[neilxu]

I met some Linux users and they don't like Mac. They expect OSX is almost same as OS9 except more beautiful.

I installed X11 and fink, running GIMP, even xlincity. But I still want to know what is Linux can do but OSX can not do? or What is OSX can do but Linux can not do?

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by neilxu:
I met some Linux users and they don't like Mac. They expect OSX is almost same as OS9 except more beautiful.

I installed X11 and fink, running GIMP, even xlincity. But I still want to know what is Linux can do but OSX can not do? or What is OSX can do but Linux can not do?

There is nothing that Linux can do that a Mac cannot, really. There are of course specific tools that require Linux kernel code (MacOnLinux is a cool example), but these are rare. There are also some x86 binary-only Linux apps that don't exist on OSX, but again, these are few.

The Mac of course has lots of apps that don't exist on Linux, which is a draw for many of us.

Thanks to the UNIX underpinnings of OS X, it's truly a peer of Linux now, and it in may ways superior.

[Graymalkin]

I always run across Linux users who differ only marginally in their opinion of Macs from their Windows using cousins. They have a bunch of opinions about Macs that are based on hyperbole about problems that haven't existed since the 6100 was new and exciting. Next time they give you guff ask them if they can run PyMOL, Maya, Avid Xpress Pro, Photoshop, OpenOffice, the GIMP, KStars and Microsoft Office all on the same system without rebooting. Unless they're running WINE the answer is likely a resounding no.

[rantweasel]

Originally posted by neilxu:
I met some Linux users and they don't like Mac. They expect OSX is almost same as OS9 except more beautiful.

I installed X11 and fink, running GIMP, even xlincity. But I still want to know what is Linux can do but OSX can not do? or What is OSX can do but Linux can not do?

What can OS X do that linux can't? Run Photoshop. No, the Gimp is not the same. It's useful and neat, but it's not the same, and it's not a drop in replacement. Run Quark. Run MS Office. Manage an iPod via iTunes. Use the Aqua interface. Use a nice looking interface at all. There are plenty of similar cases of proprietary software or software that nobody has duplicated (due to patents, effort involved, boringness of software, etc) or released for linux. On top of that, OS X is much simpler to operate than Linux. You don't have to know anything about unix to deploy an OS X computer. If you don't know anything about unix and you deploy a linux computer, will will soon (unknowingly) be running a spam relay/ftp warez site/DoS zombie. Plug and play on OS X is hard to top, but that varies widely by the particular kernel & distribution of linux...

What can linux do that OS X can't? Very little. It can be stripped down a lot more, but then you can run Darwin as stripped down as you want. It can run all of these X programs, but then so can OS X with an X server. It can be a mail server/web server/news server/ftp server, but so can OS X, and with the same open source programs (for instance, I run qmail and ucd-snmp on my iBook). Both are easily secured, but OS X comes with a default install that is very secure (no services running out of the box), while lots of linux distributions still insist on starting all sorts of extra crap with silly default configurations out of the box. Linux can run iptables and OS X can't, because OS X has kernel hooks for ipfw instead. So OS X can run ipfw. Most of the things that Linux can do that OS X can't do are kernel related, and with lots of work I'm sure a custom kernel might be built using Darwin source.

Whatever it is that these linux folks think OS X can't do that linux can, they're probably wrong. If they were making claims of linux being better at something, or more efficent, maybe. But there is very little that OS X is incapable of that linux can do, and there is an awful lot that OS X can do that linux doesn't.

mathias

[OreoCookie]

Linux can run on many, many different hardware platform and (as opposed to -- say -- NetBSD) has a lot of support of commercial software vendors for big pro apps (IBM, Oracle, etc.). Linux is `free-er' than OS X. There are some kernel tweaks that make Linux faster in some situations (mostly due to the fact that OS X is based on par with FreeBSD 4.4; current versions are 4.8 (stable) or (just released) 5.1). But this doesn't affect the average user.

Most Unix stuff runs on X, so who cares what's running underneath?

Those Linux guys haven't seen OS X yet (from what you are telling), they don't really know what it is. A friend of mine is a heavy Linux user (uses Linux for at least six years and knows a lot of people in the community) runs OS X and Linux on his iBook.

[CatOne]

Originally posted by neilxu:
I met some Linux users and they don't like Mac. They expect OSX is almost same as OS9 except more beautiful.

I installed X11 and fink, running GIMP, even xlincity. But I still want to know what is Linux can do but OSX can not do? or What is OSX can do but Linux can not do?

There are currently quite a few enterprise apps (Oracle, WebLogic, WebSphere, etc.) which have been ported to and are supported on Linux, but which aren't yet available or supported on OS X. So people who want to run those apps, can go with Linux but not (in a supported way) with OS X.

For consumer or "client" apps (word, excel, powerpoint, photoshop, etc.) more is on OS X. For "back office" stuff, Linux has the upper hand for now. Mainly because OS X is quite new in the enterprise space as compared to Linux (and expecially when you're talking about rack mount servers, etc.).

[bracken]

Originally posted by neilxu:
I met some Linux users and they don't like Mac. They expect OSX is almost same as OS9 except more beautiful.

I haven't met anyone who says they're not a Linux user... Especially 3 inch d*** Wintrolls who try very, very hard to come across as some sort of a guru.

Just say 'Linux' alot, that'll make people F34R you!

Tell your friends that installing Red Hat and using KDE may make you a Linux user but so is my grandma.

I installed X11 and fink, running GIMP, even xlincity. But I still want to know what is Linux can do but OSX can not do? or What is OSX can do but Linux can not do?

Well, let's see... OS X can't look ugly.

Linux can't be up and running as smooth as OS X can in the same amount of time, with the same ease of use, and the same amount of tweaking afterwards. It can't run Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Studio... *yawn*

[bracken]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Linux can run on many, many different hardware platform and (as opposed to -- say -- NetBSD)

I bet that NetBSD is currently supported on at least as many as Linux.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by bracken:
I bet that NetBSD is currently supported on at least as many as Linux.

I know. But it doesn't have the kind of backing in the industry that Linux has.

[bracken]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I know. But it doesn't have the kind of backing in the industry that Linux has.

True, true.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by CatOne:
There are currently quite a few enterprise apps (Oracle, WebLogic, WebSphere, etc.) which have been ported to and are supported on Linux, but which aren't yet available or supported on OS X. So people who want to run those apps, can go with Linux but not (in a supported way) with OS X.

Oracle is actually supported on OS X now.

Oracle 9i for OS X

I will say that WebLogic runs fine on OSX as well (although as you said it's not currently supported). I have run it on there in the past.

Someday we very well may see WebLogic support for OSX, but we'll likely never see WebSphere there, since IBM is putting all their support behind Linux these days. I've never used WebSphere, but I heard it's better than WebLogic in some ways.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
Oracle is actually supported on OS X now.

Oracle 9i for OS X

I will say that WebLogic runs fine on OSX as well (although as you said it's not currently supported). I have run it on there in the past.

Someday we very well may see WebLogic support for OSX, but we'll likely never see WebSphere there, since IBM is putting all their support behind Linux these days. I've never used WebSphere, but I heard it's better than WebLogic in some ways.

AFAIK Oracle supports OS X as a development platform only. If Apple can deliver some more serious hardware than the XServe that is actually suited for databases (error correcting RAM is a must for that as well as a second power supply, SCSI drives for much lower latency, etc.), then OS X will maybe supported from more software vendors.

I mean, for most stuff OS X is excellent. A home user Linux geek won't need a professional Oracle database system (together with suitable hardware).

[gee308]

Linux can't have a non crappy GUI.
That is the biggest difference I can see.

[Cipher13]

Linux can run on cheap, fast hardware.

OSX can not.

[MacGorilla]

linux has some nice filesystems (xfs, reiserfs, etc) and multiple desktops built in.

[gee308]

Originally posted by gee308:
Linux can't have a non crappy GUI.
That is the biggest difference I can see.

I think its part of the unspoken linux rule, make the interface as crappy as possible.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by gee308:
I think its part of the unspoken linux rule, make the interface as crappy as possible.

LOL it seems that way! AfterStep (the NeXT clone) is fairly good, though.

[trusted_content]

Originally posted by gee308:
Linux can't have a non crappy GUI.
That is the biggest difference I can see.

My linux box runs WindowMaker with GNUstep. It's a very consistent (but drab) UI and many of its features remind of my favorite OS. Come to think of it, so do the frameworks

[clarkgoble]

There still are lots of projects at Sourceforge which build under Linux but not OSX. Depending upon whether you need them, this can be significant. Yes there are lots of projects ported to OSX. (And it is fairly easy) But there are lots that haven't been ported.

That's about the only benefit beyond file locale consistency between versions of Unix. (i.e. where system logs and system config files are kept)

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
There still are lots of projects at Sourceforge which build under Linux but not OSX. Depending upon whether you need them, this can be significant. Yes there are lots of projects ported to OSX. (And it is fairly easy) But there are lots that haven't been ported.

That's about the only benefit beyond file locale consistency between versions of Unix. (i.e. where system logs and system config files are kept)

I generally prefer FreeBSD's file layout. IMO it is more cleaned up than Linux. But most stuff is put in similar places. I like that, too.

That's one thing I don't like about OS X, you have to niload everything.

[Sarah31]

well sounds like mac users are trying to be as snooty as linux users. which i think is just week OS X bashing and comparing OSes is just pointless i do alot of stuff in linux and i do alot in OS X.

as for third party software such a adobe products and what ever. well it is great that os x can run it and linux can't but....who cares. 75% of the people don't need it. i don't need dreamweaver some overs tuffed office suite like MS office (which i personally think is one of the poorest office suites on the planet at least on the mac) macromedia flash? ..who the hell cares i think flash is an unsightly cancer. and so forth.

for me alll i care about is being productive in both which i am. i leave bashing to immature/insecure types.

sorry for the flame but threads like this are just lame.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Sarah31:
well sounds like mac users are trying to be as snooty as linux users. which i think is just week OS X bashing and comparing OSes is just pointless i do alot of stuff in linux and i do alot in OS X.

as for third party software such a adobe products and what ever. well it is great that os x can run it and linux can't but....who cares. 75% of the people don't need it. i don't need dreamweaver some overs tuffed office suite like MS office (which i personally think is one of the poorest office suites on the planet at least on the mac) macromedia flash? ..who the hell cares i think flash is an unsightly cancer. and so forth.

for me alll i care about is being productive in both which i am. i leave bashing to immature/insecure types.

sorry for the flame but threads like this are just lame.

It doesn't seem to be a flame thread. Someone asked a question. All replies that I have read are in order. Where is the problem.

There are some things Linux can do better and some that OS X can do better. Most of the people that post here have experience with Linux as well as OS X.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
It doesn't seem to be a flame thread. Someone asked a question. All replies that I have read are in order. Where is the problem.

Because someone always has to come in to any productive thread that compares two entities, whether they be mail clients, ftp clients, operating systems, etc, and take the moral high ground and elevate themselves above the level of the rest of us who apparently still reside in the dark ages. It seems to follow this trend:

When a thread starts that compares two things, you get:

1 - Positive trolls - "A rocks and B sucks"
2 - Negative trolls - "A sucks and B rocks"
3 - People who generally perfer A and state why.
4 - People who generally perfer B and state why.
5 - People who have no preference.
6 - Self-righteous types who categorize types 1-4 as zealots while stroking their enlightened egos and basking in their own glory.

Types 1, 2 AND 6 are why forums suck.

OK, now back on topic. I actually use Linux and Windows more than I use Mac OS X (I manage a farm of 14 Windows 2K Advanced Servers) and I prefer Linux as a server platform only marginally over Windows, and if I had a rock solid (fast) hardware platform I would prefer Mac OS X over both. Cost isn't an issue here - the servers we buy cost a minimum of 20K a piece.

On the desktop there just isn't any comparison - I would use Windows as a desktop OS before Linux, and Mac OS X before Windows.

[daimoni]

.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by absmiths:
Because someone always has to come in to any productive thread that compares two entities, whether they be mail clients, ftp clients, operating systems, etc, and take the moral high ground and elevate themselves above the level of the rest of us who apparently still reside in the dark ages. It seems to follow this trend:

When a thread starts that compares two things, you get:

1 - Positive trolls - "A rocks and B sucks"
2 - Negative trolls - "A sucks and B rocks"
3 - People who generally perfer A and state why.
4 - People who generally perfer B and state why.
5 - People who have no preference.
6 - Self-righteous types who categorize types 1-4 as zealots while stroking their enlightened egos and basking in their own glory.

Types 1, 2 AND 6 are why forums suck.

OK, now back on topic. I actually use Linux and Windows more than I use Mac OS X (I manage a farm of 14 Windows 2K Advanced Servers) and I prefer Linux as a server platform only marginally over Windows, and if I had a rock solid (fast) hardware platform I would prefer Mac OS X over both. Cost isn't an issue here - the servers we buy cost a minimum of 20K a piece.

On the desktop there just isn't any comparison - I would use Windows as a desktop OS before Linux, and Mac OS X before Windows.

Yup. I live in an almost Linux only environment, although I do manage my parent's PC (Win2k). For personal use, OS X is clearly my OS of choice. But Linux on Desktop clearly has tons of advantages, if you have a lot similarly configured PCs (as in hardware).

They just don't use it in the physics department, sadly. Each pc is installed once when it is bought, and then touched neverafter. So that you are stuck with many incompatible versions of software. One has KDE, whereas older PCs do not. Some have OpenOffice installed, but most don't. You get the point. In the informatics department, they mostly have suns and pcs. They must use some form of netbooting, because each install is identical (one config for Linux, one for Sun). It works really great there.

But luckiliy both use AFS, so that you have the same home directory on each machine.

Similarly to you, I don't like Windows very much. I just don't feel comfortable with it. Each time I have to explain to my dad something, I wish it would be a Mac. (Where is the window gone, etc. )

I think in this discussion, clustering has been left out. Although it is possible to do clustering in a heterogeneous environment (as in several variants of Unixoid OSes), it is much harder to maintain. We have several AlphaStations now running Linux instead of AIX, because of that very reason. Clustering is really a brilliant idea and very easy to work with. Your task has to be a suitable one, though. But depending on your needs, you can get a cluster really cheap (compared to the same amount of raw CPU power in a workstation). The department that I work at has bought one AlphaStation (Dual EV67, 667 MHz, 2 gig of RAM) for a bit more than 20,000 Euros (a `bargain'). Last year, they have installed a cluster consisting of 20 + 1 PCs (Athlon XP 1800+) for about the same. The `old' AlphaStation is still about 25 % faster (per CPU) than each of our cluster nodes. But we have over twenty of them. Luckily for the specific code that we use, there is little communication between the nodes (so 100 MBit Ethernet is sufficient for each node, Gigabit Ethernet for the master node).

Right now, Linux really has its merits and Apple is (luckily) not focussing on the Unix part too much (they do not have the kind of iron to go with -- yet). Whereas Linux is quickly gaining acceptance among IT crowds (because the potential dealbreakers are almost certainly available for Linux).

Apple might eventually get to a point where it will focus a bit more on the Unix part, but I think we are still some way off. There has to be better correspondence to their reference platform FreeBSD (say, an equivalent of ports that also offer the same amount of `richness' in apps). Even then, Apple will not be able to challenge Linux, because of the large backing in the industry (IBM et al). But I think Apple will be able to establish itself as a contender.

[Giano]

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Giano:

Bingo. You nailed it.

IMHO FreeBSD is initially more complicated because the installer is little help configuring stuff. Linux on the other hand has easy to use installers. But still, you pretty much nailed it.

That's why I prefer MacOS X -- you get the power of Unix when you want to! I go over to my girlfriend's place and print something on the Canon S450. Plug and Print. Try that with Linux.

But I think it all depends on what you wanna do. There is no `best OS' in the world. Like there is no `best car'. Americans -- for instance -- love SUVs. In -- say -- Florence, a giant SUV would really be ridiculous (I have seen it once, it could get around a corner). Sports car. Limousine. Cruising. Racing. Transportation (van).

[gwright]

Heya,

I run Linux as my main OS on my powerbook. I will try to explain some of the highlights of Linux over OS X and vice versa:

a) Linux is fast. Very fast. In comparison to OS X, it flies.
b) Linux and 99% of associated software (such as XFree86), is open source. This means you can optimize the code _yourself_ for your own machine making it faster, and bugs are fixed much faster.
c) Linux can run the true XFree86 distribution, as opposed to unofficial forks of it. This means that it's always got access to the bleeding edge X11 stuff that can be quite cool (such as custom cursors in X4.3.0
d) Linux is more compatible with other operating systems than OS X. It also has waayyy more software (ok, maybe not specialised s/w like photoshop...)
e) Linux is secure, simply because if any security holes are found, they're fixed quicker than with commercial software because it's open source.
f) As mentioned earlier, Linux has some cool filesystems, and can read almost any file system under the sun. xfs and jfs for example.
f) Linux has a cute penguin for its logo

OS X's advantages are:

a) Has commercial support from companies like Adobe
b) Has a pseudo-unix nature to it. (I don't regard it as a full UNIX because it doesn't work in the same way as, for example, Linux or FreeBSD).
c) Good hardware support because it's a commercial project and hardware manufacturers don't mind giving the details of their hardware to them (graphics cards, for example)

Hope this helps,

George

Originally posted by neilxu:
I met some Linux users and they don't like Mac. They expect OSX is almost same as OS9 except more beautiful.

I installed X11 and fink, running GIMP, even xlincity. But I still want to know what is Linux can do but OSX can not do? or What is OSX can do but Linux can not do?

[Simon]

Originally posted by gwright:
Has a pseudo-unix nature to it. (I don't regard it as a full UNIX because it doesn't work in the same way as, for example, Linux or FreeBSD).

Would you care to elaborate on that. What makes full UNIX "full" to you? And why do you say FreeBSD and Linux are similar when in fact OS X has roots with BSD? Could you give some examples?

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm serious. No, this isn't a flame.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by gwright:
Heya,

I run Linux as my main OS on my powerbook. I will try to explain some of the highlights of Linux over OS X and vice versa:

a) Linux is fast. Very fast. In comparison to OS X, it flies.
b) Linux and 99% of associated software (such as XFree86), is open source. This means you can optimize the code _yourself_ for your own machine making it faster, and bugs are fixed much faster.
c) Linux can run the true XFree86 distribution, as opposed to unofficial forks of it. This means that it's always got access to the bleeding edge X11 stuff that can be quite cool (such as custom cursors in X4.3.0
d) Linux is more compatible with other operating systems than OS X. It also has waayyy more software (ok, maybe not specialised s/w like photoshop...)
e) Linux is secure, simply because if any security holes are found, they're fixed quicker than with commercial software because it's open source.
f) As mentioned earlier, Linux has some cool filesystems, and can read almost any file system under the sun. xfs and jfs for example.
f) Linux has a cute penguin for its logo

OS X's advantages are:

a) Has commercial support from companies like Adobe
b) Has a pseudo-unix nature to it. (I don't regard it as a full UNIX because it doesn't work in the same way as, for example, Linux or FreeBSD).
c) Good hardware support because it's a commercial project and hardware manufacturers don't mind giving the details of their hardware to them (graphics cards, for example)

Hope this helps,

George

Linux side answers:

a) Darwin is fast on Macs, too. It's the eye candy.

b) I know extremely few people who do so. All open source software that runs on the Mac will benefit from that, too. The source to the Unix underpinnings aka Darwin are open, too. So you can fix bugs contained there yourself, too.

c) Aqua. Need I say more
Seriously, you got a point there.

d) Point taken. It all depends on the software that you need.

e) Apple has a good record on fixing bugs fast. It also has a comparatively secure default installation (WinXP Professional still gives all users initially added to the OS admin privelidges -- not good).

f) Agreed. Don't forget ReiserFS. I'd also mention on a side note that FreeBSD has SoftUpdates which make its filesystem really fast while remaining secure.

f') Hexley, well, I don't like it too much. I don't like the penguin either. I prefer Daemons

OS X side:

a) Yup.

b) You are wrong here. Linux is not Unix. After all, GNU ist Not Unix. As a matter of fact, MacOS X is much much closer to Unix as Linux is. Technically, OpenGroup has registered the Unix trademark in 1994. So it's up to them to determine what may call itself Unix.

But I think this trademark continuously looses significance. After all Linux is not Unix.

c) Yup. But then, IBM and Sun also do that for both Linux as well as their Unix flavor.

I don't mean to flame either, seriously. Some are rather theoretical points, others may be relevant. Linux is quickly gaining acceptance among commercial software vendors for server applications (e. g. Oracle, IBM). But then again, the advantage of being free doesn't apply to that software.

[Gavin]

HI,
we all know about the Mac's advantages regarding ease of use and productivity, especially for desktop and creative applications. I thought I'd take a stab at fleshing out the Linux side.

There are in fact several advantages to Linux, although most have to do with things you don't use a Mac for. Things like enterprise servers (Phone company central billing database machine), using cheap hardware (15 year old $2.00 ISA serial port card), specialized software (a data interface for your Fluke oscilloscope via a serial cable), and the ability to tinker with all aspects of your computer and the code that controls it.

The hardware you can buy and use with a linux system is almost limitless . Linux gives you more choices of computers, from a cheap $400 box to a $20,000+ high end server machine with many processors. It has drivers for more peripherals, just about anything you can plug into a pc will run under linux, you may of course have to go online to find someone's code hack and compile and install your own driver but chances are good that a solution is out there. The newest mainstream hardware like DVD burners and firewire 2 scanners will be better supported by the mac at least at first but the drivers do come along for linux as programmers figure the new devices out.

Open source software packages will work on any UNIX like system. Some need little changes in order to work with different systems, called porting the code. Much of the new UNIX code today tends to be written for linux but can usually be easily ported to OSX, and the really useful programs already have been. (see fink). There are also some pre-compiled programs that are written for linux and are not available on the Mac.
So, while you can get just about all the software you've heard of for the mac, you can get -everything- for linux.

Linux is great if you like to play with the guts of your computer. Because you have all the source code you can take everything apart and change it.

The cutting edge nerdy technologies are usually on linux first. If you like to play with experimental networking protocols or new programming languages Linux can't be beaten. The mac usually has the advantage with AV / Media stuff, as in quicktime.

Because of all this linux appeals to hackers, programmers, and others who spend their whole lives in front of a computer. Linux has more people looking at the source code which means that there are lots of people finding bugs, making it faster, thinking up better ways to do things, etc. The cool part is that as a unix based thing OSX inherits the best of these advances.

Yes, there are some things that Linux can do that OSX can not, but the opposite is true as well. I look at it as using the right tool for the job.

[bamburg dunes]

As someone said earlier, it's all really a question of what you want/need to do on a computer. There's not a chance on earth I would use Linux for anything, it's utterly useless for me, but that's besides the point since to others it's the best thing since the invention of the calculator.

Since most of what I do, whether at work or at home, can be done on a Mac, then it's perfect for me. Apart from being able to do the things I need to do, the other main reason for X is the GUI and user experience it's the best yet, IMO.

If Apple released hardware on a par with my SGI's, and the SGI specific software was on X, then I'd be off them in flash, so until then, I need to put up with the various environmets.

[P]

Originally posted by gwright:

c) Linux can run the true XFree86 distribution, as opposed to unofficial forks of it. This means that it's always got access to the bleeding edge X11 stuff that can be quite cool (such as custom cursors in X4.3.0

Mac OS X has run the official XFree86 distribution since 4.1.0, which is several years old. The current version, 4.3.0, has accelerated GLX and 2D (in rootless mode). That Apple also distributes an unofficial version doesn't stop you from running the official one (which is the only one with fullscreen support for now).

Originally posted by gwright:

f) As mentioned earlier, Linux has some cool filesystems, and can read almost any file system under the sun. xfs and jfs for example.

...in the unstable 2.5 branch. In the stable 2.4 branch, it has e2fs, which is worse than anything.

Other than this, I agree with OreoCookie's answers.

[utidjian]

Originally posted by P:

...in the unstable 2.5 branch. In the stable 2.4 branch, it has e2fs, which is worse than anything.

You are mis-informed... many Linux distributions have been shipping with ext3fs. ReiserFS ships with some as an option. XFS and JFS are also available. There are others.

Most of the above have been available for at least the past 2 years. Ext3fs has the nice feature that one can switch between it and ext2 on-the-fly.... making upgrades a snap.

Linux has also had Logical Volume Management (LVM) for at least a couple of years. Software and hardware based RAID of all types for at least 5 years. One can even boot off of software RAID1.

Ext2, I have heard, has had its problems over the years but I, personally, have never lost any data on a plain ext2 filesystem in over 6 years of use... with the exception of a hardware disk failure about 5 years ago.

Please see: http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue55/florido.html

for more "current" information (actually 3 years old... but newer than what you have).

http://www.linux-mag.com/2000-11/guru_01.html
(another 3 year old intro to LVM).

and so on.

I am not trying to flame you or anyone else... but just trying to keep the information current. As has been noted there are many misconceptions on both sides of the issue.... if, indeed, there is an issue to be on a particular side of.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by utidjian:
You are mis-informed... many Linux distributions have been shipping with ext3fs. ReiserFS ships with some as an option. XFS and JFS are also available. There are others.

Most of the above have been available for at least the past 2 years. Ext3fs has the nice feature that one can switch between it and ext2 on-the-fly.... making upgrades a snap.

Linux has also had Logical Volume Management (LVM) for at least a couple of years. Software and hardware based RAID of all types for at least 5 years. One can even boot off of software RAID1.

Ext2, I have heard, has had its problems over the years but I, personally, have never lost any data on a plain ext2 filesystem in over 6 years of use... with the exception of a hardware disk failure about 5 years ago.

Please see: http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue55/florido.html

for more "current" information (actually 3 years old... but newer than what you have).

http://www.linux-mag.com/2000-11/guru_01.html
(another 3 year old intro to LVM).

and so on.

I am not trying to flame you or anyone else... but just trying to keep the information current. As has been noted there are many misconceptions on both sides of the issue.... if, indeed, there is an issue to be on a particular side of.

ext2 is old. ext3 is just something like the HFS+ with recently added journaling. They are mature, stable FS, but nothing new.

[IUJHJSDHE]

Originally posted by gee308:
Linux can't have a non crappy GUI.
That is the biggest difference I can see.

That's a matter of opinion

Originally posted by Giano:

Is that pro mac or anti mac?

It could be said that means mac os x has simplicity and easy use.
But it could also be said that it means linux gives you control and power.

[Sarah31]

Originally posted by absmiths:
Because someone always has to come in to any productive thread that compares two entities, whether they be mail clients, ftp clients, operating systems, etc, and take the moral high ground and elevate themselves above the level of the rest of us who apparently still reside in the dark ages. It seems to follow this trend:

When a thread starts that compares two things, you get:

1 - Positive trolls - "A rocks and B sucks"
2 - Negative trolls - "A sucks and B rocks"
3 - People who generally perfer A and state why.
4 - People who generally perfer B and state why.
5 - People who have no preference.
6 - Self-righteous types who categorize types 1-4 as zealots while stroking their enlightened egos and basking in their own glory.

Types 1, 2 AND 6 are why forums suck.

OK, now back on topic. I actually use Linux and Windows more than I use Mac OS X (I manage a farm of 14 Windows 2K Advanced Servers) and I prefer Linux as a server platform only marginally over Windows, and if I had a rock solid (fast) hardware platform I would prefer Mac OS X over both. Cost isn't an issue here - the servers we buy cost a minimum of 20K a piece.

On the desktop there just isn't any comparison - I would use Windows as a desktop OS before Linux, and Mac OS X before Windows.

really you begin by insinuating that this is productive thread, how so? all i read in this thread is that such and such os lacks this or that and there fore is better that some other os. of course this will vary from person to person.

i believe the idea of the different oses is to offer each different user out there the opportunity to be productive as they want to on a computer. when all a user wants to do is be productive then and they have decided what environment is right for them there is really no point to try and force them to bend to our will.

OS X lacks certain things some of which actually would be very good to include but talking about it in threads that the apple developers will likely never see does not benefit anyone. like it or not threads like this are pointless in the end.

think of me as a 1,2 or six if you like but quite honestly if you ever talk to me you would easily find that i am 5 and if asked i would even tell you why i like a certain os. of course telling you why i like an os is really moot because you and me are different people. my needs are fairly simple in comarison to yours (judging by your occupation).

/rant

for the record, again i believe, i would just like to say that i personally enjoy using both OS X and Linux. they are similar in design and functionality. they both offer me the opportunity to explore more of the inner workings of software and an OS in general. I don't feel restricted when using either as i do when i use XP. XP pretty well forces open my wallet to purchase software in order for me to be productive and much of the software just does not seem to be as functional and smooth operating as in linux or OS X. i don't mind spending cash but alot of times with windows software i feel let down for the price i pay. this is what i mean by restricted. basically i find linux and unix a much better "fit".

use the right tool for the job ( as was said a few time already )

[Giano]

Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
Is that pro mac or anti mac?

It could be said that means mac os x has simplicity and easy use.
But it could also be said that it means linux gives you control and power.

well....i think it's exactly its meaning and i think this is the reality... but that don't mean that OSX have not power or controls...but it's hide it to the view, you must search it if you need more control...

[Gee4orce]

What can Linux do that Mac OS X can't....

...run a command-line web-cam application !

If anyone knows differently, please let me know. Oh, and VideoScript doesn't count (because it's a piece of junk ?). What I need to be able to do is capture a frame from a USB web cam, without being logged into the machine (ie, from a cron job).

[kelesh]

i'm surprised nobody mentioned this, but OSX is better because of its games support. The first 4 years of my computer experience were all with Windows(98, 2k, XP Pro). I had become familiar with redhat and eventually installed debian on my ibm thinkpad.
A year and a half later, when it was time to buy a faster laptop, I bought a Powerbook because I wanted the best from Windows and Linux, well perhaps not the best from linux, but its a good compromise. I think Linux is damn near perfect except for the lack of games. This is why OSX is so nice. I can do most things I could do on Debian relatively easily, but I can also play Warcraft III, quake 3, civ 3, etc.

Now... if only there was Counter-strike for OSX

[utidjian]

Originally posted by kelesh:
i'm surprised nobody mentioned this, but OSX is better because of its games support.

[snip]

Now... if only there was Counter-strike for OSX

I am surprised that you DID mention it!

http://www.happypenguin.org/list?sort=title
lists 1136 items.

Quake3 came out for Linux even before Windows (not by much). Warcraft III is available under WineX as is Civ 3... etc.
AND Counter Strike. See:
http://www.transgaming.com/dogamesea...&showall=1

Some are only available under WineX and some are Linux native.

Linux has Game! What more do you want?

[kelesh]

eh, my experience with wine is that games are alot slower and many do not work.

[bracken]

"Just add the XFree86 package and whatever creature comforts you prefer (like KDE or fvwm) and you've got an OS which is reasonably equivalent to the other open source 'Unix desktop' solutions out there. ... but I think the coolest thing is being able to work on a really NICE desktop OS which doesn't make a bunch of horrible compromises to achieve user friendliness, like welding the hood shut as programmers like to describe working with Windows. There's a real Unix under there and on the desktop, I can blast Wintel PC users over the net in Return to Castle Wolfenstein! How much better than that does it get? "
-- Jordan Hubbard, here