mac os x, windows or linux?

[karellen]

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/cmsdata/news/9333/Mac,%20PC%20or%20Linux.pdf
I liked the side by side comparison...plus it's pretty accurate and fair
:)
what would you choose?

[Enverex]

... you're on an Ubuntu forum, that question seems rather... weighted.

[karellen]

I've thought of it....but...who knows?...I didn't post a poll or something, I just wanted to see some opinions...

[Enverex]

I think "I just wanted to start an OS war" is more appropriate. There are far too many of those threads going on already.

[Jhongy]

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/cmsdata/news/9333/Mac,%20PC%20or%20Linux.pdf
I liked the side by side comparison...plus it's pretty accurate and fair
:)
what would you choose?

I don't think it's particularly accurate...


Accelerated graphics require expert configuration? Not really... No more than installing a driver in Vista.

WinXP beats Linux in terms of Price/Performance? All I can say is: 'eh'? I don't even understand how that works.

[the.dark.lord]

I think "I just wanted to start an OS war" is more appropriate. There are far too many of those threads going on already.

So what the heck? Let's have one more :guitar:

The review seems pretty fair, only a bit favorable towards OS X.

[compwiz18]

I don't think it's particularly accurate...


Accelerated graphics require expert configuration? Not really... No more than installing a driver in Vista.

Agreed.



WinXP beats Linux in terms of Price/Performance? All I can say is: 'eh'? I don't even understand how that works.

hmmm.... Then why does XP run twice as slow as Linux on my old laptop :confused:


So what the heck? Let's have one more :guitar:

The review seems pretty fair, only a bit favorable towards OS X.

Yep - although I've never used OS X for more then five minutes, but it seems like they didn't give Linux a particularly fair review.

[Adamant1988]

If it were me, and I had the budget for it, I may very well get a Mac. But, I love my Linux systems and I've fallen in love with BASH so Linux appeals to me a lot. I think that article is really well done, it's one of the first I've seen that doesn't have any real slant to it, just point-to-point comparisons.

[karellen]

I think "I just wanted to start an OS war" is more appropriate. There are far too many of those threads going on already.

I didn't want to start anything. just to share some side-by-side subjective comparison. but seems to me that you like to insist on this particular topic

[Adamant1988]

I didn't want to start anything. just to share some side-by-side subjective comparison. but seems to me that you like to insist on this particular topic

There's nothing about this thread or the article you posted that should get an OS based flame-war started, but the Ubuntu community has shown that it's highly irritable more often than not. So, we'll see.

I enjoyed the thread, thank you for posting it.

[karellen]

There's nothing about this thread or the article you posted that should get an OS based flame-war started, but the Ubuntu community has shown that it's highly irritable more often than not. So, we'll see.

I enjoyed the thread, thank you for posting it.

thanks...:)

[Jhongy]

If it were me, and I had the budget for it, I may very well get a Mac. But, I love my Linux systems and I've fallen in love with BASH so Linux appeals to me a lot. I think that article is really well done, it's one of the first I've seen that doesn't have any real slant to it, just point-to-point comparisons.

I don't get the impression that the author has actually used Linux all that much...

I still don't get how they rate WinXP better than Linux for price / performance... :confused:

[karellen]

I don't get the impression that the author has actually used Linux all that much...

I still don't get how they rate WinXP better than Linux for price / performance... :confused:

well....maybe he was thinking of supported hardware. and to be honest xp is pretty fast, on my old machine is a little faster than ubuntu (probably I could make ubuntu faster, but I never bothered to...)
anyway linux ranked very good, on the same league with xp - which is definitely a progress

[Enverex]

well....maybe he was thinking of supported hardware. and to be honest xp is pretty fast, on my old machine is a little faster than ubuntu (probably I could make ubuntu faster, but I never bothered to...)
anyway linux ranked very good, on the same league with xp - which is definitely a progress

I think the point the other member was trying to make was that Linux is free so the "Price/Performance" ratio of Linux should be through the roof...

[karellen]

I think the point the other member was trying to make was that Linux is free so the "Price/Performance" ratio of Linux should be through the roof...

agree with this...:)

[Rab22]

1) I think your are going to get biased answers on here. Not that they are incorrect however ;)

2) I do not agree with several of the ratings they provide on that.

3) I am still strongly considering purchasing an Apple over a new PC. However, I will not buy a new PC with Vista -- it's between Ubuntu and OS X. Mind you, even if I buy an Apple, Ubuntu will still be installed.

[Nikron]

What about the other BSD's besides Mac OS X?

[JOrtiz8612]

Ubuntu Linux is the Firefox of OSes.

[Adamant1988]

Ubuntu Linux is the Firefox of OSes.

It's big, bloated, and most people would rather be using something else but can't because of one behavior they 'need'? Please don't compare my OS to a browser anymore...

[yoasif]

If it were me, and I had the budget for it, I may very well get a Mac. But, I love my Linux systems and I've fallen in love with BASH so Linux appeals to me a lot. I think that article is really well done, it's one of the first I've seen that doesn't have any real slant to it, just point-to-point comparisons.
yoasifs-computer:~ yoasif$ env
TERM_PROGRAM=Apple_Terminal
TERM=xterm-color
SHELL=/bin/bash
Bash is the default shell on Mac OS X. ;)

[Adamant1988]

yoasifs-computer:~ yoasif$ env
TERM_PROGRAM=Apple_Terminal
TERM=xterm-color
SHELL=/bin/bash
Bash is the default shell on Mac OS X. ;)

You win. ;) I actually did know about that bash was available for OS X but I was under the impression that OS X wanted me to stay out of system innards as much as possible.

[Pobega]

That pdf was garbage, in my opinion. The second that I read "GNOME is a copy of Mac OSX" I knew it would be downhill the entire way. The article was very biased against Linux, only suggesting it to be used as a Windows alternative. How did Windows beat Linux in terms of available software? In my experience there is way more software for Linux than there is for Windows.

I'm not trying to start an OS flame war, but I'm just pointing out the bias of the article...Hell, Debian's repositories have 16,000 packages in main alone, and all condensed into one package manager. With Windows you barely have that many programs, including the proprietary ones, and you need to search for every single one of them. I've barely had a need to bookmark any webpages since I've switched over to Linux. On Windows my bookmarks are full of download sites.

[karellen]

That pdf was garbage, in my opinion. The second that I read "GNOME is a copy of Mac OSX" I knew it would be downhill the entire way. The article was very biased against Linux, only suggesting it to be used as a Windows alternative. How did Windows beat Linux in terms of available software? In my experience there is way more software for Linux than there is for Windows.

I'm not trying to start an OS flame war, but I'm just pointing out the bias of the article...Hell, Debian's repositories have 16,000 packages in main alone, and all condensed into one package manager. With Windows you barely have that many programs, including the proprietary ones, and you need to search for every single one of them. I've barely had a need to bookmark any webpages since I've switched over to Linux. On Windows my bookmarks are full of download sites.

it's inevitable for an article writen by a human to be biased and subjective, especially on this very complex and sensitive matter. every os has his weak and strong points. and his fans and detractors
:)

[Nikron]

It's big, bloated, and most people would rather be using something else but can't because of one behavior they 'need'? Please don't compare my OS to a browser anymore...

Well, Ubuntu is rather bloated and big compared to other distros, but often has a few niceties that you can't find in others. So yeah, sounds right to me.

[BOBSONATOR]

That pdf was garbage, in my opinion. The second that I read "GNOME is a copy of Mac OSX" I knew it would be downhill the entire way. The article was very biased against Linux, only suggesting it to be used as a Windows alternative. How did Windows beat Linux in terms of available software? In my experience there is way more software for Linux than there is for Windows.

I'm not trying to start an OS flame war, but I'm just pointing out the bias of the article...Hell, Debian's repositories have 16,000 packages in main alone, and all condensed into one package manager. With Windows you barely have that many programs, including the proprietary ones, and you need to search for every single one of them. I've barely had a need to bookmark any webpages since I've switched over to Linux. On Windows my bookmarks are full of download sites.

So true, and they didnt even add the Desktop Effects, or Beryl, basically a load of bs.

[Nikron]

You win. ;) I actually did know about that bash was available for OS X but I was under the impression that OS X wanted me to stay out of system innards as much as possible.

Well, it does. It gives a warning if about possible memory corruption if you become super user in terminal.

[Enverex]

It's big, bloated, and most people would rather be using something else but can't because of one behavior they 'need'? Please don't compare my OS to a browser anymore...

That and it's a distro, not an OS...

[yoasif]

Well, it does. It gives a warning if about possible memory corruption if you become super user in terminal.you're kidding, right? maybe the mac you're on has bad hardware because i've never seen such a prompt.


yoasifs-computer:~ yoasif$ sudo -i
Password:
yoasifs-computer:~ root#

[yoasif]

Guess what, a distro is pretty much what everyone else outside of the Linux world calls an "OS".

If Ubuntu is a distro, and there is a difference between distro and OS, what OS is Ubuntu?

[Pobega]

Guess what, a distro is pretty much what everyone else outside of the Linux world calls an "OS".

If Ubuntu is a distro, and there is a difference between distro and OS, what OS is Ubuntu?

A GNU/Linux distribution?

A distribution isn't the same thing as an operating system; An operating system is a suite of programs designed by a single entity (Generally a company).

GNU is a suite of programs developed by "GNU's Not Unix", and Linux is the kernel under all of those programs. On top of that are programs created by developers in their spare time, and released as free software. This is what makes up what we know as "Linux".

As for distributions, GNU/Linux itself is as usable as Unix is. A distribution is an attempt by a group of developers to try to pull everything together (GNU, Linux, and the third party programs) and to throw some of their own software on top of that, such as a package manager, an init system, a way to network, etc.

For example, Debian has APT (Advanced Packaging Tool) to do it's packaging for it.
Debian has sysv to do it's system initialization at boot time.
And finally Debian uses it's own system to handle networking (Controlled by the /etc/network/ directory)

There are other examples of differences between distributions, but these are the main ones. Each distribution is another person's idea of the ultimate GNU/Linux system. The reason each distribution uses GNU/Linux is so that they can skip past the very technical part of development (The kernel and main suite of programs) so that their developers can focus on the distribution's strengths; User friendliness (Ubuntu), ricing out (Gentoo), KISS (Slackware), servers (Debian and RedHat).

Sorry for the rant, but I just felt that I had to point out the difference between an operating system and GNU/Linux distribution.

In retrospect, you can look at Ubuntu as a specialized distribution of Debian, which is a distribution of the GNU toolset and Linux kernel.

[yoasif]

utterly hilarious -- how does Ubuntu run, if it's not an OS, and doesn't contain an OS?

Linux is a kernel, nothing more -- the umbrella term is something that refers to OSes (distributions) that run GNU software (as well as other OSS) + the Linux kernel.

You still haven't really described what an OS is, even with your long convoluted post.

Is Mac OS X an OS (keep in mind that OS is in the name of it!) or is it a BSD/GNU/xnu "distribution"? How about Nexenta? Is that simply a GNU/Debian/Solaris "distribution"?

Simply put, a distribution is just a linux specific term for an OS, while Debian, Slackware, whatever may be part of a similar OS family, they are still OSes in and of their own right.

[karellen]

A GNU/Linux distribution?

A distribution isn't the same thing as an operating system; An operating system is a suite of programs designed by a single entity (Generally a company).

GNU is a suite of programs developed by "GNU's Not Unix", and Linux is the kernel under all of those programs. On top of that are programs created by developers in their spare time, and released as free software. This is what makes up what we know as "Linux".

As for distributions, GNU/Linux itself is as usable as Unix is. A distribution is an attempt by a group of developers to try to pull everything together (GNU, Linux, and the third party programs) and to throw some of their own software on top of that, such as a package manager, an init system, a way to network, etc.

For example, Debian has APT (Advanced Packaging Tool) to do it's packaging for it.
Debian has sysv to do it's system initialization at boot time.
And finally Debian uses it's own system to handle networking (Controlled by the /etc/network/ directory)

There are other examples of differences between distributions, but these are the main ones. Each distribution is another person's idea of the ultimate GNU/Linux system. The reason each distribution uses GNU/Linux is so that they can skip past the very technical part of development (The kernel and main suite of programs) so that their developers can focus on the distribution's strengths; User friendliness (Ubuntu), ricing out (Gentoo), KISS (Slackware), servers (Debian and RedHat).

Sorry for the rant, but I just felt that I had to point out the difference between an operating system and GNU/Linux distribution.

In retrospect, you can look at Ubuntu as a specialized distribution of Debian, which is a distribution of the GNU toolset and Linux kernel.

A Linux distribution, often simply distribution or distro, is a member of the Linux family of Unix-like operating systems comprised of the Linux kernel, the non-kernel parts of the GNU operating system, and assorted other software.

[superdexter]

From reading the article, it seems the author was trying to digest many facets of several OS's. As a result, was probably tired at the end. My philosophy is that "all things are relative from point of reference". Let us consider for the rating system that the author states that XP unpatched has a life expectancy of a few minutes and still earns a rating of "Fair". I just don't see where the author decided that was "Poor" and rated the others from that point of view. This in my opinion says that the comments made are pretty valid, but the rating system is very flawed.