integration, and that many of the services and applications used on your iOS device can be supported on Mac out of the box.
If you want something that supports your favourite apps and games, use Windows, or run WINE in Linux.

[varunendra]

.....and Time machine is awesome.... There really should be something like it for Linux....

As much as I have used and understood Time machine (and I haven't used it much), I think there is already a much better thing in linux - clonezilla and several other similar tools. Only they have not been 'integrated' with installations and need to be run manually using their own bootable media. Better in the sense that they 'compress' the contents, as opposed to Time machine, thus using only a small fraction of space that a Time-machine backup requires.

But then again, I must admit I haven't used Macs much, so can't say if I missed a 'compression' feature in Time machine, although I remember I tried my best with my limited understanding of the OS I had.

I believe an intelligent 'rsync' cron job, combined with a separate, tiny bootable partition with access to this backup(s) (plus automated 'restore' scripts with some flexibility) can serve the same purpose, only in a much better way. But of course no Linux distro I know of comes with such a setup by default which makes it a 'nerds-only' thing, nothing to be proud of.

[monkeybrain20122]

As much as I have used and understood Time machine (and I haven't used it much), I think there is already a much better thing in linux - clonezilla and several other similar tools. Only they have not been 'integrated' with installations and need to be run manually using their own bootable media. Better in the sense that they 'compress' the contents, as opposed to Time machine, thus using only a small fraction of space that a Time-machine backup requires.

But then again, I must admit I haven't used Macs much, so can't say if I missed a 'compression' feature in Time machine, although I remember I tried my best with my limited understanding of the OS I had.

I believe an intelligent 'rsync' cron job, combined with a separate, tiny bootable partition with access to this backup(s) (plus automated 'restore' scripts with some flexibility) can serve the same purpose, only in a much better way. But of course no Linux distro I know of comes with such a setup by default which makes it a 'nerds-only' thing, nothing to be proud of.

I think a problem of a lot of Linux backup/cloning tools is that they don't have incremental backup. On the other hand Time machine (or any Mac tool) would never allow you to restore a clone to a different machine, which all Linux tools can do.

I don't use clonezilla because of the stupid restriction that you cannot restore an image to a smaller partition than the original one even though the original partition may have a lot of unused space. I find fsarchiver to be the best.

[varunendra]

I don't use clonezilla because of the stupid restriction that you cannot restore an image to a smaller partition than the original one even though the original partition may have a lot of unused space. I find fsarchiver to be the best.

Yup, that's an unfortunate restriction. I don't remember where I read this, but it was some consistency/compatibility problem keeping the developers from facilitating that.

And I think rsync is a perfect solution for incremental backups. Apart from MBR/boot-sector data, there is perhaps nothing on a filesystem that it can't backup quickly and smartly. But of course it is a far cry for an average desktop user. (..and it is a bit embarrassing to admit that while I keep recommending it to others, I personally haven't used it myself beyond 'experimental' levels. Haven't got such a setup where it can be used extensively. )

[aysiu]

What Time Machine offers is a slick GUI.

When Apple first released Time Machine, my wife and I were both using Macs, and Time Machine was so buggy, we used rsync bash scripts with shortcuts on the Dock to back up to external hard drives.

Now, Time Machine has gotten a lot less buggy, so we use Time Machine instead.

[samwillc]

Come on people, I like linux too but some of these posts are just pure delusional!

a) When you boot, you get a bunch of crazy text across the screen that looks like it's going to crash at any time, same on switch off. OSX? A smooth animation and turns off with no 'drama'.
b) I was running ubuntu 12.04 and restarted and the sound didn't work anymore, I mean just nothing?! Has that ever happened on my macbook, of course not! Rock solid for over a year, no problems, nothing.
c) Detect my canon Pixma MG6150? OSX, of course! Even automatically installed the right drivers. Linux? No chance! Lots of messing around as usual and even when it was installed, many of the printer options were missing.
d) Global equalizer, OSX, yep! Boom app, superb, works brilliantly! Ubuntu, a very flaky pulseaudio thing that kind of works for 5mins then breaks your sound completely if you're unlucky, like I was.
e) Laptop battery, don't even try to argue that a linux laptop can get better battery life than a macbook running mavericks.
f) Laptop overheating. This has been a long standing linux problem with laptops overheating left right and centre. No real reasons though, or solutions, that;s why I still use the macbook.
g) External monitors, mavericks handles these rather well, as if they are two separate computers. Try doing the same with ubuntu from a laptop, not nearly as clever.
h) My graphics show up in ubuntu as a 7" samsung monitor. It's not.
i) Time machine is awesome.

Just a few reasons off the top of my head.

However, to be fair, they both have pros and cons, who says you need to be in 'camp linux' OR 'camp osx'? I use both and really enjoy linux, the customization is amazing and far outweighs osx. It's just the little things that dampens linux for me, and the fact the whole community is so disjointed with a million different versions all slightly different, but all with the same flaws.

I haven't actually switched the macbook on for the last week because I've been so impressed with elementaryOS Luna. Got to keep open minded people! An OS doesn't dictate your life!

[aysiu]

However, to be fair, they both have pros and cons, who says you need to be in 'camp linux' OR 'camp osx'?

I'm in just about all the major camps now. Using Mac OS X, Windows 7, Ubuntu 13.10, Ubuntu 12.04, Android, iOS, and ChromeOS. No regrets. No need to have a singular allegiance.

[jan-goebel-g]

Its simple:
-Apple gives you the best hardware (no cable crap on the desktop, best mobility and input for mobile devices. thats what matters, lenovo is the only competition but they are heavier then the apple laptops..).
-MacOSX is gratis (not free but Gratis as Mr Stallman would say).
-Everything works and for the programers all the companys work to get it on the mac and then windows and then linux. Theres the most tools and tutorials for the mac.
(-for me, better keyboard layout in Europe)

it doesnt mean to not use Linux, Ubuntu is awesome ad nearly as good and windows is rock stable and fine for Desktop Gamecomputers (its ugly and without any sense of humor or taste though).

[hairo]

I've used both extensively. Apple "pro" software is much more finished than the Linux counterparts. Don't get me wrong--I see lots of open source code in apple software. KTML in safari is an example. But for $199, I don't think Ubuntu Studio can beat Logic Pro X for audio editing. If you want a finished movie production workstation, audio processing, etc, You just can't beat price points of Apple vs PC software.