×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon vs. Mac OS X Leopard

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the who-is-king-of-the-jungle dept.

OS X 669

walterbyrd writes "Linux magazine has up a decent article comparing Gutsy Gibbon to Leopard. 'The stereotype for each OS is well known: Mac OS X is elegant, easy-to-use, and intuitive, while Ubuntu is stable, secure, and getting better all the time. Both have come a long way in a short time, and both make excellent desktops. So we have two great desktop operating systems out at roughly the same time. Let's see how they stack up against each other.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

669 comments

hairy hardon vs eating shit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21690632)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

One is for faggots and the other... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21690652)

is for even bigger faggots

Oh god (5, Funny)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690662)

I think I just had a geekgasm from just reading the title.

Re:Oh god (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691060)

"...and getting better all the time?" Just a little positive spin there. Most people don't describe an OS as getting better all the time but rather "crappy now...and nowhere to go but up"

Re:Oh god (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691134)

Personally, I would like to use Linux, but find myself unable to. I am *very* good looking, so much so that random girls ask for my phone number on the train into work with disturbing frequency (I'm not joking). I have had many girlfriends, many flings, have a large circle of friends, my social skills are at least adequate...so I would feel uncomfortable using Linux.

Despite being very straight, I don't find the fact that many Mac users are gay to be a problem; using an operating system that is used by people in a similar position in the social pecking order is much more important to me then their sexuality. More important than functionality? Hell no, but they are so close that its the little things that matter.

My Macbook (4, Insightful)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690676)

I dual boot Mac OS and Ubuntu now and I have to say I found it far easier to install than previous linux distributions I've tried. That being said, it took me hours of work just getting it up to what I would consider basic functionality.

Re:My Macbook (3, Interesting)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690916)

I got a new laptop a couple of days ago, so I thought I'd try Ubuntu. Once I got the live CD to actually boot (which required some digging on the 'net and fiddling to change the driver loading order) X wouldn't start. At that point I gave up and installed Debian Etch, which worked first time.

Re:My Macbook (2, Informative)

kneppercr (947840) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691350)

I had the same problem, and what you might want to try (if you're not too invested in Etch at this point) is checking what X thinks your video pci channel is. There are several cases where the port is automisconfigured as either one lower or higher than what you really want. This is especially comman with SLI cards where in theory both channels -DO- lead to a video card but only one is going to interpret the data.

You can use the LSPCI command to check to see where the video data should be going, and you can use

Sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg-plow

to change your settings, and then

Sudo /etc/init.d/gdm restart

to restart the interface.

Hope that works for you!

Re:My Macbook (1)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691372)

OTOH, I got a laptop, installed gutsy alpha 5 (Feisty wouldn't work w/o a weird hack), but when I started experimenting with Debian, I tried Debian testing (newer version more likely to have drivers), and it wouldn't work with the ethernet card (one of the problems with Feisty; I didn't end up installing it, but I think it would probably have had the same problems though). So I guess it's a case-by-case thing.

Re:My Macbook (2, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691402)

Funny, I had the exact opposite experience because edgy wouldn't recognize my hardware but the newer installer in gutsy would. By the way, if it's the graphical installer giving you trouble you can install it using the alternate CD and a very debian-like text installer (which also offers more advanced options not possible in the GUI install). I guess you're just one of the few unlucky ones it doesn't work for, but for the great majority it's much friendlier. Of course if you wanted real friendly, you'd buy one with Ubuntu preinstalled.

Re:My Macbook (4, Interesting)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691068)

Off and on for about 10 years I have tried various Linux distros (Red Hat, Mandrake, and now Ubuntu). In the past I always ended up going back to Windows because I was not able to handle all the issues I ran into. I tried, usually for weeks/months but in the end became so frustrated I gave up. Feisty and Gutsy have been the first Linux distros that I had virtually no problems with. I have no thoughts of getting rid of Ubuntu. I Dual Boot, XP/Gutsy mainly for games and my wife's college requires office 2003 or newer. I much prefer Gutsy to XP.

Re:My Macbook (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691466)

The deal-breaker for me is always wireless support. I know that I could (and should) go out and buy a Ubuntu-supported card, but eh...

Prior to that, it was setting up the Nvidia driver to make Gnome/KDE anywhere near usable, but I think that was resolved the last time I played with it.

Re:My Macbook (3, Insightful)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691158)

That is interesting. I used to read those posts that talked about difficulties of installing XP, finding drivers, etc. It had been several months since I last installed it, and my memory had faded. Two days ago I installed XP because I was tired of the hit-and-miss nature of Wine for Starcraft, Civ4, SimCity 4, etc. Updates took quite some time, and they never seemed to end. I would restart, just to have more updates that needed installing. I now have most of the drivers, but Device Manager is being very vague about a few minor pieces. And most major third-party software needs to be installed from discs that are a pain to keep up with. I can't do anything outside of the admin account. I use the dvorak keyboard layout, but the Welcome screen is in QWERTY and I can't find any information about how to change it.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, recognized most of my hardware (including WiFi, Ethernet, screen resolution). I know where I can ask for help in virtually any issue (including making dvorak the universal default). All updates are downloaded in a single round. Most software is available in the repositories. Anything that needs admin permissions can be run without logging out. Their are only two things about it superior to ubuntu: Games work a little better-because they were written for it-and System Beep worked before I installed sound drivers, whereas my slightly newer sound card needed a backported kernel module to be installed to work in Ubuntu.

Re:My Macbook (1)

Whitemage12380 (979267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691166)

I've found that it took a lot more work getting Ubuntu running well on a macbook (with wireless, etc) than it did on other computers I own (and I install Ubuntu on every computer I own).

Re:My Macbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691194)

Without saying what you mean by "basic functionality", your comment isn't very informative. By comparison, in the 90s I could get Slackware, a distribution not known for being newbie-friendly, up in less than an hour, the only difficulty being configuring X and partitioning. And of course, Linux has come an incredibly long way since then, not to mention the fact that CD-ROM speeds mean installing is physically faster. So I think your idea of "basic functionality" and mine differ somewhat.

"both UNIX based" (-1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690694)

Ok, look, calling Linux "UNIX-based" is a stretch.. in fact, I think it has been proved in a court of law that it isn't based on UNIX.

Calling Mac OS-X "UNIX-based" is just freakin' absurd!

The ability to run the GNU toolset on an operating system does not make it "UNIX-based". By that logic Windows is "UNIX-based".

Re:"both UNIX based" (5, Informative)

Ai Olor-Wile (997427) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690754)

Er... it comes from NeXTSTEP. NeXTSTEP is the Mach microkernel overlain onto BSD. Surely you realise that BSD constitutes UNIX? You may want to do some more research on that particular topic.

Admittedly, though, no, Linux is a clone of a clone of UNIX, and shame on them for it.

Re:"both UNIX based" (5, Informative)

moo083 (716213) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690820)

Moreover, not only is Mac OS X Leopard UNIX based, it IS UNIX. Its got the certification and everything.

Re:"both UNIX based" (4, Informative)

Wm_K (761378) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690800)

"Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. Since Leopard can compile and run all your existing UNIX code, you can deploy it in environments that demand full conformance -- complete with hooks to maintain compatibility with existing software."

Re:"both UNIX based" (3, Informative)

Dak RIT (556128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690808)

Wow, how many times does this need to be said before people stop claiming OS X isn't UNIX or UNIX-based? Leopard is a certified UNIX 03 product [opengroup.org] .

Re:"both UNIX based" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691470)

Ackermann(10^100, 10^100) times is how many. BTW, isn't OS X based not on Unix but on the NeXT operating system ?

Re:"both UNIX based" (5, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690876)

For linux, technically speaking, you are right, it isn't derived from any code that can be called 'Unix' and carries none of the certifications, and probably wouldn't pass the certifications as is. Pratically speaking, the linux kernel+GNU userspace is clearly Unix inspired and architected such that a Unix user is certainly familiar with the situation. GNU particularly makes clear the distinction (GNU's not Unix after all). Unix-inspired may be a more precise term.

OSX is to an extent the exact opposite. Technically speaking, it derives from BSD code (actual Unix code). Technically speaking, it implements the appropriate APIs and can run a program that runs on Unix. I want to say even before X11, Apple legitimately got the Unix moniker to describe their platform, but I recall there being confusing around this point. The addition of X11 out of the box makes it more complete, and less of a technicality. However, the fact of the matter is the extensive use of a non-X based graphical architecture and the almost universal situation is that NeXT derived APIs are used and required, and the underlying pieces that are true to a Unix heritage are nearly moot. A user accustomed to Unix will find OSX fundamentally different.

Technically speaking, OSX has a valid claim to being Unix, but could be accused of not necessarily being true to the 'spirit' of Unix. Linux is absolutely not a Unix, but on the other hand, people can certainly fairly claim Linux to being true to the spirit of Unix.

Re:"both UNIX based" (2, Interesting)

Myopic (18616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690934)

Interesting take on things. When someone says "UNIX" to me that means one of two things: most likely, the old original AT&T UNIX, and its progeny; if not, then BSD, which is so old, old school, and original gangsta that it counts as UNIX proper.

Linux is not UNIX. Linux is UNIX-like. Linux is modeled after UNIX, and could be said to be "based on UNIX" if by "based on" you mean "intended to function similarly", but not, of course, "based on" the code from either AT&T UNIX or from BSD.

Mac, however, *is* UNIX, seeing as how BSD counts as UNIX (to me). I'm not clear on how you deny that. You can boot straight into a standard BSD command line, or access one any time. Most importantly, it meets both definitions of "based on UNIX": it works like UNIX and was also developed from the same code.

Windows meets neither of the definitions for based on. It's not UNIX.

That's why there are standards for these things... (5, Informative)

david.emery (127135) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691416)

About 20-25 years ago, there were massive debates about what was and was not "Unix". The means chosen to settle this (since it wasn't quite clear who to invite to the duel :-) was to develop a set of standards that would capture 'Unix' -to ensure application portability-. To avoid the trademark wars of that generation, the name chosen was POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface based on uniX) After much work, a bunch of standards were produced, including one covering the API, another covering common shell and utilities, RT unix, PThreads, etc, etc. (In this era of success for the Open Source movement, it's worth nothing that the concentration back then was on source code portability. It's hard for me to imagine the growth of the OSS movement without having this standard source code API to build much of that work on...)

The other thing that came out of this effort is a means to verify conformance. Note that word, "conformance". This is the term used in the standard, and if you want to talk about whether some operating system meets the standard, it's the word you should use, too. When you hear someone say 'compliant', you should ask them if they mean "conformance, as defined in the standard, or just some term made up by the marketing staff to confuse the buyer/user." An informed technical person will know the difference.

Conformance is rigorously defined in the standards, but I can informally summarize it this way:
-- Conforming Application uses only facilities within the standard.
-- A Conforming Implementation implements the whole standard (no subsets, unless allowed by the standard!).

From the POSIX effort and X/Open merged activities, there's a "Single Unix Specification", which is a proper superset of the POSIX standards and includes facilities not formally standardized by ISO. The Open Group (http://www.opengroup.org) both maintains the SUS and conducts a certification program against the specification.

It is good to see Apple go through this and pass (apparently Apple tried earlier and hit a roadblock/inconsistency.)

So when someone -now- says "Unix" they should mean a conforming implementation of the Open Group's Single Unix Standard. That includes POSIX conformance. And it should mean that the vendor has the certificate to prove it.

Now what about Linux? Last I heard, there were still inconsistencies between Linux and the SUS, so LINUX won't pass the POSIX part of SUS, and therefore isn't legally "Unix", nor is it a POSIX Conforming Implementation. My understanding these differences aren't trivial, but are in corners that the average user won't bump into. But the differences in the API specifications does have a significant impact on the implementation (kernel), and that's why the Linux community has stuck to its incompatibility with the POSIX standard.

dave (worked on POSIX standards from 88-94, primarily the Ada binding...)

factual errors. (4, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690698)

both UNIX- based

OS X Leopard *is* certified Unix (r). Ubuntu (and Linux) is not based on original AT&T Unix code nor is it certified Unix. It is a unix-like kernel.

Wrong, Ubuntu is certified (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21690744)

it's a certified piece of shit

I'll take OS X any day of the week, thank you very much

If uptime, stability, and robust applications are important to you, so will you!

Re:factual errors. (3, Interesting)

JonJ (907502) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690824)

So, being based on UNIX ideas, wouldn't that constitute as being based on UNIX? In fact, several certified unices doesn't share any original AT&T code at all. And FreeBSD, which is based on one of the original unices, is NOT certified UNIX. I don't think having the same code as original UNIX should be a criteria for being UNIX-based.

Re:factual errors. (3, Insightful)

ickoonite (639305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690996)

So, being based on UNIX ideas, wouldn't that constitute as being based on UNIX?

Absolutely not! Were you asleep for the whole SCO lawsuit thing?

:|

I disagree... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691000)

Though I think being 'UNIX-based' literally is overrated, you can't claim to be based on something that you didn't actually build upon. Just because a window manager theme looks like Windows XP, doesn't mean it's 'Windows-based'. You can say UNIX-like, or Unix-inspired, but Unix-based is totally inaccurate.

Re:factual errors. (1)

FreeBSD evangelist (873412) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691318)

We're not talking "based on". We're saying Apple went through the hoops of the certification, paid their license money to The Open Group and is therefore "Real Unix". Posix 1003.1 compliant and all that. You can have a real unix, and use the trademark logos and all that if you write one in your mom's basement. It doesn't matter where your code base is from, it matters that you pass the tests.

By the way, FreeBSD did get certified once (in the mists of time--2.1?) but decided the effort to pass the certification tests and the expense of the license weren't worth it.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html [apple.com]
http://www.opengroup.org/testing/testsuites/unix.html [opengroup.org]

Re:factual errors. (1)

PaulK (85154) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690838)

Wouldn't know,it's been slashdotted. Care to post the Cliff Notes version?

Re:factual errors. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21690944)

Comparing yet another disto of Linux to MacOS is like comparing a blow up doll to a real woman.

More importantly is how they are vs Vista (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691002)

Is there any real need for Leopard vs Ubuntu debating unless it includes a Vista comparison too? Untimately what matters is what this means for breaking the Windows Monopoly in the long term.

Re:More importantly is how they are vs Vista (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691148)

You know, if we'd been buying Apples crap all this time instead of PCs, Linux never would have had a chance. Apple are much more ruthless about locking down their hardware and software than Microsoft ever were.

Windows has a monopoly on a software method of jury rigging a bunch of hardware from different manufacturers into something resembling a modern computer. Apple turns the computer into something more resembling a television.

Apple aren't better than Windows when it comes to freedom and monopoly. Far from it, MS has always been the lesser evil, that's why they succeeded in the marketplace. Apple is a bullet dodged that is currently ricocheting back.

Re:factual errors. (1)

lcapitulino (894287) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691292)

Bah. The only fucking thing that you have to do to be UNIX (tm) is to run a broken test-suite and get a certificate.

It just means you have implemented a number of functions the way you were supposed to. It doesn't mean your operating system is relevant or important to the market or to the computing field in general.

Linux *is* one of the most important operating systems being developed today because:

1. It adopts early technologies even in draft-phase
2. It's helping to extend POSIX
3. Its fast development model is bringing solutions for problems that bleeding-edge hardware introduces

  So, that 'it's not UNIX' doesn't mean anything.

Here's a video version of the article (5, Funny)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690712)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sshbHTDSwCk [youtube.com]

Gutsy indeed! ;)

Re:Here's a video version of the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21690852)

Hi-larious! Go, gibbon, go!

Re:Here's a video version of the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691250)

Yes, but this is against Tiger, which is the previous version. You need to take into account that a Leopard is supposedly more reactive, and can even go back in time in case of mistakes.

From TFA (0, Redundant)

NiteShaed (315799) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690716)

Today we have a technological cage match involving two operating systems, both UNIX- based

Well, that's one way of putting it. Then again, perhaps "One is UNIX, the other is like UNIX" would have been more accurate.....

Re:From TFA (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690978)

I'm not following you. Which one "is" UNIX? The one developed from original BSD code (I count BSD as "is" UNIX), or the one that was re-implemented using similar paradigms? I think each one "is" UNIX, and if you insisted on comparing them, Mac would be slightly more UNIX than Linux (because it actually runs BSD underneath) but only slightly.

Re:From TFA (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691176)

Obligatory car analogy

I'm not following you. Which one "is" Ford? The one developed from original Model-T company (I count Escorts and Tauruses as "is" Ford), or the one (GM/Honda/Toyota/et al) that was re-implemented using similar paradigms? I think each one "is" Ford, and if you insisted on comparing them, Escorts would be slightly more Ford than Honda (because it actually runs a Ford engine underneath) but only slightly.

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691390)

Well done. That is indeed an excellent example of a terrible analogy.

MODS CANT TELL TIME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691398)

Just because it's further down the page dosn't make it redundant - this post was here before some of the +5 insightful posts above that say the same thing. They're the ones that are redundant!

Oh is that so? (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690732)

The stereotype for each OS is well known: Mac OS X is elegant, easy-to-use, and intuitive, while Ubuntu is stable, secure, and getting better all the time.

Well, I'd say that Ubuntu is elegant, easy-to-use and intuitve, while Mac OS X is stable, secure and getting better all the time.

I don't want to troll... But both visions are true....

Re:Oh is that so? (1, Informative)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691030)

I don't know about that. While I would consider Mac OS acceptably stable for my day-to-day work, I would never say that "stability" was one of its prime advantages. My Mac is generally acceptable, but I've have several crashes and other stability issues with both 10.3 and 10.4 (they might have fixed things with 10.5, but I've heard some horror stories). By contrast, I don't seem to ever have any issues with my XP machine.

Re:Oh is that so? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691262)

Realistically speaking, about 99% of all stability problems (regardless of OS) are caused by defective hardware. Anyone who says differently is probably selling something.

Re:Oh is that so? (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691212)

OSX is fine in many ways, but stability is not really a strong point. It is far too easy to bring down an important component (like the finder) and have to reboot, and many basic applications are rather flaky as well.

Surreal Suppositions? (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690750)

This is getting a bit weird. I'm all for Linux, but c'mon.... What in Linux "just works" like the Unified Mac Experience?

I'd rather see all-out WINE/Cedega funding to take *doze binaries and make them run better in Linux so I don't have to buy a version of XP or 2K to run CAD apps I want to buy in the next 3 months. (yep, I'll buy a 2nd hard disk and keep the main for any necessary warranty problems, but I'll clone it, suck it into Virtual Box or Win4Lin, and corral the bitch and never let it run native on MY hardware... I've had 8 computers at once back around 2001, and only ONE had windows 98 running natively for SOF/CS/HL/Apache Longbow, and after those got the boot, no more *doze booting)

Macs are HELLA nice, but short of winning one, I won't be paying for one.

Yeh, I know I could buy a Mac and use parallels, but I prefer hardware I can interchange or mess with inside, and even if a laptop, I can only afford maybe a $499 laptop or a bit more to get a CAD-friendly graphics card.

Re:Surreal Suppositions? (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690928)

What in Linux "just works" like the Unified Mac Experience?

kio-slaves. If the mac had these, I'd use my mac a lot more.

Re:Surreal Suppositions? (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690960)

Once KDE4 is released and the Mac ports are finished, then you will have them :)

Re:Surreal Suppositions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21690990)

Shrug. I have mac hardware. It is used to run linux and linux only.

Re:Surreal Suppositions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691472)

what does your computer have to do with dressing your slaves up in leather and fisting them?

Re:Surreal Suppositions? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691006)

Unified Mac Experience

Please kill yourself, you slobbering fucking faggot.

Re:Surreal Suppositions? (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691258)

yaoowww... ad homonim? (sic)

Forget to take your pills this morning?

Mac's experience (compared to Linux and windoze) IS, admittedly, vastly more "unified" because Apple controls the hardware, has a smaller market, and most of its users are probably artists, accountants, writers, etc, and enjoy greater plug-n-play reality and kisk-ass (arty-looking) peripherals.

Linux has the short end of the stick but (admirably, and aggressively) is working wide a vast array of hardware, often better than "for windows" hardware. But, we're hampered by legal risks and by the risk that msoft will litigate to death anyone who threatens to exceed its ability to retain important (or numerous) core users.

As for windows, as you probably know, also, users are besieged with a lot of crapware, malware, and vaporware. I've bought and return junkware that Fry's will SELL but not VET for worthiness of access to Fry's shelves.

If what I said makes you feel so miserable, Mr./Mrs./Ms. AC, then rather than implore me to commit suicide, why don't you get some Medicated Tiger Balm, take a walking meditation, or hike in some clouds and listen to birds caw?

Re:Surreal Suppositions? (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691224)

What in Linux "just works" like the Unified Mac Experience?

I don't believe in the Unified Mac Experience (except for connecting to video projectors), but installing software from a Linux distribution package repository is far better.

Re:Surreal Suppositions? (4, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691478)

What in Linux "just works" like the Unified Mac Experience?
That is a good point.

Mac runs on Mac hardware. Hardly what I would call a fair test to what Linux has to stand up against.

Although Macs have switched to Intel processors I bet OS X wouldn't be as easy to install on all the PC configurations that Ubuntu has to deal with which I think is a point that most people miss out on.

Even if you were comparing Gutsy to Windows, even XP doesn't have driver support for my old web cam and TV tuner card which is really out of date. Gutsy does it out of the box because the support for the third party hardware is kept there, which keeps me from having to buy new hardware just to get back what I already had after an upgrade.

Mirror: Any one got one? (0, Redundant)

moo083 (716213) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690770)

I can't connect to the site.

Re:Mirror: Any one got one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21690942)

The site was written in Linux, thats why it doesn't work! if they'd had have made it with Apache on OS X Leoperd then it would work flawlessly.

Comparison results (5, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690776)

The Ubuntu OS exceeds the Mac OS in Gibboniness, whereas Apple seems to have cornered the market on Leopardiness. The overall Toucaniness and Salamanderiness of the offerings is about the same.

Re:Comparison results (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690884)

Keep in mind, a gibbon is a small, smelly ape that hates soap, loves flinging shit, doritos, and mountain dew.

Re:Comparison results (1)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691010)

The overall Toucaniness and Salamanderiness of the offerings is about the same.

That tie will be broken when the Sassy Salamander and Touchy Toucan Ubuntu releases become available in about 6 years.

Linux Mag? (1, Flamebait)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690790)

I don't think they would ever do it, but I'd like to see the same article in a Mac mag. I have a feeling they wouldn't be reviewed as equals, personal opinions aside.

Re:Linux Mag? (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690872)

They would not do it because that would imply that they're close enough to compare. That's what I find impressive, that Gutsy & Leopard are both strong enough to ask that question. I know I'm showing my bias here, but I find it absurd that all you're paying for is the GUI interface. You can download darwin [macosforge.org] , which is the kernel for mac. And before someone says it, I know that to some users, the GUI part is all that there is.

Oooh, I'm all a-tingle (1, Insightful)

oldmanmtn (33675) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690818)

A Linux magazine comparing Linux to the Mac. Gee, I wonder what they're going to conclude....

Re:Oooh, I'm all a-tingle (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691474)

More than likely, the truth. Lately Linux has been big on exposing, and then fixing, it's faults. You see, the problem with geeks is that when we fix a bug with an ugly hack, we forget about it. An honest assessment is often welcomed, and rapidly followed by a better fix.

For example, look at the ESR rant about cups. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html [catb.org] Part 2 goes on to say how cups developers contacted him as well. And have you seen cups lately? It got better. So, I think the article will point out some significant faults. And I bet you won't find many of them next year...

The real fun part will be looking at this article in a year and see how many Linux faults got fixed, and how many Mac faults are still there.

Comparing apples to ... (4, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690822)

Isn't this like comparing apples to apes? :P No, seriously, the blurb was too stupid for me to bother reading anything more. Someone was really just digging for three-part stereotypes for the two OSes.

Re:Comparing apples to ... (1)

hotfireball (948064) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690914)

Isn't this like comparing apples to apes?
No, not really. It is like comparing apples to penguins... ;-)

OSX vs. Ubuntu (1, Funny)

XB-70 (812342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690912)

Friend's wife has a new Dell laptop w/ 1Gig RAM, dual processor etc. etc. Windoze has bogged to a halt with malware etc. so I went to install a better operating system. I thought to myself: Newbie needs = simple, intuitive OS = OSX. Strangely, OSX would not install. Ubuntu was up, running and configured in 45 mins.

There you have it: validated, quantitative and qualitative proof that OSX does not work.

Re:OSX vs. Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691082)

Windoze has bogged to a halt with malware etc.
So the user load a bunch of crap onto the system and blame the operating system for the operator's fault?

$ ./installCrap
You must be root to install your new shiny icons

$ sudo ./installCrap

How do you propose the operating system should defend against this?

Re:OSX vs. Ubuntu (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691442)

Obviously by being so obscure no one bothers to code malware for it! When you start seeing malware, then it's time to move on :P

Re:OSX vs. Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691370)

Some sniping there, but you're right. OSX enjoys a mythical (and not always deserved) reputation for stability and ease of use. They can do this by controlling the entire package from the hardware to the code that runs on it (and a great marketing department helps too). If OSX could be installed on the breadth of systems that Linux can handle you'd have just as many compatibility problems, if not more. I've got two laptops that aren't fully functional with Linux. Card reader doesn't work, wifi only recently kinda-sorta works, and graphics work--but it's still crippled compared to running under Windows (and no fancy compiz-fusion effects for me).

But at least I can get Linux working with basic function (which is always improving), if Apple tried doing that they'd never be able to handle all users they would have to support. Their image would crumble, and APPL stock would plummet. So you're stuck buying overpriced official apple hardware if you want to run their OS, which is actually a very good system--but take the OS off their tightly controlled hardware and see how long it keeps "just working". Look no further than the OSx86 project.

(Posting AC because I know from experience that Apple fans with mod points are the surest way to lose karma, even when your points are valid)

Unlisted advantages? (2, Insightful)

delire (809063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21690962)

The article is slashdotted, so I cannot comment with knowledge here. That said, I do hope the fact that OS\X is artificially tied to a particular hardware platform is considered when comparing. This artificial anchor makes OS\X a particularly risky OS to become dependent upon, married to the economic ambitions of a hardware business now dependent on near identical components as so-called 'PC's' (Asustek, Quanta make around 70% of the worlds portables, including Apple's). Similarly the need to go to websites to find, install and upgrade software is also a great disadvantage for Apple's platform: Fink/Macports have fairly measley offerings compared to most desktop Linux distributions and both still suffer from the kinds of dependency problems plaguing Linux users 10 years ago (at least that is my experience on Tiger). It's 2007: where's my one-click-system upgrade?

While I use OS\X fairly often, these two factors - along with the inflexible bolt-on windowing environment - rule out OS\X as a good general purpose operating system. OS\X is super if you believe you're dependent on proprietary software, but for those that no longer are it offers very little over a modern Linux OS these days.

Risk (4, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691304)

Yep, counting on apple is pretty risky, you never know how long those startup tech companies might last.

Re:Unlisted advantages? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691430)

That said, I do hope the fact that OS\X is artificially tied to a particular hardware platform is considered when comparing.
Why? There is no comparison to be made. It has no material impact on the features, design, or operation of the OS and it doesn't do anything but incite an open-vs-closed flamewar that no one cares about. It's not going to convince people who aren't developers that Linux is "better" and it's not going to change the mind of any developer's view on the subject. It's worthless ephemera, and I hope it's not discussed at length.

This artificial anchor makes OS\X a particularly risky OS to become dependent upon
As opposed to bearing the risk of capricious, fractious, and/or tyrannical open source developers? I'd place my marbles on Apple or Microsoft for reliability. Open source projects go off the radar or just shut down all the time, with no real notice. Neither Apple nor Microsoft are going to disappear overnight, and no OS is just going to stop working and leave you with nothing (well, maybe Windows). No one can tell the future. Ubuntu is no more or less risky to depend on for the future.

Asustek, Quanta make around 70% of the worlds portables, including Apple's
This was true even in the PowerPC days. What's your point?

It's 2007: where's my one-click-system upgrade?
So you're saying that ports are limited in selection and not as streamlined as native package management? That's a shocker. The Fink upgrade process is fairly simple. Apple Software update is quite simple. Versiontracker is about as good as it gets for third party commercial software (but AppFresh isn't bad)--standardizing update information for OS X software through a repository isn't a bad idea, but it's hardly a panacea in Linux land. In a word: dependencies. I'll respond with this: it's 2007; why do I have to muck around with the kernel at all? Why do I have to manually edit configuration files? Why can't I install something like MythTV from a serious of GUI dialog boxes with configuration options? The Linux upgrade and install process leaves a lot more to be desired than updating OS X software, though its central management is the rare advantage.

OS\X is super if you believe you're dependent on proprietary software, but for those that no longer are it offers very little over a modern Linux OS these days.
Amazing how you reach that conclusion without any actual contemplation of the OS itself. Instead, it's just an ad for open source software. Given the backslashes throughout your comment, I'd wager you're (a) not that familiar with OS X [can't even properly name it!], (b) not representative of any segment of the population who would find a design/features/procedure comparison useful, and (c) not someone who even cares about design, usability, or implementation.

Unsurprisingly, ideology trumps reality. Fink and hardware choices are your reasons why an OS isn't a "good general purpose" one. My goodness. If only either of those had anything to do with the OS itself. Let me guess...the Wii software environment is inferior because Wiis are white and get dirty easily.

mod up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691092)

A BSD box 7hat

Fair Comparisons (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691244)

How about we compare a ford pickup truck to a chevy van too?

Both similar, but different enough in intent to not be a truly useful comparison either.

Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21691296)

I'm so sick and tired of these comparisons. I really don't care anymore, whether it's Linux vs OS X, Windows, Solaris, or whatever. It's so annoying and I won't even read TFA.

Once again, we come to the conclusion, that different operating systems do the same things differently! Wow! Yet another person wasted another few days trying out two OS's rather than getting any real work done. So cool!

Hope Linux-mag isn't Gutsy hosted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691302)

...the slashdot effect brought it to it's knees.

Linus is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691326)

I have to agree with Linus on this one.

Gibbon is to own, MacOS is to be owned ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21691384)

Mac's are for elitist snobs and peeps with too much moola.

I not only don't like Mr. Jobs, I also don't care for his neighbors.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...