Comments on: Top 10 Things Mac OS X Gets Right That Linux Distributions Do Not

By: Daniel O

Daniel O — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:09:51 +0000

1. Dependencies and stuff.. This is true to a large extent, either the package you use is in synaptic(or any other package manager for that matter) , or you’re screwed, even if its in synaptic, the install could fail because some of its “dependencies” are not in synaptic repos. Also think about offline installation, in Africa, internet is not as widely available.
Imagine i need to install vlc, but i can’t (Very hard) to do an offline installation.
Unless a distro has multi CDs, or a DVD with all that software.

By: Caleb H.

Caleb H. — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:08:12 +0000

I use both Mac OS X (10.5.3) and *nix. When it comes to getting things done, OS X is the best way to go (in most cases). When it comes to having fun, go for *nix and make a home file server for important files. If you want to learn technical skills, *nix is also the way to go. I hated OS X for a while, for example, as I expected to have an internet-ready FreeBSD install, but was disappointed to find no compiling software and terminal package-management. I also hated OS X at first because I wanted to do my Unix stuff, but that darn Aqua UI was distracting me from doing my work on Unix. Mac OS X is good for the following reasons though; internet efficiency, 3D GUI stability (unlike Compiz Fusion), elegant interface and experience, and pre-installed Apache. Both are very nice, in my opinion. Thanks for writing this article!

By: Stephen T.

Stephen T. — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:04:56 +0000

As a user of both (first used Linux back when MKLinux for the mac was released, it ran ontop of a mac kernel, I like to think I played a small role in urging Mac to go the unix route) I will say that both have the advantages. In a hobby network linux is alot of fun and APT is great tool (running debian on all my linux boxes… Apple Only of course)… that being said Mac OS X is just simply easier to use. No way around it. Most people aren’t interested in running a terminal.

Cool article.

By: Victor D Tarsus

Victor D Tarsus — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:56:25 +0000

I have to agree with you on this one. I have been a Mac/Linux user for some 14-13 years now. I prefer to use my Mac stuff because it is the basis of my Graphic Design career. I also dabble in a bit of Debian GNU/Linux because it was at least simple to install on my older PC. I’d love to see Linux vendors attempt to tackle the near flawless application package format that Apple Inc. uses in OS X Applications. Basically, a Mac OS X App is no more than a special folder that has all its components built into it. Needless to say, all one has to do is either control + click or right click the application to bring up the contextual menu and choose “Show Package Contents” to view the guts of the Mac OS X app. Being the graphics dude that I am, I messed around with the icon image files that were inside the resources folder inside the Front Row application on my Mac Mini. I also changed the sound scheme of the application to and as far as using a command line is concerned, I only use the OS X Terminal for quit and dirty FTP access to my tgi-media.com ftp webserver.

By: PCLinuxOSUser

PCLinuxOSUser — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:22:04 +0000

BTW, Oakgop, I’m not a geek at all. I’m a “regular Joe” that has found Linux, learned my way around it in the very same way I would if I’d switched from Windows to Mac or vice versa, and find it very refreshing to use. It’s got its limitations, but those are disappearing rapidly. I don’t know why everyone thinks Linux is for geeks. Many things, seem to make far more sense than they do in Windows, once you’re accustomed to the new environment. I think those that say Linux is for geeks are people that never have installed Windows from a disk and probably just go buy a new computer when Windows inevitably starts acting up.

By: PCLinuxOSUser

PCLinuxOSUser — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:13:24 +0000

#10 – As someone else stated, it doesn’t use the BSD kernel at all.

#9 – Mac OS X hasn’t been released on a consistent regular basis. Besides, adhering to deadlines, IMO, creates bugs. PCLinuxOS and Debian are released on a proper schedule: When they’re ready!

#8 – Every new release of PCLinuxOS has brought major new stuff. This time, it was Beryl/Compiz. Next release, will be the new Compiz Fusion. The following release after that will probably contain KDE 4.0. Those are major new features.

#7 – You’ve got me on that one. I’m blown away by Apple’s software, and iLife is no exception.

#6 – Have you even used Beryl? It makes the Mac OS X eye candy look silly. It might as well be sporting the Windows 3.0 eye candy next to Beryl.

#5 – It ‘just works’ with Apple hardware. Wow… That’s a big feat… Linux works on lots of hardware. You have to be conscious when making hardware purchasing decisions, but so do you when you have a Mac. It installed on my system with everything working from the word ‘go’ except for 3D, which was a driver installation away.

#4 – Wireless freedom with Airport… It doesn’t work out of the gate with just any wireless network. This is a limitation, not something to tout.

#3 – If you think you need to use the command line to configure a lot of stuff, you haven’t used a good Linux like PCLinuxOS. Ubuntu may have its fans, but its automatic script and command line happy. PCLinuxOS, and other similar Linux distros like Mandriva and Suse, give you nice control center applications to do just about everything inside a comfortable GUI.

The Mac is easier to setup, but that’s because of the limited amount of hardware it will work on. This is a limitation of the Mac, not something to be proud of.

#2 – Except when you install X Windows and run Unix applications on it. If all I ran were KDE applications, this would be true of Linux, too. Likewise if all I ran was Gnome applications.

#1 – First of all, it doesn’t matter if a distro is source based, RPM, or DEB based. Package management has nothing to do with the package type. Apt works with RPM and DEB packages and works great. Add Synpatic and everything is a snap with full GUI access to everything. Just about every distro has done away with dependency hell by using either Apt/Synaptic or something very similar like URPMI/RPMDrake or Yum/Yumex. Those days are long over with. With those types of applications, I can delete apps, install apps, and upgrade apps all at once, and in the process, upgrade every application in my system. Can the Mac do this? Not without a VersionTracker subscription…

By: oakgop

oakgop — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:43:50 +0000

its an apples and oranges comparison. look at their markets.
mac meets the market of the “average user” and linux meets their market of “computer geek”.
thats why we like linux.

By: Mr. Bobo

Mr. Bobo — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:32:49 +0000

Isn’t the “Spaces” feature coming up on Leopard just a dandified version of the workspaces that Linux distros have had forever?

By: heh

heh — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:09:06 +0000

“#1 Agreed that “some” Mac applications can be installed very easily. What about the countless applications you can not install on a Mac because there’s only Windows or Unix development?”

mac is posix adherant for its part

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:39:02 +0000

Madre-

All hardware has it’s issues. I’m aware of that. The link you provided is the exception to the rule, which, again, is the case with all hardware. Overall, Mac gets hardware right, mainly because they control it, where Linux needs help.

By: Madre

Madre — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:43:13 +0000

#6 Do you know about Beryl? My Ubuntu Edgy + Beryl makes look a MacOs Tiger like a pussycat…

#5 Allow me to laugh… ROTFL
Just one of many examples I had witnessed myself…

#1 Agreed that “some” Mac applications can be installed very easily. What about the countless applications you can not install on a Mac because there’s only Windows or Unix development?

By: Matthew Kimber

Matthew Kimber — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:55:05 +0000

I think that you hit the nail on the head with your #1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…you’re not going to see Linux distros everywhere until this gets fixed. Dependencies and the tracking down of them is the ruin of my experience with Linux on the desktop.

By: Byron Clark

Byron Clark — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:06:34 +0000

You’ve got some good points, but some of them are just a little off.

#9. Consistent Regular Releases… 10.0 to 10.1 was 6 months, 10.1 to 10.2 was 11 months, 10.2 to 10.3 was 14 months, 10.3 to 10.4 was 18 months, 10.4 to 10.5 is up to 20 months and counting. I’ll give you frequent to start and less so now, but I’m not sure I see consistent and regular there.

#5. Hardware Done Right… OS X will not legally run on your x86 pc, it will run on the x86 box you buy from Apple, with the same stringent controls on hardware as the Apple PPC boxen had.

#4. Wireless Freedom… How many wireless chipsets does OS X support out of the box? I think its only one (broadcom/Airport Express), maybe two. Yes, I know you can get an open source driver for Prism based chipsets also but it sure doesn’t ship with the OS and those chipsets work _perfectly_ on Linux and FreeBSD.

By: Christer Edwards

Christer Edwards — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:49:12 +0000

I thought OSX ran on Darwin, which was based from the BSD kernel and license? No?

I think the APT system is just as easy as the OSX system. Find the program you need in add/remove or synaptic and you’re done. Uncheck to remove. You can’t get much simpler than that.

System integration is something that is killing Microsoft. They want to integrate the programs but all they’ve ended up doing is creating pathways for security flaws to completely overrun the system. Is integration really the best idea?

By: Scott Paul Robertson

Scott Paul Robertson — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:21:45 +0000

Not to burst your bubble, but OS X doesn’t run on a BSD kernel. The OS X kernel (xnu) has a BSD subsystem, but the core of it is a Mach derived kernel. Just thought you’d like to know.