Thoughts on the Power Mac Dual-Core 2.3 GHz(linux vs mac)

OS News ^ | 2005-11-15 | Rayiner Hashem

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Let me address the inevitable "Ubuntu vs. OS X" comparison. The thing that surprised me most about using the PowerMac was not that OS X's UI was better than Ubuntu's, which I have known for quite some time having used both regularly, but how small that difference really was. As I said, OS X's UI is a step up from GNOME's. However, I wouldn't say it is in a completely different league. In terms of the fundamental UI elements, GNOME is extremely competitive.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

There goes the notion that OS 10 is light years ahead.

If Linux can keep up with a Mac, what does that say about linux vs windows?

[ShadowAce]

[HAL9000]

In briefly glancing at the article, I spotted some factual errors about Macs. The author was wrong about file typing - it doesn't depend entirely on file name extensions. The author complains about font anti-aliasing, without mentioning that it can be easily adjusted in System Preferences to suit the user's preference. And there were conspicuous omissions in his discussion of user interface technology, like the Quartz Extreme compositing engine that give Mac OS X a fast, smooth appearance - in contrast to X11's crude window system. Of course, some of the opinions are subjective. The author prefers a cheap plastic case to a sturdy aluminum case.

The author also fails to note that most Linux software can be compiled to run on Macs, but Mac software generally won't run on Linux. Next year, Macs will be able to run Windows too, so there is a lot more versatility in the Mac environment.

The bottom line is - Linux is an excellent operating system for servers, but a lousy platform for desktop users. Linux has a long way to go before it can catch up to Mac OS X as a desktop computer, and given the state of anarchy and chaos in the Linux development community, it's unlikely to ever catch up.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Not a bad post.

^^^^^^^^^^The author also fails to note that most Linux software can be compiled to run on Macs, but Mac software generally won't run on Linux.^^^^^^^^^

The author made it a point on multiple occasions that the mac had a permanent home on his desk.(in one wording or another)

What he also noted is that installing software on linux is easier and requires less feedback.

^^^^^^^Next year, Macs will be able to run Windows too, so there is a lot more versatility in the Mac environment.^^^^^^^^^^

And in the meantime?

We'll see if it helps them re-capture their spot as #2.

Besides, macs give you much less versatility in the hardware department.

^^^^^^^^^The bottom line is - Linux is an excellent operating system for servers, but a lousy platform for desktop users.^^^^^^^^^^

Heh, that's not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is that "but a lousy platform for desktop users." is a statement that only applies to last year's linux.

[HAL9000]

We'll see if it helps them re-capture their spot as #2.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why web server log files show over 10 time more usage on Macs than Linux. (The answer is obvious - Linux is in distant third place for desktop Internet usage, behind Windows and Macs.)

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

^^^^^^^^^^I'm still waiting for an explanation of why web server log files show over 10 time more usage on Macs than Linux.^^^^^^^^^

It's far more likely that linux machines are not connecting to said servers as opposed to a percentage margin that simply cannot exist when compared to apple's own numbers.

If apple hadn't announced having 25 million users, you'd have an argument.

[HAL9000]

It's far more likely that linux machines are not connecting to said servers as opposed to a percentage margin that simply cannot exist when compared to apple's own numbers.

Let's have a look at the web server stats at thecounter.com for October.

Based on 79,871,057 web site visits during October, Windows XP users accounted for 59,767,399 visits (74%), Mac accounted for 2,495,102 visits (3%) and Linux had 334,440 visits (about 0%).

Either Linux users don't exist in the numbers you claim - or they don't use the Internet.

[Salo]

Apple Ping

[HAL9000]

Now let's look at the Doctor HTML web browser statistics for last week -

Mac - 3.83%
Linux - 0.28%

A very consistent pattern is shown in all of these aggregated statistics - A lot more Mac users than Linux users on the Internet.

[HAL9000]

Correcting the Doctor HTML link -

http://www.doctor-html.com/agent_stats/

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^A very consistent pattern is shown in all of these aggregated statistics^^^^^^^^^

Actually, that second link doesn't work. But a very consistent pattern is indeed being formed.

Macs have a larger share than can exist by apple's own numbers.

Surely you can explain that away.

^^^^^^^^^^^^A lot more Mac users than Linux users on the Internet.^^^^^^^^^^^

You're so insistent on winning this argument. Why does my mentioning of linux being OS #2 bother you so much? Why you so afraid of that? It shouldn't be that big a deal given that macos only runs on macs and linux runs on... nearly everything. Including macs.

Besides, your beef is not with me. You need to send the appropriate hatemail to the following companies.

http://www.idc.com/
http://www.gartner.com

They're the ones who have stated that Apple lost the spot to linux.

You're simply shooting the messenger.

[HAL9000]

Actually, that second link doesn't work.

The link was corrected in #10 about 30 seconds later. Here it is again - http://www.doctor-html.com/agent_stats/.

http://www.idc.com/
http://www.gartner.com

Quit jerking off, halfman. The word "Linux" isn't even mentioned on those pages. If you have links to some actual statistics to make your point, post 'em.

Why does my mentioning of linux being OS #2 bother you so much?

Because it's untrue.

[garyhope]

But what about BoB?

There are still Amiga users out there?

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The link was corrected in #10 about 30 seconds later. Here it is again - http://www.doctor-html.com/agent_stats/. ^^^^^^^^^^^

I see. Yet another link that states percentages that simply can't exist due to Apple's own numbers.

How is that possible?

^^^^^^^^^^^The word "Linux" isn't even mentioned on those pages.^^^^^^^^

Duh. Those are the respective companies's homepages. Their reports on linux beating out the Mac as #2 were out over a year ago. I didn't post their homepages as backup of my argument, I posted them so you'd know where to send your hatemail.

^^^^^^^^^^If you have links to some actual statistics to make your point, post 'em.^^^^^^^^^^

They're not hard to find on google. You should try it.

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,95026,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,64504,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

As I've said before, I'm more inclined to believe gartner's numbers. I've also stated how while one says 2003, they both agree on 2005. Linux has surpassed the Mac as #2.

[Swordmaker]

Thoughts on the Power Mac Dual-Core 2.3 GHz(linux vs mac) PING!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[Terpfen]

What he also noted is that installing software on linux is easier and requires less feedback.

It doesn't get much easier than running a self-contained program. You just drag it to your Applications folder, no installer necessary. Linux and Windows both need to rip this off, Windows especially: that Program Files directory has to go.

[Swordmaker]

Hmmmmm so you are basing your argument on the following prognostication (someone examining tea leaves? from your linked article)?

By 2007, IDC estimates that Linux will have 6% of the desktop market in terms of units, Kusnetzky said.

And the other linked article refutes Kusnetzky's assertions ("Linux captured the No. 2 spot as desktop operating system in 2003. . .") pretty convincingly. with statements such as:

"I think those numbers are dubious," said Tim Deal, a financial analyst with Technology Business Research.

Peter Kastner, an analyst with Aberdeen Group, said the Mac has roughly 3 percent of the desktop market, and the Linux share is considerably lower than that.

Kastner's 3 percent estimate is backed up by numbers published by Google, which logs the different desktop systems used to access its site. According to Google, Mac users number 3 percent, while Linux weighs in at 1 percent.

Even Leigh Day, spokeswoman for Red Hat, one of the largest Linux distributors, said Linux isn't yet ready for the desktop.

"The stuff for a consumer desktop -- media players, video drivers -- are not yet mature," she said.

Market research firm Gartner may have the answer. According to Gartner, forecasts need to distinguish between the OS the machine ships with, and the OS that is installed right after it's unboxed.

"In emerging markets like China, Russia and Latin America, many locally assembled PCs are sold without an OS or with Linux," wrote Gartner analyst Annette Jump in a report published last week. "On 90 percent to 95 percent of these PCs, a pirated version of Microsoft Windows is installed within the first few days."

[HAL9000]

As your second link reports, Linux is used merely as a free disposable operating system on computers sold in Asia. The Asian customer then erases Linux and replaces it with a pirated copy of Windows. The Windows piracy rates in China and India are about 92% and 88% respectively. So Linux is widely "sold" - and never used.

I'm not anti-Linux. It's a great operating system for servers. But there are two things that people ought to know about Linux -

1. The current Linux user interface is lousy for the home/office desktop environment. It's worse than Windows 95, and unfortunately, it's hopeless for the foreseeable future.

2. According to real-world network statistics, Mac OS X is far ahead of Linux in actual usage for desktop computers.

[glorgau]

Linux has a long way to go before it can catch up to Mac OS X as a desktop computer, and given the state of anarchy and chaos in the Linux development community, it's unlikely to ever catch up.

Yeah, but the converse is also true. Mac OS X has a long way to go for use as a server platform - too many compromises were made for user interaction. For deploying server farms of generic IP services such as web servers, directory services, databases, etc. Linux is hands down the choice when it comes to flexibility.

[Question_Assumptions]

There goes the notion that OS 10 is light years ahead.

The GUI, alone, is not the sum total of OSX. As someone who used Linux as a primary home desktop machine for several years before it was either easy or popular to do so (roughly 1995-2000), what Linux is missing is similar to what the Mac is missing -- commercial software support in certain areas. And given that Mac OSX runs on top of BSD Unix and given that OSX now comes with an X server, you can run most of what you can run on Linux on the Mac, along with a whole host of other commercial software that doesn't have a Linux version. But what Linux probably really needs is a mainstream hardware vendor selling prepackaged user-friendly Linux computers to the public and businesses. Put another way, Linux needs an ad budget the way Apple and Microsoft have an ad budget and spend money to promote their OSes.