I used to work on Ubuntu since 10.04 but I saw no future with it (lots of bugs, error reports,...) I tried many other distros (Mint, CentOs, Fedora) everything was like everything .. Last summer I bought a Macbook Retina and switched to OS X, result is good hardware and software. I installed my Linux things ZSH,Git,LAMP,Node,... + proprietary stuff like MS office, Adobe apps, which is nice because you use best of bot…
Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
11–19 of 19 posts
Re: Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
#12macminicolo.net has been around since shortly after the original Mac Mini in 2005, so there are people that deploy on OS X, but it's not really cost effective. The XServe line was Apple server, but they discontinued that back in 2011, so it's likely that Apple doesn't even use OS X in their datacenters, opting more to use more traditional servers with a supported OS. Apple's draconian licensing rules for OS X prohibit wider distribution (read about the Psystar case) anyway, so there's not really a wider market, especially compared to the licensing cost of Linux.
As far as init, OS X uses launchd which has its own foibles (XML everywhere), but it works. The app store is sort of a 'package manager', though it's not really designed as one. What you're really looking for is Homebrew which has all the unixy/webdev tools you should need. Mysql and sqlite work fine on OS X, and for the built-in 'web sharing', Apple actually runs Apache under the hood. The network stack runs fine. It isn't great if you've trying to maximize throughput on 10-Gigabit ethernet, but that's hard anyway.
People use it on development machines because Apple makes sexy laptops with sufficiently big batteries to last all day on a single charge. Because Apple controls the hardware and the software, their laptops run OS X really well.
You can run Linux on a Macbook Air/Pro, but at the end of the day, the Unix underpinnings of OS X are good enough, especially for webdev. Install brew, do 'brew install ruby/python/nodejs/whatever', and you're ready to go. Not sure how many brain cells it takes to remember 'brew install $pacakge'.
However, if you find yourself doing lower level systems work where the difference between a .kext or .ko file is huge, or you have your own opinions about systemd, influenced by the amount of time you spend digging around in systems, then by all means, use Linux as your primary OS, but webdev isn't devops.
Re: Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
#13On the desktop side, a good UI on OS X compensates for a mish-mash of inefficient and insecure technology on the backend side of things (legacy tech, mix of ..ix/Mach/Next/MacOS). On Linux/FreeBSD it's typically the other way around; no matter how optimized and clean the back end is (relative to OS X), nobody seems to be able to put together a great working desktop standard UI supporting modern hardware. Hopefully so…
> but all the people who held their breath died a long time ago. We started being able to breath again when Ubuntu was released. It's far from perfect but so's OS X.
That's a ridiculous comparison. One is "imperfect" due to open source failings and a wildly divergent UI, the other is "imperfect" due to (I suppose) some design decisions and the fact that Apple charges money for things and provides restricted hardware support.
Please articulate your perceived problems with OSX.
Re: Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
#14On the desktop side, a good UI on OS X compensates for a mish-mash of inefficient and insecure technology on the backend side of things (legacy tech, mix of ..ix/Mach/Next/MacOS). On Linux/FreeBSD it's typically the other way around; no matter how optimized and clean the back end is (relative to OS X), nobody seems to be able to put together a great working desktop standard UI supporting modern hardware. Hopefully so…
I see Android as the future of the linux desktop.
Still i'm not sure what to think about Ubuntu and Unity8/Mir.
Re: Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but all the people who held their breath died a long time ago. We started being able to breath again when Ubuntu was released. It's far from perfect but so's OS X.
"It's far from perfect but so's OS X." That's a ridiculous comparison. One is "imperfect" due to open source failings and a wildly divergent UI, the other is "imperfect" due to (I suppose) some design decisions and the fact that Apple charges money for things and provides restricted hardware support. Please articulate your perceived problems with OSX.
I didn't think claiming that OS X is imperfect would be controversial claim. Here are two articles I found by Googling for "OS X bugs" that details some imperfections in the recent relase of Yosemite: http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemit... and http://www.macworld.com/article/2849849/bugs-and-fixes-whats...
Does the mere existence in OS X make it "imperfect" beyond difference-of-opinion design decisions and has nothing to do with Apple charging money, or their limited hardware support?
Yes!
Would OS X be imperfect even if those two articles weren't readily findable via Google?
Still yes!
All software is flawed. Apple knows this and hosts Radar, their bug tracking system, to work out imperfections in their software. All code, whether closed or open source, has bugs, and we as a society haven't figured out how to write bug-free code in an economical way.
Re: Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's far from perfect but so's OS X." That's a ridiculous comparison. One is "imperfect" due to open source failings and a wildly divergent UI, the other is "imperfect" due to (I suppose) some design decisions and the fact that Apple charges money for things and provides restricted hardware support. Please articulate your perceived problems with OSX.
It's not a ridiculous comparison, it's the exact comparison that the original post was asking for on a technical level, which we are diverging from. I didn't think claiming that OS X is imperfect would be controversial claim. Here are two articles I found by Googling for "OS X bugs" that details some imperfections in the recent relase of Yosemite: http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemit... and ht…
However, the imperfections are in such wildly divergent areas that the comparison is irrelevant to the main issues.
I like Linux, and use it on a regular basis. I do think, though, that if money isn't a major issue the investment in a MacOS X machine is worthwhile. You can always run Linux in a VM.
Personally I think the Hackintosh route is ethical given Apple's intransigence on hardware choice. It is the largest company in the world by market cap, surely it could release the xMac...
Re: Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
#17Setting up OS X as a web server is doable but the experience is a lot like trying to setup Linux / BSD as a desktop, you can do it but really it is not the main focus of the system.
I worked at a place where we hosted a site off OS X servers using all the same software that would run on a Linux/BSD box. In fact, I was not allowed to use Linux for some systems so I had to build a lot of servers on OS X. Yes you can do it, and it is actually a great learning experience because you have to figure out how things work rather than just follow tutorials, but fact of the matter is that being a server is not the main focus of OS X.
Re: Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a ridiculous comparison, it's the exact comparison that the original post was asking for on a technical level, which we are diverging from. I didn't think claiming that OS X is imperfect would be controversial claim. Here are two articles I found by Googling for "OS X bugs" that details some imperfections in the recent relase of Yosemite: http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-worst-bugs-in-os-x-yosemit... and ht…
Right. I understand that neither is "perfect". However, the imperfections are in such wildly divergent areas that the comparison is irrelevant to the main issues. I like Linux, and use it on a regular basis. I do think, though, that if money isn't a major issue the investment in a MacOS X machine is worthwhile. You can always run Linux in a VM. Personally I think the Hackintosh route is ethical given Apple's intransi…
Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware.
Re: Ask HN: Can we talk about Linux vs. OS/X?
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. I understand that neither is "perfect". However, the imperfections are in such wildly divergent areas that the comparison is irrelevant to the main issues. I like Linux, and use it on a regular basis. I do think, though, that if money isn't a major issue the investment in a MacOS X machine is worthwhile. You can always run Linux in a VM. Personally I think the Hackintosh route is ethical given Apple's intransi…
They tried this in the '90s. Remember PowerComputing? Or UMAX? Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware.
Apple is ultimately, a hardware company. The fact they put a lot of effort into crafting OS' for their hardware that give the average user a very seamless and excellent (imo) user experience is precisely to sell that hardware."
You missed my point entirely. I'm suggesting that Apple should broaden its lineup, not license its OS for other hardware. However, given that it offers nothing of interest to the typical "enthusiast" power user, it's missing the boat.
I think Apple should add the "xMac", meaning a range from mini to full size tower machines with plenty of drive bays, dual x16 PCI slots, large RAM expansion, and high-end i5s and i7s. They should be typical Apple design, quality and pricing. This would GREATLY broaden the Mac's popularity.
I also think they should do a "Mac Pro+", meaning a box that either rack-mounts with an adapter (4U), or can freestand on the floor. It should also sport multiple drive bays, dual x16 PCI slots, massive ECC RAM capability, and high-end Xeon processor(s). The killer feature of these would be to gang them together with Thunderbolt into desk side (or server room) supercomputers for scientific programming, engineering, simulation, and 3D rendering. In short, it should provide the most compute capability of any workstation available, and scale as needed.
Apple needs to broaden its horizons, and start leading the computer industry.