Linux vs MacOSX

[lightvhawk0]

First and foremost I hate shiny things and macs are the shiniest thing out side of a jewlrey shop. Second Mac OS'es are consistant and I like that, but so are all the diffrent desktop envirnments out there. Also I like how they handle new users. Mac OS seems to be the best for this, but like every body including myself has said there is hardly any configuration options. Third alot of people say that Mac's are more productive because people get bored with the gui and move on. Well, I had a friend lured by SHINY icons ,transprancies and the dock, which boings about. I think that the new Mac OS X aqua theme counters apples design ideas. Sounds alittle m$-ish to me. Finally Macs are more productive......... if my friend is awe struck by the gui then I think they aren't as productive as advertised. Also the ladies in my work place worked with some old terminal based program and were able to do their work quick and efficiently. Now they got to upgrade and productivity went down the toilet. All they do now is talk to each other on thier messneger.
I personally like having the command line only idea, in the work place it hasn't failed. In linux you can set up a client computer to startx with only the app they need to get their work done -do that on a mac-
But for who mac's are aimed at they are the best, they set up and sit there.
I personally like my pc and all the options I have. I like to know what happends behind the gui. Most of all I like knowing that I'm secure in my sys eg; no spyware, no hearing spend another hundred dollars and get the new os version
ps don't be defensive this is what I think and I know you believe that you are right and I belive the same

[chrispy]

In linux you can set up a client computer to startx with only the app they need to get their work done -do that on a mac-

I haven't done it myself but I read many howtos to restrict the users to a set of applications on OSX. just like you would do on a linux workstation (i.e. file permissions/ownership) But I haven't toyed with OSX Server at all, so I do not know about group/user policies and how easy/difficult it is to deploy them.

[zhenlin]

In linux you can set up a client computer to startx with only the app they need to get their work done -do that on a mac-

I haven't done it myself but I read many howtos to restrict the users to a set of applications on OSX. just like you would do on a linux workstation (i.e. file permissions/ownership) But I haven't toyed with OSX Server at all, so I do not know about group/user policies and how easy/difficult it is to deploy them.

Correct. It is quite easy to do really, just open the Users panel in System Configuration, and go look for the Applications Permissions dialog. (I think you know how to find this)

[wilburpan]

What puzzles me when it comes to Apple, is that people who are so anti-ms all of a sudden go completly ga-ga over Mac's. Apple is much worse monopoly than MS is. At least I can run Windows on my choice of PC's. Apple only run on their own hardware.

Apple is not a monopoly. Apple is a hardware company that has done a lot of development on their software package in order to add value to their hardware. If you decide on Apple as a solution for your computing needs, they are selling you the whole package. Saying that Apple is a monopoly because their software does not run on other hardware is like saying that Canon's digital camera division is a monopoly because Nikon's digital cameras will not run Canon's imaging software.

Microsoft is a monopoly. Their product is software that claims to run on a wide variety of hardware. However, their business practice was/is to make it difficult for hardware sellers to offer alternatives to Windows in selling their products. This is what a monopoly does.

The analagous situation for Apple is they would be telling CompUSA that if CompUSA wanted to sell Apple computers, then they would not be allowed to sell other lines of computers.

Also, people hate MS because it is closed source, How is Apple different?

Personally, I don't hate Microsoft because it is closed software. I hate Microsoft because of their business practices, and because Windows is a bug ridden, security poor piece of crap. Quite honestly, if Windows was a better product, I probably would not have a problem using it.

I voted with my dollars. I have an G4 iMac at home for general use, but on my P3 work laptop and old P3 home desktop I've installed Gentoo.

[Toth]

*No full screen console while running gui.

So? In Linux when running X (so, pretty much 99.9% of the time) I use a terminal emulator, not a full screen terminal. I'd wager most people do. I don't see the point of needing a full screen GUI-less terminal.

*Drag-resizing apps is still a bit slow on G5/Panther, at least for a modern OS. I attribute this to bad code, not Processor speed or GCC. My ibook 600 with Debian resizes perfectly on-the-fly.

Very true, it's kind of wierd how the same system that can't smoothly resize windows can continue running a 3-D game flawlessly while using Expose.

*Aqua has no themability and system fonts cann't be changed. This sucks. Who are apple to say that font choice is confusing or against good UI? Fuck that! I want my freedom, thank you.

Agreed. Completely retarded.

*Having the menubar at the top seems like a good idea in theory because it's less for users to think about or whatever, but honestly it's just annoying to have to look at the top of the screen all the time.

It doesn't really bother me one way or another. On one hand it saves space (but not much) and on the other hand it could get annoying having to go to the top of the screen for a program's menu all the time. I do kind of like it though.

*Sure certain things "just work" when you plug them in, but so can those things "just work" on a well developed distro, using apps liek the awesome gphoto2.

Certain things "just work" in all operating systems, but I'd say that many things "just work" in Mac OSX (and Windows for that matter) more often than in Linux.

*Apple really doesn't have anything against linux as far as drivers go.

It's hard to compare the two. Apple runs only on PPC machines and their own hardware...they have *much* less hardware to support than Linux does especially considering that Linux will run on x86, PPC, SPARC, ALPHA, your grandmother's toaster oven, etc.

Sure like I said new hardware just works, but say I'm donated like 10 old g3 powermacs, I mean the first one's they had? Why should I just through those out? OS X wouldn't run, but free software could make great use of those, giving ten machines to 10 people who would not otherwise have machines. At least some poor kid could have abiword and gnumeric and do homework, and GAIM to talk to friends who have machines.

True, but how old are those machines? I mean, comparably aged PCs will probably not run Windows that well either but will run Linux perfectly fine. Just one of the great things about Linux

Having apps stay open in the dock until you quit is dumb IMO. It wastes RAM and if Panther really were fast, loading times would be null and it wouldn't matter.

It's not dumb IMO. Realize that having applications stay loaded in memory is *not* wasting RAM. If a program is idle (e.g. you closed an app's window but it's still in memory) and you want to load another program that requires more RAM than is available, the kernel will swap the idle program onto disk and the new program will have enough memory available. Linux does the same exact thing. When using a kernel with good VM management (like Linux or Darwin) there really is no reason for programs to ever quit, except to be updated or for the system to shutdown. The programs staying in memory have no effect on system performance and make the apps seem more responsive. Win/win situation.

If your idea of working with a computer is about changing the UI, get a el'cheapo x86 box at the local store, put linux on it and make your GUI look like pinball machine, I don't give a damn, heck it might be cool. But if you buy a Mac to modify OSX then you are just throwing your money out the window.

I disagree with this to some extent. I think it's important to have a nice looking, consistent default interface. OSX has this. However, there is no reason not to allow tweakers to skin the OS. Most people who want to concentrate on getting their work done will just use the default UI. Those tweakers would have the option of changing the look though. I for one like to change themes/skins around from time to time just for a change of pace, not to make my desktop look like a pinball machine ~_~

I'm trying to convince my parents to get a Mac as their next computer, because I think it'd be good for someone who just wants to sit down and use their computer once every couple days to do this or that. --snip-- but for someone like my parents who want to have things just work without any effort, I think it can be good. Better than Windows, anyways.

Agreed. For someone who just wants to surf the web, e-mail, word processing, etc. a Mac is perfect. The only real problem is the price tag on most Macs.

At my high school we only had Macs, and that kind of ridiculous crap was so common that I can barely stand to look at a Mac any more

The Macs at my high school also turned me off to Classic MacOS. I was so happy when they traded in those pieces of trash for Dells

I use my OS X ibook for everything. I manage UNIX, MAC, Novell and windows servers with my ibook. i have no need for any other OS. the GUI is more customizable than some of you give it credit for. OS X is solid. it really is. it is as good as any other *NIX i have ever used. it is great for home users, office users and power users. in fact any OS is as long as the "user" knows how to use it to its full potential.

OSX is great for everything....except gaming. Same goes for Linux, unfortunately, which is why Windows will be the primary OS on my gaming machine for the forseeable future. When I upgrade my laptop though I'd like to grab an iBook or PowerBook.

Macs are overpriced and overhyped. It's funny how people talk about getting the job done on Macs. What job? Macs can't handle the load a typical Linux box would easily handled.

FUD. Do you have proof that OSX cannot handle the same loads that Linux can?

I can't count how many times I've crashed my iMac because I was running too many resource intensive programs. On my linux box, I run several servers, ftp, apache, in addition to more than 10 applications, and the box hums along nicely. Not to mention that I run each of them on seperate workspaces.

FTP and Apache are hardly "resource intensive" unless your site is generating thousands of hits per second. And 10 applications? Oh my! I can't speak to the stability of your iMac but I've heard the same drivel from people arguing against Windows and Linux. Anecdotal evidence really doesn't mean anything.

People say Macs are unified. But so also are the two defacto desktops on Linux, GNOME and KDE. GNOME and GNOME apps are probably the most unified, well integrated and most predictable desktop environments I've used. Easy to use and simple.

KDE and GNOME are coming along nicely. It breaks down when you have/want to use a GNOME application in KDE or vice-versa. Luckily that doesn't happen too often, though hopefully Konqueror is better in KDE 3.2 so that KDE users can ditch Firebird and use pretty much all QT apps.

I think people's zealotry for Macs is more superficial and religious than it is functional. If you are into multimedia, video editing and production, sound editing and prodcution, then get a Mac. Otherwise just stick with your cheap and high-load, functional Linux box. With regards to handling high load, Linux wins hands down.

People's zealotry for Macs is no different than people's zealotry for Linux or Windows. Trust me, try participating in a cross-platform forum sometime

And again, you've given me absolutely no reason to believe OSX can't handle the same loads that Linux can.

How about customizability? I mean using a box designed for you, not the general public. I mean using an environment streamlined to your needs, your tastes, your preferences, your moods, your creativity and your working patterns. I mean an environment you look forward to using.

I do look forward to using OSX ~_~ However, customizability would be nice.

As for laptops, I certainly disagree that Apple's models are overpriced. The iBook is terrific value, especially when compared with other sturdy, small, light, long-battery-life wintel laptops (not the 6+ lb. slabs that tend to be the least expensive models). And, the PowerBooks are certainly competitively priced with wintel laptops of similar quality and specifications.

Apple's laptops (iBooks especially) are definitely the best bang for the buck in Apple's lineup. Great machines, great price.

Honestly, I think what we should all be shooting for (for the time being) isn't an OS market share dominated by Linux, but a market in which Windows isn't the dominating force. Really now, would you all complain if it were 60% Apple 35% Linux, 5% Windows? Our goal should be getting rid of Windows and MSFT FIRST and worry about where we are afterwords.

Wow, go go zealotry. Dropping Microsoft's marketshare to something in the ballpark of 60% or 70% would probably be a good thing. 5%? No

The BSD license gives you the freedom to take BSD-licensed code and make it proprietary so long as you retain the original copyright notices.

In other words, it gives you the freedom to deny freedom. This is why I refuse to license anything I do under the BSD license.

Semi-offtopic, but that is why I like the BSD license more than the GPL. The GPL denies you the freedom to deny freedom o_0

On the other hand, there are some things that are difficult for me to do using only Linux:

1. Create office documents that can be easily shared with colleagues that work in a non-Linux environment, especially Powerpoint files and Word documents with more than minimal formatting elements, especially tables.

Save your documents as PDF or RFT or doc file formats in Open Office. Save you power point files as .ppt/.pps in open office. It works perfectly for me.

As he mentioned, complex formatting can get screwed up when saving in MS Word format in OO or (especially) when opening Word documents in OO. PDF is only an option if you don't want your colleagues to be able to edit/annotate the documents you send them.

What puzzles me when it comes to Apple, is that people who are so anti-ms all of a sudden go completly ga-ga over Mac's. Apple is much worse monopoly than MS is. At least I can run Windows on my choice of PC's. Apple only run on their own hardware.

Also, people hate MS because it is closed source, How is Apple different? Yes, I know that part of OSX is OSS, but not all. Besides, OSX costs quite a bit, esp when you want to upgrade, MS all over again.

I've never really understood people who "hate" MS and seem to have something personal against the corporation.

My impression is that you have a lot less freedom to customize OSX than you have with Linux. So why is it that geeks go ape over Apple? Is it the fashion factor? "An Apple eye for a straight geek?"

Because the default UI is clean, beautiful, and straight-forward. It's something to be appreciated. Like I've said though, the ability to skin it would be nice.

[Mystilleef]

Macs are overpriced and overhyped. It's funny how people talk about getting the job done on Macs. What job? Macs can't handle the load a typical Linux box would easily handled.

FUD. Do you have proof that OSX cannot handle the same loads that Linux can?

My experience with Macs are far from fear, uncertainty and doubt. How could I be fearful, uncertain and doubtful of Macs when I use them. My iMac can't handle the same load as my Linux box, period. I stated in my previous post how the iMac freezes when I do resource intensive tasks. There have been instances where it just freezes for reasons unknown to me even without usage. I sometimes fear to watch DVDs while playing around with photoshop on my iMac.

Whereas on Linux, I can leave a DVD running on workspace9, compile the kernel on workspace7, leaving my browser running on workspace 1, and my email on worspace 2, play around with gimp or workspace 11, while chatting on IRC on workspace 3.

I would never venture to do that on my iMac. Mmm...mmm, not with those incessant freezes.

[Toth]

On the same system? Remember we're comparing OSX and Linux here, not OSX on the iMac with Linux on a PC.

[Mystilleef]

On the same system? Remember we're comparing OSX and Linux here, not OSX on the iMac with Linux on a PC.

Who said so?

[zhenlin]

On the same system? Remember we're comparing OSX and Linux here, not OSX on the iMac with Linux on a PC.

Who said so?

The impossibly incomprehensible gods of benchmarking.

Obviously a pitiful 700MHz iMac will be outstripped by a 2x3GHz Xeon.

[ozonator]

On the same system? Remember we're comparing OSX and Linux here, not OSX on the iMac with Linux on a PC.

Who said so?

No one, and I realize the issue you raise here is stability, not speed. But here's some analogous reasoning: I had a couple of old Pentiums here a while ago, one running OpenBSD, the other running Linux. The Linux machine was solid, but the OBSD box would crash hard whenever I tried compiling a kernel. Would it be fair to conclude that OpenBSD just can't hold up under load, and thus isn't as good as Linux? Not at all -- I also run a couple servers at work with OpenBSD, and those machines have never crashed, even under load, something I can't say about any Linux machine I have (including another server at work). I traced the crashing in that OBSD box to flaky RAM, not a limitation in the OS. Are you sure that iMac of yours is crashing because OS X can't handle the load, or might it be some hardware-related problem?

Comparisons on similar and trustworthy hardware are important, at least if you want to claim that the OS itself is good/bad, rather than just claiming that the OS is good/bad on the hardware a person uses. Otherwise, a person would be making a variation of a YMMV claim, I think -- "it [works|doesn't work] for me, YMMV" -- still a useful point, but not necessarily abstractable to a general case.

Frankly, in my experience, on a couple of PowerMac G4s as well as an iBook, OS X performs very well under very heavy load, whether that be CPU, memory, or I/O load -- no freezing at all. I do admit that I've seen OS X crash a few more times than Linux, but that's been extremely rare, and it hasn't been load related: it's typically been the Finder barfing somehow. And, such crashes are certainly rare enough that I would still call OS X a stable OS. Would I recommend it for anyone's desktop? Absolutely. Would I use it for a server? Probably not, in favour of OBSD or Linux. But, YMMV.

[Mystilleef]

No one, and I realize the issue you raise here is stability, not speed. But here's some analogous reasoning: I had a couple of old Pentiums here a while ago, one running OpenBSD, the other running Linux. The Linux machine was solid, but the OBSD box would crash hard whenever I tried compiling a kernel. Would it be fair to conclude that OpenBSD just can't hold up under load, and thus isn't as good as Linux? Not at all -- I also run a couple servers at work with OpenBSD, and those machines have never crashed, even under load, something I can't say about any Linux machine I have (including another server at work). I traced the crashing in that OBSD box to flaky RAM, not a limitation in the OS. Are you sure that iMac of yours is crashing because OS X can't handle the load, or might it be some hardware-related problem?

You do have a valid point. I was just sensing a little double standards earlier on. Mac OS X is designed, tested and deployed to work on Mac Hardware. You shouldn't expect the same for Linux. Just as you wouldn't expect me to install Jaguar on my intel PC, I don't think you should expect me to install Linux on my Mac PC. Moreso, you shouldn't expect me to do that to test the stability of a Mac product. Let's examine a scenario;

Me: Sir, I have a problem with my Apple product. Jaguar crashes every once in a while, sometimes when I do resource intensive tasks. On other occassions when I do nothing.

Support and service: Hmmm...interesting. That shouldn't happen. Try installing Linux on it and see if you have the same issues.

Does the above illustration make any sense? No.

Comparisons on similar and trustworthy hardware are important, at least if you want to claim that the OS itself is good/bad, rather than just claiming that the OS is good/bad on the hardware a person uses. Otherwise, a person would be making a variation of a YMMV claim, I think -- "it [works|doesn't work] for me, YMMV" -- still a useful point, but not necessarily abstractable to a general case.

My girlfriend uses the iMac without any problem. However, I always bring the Linux mentality to iMacs when I use them. I mean running every application but the kitchen sink, absent mindedly, and then all of a sudden I notice a slow down. Sometimes a crash. Yes, you could call me a power user. My girlfriend doesn't exprience such problems cos she has the windows mentality on opening one or two apps at a time. That's why I came to the conclusion that Macs weren't designed for heavly load as Linux is. If it was hardware related, I'd expect my girlfriend to experience the same issues.

Frankly, in my experience, on a couple of PowerMac G4s as well as an iBook, OS X performs very well under very heavy load, whether that be CPU, memory, or I/O load -- no freezing at all. I do admit that I've seen OS X crash a few more times than Linux, but that's been extremely rare, and it hasn't been load related: it's typically been the Finder barfing somehow. And, such crashes are certainly rare enough that I would still call OS X a stable OS. Would I recommend it for anyone's desktop? Absolutely. Would I use it for a server? Probably not, in favour of OBSD or Linux. But, YMMV.

Wasn't it last week I'm was backing up some of my movie files to an external hard disk and the iMac *CRASHED*/froze again. Well, I couldn't decipher if that was a hardware related issue or I/O load related. However, from my experience, I've come to the conclusion that Macs aren't designed for heavy load. You'd be a demagogue to convince me otherwise. The OS X series are even much better. You should have used the OS 9 and prior, you'd cringe.

When I see an iMac, I see a pretty little toy. Not a work horse to get the job done. If you know what I mean. I have listed the advantages of OS X elsewhere but it's far from a perfect or impressive OS at least when compared to Linux in my mind. Yes, it's really really really pretty. I've caught myself drooling over the G5s but that's beside the point. But when I compare what I can do on Linux for free, and what I can do on OS X for $1000 and above, It's a no-brainer Linux wins hands done. Pretty looks can take the back seat for the mean time.

I want to run my ftp and web server while playing DVD and chatting, at the same time updating my system via portage while trolling over at osnews and slashdot, instead of finished my report and spreadsheet assignments on openoffice. Of course I have an unfinished project open on Gimp and Anjuta, has been open on the 11 workspace for about a week now because I haven't been inspired to finish my coding practices. When I can do that on the G5 for free, give me a halla. That's what impresses me.

[Toth]

On the same system? Remember we're comparing OSX and Linux here, not OSX on the iMac with Linux on a PC.

Who said so?

You mustn't be serious.

Check the title of this thread. OSX v. Linux. Not Linux/x86 v. OSX/PPC. It's like me claiming that Windows XP Pro on a P4 3.2Ghz machine is much faster and more stable than Linux on a 486 SX 25Mhz Packard Bell from the early-mid 90's, therefore Windows XP Pro must be faster and more stable than Linux. When you are comparing two things, you want to compare *only* those two things with no other differences (when/if possible). This is possible in the case of OSX/Linux.

You do have a valid point. I was just sensing a little double standards earlier on. Mac OS X is designed, tested and deployed to work on Mac Hardware. You shouldn't expect the same for Linux. Just as you wouldn't expect me to install Jaguar on my intel PC, I don't think you should expect me to install Linux on my Mac PC. Moreso, you shouldn't expect me to do that to test the stability of a Mac product. Let's examine a scenario;

Double standards? Linux has been ported to how many architectures now? It'll run on a 386 intel PC, a zSeries IBM Mainframe and everything inbetween. Are you going to tell me that YellowDog Linux is not "designed, tested, and deployed" to work on Mac Hardware? What about GentooPPC?

And why shouldn't we expect you to install Linux on your Mac to judge the differences in how they handle load? If you install Linux on it and it runs flawlessly under high load then you might be able to back up your statement. Until then your argument holds no water. And even then, maybe you fscked up your OSX install, who knows. I've heard the same rhetoric from people claiming Windows XP and Linux to be unstable and it's usually due to a hardware problem or they b0rked the system some how.

Me: Sir, I have a problem with my Apple product. Jaguar crashes every once in a while, sometimes when I do resource intensive tasks. On other occassions when I do nothing.

Support and service: Hmmm...interesting. That shouldn't happen. Try installing Linux on it and see if you have the same issues.

Does the above illustration make any sense? No.

Me: Sir, I have a problem with my Dell product. Windows XP crashes every once in a while, sometimes when I do resource intensive tasks. On other occassions when I do nothing.

Support and service: Hmmm...interesting. That shouldn't happen. Try installing Linux on it and see if you have the same issues.

Does the above illustration make any sense? No.

We're not asking you to install Linux on your Mac for troubleshooting purposes so you can determine if your hardware is to blame. The point is that you shouldn't compare how Linux runs under load on an x86 machine to how OSX runs under load on a PPC machine. You should be comparing how both OS's run under load on the same machine. It eliminates all variables but the OS.

Hell, we don't even know if the machine you run Linux on is comparable to the iMac in terms of CPU power and memory.

[zojas]

Honestly, I think what we should all be shooting for (for the time being) isn't an OS market share dominated by Linux, but a market in which Windows isn't the dominating force. Really now, would you all complain if it were 60% Apple 35% Linux, 5% Windows? Our goal should be getting rid of Windows and MSFT FIRST and worry about where we are afterwords.

Wow, go go zealotry. Dropping Microsoft's marketshare to something in the ballpark of 60% or 70% would probably be a good thing. 5%? No

Why would microsoft falling to a 5% market share be a bad thing? Imagine a world without windows viruses. plus there would be room in the market for new innovators.

I'd like to see a world where about 9 different operating systems each held 10% market share, with the last 10% spread out among lots of fringe players. (and Ideally most of these operating systems would run on multiple hardware platforms).

imagine the absolute need for network/web interoperability! you could truly use any platform you wanted with no limitations in applications! companies would automatically provide their software on multiple platforms because they would have to.

[Toth]

Why would microsoft falling to a 5% market share be a bad thing? Imagine a world without windows viruses. plus there would be room in the market for new innovators.

Competition is good, Microsoft doesn't have to drop to a 5% market share for that to happen. A world without windows viruses? Yep, they'd be replaced with Linux or OSX viruses. I will not deny that the viruses would be less effective, but I guarentee that the most dominant OS will likely always have viruses written for it.

[Mystilleef]

On the same system? Remember we're comparing OSX and Linux here, not OSX on the iMac with Linux on a PC.

Who said so?

You mustn't be serious.

Check the title of this thread. OSX v. Linux. Not Linux/x86 v. OSX/PPC. It's like me claiming that Windows XP Pro on a P4 3.2Ghz machine is much faster and more stable than Linux on a 486 SX 25Mhz Packard Bell from the early-mid 90's, therefore Windows XP Pro must be faster and more stable than Linux.

Don't be silly. More often than not anyone running linux will be doing it on x86 machine and anyone running OSX wouldn't doing it on any other architecture both an Apple compatible PPC machine. Bringing architectures into this issue is unnecessary and a moot point. When Mr Jobs claimed the G5's where the fastest home computer on earth, didn't he pit them against the x86 arch?

You say claim the discussion isn't about Linux/x86 vs OSX/PPC. But you and I well know that OSX only runs on PPC so by default when I say OSX I already imply OSX/PPC. I haven't heard of many people purchasing an Apple PC to run Linux, primarily on it. As far as I'm concerned raising the issue is just circumventing facts presented.

When you are comparing two things, you want to compare *only* those two things with no other differences (when/if possible). This is possible in the case of OSX/Linux.

Again, a rubbished argument. When I compare my OSX which only runs on a PPC, I'm comparing it againts Windows/Linux which run on their native architecture, x86 being the most popular. What happens when I want to compare Windows against OSX? Do you expect me to install Windows on the PPC? Or would assume my comparison of Window against OSX would be one in which I run Window on IA64 arch? Again, let's put an end to these excuses based on architecture differences and focus what gets in the job done and well in reality, not theoretic scenarios.

You do have a valid point. I was just sensing a little double standards earlier on. Mac OS X is designed, tested and deployed to work on Mac Hardware. You shouldn't expect the same for Linux. Just as you wouldn't expect me to install Jaguar on my intel PC, I don't think you should expect me to install Linux on my Mac PC. Moreso, you shouldn't expect me to do that to test the stability of a Mac product. Let's examine a scenario;

Double standards? Linux has been ported to how many architectures now? It'll run on a 386 intel PC, a zSeries IBM Mainframe and everything inbetween. Are you going to tell me that YellowDog Linux is not "designed, tested, and deployed" to work on Mac Hardware? What about GentooPPC?

Yes, I know. But what obligation I'm I under to run Linux on a PPC. As far as I'm concerned Linux has a better support on x86 than any other architecture you mentioned. Linux' first incarnation was on the x86. After which it was ported to other archs. But that's besides the point. Based on your flawed logic, I'd need to install Windows on a PPC to make comparisons against OSX.

And why shouldn't we expect you to install Linux on your Mac to judge the differences in how they handle load? If you install Linux on it and it runs flawlessly under high load then you might be able to back up your statement. Until then your argument holds no water. And even then, maybe you fscked up your OSX install, who knows. I've heard the same rhetoric from people claiming Windows XP and Linux to be unstable and it's usually due to a hardware problem or they b0rked the system some how.

I didn't know when I purchased my iMac, Apple had set aside some space on the hard disk for a Linux installation and testing. Get real. Apart from the fact that I don't want to risk installing Linux on the PPC, I don't have the time, money or resources to do so. If you are going to poopoo my first hand experience because I'm not going to install Linux on my iMac, then truly yours holds not water at all.

Me: Sir, I have a problem with my Apple product. Jaguar crashes every once in a while, sometimes when I do resource intensive tasks. On other occassions when I do nothing.

Support and service: Hmmm...interesting. That shouldn't happen. Try installing Linux on it and see if you have the same issues.

Does the above illustration make any sense? No. Me: Sir, I have a problem with my Dell product. Windows XP crashes every once in a while, sometimes when I do resource intensive tasks. On other occassions when I do nothing.

Support and service: Hmmm...interesting. That shouldn't happen. Try installing Linux on it and see if you have the same issues.

Does the above illustration make any sense? No.

We're not asking you to install Linux on your Mac for troubleshooting purposes so you can determine if your hardware is to blame. The point is that you shouldn't compare how Linux runs under load on an x86 machine to how OSX runs under load on a PPC machine. You should be comparing how both OS's run under load on the same machine. It eliminates all variables but the OS.

Ummmm...hmmmmm. Loads of crap. In the end none of your scientific postulations or theories will replicate my experience with both OSes. It's easy to sit their saying, "did you do B?, "did you do A?" "Have you checked C?" "Because what you are experiencing is just not true." "It can't be." "It's a Mac and Macs are flawless" "You should not have to compare two computers you use" "It's just wrong." "It's not fair." Making excuses for a situation you haven't experienced first hand yourself is futile at best.

I repeat. My iMac can not handle the loads my Linux box can. Who cares if they are different architectures? I don't. Who cares if they don't have exactly the same hardware specifications down to the brand names? I don't. All I see is a Mac box and a Linux box. And for heavy duty stuff, Im much conscious and less religious enough to use Linux.

[zojas]

I agree about the viruses. I'd much rather face linux viruses though where I can protect myself.

here's a wild conjecture: I bet if microsoft's market share fell down to around 50% or so, people would quickly abandon it. the 'herd' would move somewhere else. of course, 'word' documents may be a stumbling block

Competition is good, Microsoft doesn't have to drop to a 5% market share for that to happen. A world without windows viruses? Yep, they'd be replaced with Linux or OSX viruses. I will not deny that the viruses would be less effective, but I guarentee that the most dominant OS will likely always have viruses written for it.

[ebrostig]

What puzzles me when it comes to Apple, is that people who are so anti-ms all of a sudden go completly ga-ga over Mac's. Apple is much worse monopoly than MS is. At least I can run Windows on my choice of PC's. Apple only run on their own hardware.

Apple is not a monopoly. Apple is a hardware company that has done a lot of development on their software package in order to add value to their hardware. If you decide on Apple as a solution for your computing needs, they are selling you the whole package. Saying that Apple is a monopoly because their software does not run on other hardware is like saying that Canon's digital camera division is a monopoly because Nikon's digital cameras will not run Canon's imaging software.

Microsoft is a monopoly. Their product is software that claims to run on a wide variety of hardware. However, their business practice was/is to make it difficult for hardware sellers to offer alternatives to Windows in selling their products. This is what a monopoly does.

And Apple does not???????
Great, could you posy some links to hardware vendors that sell non-apple hardware that can run OSX? No? Doesn't exist? Only Apple? Woow... That's monopoly in my book!

The analagous situation for Apple is they would be telling CompUSA that if CompUSA wanted to sell Apple computers, then they would not be allowed to sell other lines of computers.

Also, people hate MS because it is closed source, How is Apple different?

Personally, I don't hate Microsoft because it is closed software. I hate Microsoft because of their business practices, and because Windows is a bug ridden, security poor piece of crap. Quite honestly, if Windows was a better product, I probably would not have a problem using it.

I voted with my dollars. I have an G4 iMac at home for general use, but on my P3 work laptop and old P3 home desktop I've installed Gentoo.

I personally would never buy something that is a single-source only product. That is like putting all your eggs in one basket.

I also find Apples marketing tactics and sales enforcement somewhat strange. Apple have managed several times in the past to stop hardware vendors from producing Apple clones, even through the legal system. So how it is that you can say that Apple is not using the same tactics as MS, is beyond comprehension.

Just because they are called Apple doesn't mean they can't do no wrong!

Try to use google to find out more about Apple's anti-competitive behaviour.

Erik

[shm]

And Apple does not???????
Great, could you posy some links to hardware vendors that sell non-apple hardware that can run OSX? No? Doesn't exist? Only Apple? Woow... That's monopoly in my book!

Yup, Apple is definatly a monopoly. Remember when they killed Mac clones? My last Mac desktop computer (i own a ibook) was a Mac-clone -- a PowerComputing machine. And it ROCKED. Mac Clones were some of the best machines ever made. However, Apple totally killed them.

[ozonator]

You do have a valid point. I was just sensing a little double standards earlier on. Mac OS X is designed, tested and deployed to work on Mac Hardware. You shouldn't expect the same for Linux. Just as you wouldn't expect me to install Jaguar on my intel PC, I don't think you should expect me to install Linux on my Mac PC. Moreso, you shouldn't expect me to do that to test the stability of a Mac product. Let's examine a scenario;

Me: Sir, I have a problem with my Apple product. Jaguar crashes every once in a while, sometimes when I do resource intensive tasks. On other occassions when I do nothing.

Support and service: Hmmm...interesting. That shouldn't happen. Try installing Linux on it and see if you have the same issues.

Does the above illustration make any sense? No.

Right, of course. But the support and service person might say, "try running the Apple Hardware Test CD that came with the iMac." I used that on an iMac once, to discover that the cause of a user's seemingly random crashes was a bad RAM module.

My girlfriend uses the iMac without any problem. However, I always bring the Linux mentality to iMacs when I use them. I mean running every application but the kitchen sink, absent mindedly, and then all of a sudden I notice a slow down. Sometimes a crash. Yes, you could call me a power user. My girlfriend doesn't exprience such problems cos she has the windows mentality on opening one or two apps at a time. That's why I came to the conclusion that Macs weren't designed for heavly load as Linux is. If it was hardware related, I'd expect my girlfriend to experience the same issues.

Yes, you're right. My only hesitation in agreeing completely would be that OpenBSD box that I described -- everything worked perfectly, except compiling a kernel, which caused a crash. I spent more than a few hours trying to debug the problem on the software side before I realized that it could be hardware, and that a hardware problem can be slight or elusive enough that it only appears when the system is under load. (I also had a similar problem running Linux on an older Dell -- seemingly random crashes, which I ultimately determined was caused by something failing on the motherboard.) I'm not saying there's certainly a hardware problem with your iMac -- it might very well be that something about that machine's particular combination of firmware, PRAM, kernel, and hardware causes the machine to choke under load. I just that I wouldn't rule it out until it's thoroughly checked, which might not be worth taking the time to do if it's stable enough for her.

Wasn't it last week I'm was backing up some of my movie files to an external hard disk and the iMac *CRASHED*/froze again. Well, I couldn't decipher if that was a hardware related issue or I/O load related. However, from my experience, I've come to the conclusion that Macs aren't designed for heavy load. You'd be a demagogue to convince me otherwise. The OS X series are even much better. You should have used the OS 9 and prior, you'd cringe.

Ahhh, yes, those were the days. I used everything from system 6 to OS 9.2 on a few different machines, from the beginning of the 90s on. System 6-7 were fine, but OS 8-9 on my PowerMac G3 tried my patience. Needless to say, my PowerMac G3 has been running Linux for a few years now (Yellow Dog for a little while, now Debian); it's a remarkably stable machine with Linux, and I don't miss crashing at all. As for my iBook, well, I'm running Gentoo on it just about all the time ($100 for Panther? no thanks). I agree, too, pretty is nice, and it makes people happy to use their machines, but I can do without it. Besides, Fluxbox is pretty, at least the sort of pretty I want on my desktop.

Anyway, I'm no demagogue, so I can't convince you. I don't expect to, either -- we just have had different experiences with the stability of OS X. It may choke for you on your iMac, just like OpenBSD and Linux did on a couple machines of mine; yet, it has worked fine for me on a couple of G4s and my iBook, even under heavy load (a guy I work with puts his G4 through paces like you describe -- lots of things open at once, including huge InDesign files; he once asked me what might be making his machine slow down, and when I went to check, I found a huge number of programs and windows open, and watched that machine thrash with higher swap usage than I ever thought possible, but it still didn't crash). Nevertheless, bad experiences don't inspire confidence; I can relate -- even though I'm sure they're normally fine, I had more than enough trouble with an Abit motherboard once that I'll be staying away from their stuff for a long while!

Finally, the point about avoiding things that have only a single source for hardware is a very good one. Macs have a lot of standard parts, or things that can be replaced with standard parts (drives, PCI cards, etc.), some machines more than others (my beige G3 can use a standard ATX power supply, for example), but it's not all that way: some of the machine will inevitably only be fixable or replaceable by Apple parts. Frankly, this isn't just Macs, and there are varying degrees of this across all architectures -- Dell machines use some non-standard parts, for example. That's why I'm sure a lot of us here prefer to build our own machines only from standardized parts. A related point, one of the biggest advantages of Linux: it will run on lots of different kinds (and generations) of hardware. If my ppc box dies, I can move over to x86 or whatever and run the same programs on the same OS in the same way. Gotta love that.

[Toth]

Mystilleef, here's my point: You have made the claim that OSX cannot handle the load that Linux can. However, you have yet to specify the hardware specs of the Mac that is unusable under load and the PC that runs Linux that is fine under load. The difference in hardware may be why Linux is running fine for you under load and OSX isn't.

Let me clarify a few things:

1) I'm not trying to deny that the Mac does not run well under load. Your particular Mac may not and I'll take your word on that.

2) I'm not saying that you Linux machine cannot handle heavy load. You claim it can and I'll take your word for it.

However, saying that one OS is no good under load and another is without taking hardware specifications into account is absolutely absurd. My Athlon 1.4Ghz/512MB RAM is perfectly usable under load in both Win2k and Linux. My Celeron 300a/128MB RAM machine slows down considerably under load in both Windows 2000 and Linux. Hardware *must* be taken into consideration, you know that.

Ummmm...hmmmmm. Loads of crap. In the end none of your scientific postulations or theories will replicate my experience with both OSes. It's easy to sit their saying, "did you do B?, "did you do A?" "Have you checked C?" "Because what you are experiencing is just not true."

Refer to what I wrote above.

"It can't be." "It's a Mac and Macs are flawless"

When did I ever say that? Hell, I don't even own a Mac.

"You should not have to compare two computers you use" "It's just wrong." "It's not fair."

That's exactly what I'm telling you to do. Yes! Compare the two computers you use! But for God's sake do not make an over generalized statement like "OSX is no good under load" just because OSX is no good under load on your iMac. See the difference?

[SlCKB0Y]

What puzzles me when it comes to Apple, is that people who are so anti-ms all of a sudden go completly ga-ga over Mac's. Apple is much worse monopoly than MS is. At least I can run Windows on my choice of PC's. Apple only run on their own hardware.

Also, people hate MS because it is closed source, How is Apple different? Yes, I know that part of OSX is OSS, but not all. Besides, OSX costs quite a bit, esp when you want to upgrade, MS all over again.

If you are even beginning to compare the trade practices of Apple and Microsoft, then I say you have ABSOLUTELY no idea of what MS has done in the past.

Oh and chosing to link software and hardware does not make a monopoly.

[wilburpan]

And Apple does not???????
Great, could you posy some links to hardware vendors that sell non-apple hardware that can run OSX? No? Doesn't exist? Only Apple? Woow... That's monopoly in my book!

I thought I was clear in my last post, so I'll try to explain again.

The key difference in looking at Apple's and Microsoft's behavior is that Apple has never claimed that OS X can run on anything besides Apple hardware. Apple sells a hardware/software package that is intended to provide a solution to your computer needs. This is not a monopoly. This is a vertically integrated computing solution. Going back to my analogy, if selling a hardware/software package is a monopoly, then by this reasoning any digital camera manufacturer must design the software that runs the digital camera so that you could put it on a different brand of digital camera and still have it run.

There was a time that Apple offered licenses to other hardware vendors to produce Mac clones, and then revoked the license. Personally, I thought this was a bad move in the short run, but fully within Apple's right to do under the law.

As far as the Pizza Mac clone situation, this was in a gray zone as far as legality, since the person making the Pizza Macs was using old Mac motherboards to make them.. Apple does have a right to control who is allowed to do what with the products it manufactures. Again, I thought this was a bad move in the short run, but again it is fully within Apple's right to do under the law.

Suppose that by some act of God I was able to manufacture from scratch a G4/G5 based computer that did not have any Apple designed components that could run OS X perfectly. If Apple either legally challenged my right to make that computer or put pressure on Motorola/IBM to stop supplying me with G4/G5 chips, that would be monopolistic behavior.

[ebrostig]

What puzzles me when it comes to Apple, is that people who are so anti-ms all of a sudden go completly ga-ga over Mac's. Apple is much worse monopoly than MS is. At least I can run Windows on my choice of PC's. Apple only run on their own hardware.

Also, people hate MS because it is closed source, How is Apple different? Yes, I know that part of OSX is OSS, but not all. Besides, OSX costs quite a bit, esp when you want to upgrade, MS all over again.

If you are even beginning to compare the trade practices of Apple and Microsoft, then I say you have ABSOLUTELY no idea of what MS has done in the past.

Oh and chosing to link software and hardware does not make a monopoly.

No?

Please explain.

I have seen many situations where a company that controls all the parts in a product and not allowing anyone else into their niche has been considered a monopoly by the courts.

Erik

[Shan]

Apple may be considered a monopoly, but its still nowhere near at the level of MS, and I'm not just talking in numbers of users. I mean how MSFT pressured computer manufacturers like Dell and HP into bundeling Windows with their machines, and not allowing them to offer machines with other (or no) OS installed. Its only now that HP has started to break free and offer desktop machines with Linux on them (Mandrake, and online only). When compared to Microsoft, Apple is the underdog, so most people put on blinders and choose to ignore Apples own transgressions.

[zhenlin]

What puzzles me when it comes to Apple, is that people who are so anti-ms all of a sudden go completly ga-ga over Mac's. Apple is much worse monopoly than MS is. At least I can run Windows on my choice of PC's. Apple only run on their own hardware.

Also, people hate MS because it is closed source, How is Apple different? Yes, I know that part of OSX is OSS, but not all. Besides, OSX costs quite a bit, esp when you want to upgrade, MS all over again.

If you are even beginning to compare the trade practices of Apple and Microsoft, then I say you have ABSOLUTELY no idea of what MS has done in the past.

Oh and chosing to link software and hardware does not make a monopoly.

No?

Please explain.

I have seen many situations where a company that controls all the parts in a product and not allowing anyone else into their niche has been considered a monopoly by the courts.

Erik

It's called an 'integrated product'. As for not allowing anyone else into the little niche of Macs - I believe the insane US trade-secret, patent and copyright laws are at fault here.

With Microsoft, they clearly don't control all the hardware - but they still force their software onto them.