This has got to be the best review/article on the age old debate of Linux vs. Mac. The article is extensive but the conclusions on the topic mimic my sentiments exactly.
In the following pages, they lead a guided tour of the two OSes, paying particular attention to eight important areas: Installation & Migration; Hardware Support & Power Management; Networking, Web & Wireless; Productivity; Entertainment; Security; Working With Windows (because we couldn’t completely ignore Microsoft); and Stability, Backup & Disaster Recovery.
Which is the better OS? Only you can decide –but you’ll make a more informed decision after you’ve taken this tour, and you’ll discover you have some companions on your journey.
I will admit I have not completed the entire article, I have skimmed and read the beginning and end but it is something I want to go back and finish. I also don’t think anyone can conclude that either writer is biased because from what I’ve read the entire article plainly exposes the downsides of each platform in almost every major factor of any OS. It’s really apparent within the conclusions which they make the reader decide what’s best for them.
The conclusion of the review that mimics my take exactly (spoiler alert):
Conclusions: Linux
Linux gives you freedom on many levels: the freedom to tinker, the freedom to work without arbitrary constraints on your system setup, and the freedom to make decisions about nearly every aspect of your system.That freedom does come at a cost, though — the cost of a certain degree of effort. I haven’t yet dealt with a single Linux install that didn’t require me to edit some configuration file somewhere. That said, the amount of effort required to get the Linux system you want (or need) has gone down enormously with time.
If the freedom to use your PC in as unhindered a way as possible is important to you, that’s what Linux delivers — although keep in mind it comes with a learning curve, one that is still flattening out rather slowly.
– Serdar Yegulalp
Conclusions: Mac
If you believe that open source is a moral choice — and many people do — then buying Apple is making a deal with the devil. Apple is arguably the most proprietary hardware / software company in the industry, despite Mac OS X’s origins in BSD Unix, and the products’ compliance with many industry standards.You think Microsoft locks users in? At least with Microsoft you can buy a PC from a huge number of big and small vendors, or build your own from components. With the Mac, you buy your PC from Apple, you buy your operating system from Apple, and you’re also encouraged to buy your mouse, keyboard, display, audio device, and smartphone from Apple, all at an Apple Store where you can get Apple service.
But if you’re willing to live with lock-in, Apple is a great choice for computing. Installation isn’t a problem — Apple does it for you. Networking is easy. Productivity is a dream. The Mac offers a broad variety of entertainment options. It’s a secure platform. It interoperates well with Windows. It’s highly stable, and offers solid backup choices for the data losses that are inevitable on any computing platform.
Right now, Apple is smokin’, and its customers are happy. But if the Apple gets rotten and starts coming out with inferior products — as it did in the ’90s — its customers will have the choice of suffering, or making the painful switch to another platform.
Until then, I’m sticking with the Mac. It’s a great computer.
– Mitch Wagner
Well said…most of you know where I stand but no platform is perfect and it’s up to the user to decide what they value the most.
Add New Comment
Viewing 23 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I think that in the summaries, at least, they covered that point well: there are benefits (stability) as well as drawbacks (loss freedom in some of its various meanings) inherent in going with a restricted hardware platform.
You obviously believe it's a "clear advantage", but that's only because you value those benefits over the benefits of a more open system / platform, but that's a personal preference as to what you give more weight to in the comparison process.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
If you find out ahead of time which hardware works with the operating system you want (Windows, a particular Linux distro, etc.), then you'll experience many of those same benefits. It's just that in Apple's case they believe that process is so important that they've taken the guesswork out of it and made those decisions for you.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I also think this discussion would have been different if it was about windows v. mac. But I'd love to see a discussion on windows v. linux, I think Jared's head would explode trying to decide who to defend ;).
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Perhaps I shouldn't have responded further after my initial comment, but then it seemed like Dan wanted to talk about it more, so I responded.
I'd agree that the conclusions that you draw based on the same set of facts are inherently based on what you value personally. Because (in this specific case) I value freedom over stability, I do personally choose that side. Bringing Microsoft into the mix is a bit off topic (perhaps just to sling some mud since you don't want to do so towards Linux), but my take as far as they relate to this discussion (as we've discussed before) is that if you have a 1-10 scale of "free (as in freedom) software", as far as operating systems go I'd put Linux at 10, Apple at 1, and MS at 2 or 3.
In addition, because I feel that in the long run, society will be better off if more people choose to value freedom over other things like (initial) stability or ease of use, I advocate it in friendly conversations. I don't get upset or offended if someone still chooses to think differently than I do, because that's their right. I also don't believe that my opinions or reasons for making that choice are infallible, but since I currently believe they are correct I will act and speak accordingly.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I brought Windows into the discussion because I was clearing Nathan's comment about previous discussions, we've never had a discussion on mac v linux and they've all been based similarly on why you think MS has a 1-2 point lead over Apple based on "freedom".
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
First, regarding the so-called "freedom card"; I did not bring that into the discussion. In the original post you quoted (and said you agreed with), freedom was the primary focus of the brief Linux conclusion section (in fact the word "freedom" is mentioned specifically six times). I'm not sure why it's suddenly an issue now that I bring it up.
Second, everyone involved in this post so far knows that those references to freedom (as well as mine) are referring to "free (as in freedom) software", not the "freedom to choose" any other proprietary / non-free platform. Intermixing the term "freedom" in reference to those two very different contexts is (IMHO) an attempt to muddy the waters. No one disputes an end user's right to choose any platform that they'd like to, whether it's free or non-free. It's a separate issue from the one we're discussing (free software, and the lack of freedom to varying degrees in proprietary alternatives).
Third, to clarify my scale comment (in regards to operating systems), which referred to MS being more "free" or open than the Mac OS, I was specifically alluding to the commonly accepted measure of "free software" as spelled out by the FSF. Neither is "free software" by any strech of the imagination, but I do think one comes slightly closer in spirit.
In particular, both Windows and Mac OS fail miserably on all "four freedoms", but if partial credit is at all possible, I have to give MS the slight edge regarding freedom 0 (the freedom to run the program), since you can run legally Windows on any consumer PC (any one of the many name brands or one hobbled/hacked together from spare parts in your basement) as well as in virtual machine environments. This is not true with Apple, where you are only allowed to run their operating system on proprietary hardware you have to buy from them, and not at all in any VM environment. Everything else being equal (equally bad), I put them both at the low end of the scale but give a slight favor to MS for at least supporting freedom 0 in a better / more open way than Apple does.
As for the other open source contributions by either Apple or MS, I'm probably not well versed enough in them to comment, but I won't let that stop me from doing so (briefly) anyway. I do recognize WebKit as a significant contribution, but I didn't include it in this discussion (and my ratings) because the scope was confined to operating systems. I do have a beef with the Darwin releases (nicely summed up here and elaborated upon in numerous places all over the internet), as well as Apple's own insane version of an "open source" license - the APSL.
[Disclaimer: the links above are pulled from the first page of a quick Google search, since I'm on vacation, after all. I'm sure there are better ones out there, and if you're interested in looking into it further (I'm not), I'm sure you can find all sorts of more knowledgeable free software advocates out there outlining the issues with Apple's approach(es) more eloquently than I could.]
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
[disclaimer: I'm not going to read those articles that were simply found through Google because it sounds they were sought out to prove a point rather than actually researching all sides and maybe rethinking the topic.]
So in your scale it doesn't matter that MS actually hates "free' (software)" compared to Apple whom widely supports and leverages "free" software.
And Apple's mistake is having a proven business model that does not support "freedom" in terms of opening ALL of the Mac OS (not just the what they contribute tot he community).
[MS for a fact hates FOSS: just run a google search :) for "Microsoft hates freedom" or "MS hates Linux" or "Linux is a cancer" or "MS Linux patents" and comparatively let's search "Apple loves open source"]
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
<del datetime="2007-08-06T03:54:11+00:00">You have to catch up on </del>a little history for the first article. The <del datetime="2007-08-05T23:18:39+00:00">article</del>opinion-piece was written in May of 2001 and the book it quotes was written in May of 2001, now OS 10.0 was released in March that same year and it wasn't really setup for major release, 10.1 is deemed to be the major consumer release and was out after the book in September. I write this brief history because some may read those quotes and apply them to the current OS X and Apple Inc.. The quotes would be better suited towards OS X server that was released as a non-consumer product and may had portions closed for not only security reasons but since it was very early in it's infancy the modifications could have not been acceptable releases for the community or simply they just weren't released yet--because there isn't a release data requirement for giving back tot he community--.
In 2007 Apple does have a license agreed upon by the FSF and releases it's source as required and contributes to multiple FOSS projects.
FYI: I found the FSF stuff from http://badvista.fsf.org and was then looking for http://badosx.fsf.org, I never could find it.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
As for the links being out of date, that's exactly why I put the disclaimer on there. My opinion isn't solely based on those articles, they were just a quick representation of what I've heard (past and present) from various people who know more about the issue than I do. I'm sure if either of us really wanted to (I know I don't) dig up some dirt on Darwin or the APSL, it wouldn't be very difficult at all to find many well informed critiques, from a free software perspective. I'd rather not do that digging though, since I suspect it would be futile.
Speaking of futility, let's take a step back an look at the fact that you're promoting (what you believe to be) Apple's positive standing in regards to free software / open source, but in the context of a comparison to Linux. As I stated in my original comment, I think it's pretty clear that Linux has the edge in that regard. The fact that I also believe that MS has some advantages in the spirit of free software over Apple's operating system is certainly a matter of opinion, but I have yet to see anything to persuade me that belief is off base.
I think it's hilarious that you bring up the Vista price premium for being able to run it in a VM as a negative point against MS, because (while I'd obviously agree that it's bad) you also must then recognize that Apple's position on this exact issue is much worse, since they don't allow you to run it in a VM at all, even if you wanted to pay extra for the privilege.
In the end, I think my points remain: for people who value freedom more highly than other things in their choice of operating systems, then Linux is probably the way to go. And (secondary point), if you're going to throw MS into that mix, I'd say they come out a bit ahead (although still poor) since you're allowed to run their OS on anything you can get it working on (even if it costs a bit more to run it in a VM), whereas Apple's operating system product that they sell is intentionally restricted from running on anything other than proprietary hardware that you must buy from them alone, and not at all in any VM environment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Comment 8:
I didn't bring up price nor meant to compare it to OS X; I was informing you or the readers because your comment was misleading and MSes new stand on VM is progressively limiting "free" use.
Your difference of opinion (from above) lies on heavily on whether Apple allows it's software to be run "freely" on any hardware, which is understandable if Apple was a software company.
Yes, I don't like comparing Apple to MS and when I do I'm selective because one is a software company and one is a hardware company. I try to only compare the two when I defend Apple not supporting "freedom" or similar statements like "Apple hates freedom".
It's obvious that Linux is more "free" than Mac, that's because Linux practically sets the benchmark.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
And I regret not sticking with that statement because it's apparent that you're belief/opinion are set and no factual argument is not going to sway you to rethink your position because it's based on sentiment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.