Linux vs OS X?

[JimmyJazz]

I've been hearing alot about OSX tiger and how amazing its suppose and many Linux futurist seem to believe OSX could stand in the way of Linux becoming a real desktop OS. Who can blame them with all the 'switching' talk I've been hearing.
I've had several MACS running OS X and to be honest its my least favorite OS for doing real work. Sure it looks great but the UI is pretty slow and awkward compared to UBUNTU and even Windows. It's also almost impossible(or at least very difficult) to customize. Apple seems to sing praises about its scripting capability but compared to what can be done in Linux its more of a toy than anything.
Okay enough of my ranting my question is how do you think Apple and OS X play in the picture with the future of Linux?

[aysiu]

I've been hearing alot about OSX tiger and how amazing its suppose and many Linux futurist seem to believe OSX could stand in the way of Linux becoming a real desktop OS. Who can blame them with all the 'switching' talk I've been hearing. You've heard many Linux "futurist" (whatever that mean) say that Mac stands in the way of Linux? Can you give some links to these? I haven't heard this at all.



I've had several MACS running OS X and to be honest its my least favorite OS for doing real work. Sure it looks great but the UI is pretty slow and awkward compared to UBUNTU and even Windows. That's simply a matter of personal preference. I don't like Mac either, but I know plenty of people who love it. To each her own.


It's also almost impossible(or at least very difficult) to customize. Apple seems to sing praises about its scripting capability but compared to what can be done in Linux its more of a toy than anything. I believe Mac OS X is *nix-based and is quite customizable if you know the command-line and know how to edit .plists. For the average user, it isn't very customizable, though.



Okay enough of my ranting my question is how do you think Apple and OS X play in the picture with the future of Linux? Most Linux users I've seen (in this forum and others) seem to really like Mac, actually. It's funny, because Apple is about as closed source as you get--its drivers, its software--still many Linux users (including Torvalds himself) flock to Mac for whatever reason. I think it may have something to do with the fact that many Linux users are anti-Microsoft, so there's a bit of the "enemy of my enemy" mentality. And now that Mac is *nix-based, it has structural overlap with Linux distributions. In fact, Mac can run a bunch of Linux native apps using X11 and Fink. Mac has sudo and root and all that good stuff. Linux users also dig eye candy (that's why I switched away from Windows), and Mac is quite famous for that, if little else.

[Lord Illidan]

Actually, OS X does have a good future against Linux if it can work on intel machines. Because then, you get a cool operating system which looks great, without having to learn Linux or having to buy the expensive hardware.

Using Linux, one can get the eyecandy under standard hardware, but it is harder to learn, though then, not so hard to use.

[Knome_fan]

Most Linux users I've seen (in this forum and others) seem to really like Mac, actually. It's funny, because Apple is about as closed source as you get--its drivers, its software--

While there are a lot of things I don't like about Apple, I don't think a broad statement like this is justified. After all there is darwin for example and lo and behold, after some initial problems, to put it mildly, the Apple guys are now even playing nice with the Konqueror developers.



still many Linux users (including Torvalds himself) flock to Mac for whatever reason.
IIRC correctly, somone gave Torvalds a G5 and he is running Linux on it (which is great for people like me, who also run Linux on ppc).

About the impact it might have.
I don't think there will be a hughe impact. Contrary to what some people predict OSX on x86 won't be the death of Linux, as it will still only run on Macs and isn't free. There might however be some positive impact, for example, now that Apple users do have Safari, people who make IE only sites will not only exclude Linux/BSD whatever users, but also Apple users, so they might think twice before only offering an IE only solution.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Actually, OS X does have a good future against Linux if it can work on intel machines. Because then, you get a cool operating system which looks great, without having to learn Linux or having to buy the expensive hardware.

Using Linux, one can get the eyecandy under standard hardware, but it is harder to learn, though then, not so hard to use.


Ok what the heck!
" without having to learn Linux or having to buy the expensive hardware." Impossible, apple hardware has always been more expensive. Generic PC stuff is nice and commiditized (good for the consumer). I guarantee that even with Intel inside, an equivalent generic pc will cost less.

Not to mention going from windows to mac (ok I'll say right now I've never used mac os x). I have only used os9 or something at school, and it drove me nuts.
Click and drag a side, and it didn't resize, it moved the window.
Close buttons are on the left (which I find strange), and things like alt + f4 don't close things...
No right click means having to press a key and mouse simultaneously to bring up a context menu... etc...
Meaning you have relearn keys and the way things are done. (I'm going to assume similar learning curves are in mac os x, unless they started doing things the "windows way")

I will say that Ubuntu, many short cuts are as I know them in windows, even a friend who was being jackass about ctrl + left or right... And it behaved as expected in Ubuntu (skips a word instead of a character in things like gedit)

Conclusion, it has as much of a chance as windows against linux.
It really depends on why and what OS you want/afford and what you want to do with it.

[JimmyJazz]

I should probally note that I don't intend to bash OS X with this thread, as I said in my initial post I have owned several macs and used OS X for many years so I am at least in small part a fan Apple (mostly on the hardware side though). Although I probally should have not added my two cents on OS X in the first post.
By Linux futurist I mean anyone who I have talked to who has been obsessed with the future of linux (most linux users it seems). I have no links at this point to back it up though but, a quick search on google will turn up something (I've read several articles on the Linux vs OS X mindset).

[Lord Illidan]

Ok what the heck!
" without having to learn Linux or having to buy the expensive hardware." Impossible, apple hardware has always been more expensive. Generic PC stuff is nice and commiditized (good for the consumer). I guarantee that even with Intel inside, an equivalent generic pc will cost less.

.

I mean that if OS X becomes x86, and it can be configured to work on standard intel machines, then the problem of expensive hardware for running MAC OSX will fade. However, I worded it wrongly, I believe.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I mean that if OS X becomes x86, and it can be configured to work on standard intel machines, then the problem of expensive hardware for running MAC OSX will fade. However, I worded it wrongly, I believe.

I understood, but as they want it, you won't be able to pick a dell and just install OSX on it.
You will need special "mac" intel machine. This hardware I'm certain will cost more than a dell etc equivalent.

[Lord Illidan]

What if OSX can be hacked to work on generic x86 machines?
And how do we know that Apple won't release a new version of OSX for standard machines. Windows didn't go to the top by forcing people to use specific hardware....actually they did, because we have been forced to use x86 but then it is cheaper.

[BoyOfDestiny]

What if OSX can be hacked to work on generic x86 machines?
And how do we know that Apple won't release a new version of OSX for standard machines. Windows didn't go to the top by forcing people to use specific hardware....actually they did, because we have been forced to use x86 but then it is cheaper.

You are absolutely right, it will most likely be hacked. As for the average person jumping through the hoops or pirating a hacked version... Doesn't seem that great.

In terms of apple releasing a generic version... It would need more hardware support and apple hasn't been a fan clones. They killed off the compaq (at least I think it was compaq).

As for x86 being popular. It was originally IBM PC, and then compatibles or clones were born (compaq again I think, reverse engineering etc).
Things like ISA and then PCI were popularized since they were standards. Thus they were popular.
MS crushed competition and didn't leave the average joe much choice. I was a little kid at the time, but I went through DOS, and then windows. And even more windows...
It is what you needed to play games (which drove things like soundcards and graphics cards).
This still plays a role today, scroll down and see why a lot of people have a win partition :)

[darkmatter]

The developers edition of OS X can already be hacked onto x86. And Apple is not happy about it.:)

[jnoreiko]

things like alt + f4 don't close things...

Because that's a really daft shoftcut. Why alt? why F4?

CMD-O for "open". CMD-W for "close", because it's one along from Q for Quit, and because it's the mirror image of O across the keyboard.

And GNOME uses CTRL-W for close now too :)

I think OS X on intel is going to force linux to push even harder for usability by everyone, which is a good thing.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Because that's a really daft shoftcut. Why alt? why F4?

CMD-O for "open". CMD-W for "close", because it's one along from Q for Quit, and because it's the mirror image of O across the keyboard.

And GNOME uses CTRL-W for close now too :)

I think OS X on intel is going to force linux to push even harder for usability by everyone, which is a good thing.

Calm down :) . Funny you mention ctrl+w, I've been using it to close tabs in the terminal (ctrl+shift+t for new tab)

I'm not saying it's a superior shortcut, just that people will need to "re-learn" things regardless.

Personally the more OS's the better.

Things like VLC can run on mac os x, linux, windows, zaurus, qnx, and more.

I think having more choices will encourage things to be more portable. If it's open standards, open source, etc the potential for your software running and your data being accessible where-ever and whenever increases.

[GeneralZod]

And how do we know that Apple won't release a new version of OSX for standard machines. Windows didn't go to the top by forcing people to use specific hardware....actually they did, because we have been forced to use x86 but then it is cheaper.

This point is raised quite often, and the general consensus is that it would be against Apple's best interests for the following reasons:

1) Most people glibly state that it won't happen because Apple is a hardware company and not a software company. The truth is not quite this clear-cut, but one thing is certain: the vast majority of Apple's profits come from sales of their own, premium, hardware, for which OS X is an excellent enticement. If OS X could run on commodity hardware, fewer people would buy Apple hardware, and they would suffer as a result.

2) They would have to drum up more driver support. The fact that Apple exert complete control over the hardware OS X can run on cuts down the number of headaches for them immensely. It takes a huge amount of additional resources to "Just Work" on random, commodity hardware.

3) Between Microsoft's near-total dominance, both in terms of installed-base and mindshare, and rampant piracy, the OS business is extremely cut-throat. Many have speculated that in spite of the excellence of their OS, Apple simply would not survive the transition to a software company.

Apple employ some very smart guys and strategists, and will doubtless have considered all of the above factors. I'd imagine that at this point of time, they would want to be very firm about not allowing OS X on anything but Apple hardware.

[Sirin]

The developers edition of OS X can already be hacked onto x86. And Apple is not happy about it.:)

Which is why the EULA exists. ;)

[BWF89]

I for one dislike Macintosh. I absolutely hated Macintosh OS1 through OS9. I don't know why anyone would choose OS9 over Windows or Linux or pretty much any other operating system on the market. It wasn't until I started to use OS10 on a school computer that my opinion of it improved but it's still not up to par as far as being able to log in and do simple tasks quickly with OS's like Windows and Linux.

[Cirkus]

Fanbois are obnoxious, wether they're linux fanbois or apple ones. :-&

[mstlyevil]

I could be wrong on this(and that would not be a first time.) but I believe that Apple is really positioning itself to offer both Windows and OSX based machines in the future. The success of the I-Pod and some other Windows compatible hardware is probally forcing Apple to become a x86 pc clone to be profitable in the future. I believe Apple will still offer Mac's for those customers that love OSX and then will offer a Windows machine for volume sales to help pad the books. Apple has made statements that their eqipment will be able to run Windows and that they will not stop someone from doing so. That tells me that they probally plan to actually offer it and are not making that public yet so they can catch companies like Dell and HP off guard. I do not believe Linux has anything to worry about when it comes to OSX because Linux users tend to be more of the technical type and love tweaking their OS. Osx users on the other hand are usually artist types and educational types so they do not have the time to play with their os. You may see Apple offer a Linux distro on one of their pc's in the future to round out it's customer base. If I ran Apple this is what I would do to maximize profits.

[zedwards]

Just a couple things that I havn't seen touched upon. I have both PC and Mac machines. I really like linux. My pc laptop runs linux for fun and windows for work. I came accross Linux when unsatisfied with os 9 and installed ppc linux. Enter os x and new apple hardware. My observation is that it has really changed linux. First, the latest PPC hardware, well, actually its broadcom who provides the wireless hardware, has not opened up their code, therefore the only way you can connect to the internet on new apple machines (which are additingly very nice) is by ethernet or a USB wireless dongle. Second is the 64 bit processors which are not yet quite stable and i have yet to be able to boot it and run it. So I am basically stuck using os x (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, its just boring). And PPC Linux use has gone down.

I don't mean to generalize, but typical linux users (such as myself and other here) LIKE to tinker, compile, etc. So if comparing linux to os x as an easy to use desktop environment, os x wins, or as a powerful configurable tool, linux wins. But really it all depends on the user. Ubuntu is definitely bridging this gap, but I wouldn't worry about whether one is non/essential to the other, ideas are borrowed from each to only make a better product. Any new eye candy will be because of os x, and any new security and coding will be because of linux.

[poofyhairguy]

The developers edition of OS X can already be hacked onto x86.

And I hear it lacks some things like networking, CD playback, and basic media support. Sounds fun to me.

[poofyhairguy]

I could be wrong on this(and that would not be a first time.) but I believe that Apple is really positioning itself to offer both Windows and OSX based machines in the future. The success of the I-Pod and some other Windows compatible hardware is probally forcing Apple to become a x86 pc clone to be profitable in the future. I believe Apple will still offer Mac's for those customers that love OSX and then will offer a Windows machine for volume sales to help pad the books. Apple has made statements that their eqipment will be able to run Windows and that they will not stop someone from doing so. That tells me that they probally plan to actually offer it and are not making that public yet so they can catch companies like Dell and HP off guard. I do not believe Linux has anything to worry about when it comes to OSX because Linux users tend to be more of the technical type and love tweaking their OS. Osx users on the other hand are usually artist types and educational types so they do not have the time to play with their os. You may see Apple offer a Linux distro on one of their pc's in the future to round out it's customer base. If I ran Apple this is what I would do to maximize profits.

More likely Apple will allow its official distributers to do that.

Mark himself sees Apple as the biggest competitor to Linux. I kinda agree, had I not found Ubuntu my desktop would be a mini right now. They have many similarities and both are the future of the *nix desktop.

What Apple will always be though is middle, upper-middle class computers. The BMW of the computer world. They sell an "experiance" just like many luxery companies do. They will never compete on the low end- why give up Apple's level of hardware margins for Dells if you can't be sure you can beat Dell?

Apple will keep its OS on its boxes (without the intergration the magic is lost, ask someone who hacked on the development OSX onto a Dell). And when they go to Intel we will be able to see exactly how much the "Apple experiance" is worth by comparing it to a Dell. And heck, I might buy one. But thats because I'm an upper-middle class nerd, not because Apple is taking over the market.

[Mighty Mik]

Here's a different reason i'm using OS X...low power. A mac Mini uses 20 watts out the socket during operation (28 playing a DVD). My CRT is flaking, so i'll be buying an LCD next month...that's a drop from 125 watts to 40 watts. so 60 watts and i'm using a BSD based distribution. You can argue that you can get a SFF box and run Ubuntu on it, but a C3 chip is far less powerful that a G4. I like Ubuntu and use it on my noisy AMD box for almost everything but games. Mac OS has been easier for me to use, and i don't have to mod stuff to use multimedia. Ubuntu has no CU-seeme compatable client, so i'll continue using my Mac.

[aysiu]

Mark himself sees Apple as the biggest competitor to Linux He doesn't see Windows as the biggest competitor (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1)?

[poofyhairguy]

He doesn't see Windows as the biggest competitor (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1)?

Amazingly no. In a recent conference he stated that OSX was the biggest competition on Ubuntu. It makes sense- both a niche OSes.