[Sword of Orion]

I'm interested in the pros and cons of Linux versus Mac OS X. Things like "does Linux support multiprocessor HW as well as OS X?" and "does OS X run Apache as well as Linux?"... You get the idea. Also, if there are any glaring holes in the software available for one platform or the other, for instance - I've never heard if there is DVD authoring SW for Linux, and I'm sure that there's a lot of stuff missing on the Mac side, at least during this transitionary phase. TIA!

I know BSD versions OpenBSD has a very fast networking that I think performs as well or better than OSX. The networking stack for BSD it world-class. Other features are really mixed in performance.

Video depends on the drivers available. Linux seems to have more drivers for older hardware (and i think OSX will never get them without someone doing the porting--which shouldn't be too hard).

Anyhow, performance is really related to the hardware you are running it on. Linux and the other BSDs available for PPCs and older macs really perform better because OSX requires more resources for many of its features. If you have older hardware its likely Linux will be better. On the latest hardware you'll get all the glitz of OSX if you can run it.

Basically, my stance is run the best os your machine is capable of running. If performance is an issue don't overtax your computer trying to run the absolute latest (just run what's appropriate for it) and don't allow the resources to be taxed to the limit just for basic functionality.

[petoria]

I don't use OS X, but do use linux on a clone. One thing I like about Linux is that you get the terminals(or consoles, not sure which is right) assigned to the F-keys. A different user can be logged in in each one. For example I was logged in as root in one, downloading a program to instal, had a simple game running in another, and had mozilla running in one of the GUI's. I know X can use mutiple windows, but so can the GUI terminals on Linux. While most users don't care about this, I think it can be very helpful and keeps work organized IMO. OS X definatly seems a lot more user friendly than Linux though.

[vsurfer]

Originally posted by Sword of Orion:
<STRONG>I'm interested in the pros and cons of Linux versus Mac OS X. Things like "does Linux support multiprocessor HW as well as OS X?" and "does OS X run Apache as well as Linux?"... You get the idea. Also, if there are any glaring holes in the software available for one platform or the other, for instance - I've never heard if there is DVD authoring SW for Linux, and I'm sure that there's a lot of stuff missing on the Mac side, at least during this transitionary phase. TIA!</STRONG>

Why not try them both on the same machine (dual boot) and see for yourself? -- it's a lot of fun! My kids like it too - plus a few new games for them.

packages like SuSE Linux comes with several flavors of Window manager already at your disposal. Multiple desktops -- but haven't really experimented with that to the full. OSX Apache was very easy to configure and serve up a web site up quickly. Linux I haven't tried -- I'd guess a lot less user friendly for a non-expert. (Most folk who mess with Linux seem to have a solid background in *nix TCP/IP, & computer science it seems - so my opinion is more like that of an average Joe)

Personally i found Linux a little tricky to get properly configured and i don't have it all working - but at least I have the essentials - cable modem, printer -- the phone modem I didn't bother with as I never use it anyway.

[Michael A. Peters]

phone modem is easy to-

wvdial works wonders

if you have a supported modem ...

[me]

Linux (as of 2.4) only supports asymmetric multiprocessing, where only one processor (the master) can access the system data structures. This is simpler as it eliminates the need for data sharing, but is also not as efficient.

Mach (Mac OS X's kernel) was designed to support symmetric multiprocessing. Mach uses lightweight processes, in the form of multiple threads of execution within one task (address space).

Basically, Mac OS X has far better multiprocessing support.

I'd also note that while I haven't looked at Mach 3's real time scheduler, the Linux real time scheduler is really lame. (actually the whole linux scheduler is pretty inefficient, though simple)

[mitchell_pgh]

This is almost impossible to answer this question. They both have very positive areas, and very negative areas.

It all depends upon what you need.

I would go OS X if:
- I had to use applications that aren't offered on Linux
- I needed very reliable technical service.
- I was in a creative environment.
- I never wanted to see a command line.
- I hate "closed source monopolies like M$, but need Office to survive
- I need exacting peripheral support (scanners/printers/cameras)

I would go Linux if:
- I want to become a Linux/Unix/Java/SQL/Network programmer.
- I didn't have much, if any money to spend on hardware/software.
- I hated anything and everything "Closed Source"
- I didn't mind opening up my computer case and tinkering around.

Again, I can't stress enough that this isn't a perfect OS world, and the lines are easily blurred.

[Northform]

Originally posted by &lt;bluedog&gt;:
<STRONG>I know BSD versions OpenBSD has a very fast networking that I think performs as well or better than OSX. The networking stack for BSD it world-class. Other features are really mixed in performance.

Video depends on the drivers available. Linux seems to have more drivers for older hardware (and i think OSX will never get them without someone doing the porting--which shouldn't be too hard).

Anyhow, performance is really related to the hardware you are running it on. Linux and the other BSDs available for PPCs and older macs really perform better because OSX requires more resources for many of its features. If you have older hardware its likely Linux will be better. On the latest hardware you'll get all the glitz of OSX if you can run it.

Basically, my stance is run the best os your machine is capable of running. If performance is an issue don't overtax your computer trying to run the absolute latest (just run what's appropriate for it) and don't allow the resources to be taxed to the limit just for basic functionality.</STRONG>

OS X uses the BSD Networking stack and preformance is the same. OS X will be (future tense) faster than linux/BSD on the Mac and currently is in many respects The main speed problem with X is the unoptimization of the interface. Remember that Aqua was created for Developer Release 4 so they haven't had a lot of time to work on it. It has nothing to do with the colors and themes WILL NOT speed up X. Optimizations will. Most low level functions like file copies are very fast in X. Also, Apple is hard at work on compiler optimizations that will benefit both X and linux. Bottom line the Mach kernel is much more efficient than the linux kernel (even patched with the preemptive AND low latency patches) and unlike (ppc) linux companies, Apple has the capital to optimize code. Personally as an opensource OS I put more faith in GNU/Hurd (it is GPL'd, but not currently released). I've found linux app launches to be slower than X on my G3/300 (Yellow Dog w/2.4 kernel).

[mitchell_pgh]

I think it's VERY important for people to know that Apple makes money on hardware more then Software and OS, but their OS/Software sells the hardware...

I think Apple knows that by helping Linux, they are helping themselves...

[utidjian]

Originally posted by me:
<STRONG>Linux (as of 2.4) only supports asymmetric multiprocessing, where only one processor (the master) can access the system data structures. This is simpler as it eliminates the need for data sharing, but is also not as efficient.</STRONG>

I think you are mistaken. The above has NOT been true for at least 4 years! (see: http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Parall...ing-HOWTO.html and http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/SMP-HOWTO.html ) Linux has, as Linux does moved on quite a bit from when that HOWTO was written. Linux supports up to 4-8-...64 CPUs, does OS-X?
I have had SMP support for OS-X on my system for about 1 year.

<STRONG>
Mach (Mac OS X's kernel) was designed to support symmetric multiprocessing. Mach uses lightweight processes, in the form of multiple threads of execution within one task (address space). </STRONG>

So was Linux... and on multiple architectures.

<STRONG>
Basically, Mac OS X has far better multiprocessing support. </STRONG>

I think you should qualify and quantify that somehow. I have done a fairly extensive search and havefound no literature supporting your claim. I ahve also found that in practical use... SMP support on OS-X is still lacking.

<STRONG>
I'd also note that while I haven't looked at Mach 3's real time scheduler, the Linux real time scheduler is really lame. (actually the whole linux scheduler is pretty inefficient, though simple)</STRONG>

"really lame" and "pretty inefficient" are also empty words without qualification... considering you can't compare it to Mach, by your own admission.

If anyone is interested there is a good intro to Linux threads at: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...l?dwzone=linux
It also has many useful links near the bottom of the page.