# Why choose Mac instead of Linux?



## xoot (Jul 11, 2002)

So, why?


----------



## azosx (Jul 11, 2002)

As a desktop replacement or server replacement?


----------



## howardm4 (Jul 11, 2002)

because I can all my real world work done
on one machine w/o screwing around.

I can have the Unix environment I want and
must have AND true productivity apps that
are compatible w/ the real world (unfortunately, that means MS Office, no
substitute).

OSX IS desktop Unix


----------



## xaqintosh (Jul 11, 2002)

OS X is a way better interface, it has more mainstream apps, you can run Darwin which has the same features of Linux, Macs are cooler, etc.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jul 11, 2002)

Because Linux has become knows as a "hacker OS" of sorts, and for good reason -- MANY of the daily things you do on a Mac or PC have clunky interfaces on Linux.  Plus, in addition to the fact that very few productive software titles are available for Linux (that are compatible with most other people out there), Linux is very complex -- powerful, but complex.  I don't think of it as a very good desktop OS.  Server OS, yes.  Hacking OS, yes.  Powerful OS, yet.  Usable OS, no.

If you want mainstream, go with Windows.  If you want an elegant computing environment that can be very compatible with mainstream applications and OSs, go with Mac.  If you want to alienate yourself from the mainstream and risk compatibility issues but are curious enough to tinker with an OS to an extreme, go with Linux.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jul 11, 2002)

Then again, why choose when you can have both? just install linux on your mac and you're good to go!


----------



## btoneill (Jul 11, 2002)

Why choose Mac instead of linux? Answers simple, OS X isn't a screwed up fantasy of a drunken fin.

Linux has many fundimental flaws in it's design which some very stuborn people refuse to do anything about. Also don't forget that every damn thing in Linux is basically a reinvention of the wheel. The folks are so gung ho on GNU software and the GPL that the refuse to use non-GPL code (ie. BSD License is not free enough for them). So, instead of using things like a networking stack that has been around for decades and continually improved upon, they had to write their own. I won't even get into how bad their NFS implementation is (altho it has gotten better lately) because once again, they had to reinvent the wheel. So many great new pieces of software could be out there if people didn't keep writing the same free code over and over.

I won't even get into the kernel of the week club, and how much of a kitchen sink that the kernel is.

Oh yeah, don't forget about security, because we know they developers sure did.

Ok, linux rant over for now 

Brian


----------



## Torz (Jul 12, 2002)

Same reason as everyone above + bit more.

Also, you gotta love the aqua interface  

Torz


----------



## hazmat (Jul 12, 2002)

This is slightly out of date, but a lot still holds true.  I also started using Linux in around '96, so I totally sympathize with this.  I think that if you substitue "SGI/Irix" with "Apple/OS X", it will be relevant to this discussion.  http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html

Personally I like Linux a lot, but hate X Windows.  Why it had to take me a week to figure out how to speed up my mouse under X (not acceleration, speed) is ridiculous.  Anyone know how to do it? ;-)


----------



## Sogni (Jul 13, 2002)

I WAS trying to use Linux as a Desktop OS, then I bought my Mac and then Mac OSX came out... I've hardly touched Linux as a Desktop OS since, even my PCs have seen little use...

But Linux IS still on both my networks (home and studio) as Servers and Testing Beds for Server Related Stuff, and it's awesome at that since I have more PC Boxes than I care for. 

Trying to use Linux as a Desktop OS was fun for the first 10 minutes, then I tried getting up to par with what I did on a daily basis on my PC and it all came to a screeching halt...
I couldn't play most Video files - either locally or from websites, I couldn't figure out how to use my CD Burner (other than to read CDs from), I couldn't play any of my DVDs, SUN took away the FREE StarOffice and wants me to buy it (ha!) - and no I'm not using the Beta OpenOffice either! 
Pretty soon I was banging my head on the keyboard, SCREAMING for Windows back! 

No I am not putting Linux down in general, I'm just stating my experience with it as a DESKTOP OS, it's awesome as a Server!!! I've replaced all my Windows Servers with it, do all my site testing on it (yeah I know I can do it on OS X but we go back to the banging head on keyboard part of trying to set it up, besides - I'm using Linux specific packages).

You want a FREE/Cheap SERVER OS and have a few White boxes (or even older Macs you no longer use) put Linux on them, You want a Desktop OS? Save yourself a headache and look elsewhere than Linux.


----------



## btoneill (Jul 13, 2002)

Try using FreeBSD as a server on x86 hardware. You'll soon start to think that that linux server is slow, unreliable, and clunky.

Brian


----------



## hazmat (Jul 13, 2002)

Does FreeBSD support dual processors?  At my old job, we were thinking of going to that, but OpenBSD, which we were running at the time, did not support it.  I believe the same went for FreeBSD.  Our choices were Linux or Solaris x86.

For all the flavors I have run, so far my favorite package management system has been from Debian.


----------



## jmr6809 (Jul 13, 2002)

I buy macs for two reasons.  They are 1) Cocoa and 2) AltiVec.  Aqua is nice, but I do not care enough about the GUI to install a specific OS or window manager for the GUI.  I only use Linux on x86 boxes when I need a POSIX environment on which to run a server on which I must use Java.  This usually means that I am running Tomcat and apache.  Otherwise, I run Darwin or BeOS.

I have somewhere in the area of 20 PCs, with speeds from 333 MHz to 1.2 GHz single processor configurations and several multiprocessor machines ranging from Dual PIII 550 MHz to Quad Xeon boxes with several GB RAM.  I use these machines for very processor intensive computational mathematics and data processing on a distributed architecture.  I write the code mostly in Java and C++ on Intel boxes, UltraSparc machines, etc.

Many years ago, I had the chance to develop some early versions of my architecture on a NeXT box.  NeXT stopped producing hardware, and NeXTStep became available for use on my UltraSparc boxes and on my (hated) NT systems.  I purchased a copy of NeXTStep and WebObjects, and installed it on one of my NT boxes.  Once I got used to writing Objective-C code on a Windows box, I was amazed at how productive I was.  The Enterprise connectivity from WebObjects to SQL Server was incredible.

Last year, I purchased a copy of OS X to run on my iMac DV 400.  I was excited to try out the Cocoa development environment, and to find out if Project Builder and Interface Builder were still as elegant as they had been in the past.  I was amazed.  Programming in Cocoa was fantastic.  I could write and compile my Java code and then transfer it to my Windows, Linux, and Solaris machines without modification.  I could also write Objective-C, C, or C++ code to optimize the bottlenecks in my Java code and from within one project, I could build to a second target and build Java/Objective-C projects to run on my iMac.  There were a few bumps in the road at first, but I soon learned how to develop these hybrid projects very quickly.

I spent $3,500 on a Dual G4 533 DA with 1.25 GB RAM.  I did not intend to use this as a production server, but soon found that the C++ and Objective-C portions of my projects ran incredibly fast on my new mac.  The IO code in Java was quite slow, but I found that the rest of my Java code ran quite well on the mac as well.

I have now completely replaced my x86 machines for development with Macs.  I now have five Macs, four of which run OS X.  I will soon sell my Proliant boxes and purchase XServe machines.  Before I start my next major project, I will rewrite my core C code to use AltiVec instructions, and expect to have even better performance.

My contracts are billed based on development time and also based on the hardware my clients have to purchase to process a given set of data in a given period of time.  When given the choice, some of them choose to keep their x86 hardware.  This does not bother me.  The development cost difference is minimal.  I write the UI and presentation side of these projects in Java, either as applications or as servlets.  The network client and server sockets are usually Java based.  When they migrate to Macs, both the network infrastructure and the UI code will move over quite nicely.  The hardcore number crunching code is usually a combination of ANSI C, C++, and Objective C compiled using gcc 3.x.  Once again, this moves over quite well, as OS X uses a fairly standard gcc build.  This being said, 10% of my development cost is usually included so that when clients migrate, I have already been paid to make the small number of modifications needed to move their code over to cocoa.

The hardware cost savings are usually what convinces a client to choose deployment on macs, rather than PCs.  I do not require that my clients select the hardware for deployment until after the software bid has been accepted, the project has been designed, and the initial test harness has been built.  It is an incredible experience to run a few hundred sample calculations on a year old desktop box purchased in the last two years for $3500 and substantially outperform a quad Xeon box which was purchased within the same time frame for $65,000.  Now that the XServe is available, my clients can actually have even better performance (L3 cache!!!!)  for about the same price as my desktop Dual G4, and have that machine in the Rack (1U) with the rest of their IT investment.

I am sorry to be so verbose.  I care passionately about this.

Feel free to send your friend a copy of this post.  He should also read a few articles on the scientific computing projects out there being done for a fraction of their previous cost after being ported to run on a G4 desktop or laptop.  These articles can be easily found on the apple website.

Good luck.


----------



## 96.9 (Jul 14, 2002)

Mac OS X is nice cause it has lots of GUI tools to use for networking .

Its easy to setup the modem or nic card . The point and click facilities are very straight forward .

For development linux has been made to be very user friendly . SuSE PPC is all together on CD Roms and using YaST you can put together whatever you want . 

OS X is BSD so for some reason it is very difficult on the technical end , like Open BSD is for newcomers . There should be more info for the new user on ports and packages and compilers and such but this BBS is a great place to look for help . 

For basic setup on a Mac or Microsoft network with a new apple computer I would recommend OS X over linux anyday but for advaced computer freaks PPC linux might be a nice addiction if you can set up the dual boot on your desktop PC .


----------

