digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Linux still trumps OSX

p2pnet.net — "We recently ran a feature item which suggested, heretically, that Linux was faster than Apple's OS X for statistics." Chalk up another one for Linux!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dixonr315, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56Consumers everywhere will no doubt switch to Linux now ;-)
    • atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -56/+24No, they will continue to purchase overpriced slow computers from Apple or continue to use buggy and insecure Windows machines (because consumers are sheep)
    • drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+36Overpriced slow computers? Dude this article is about how the OS is slower for statistical benchmarking. You can run Linux or Windows on your mac and it will be just as fast as a PC computer. Keep in mind that Mac OS X isn't designed for scientific computational computing. I doubt anyone has even walked into an Apple store and been like, "Well I like the fact that I can check my stocks on the dashboard, but how man milliseconds does it take to calculate the first thousand digits of Pi?"

      Of course Anti Apple Fanboys enjoy every opportunity they can get to distract people from the truth, of course there are Apple fans who do the exact same thing.
    • Zorkon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21I'll make sure to mention to my customers that they should skip OS X and just go Linux instead.

      Of course, it's hard enough to get mom & dad newbie to switch from Windows to Mac, a platform that they are at least somewhat aware of. Getting them to switch to Linux will be near impossible. I've occasionally brought up Linux in conversations with customers, and they usually just give me a blank stare.

      Linux is no closer to the desktop than it was 10 years ago ... Ubuntu has made great strides in usability, but as far as *mindshare* in the Joe-average customer, it's still Windows and Mac.
    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8Why is it that Digg users can absolutely NEVER understand jokes? I don't see Slashdot having the problem of jokes being modded down because moderators are morons..
    • julianrod, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8I know it's a joke, but let me respond briefly: Maybe in 5-10 years. Linux is not ready for consumer use yet. I'll be the first to support Linux the moment my father can use it easily.
    • pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7The jokes on Slashdot are moronic, so of course the morons don't mod them down.
    • veracon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Linux being user-unfriendly is a myth. Linux is just the kernel, and there are plenty good, user-friendly frontends. If you don't need to get "down and dirty" with the terminal, you don't do that. It's perfectly possible using it without that.
    • CrazyZ, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5There's is not one single Linux distro that you can completely setup/tweak without using the CLI, plain and simple. Try installing any ATI driver on any linux distro without using the CLI.

      Try setting up WINE without using the CLI.

      Try authoring a DVD....oops.... Almost all CLI.

      Sorry, that's just plain BS. Many items still require the CLI, and though most of us may be just fine with that. Your average consumer would be completely lost. Sad but try.
    • Magadass, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3In other news Linux still feels like an unfinished piece of *****!
    • veracon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"There's is not one single Linux distro that you can completely setup/tweak without using the CLI, plain and simple. Try installing any ATI driver on any linux distro without using the CLI.

      Try setting up WINE without using the CLI.

      Try authoring a DVD....oops.... Almost all CLI.

      Sorry, that's just plain BS. Many items still require the CLI, and though most of us may be just fine with that. Your average consumer would be completely lost. Sad but try."

      But the average user doesn't NEED to set up WINE. The average user doesn't NEED to author a DVD. And those are what we're talking about, right? The end-user who just wants to use their computer to do all those 'simple' things they do on their beloved Windows machine?
    • traherom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@CrayZ and Magadass

      When was the last time you used Linux and which distro were you using? I can't speak for installing a graphics driver (have freakin' integrated, still :>) or authoring a DVD (have a burner, but I've never actually made a video DVD), but getting WINE to work on Dapper (Ubuntu bandwagon, baby) is a check mark next to "wine" in Synaptic. Yeah, you could do the same thing by typing "sudo apt-get install wine" on the command line, which is what you'll see in tutorials because it's simpler to describe and considered more efficient, but you can really do most administration tasks without seeing a prompt.
    • siedam2000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Right now even the most usable Distros still aren't ready for the consumer. Just setting up sound so more than one program can make noise at a time is a pain. The average consumer doesn't want to search on the Internet for how to configure ALSA, the average consumer doesn't even want to know what ALSA is. Until simple stuff like that is solved Linux will not be ready for the average user. People just want their OS to work out of the box, and not have to go and hunt down how to set up simple stuff like sound, 3d acceleration etc.
    • chucker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The average user doesn't NEED to author a DVD."

      What world are you living in? Consumer DVD authoring has been done for years. iDVD was introduced in 2001 and had all the basic necessary functionality for this (it's now at version 6).

      Why would "the average user" not "need" to author a DVD? How else are you going to make a photo slideshow and send it to your distant friends and relatives? This is the easiest way.
  • Tommstein, on 10/12/2007, -58/+7Ah ha, Linux still hands Macintosh faggotry its ass.
    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12Did you actually just say that? Can you please go back to Nintendo forums now? We don't want you here.
    • CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13+block

      Another idiot whose stupid comments I don't have to read.
  • ANSI, on 10/12/2007, -30/+3Die, bitch, DIE!
  • sandymac, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10lies, damn lies, and statistics
  • Haroldx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16GO LINUX! I don't have anything against mac, though. They're pretty fast and secure as it is. :)
  • Quix, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34In (un)related news, a high-performance motorcycle still trumps a high-performance sports car. But surprisingly, most people still don't want to ride a motorcycle around all the time...
    • tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5What does that make a OS X? A Beetle, Cooper, or PT Cruiser?
    • Virak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27In (un)related news, car analogies still suck.
  • superwick, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18That's great, but what about usability? Most people (i.e., most non-supergeeks) tend to like ease of use. Linux is great, but even with all the advancements made with Gnome and KDE, it's still somewhat lacking in the usability department. OS X on the other hand pretty much nails it.
  • almostinsane, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4This is just lame. The tests are never apple to apple and always biased.
  • sparkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Ahh, you know you've got a trusted news source when the banner ad at the top of the page touts FREE WAREZ FREE MP3S DOWNLOAD NOW
  • firstlast, on 10/12/2007, -34/+0Cool and now with Pixel image editor from http://www.kanzelsberger.com you don't have to run overpriced Photoshop on overpriced Mac :)
    • titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Its called Gimp.
    • mDot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Enough with the spam firstlast. Every comment you've made on Digg involves that URL.
  • darkdaven, on 10/12/2007, -19/+17I'm sure Linux runs faster. Anything'll run fast when its completely empty and void of any tangable use. I bet my toaster gets hotter when it doesn't have to cook all that damn toast.
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7so i suppose i've just been jerking off for the past five years i've been using linux.

      oh, wait, nevermind. anyway, my point is, apart from some particular gay (no disrespect to the sexual preference) software packages made for macs, what doesnt linux do?
    • Virak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13That must be the fastest post ever, then.
    • antisthenex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Virak

      That was a superb subtle diss.
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4ohhhhhhhhhhh
      it took me a while
    • Durrok, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No it didn't, that was the joke ;)
  • gxcdesign, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13O RLy? Well if you guys want, in the cabinet I left some penguin shaped cookies....for everyone!
  • {brackets}, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Wow... and no one realizes that some of this may have to do with a monolithic vs. micro kernel?

    This is digg though...
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5anyone got some monolithic vs micro benchmarks btw? now that i'd like to see
  • heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10Heretically? I don't ever recall hearing ANYONE tout the sheer calculation speed of OS X. Kinda like no one really touts the Linux desktop for its usability by anyone without a masochistic desire to type every command.

    Different tools for different jobs, to put it in a positive light.

    The article is a sad strawman. Lame, lame, lame, and reported as such.
    • tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I see you've never heard of KDE.
    • tolbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Obviously, Linux is more in the server market and Mac OS X is in the home consumer market. It only makes sense that Linux is more faster and OS X is more usable. Anyone using Mac OS X over linux in the enterprise server market has to be an idiot, because they are paying top dollar for something that isn't nearly as superior as it's cheaper counterparts.

      File this under "Duh".
    • burke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Before you talk about having to type every command, suck it up and try Ubuntu.
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4heinousjay, i don't mean to be rude, but as father ted would say, you're a feckin' eedjit. your statement is evidence that you've never used linux, you believe what you read, and you echo secondhand opinions.
  • Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Why can't we report for "No ***** Sherlock!"?

    Seriously OSX is very good, so is Linux. OSX is slower on a mac, than Linux is on the same mac, because OSX was designed to look good, and has many effects that eat up more Ram and CPU speed. Also linux is designed to be versitle to the point of where even some modern distros will work perfectly on computers from 1995 and 1996.
    • tolbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Couldn't agree more with you.
    • shadytrees, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Most of the graphics and effects on OS X are offloaded to the GPU. With each one-tenth point release of Mac OS X, this offloading has only increased, as John Siracusa explains well on his review of 10.4 Tiger in "Ars Technica" [1]. Currently, Tiger (10.4) has a disabled feature to accelerate even more of Quartz (the graphics layer of Mac OS X, as Wikipedia puts it), which is Quartz 2D acceleration [2]. It's widely speculated that Quartz 2D acceleration will be enabled by default in some other future release. Mac OS X may be slower than Linux, but it's not because of graphics. Indeed, comparing Linux and Mac OS X on graphics is silly because the level of graphics on Linux will depend on your graphics server or your desktop environment. Whereas Gnome, hypothetically, might be slower than Aqua, another X window manager like Fluxbox could be faster.

      [1] http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/13
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_(graphics_layer)
    • dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No consumer could care less if their OS is 0.2ms faster at malloc.. Sure, for heavily loaded servers it's great having that 0.2 seconds multiplied hugely to speed things up..
      OS X, and slightly less so Windows, both beat linux hands down for useability, for many reasons (That I'll not go into here, I know linux is useable as a desktop, and all software "only for [Mac/PC]" has alternatives, but comsumers dont' want to search about for alternatives..)

      The title on this story is misleading.. To go back to the crappy car analogies : Extremely fast car, 4 miles to the gallon, fast car, 40 miles to the gallon.. Which one do you want? If your in a race, chances are you want the fastest car you can get, but for most people, racing isn't important, and the extra performace would be wasted
      - Ben
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1shadytrees, you left out the fact that kde and gnome can utilize gpu through compiz and xgl
  • lotusleaf, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Ubuntu Dapper ships for free:
    https://shipit.ubuntu.com/

    Or download it for free June 1st !

    Runs on PC and Mac! :)
  • Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11It's amusing to read how offended all you fanboys get from an article that doesn't bow down and worship any Apple product.
    • gleffler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13It's more amusing that people trust articles from a site called "p2pnet" with more "punch the monkey" banners than Kazaa that have no basis in actual reality.

      If you actually *read* the article (horror of ***** horrors, I know) it actually said that with the correct malloc, the Mac is equally as fast as Linux for every dataset they tried. How is this "Linux still trumps OS X, Linux users take showers in celebration"? It's that by not optimizing software for either platform that Linux is faster. Well, ***** duhhhh? Different kernel architectures and userspace programs should be pretty obvious why this is the case.
    • m242, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"Linux users take showers in celebration"

      That, sir, is the digg comment of the year.
    • cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"it actually said that with the correct malloc, the Mac is equally as fast as Linux for every dataset they tried."

      No, actually it didn't say that. The article was quite clear that Linux was still faster, and by a decent margin in at least one of the datasets. The modified, non-default OSX malloc (not the "correct" one) helped significantly to solve OSX's problems but even then it was still not equal.

      Also everybody seems to be missing the point that this performance benchmark is specifically for running one statistical application. If you don't need to run that application then don't get all hung up about these results. If you do run this statistical application then the article would seem to be very useful.
    • SilentPurity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Linux users take showers in celebration"

      Thats deep man.... woah. I agree that is definitely the digg comment of the year.
    • aroedl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@m242:
      > "Linux users take showers in celebration"
      >
      > That, sir, is the digg comment of the year.

      Apple users spill starbucks' "venti" non-fat caffé latte in shame.
  • dkedinger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8It is amazing how intense people get over this debate. You would think people are talking about their children or something. Different OS's for different people. Can I run Adobe CS2 on Linux? Can I serve a solid website on Windows? Can I play a multitude of 3D games on OSx?
    • tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+91. Gimp.
      2. Yes.
      3. Boot Camp.
    • gleffler, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12@megaman

      If you really think Gimp is a drop-in replacement for Photoshop then I have some prime waterfront land to sell you in Florida, guaranteed not to turn into a swamp in 10 years.
    • burke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I wouldn't go so far as to call it a drop-in replacement, but I've used both, and haven't discovered anything in Photoshop that I *really wish* I could do in the Gimp, but can't. It's a matter of preference.

      I'll admit that CS2 is a slightly superior product, but the Gimp is FREE.
  • DiscoLoke, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Umm. It might be true.... But at least OSX has software a user can run on it... so I'm sure that slows OSX down. But yea, if I didn't plan on running any software, or playing games made this century I would def give props to linux. Booting up faster doesn't meen crap, it's about what you can do on the computer once it is running. GO WINDOWS! Windows might be bloated and slow but at least it can get the job done.
  • musichris777, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7When Linux becomes as easy to use and increases my productivity, I will gladly switch over. This is the same thing I have said in regards to Windows; If it meets that standard of excellence, I will switch back. After 5 years, Windows has not given me good enough reason, and I tried several distro's of Linux including Red Hat 9, Knoppix STD, P.H.L.A.K, and Ubuntu and none of those listed have given me reason to like it as much as I do the Macintosh Operating System.
  • darkdaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I think most of the apple product worship articles are pretty silly too.. Too much penis-measuring in general. To each his own.

    Also, apple computers can run all 3 now right? So just buy an apple and put on it what you want :p
    • tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Because you can run Linux and Windows on something that costs $300.
    • SilentPurity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But not as shiny!
    • xenoandroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Because you can run Linux and Windows on something that costs $300."
      ebay.com and you can get a sub $300 OSX machine too.
  • dharm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7it might beat osx in speed, but it doesnt beat another unix variant like freeBSD

    i love linux... err well i love gentoo, but i am a *bsd man
  • nuclearpenguins, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9As a Windows fan it's nice to see the other two camps bicker for a while.
    • xswag, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I'm with you on that!
    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Wow, I always figured I was the only Windows fan in existance. Though, at least I have some things to support myself. The reason for insecurities in Windows is stupid people, not flaws in the operating system. If the stupid people could figure out how to use Linux, then linux would have security issues, too. There is no patch for human stupidity, and there never will be. All it takes is a droplet of intelligence to eliminate what Linux users claim are the biggest flaws in Windows.

      I have used Windows XP for three years now. I don't use any anti-virus software. I don't have a firewall. I don't use anti-spyware programs. I use internet explorer. I have never gotten a virus. I have never been 'hacked' I have only ever gotten spyware once, and that was the fault of my father ( Again, human stupidity is always the root of the problem ). I don't have any problems with Internet Explorer.
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I use Windows too (Although I have another computer running Gentoo and this one dual boots with Slackware), and don't have viruses and crap either. I agree that if you're careful with Windows, you don't need AV software and the like. However, Windows definitely does have flaws in the operating system. That's why there are so many viruses for it. An operating system isn't secure when it's directly tied to a web browser. And then of course theres all the other crap that's wrong with Windows. The only reason there aren't even more viruses for Windows is because it's closed source, so people can't see what's wrong with it, or fix what's wrong with it.
  • TravisS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Even if linux is faster it sure doesn't seem as responsive. As much as I love linux gnome and kde just feel slow and unresponsive. Linux's time will come, but not yet
  • jshomes10, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Linux,, If you think OSx has a small market share what about Linux? Linux is like a Rolls Royce. Incredible car that almost no one drives. I'll take the Lexus (OSx) any day. I don't get these comparisons?
    • Giever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But Linux is free, and people don't drive Rolls Royces because they are expensive, not because they're hard to drive. Like Virak said, car analogies suck.
    • burke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2from "In the beginning was the command line" by Neal Stephenson, circa 1999

      MGBs, TANKS, AND BATMOBILES
      Imagine a crossroads where four competing auto dealerships are situated. One of them (Microsoft) is much, much bigger than the others. It started out years ago selling three-speed bicycles (MS-DOS); these were not perfect, but they worked, and when they broke you could easily fix them.

      There was a competing bicycle dealership next door (Apple) that one day began selling motorized vehicles--expensive but attractively styled cars with their innards hermetically sealed, so that how they worked was something of a mystery.

      The big dealership responded by rushing a moped upgrade kit (the original Windows) onto the market. This was a Rube Goldberg contraption that, when bolted onto a three-speed bicycle, enabled it to keep up, just barely, with Apple-cars. The users had to wear goggles and were always picking bugs out of their teeth while Apple owners sped along in hermetically sealed comfort, sneering out the windows. But the Micro-mopeds were cheap, and easy to fix compared with the Apple-cars, and their market share waxed.

      Eventually the big dealership came out with a full-fledged car: a colossal station wagon (Windows 95). It had all the aesthetic appeal of a Soviet worker housing block, it leaked oil and blew gaskets, and it was an enormous success. A little later, they also came out with a hulking off-road vehicle intended for industrial users (Windows NT) which was no more beautiful than the station wagon, and only a little more reliable.

      Since then there has been a lot of noise and shouting, but little has changed. The smaller dealership continues to sell sleek Euro-styled sedans and to spend a lot of money on advertising campaigns. They have had GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! signs taped up in their windows for so long that they have gotten all yellow and curly. The big one keeps making bigger and bigger station wagons and ORVs.

      On the other side of the road are two competitors that have come along more recently.

      One of them (Be, Inc.) is selling fully operational Batmobiles (the BeOS). They are more beautiful and stylish even than the Euro-sedans, better designed, more technologically advanced, and at least as reliable as anything else on the market--and yet cheaper than the others.

      With one exception, that is: Linux, which is right next door, and which is not a business at all. It's a bunch of RVs, yurts, tepees, and geodesic domes set up in a field and organized by consensus. The people who live there are making tanks. These are not old-fashioned, cast-iron Soviet tanks; these are more like the M1 tanks of the U.S. Army, made of space-age materials and jammed with sophisticated technology from one end to the other. But they are better than Army tanks. They've been modified in such a way that they never, ever break down, are light and maneuverable enough to use on ordinary streets, and use no more fuel than a subcompact car. These tanks are being cranked out, on the spot, at a terrific pace, and a vast number of them are lined up along the edge of the road with keys in the ignition. Anyone who wants can simply climb into one and drive it away for free.

      Customers come to this crossroads in throngs, day and night. Ninety percent of them go straight to the biggest dealership and buy station wagons or off-road vehicles. They do not even look at the other dealerships.

      Of the remaining ten percent, most go and buy a sleek Euro-sedan, pausing only to turn up their noses at the philistines going to buy the station wagons and ORVs. If they even notice the people on the opposite side of the road, selling the cheaper, technically superior vehicles, these customers deride them cranks and half-wits.

      The Batmobile outlet sells a few vehicles to the occasional car nut who wants a second vehicle to go with his station wagon, but seems to accept, at least for now, that it's a fringe player.

      The group giving away the free tanks only stays alive because it is staffed by volunteers, who are lined up at the edge of the street with bullhorns, trying to draw customers' attention to this incredible situation. A typical conversation goes something like this:

      Hacker with bullhorn: "Save your money! Accept one of our free tanks! It is invulnerable, and can drive across rocks and swamps at ninety miles an hour while getting a hundred miles to the gallon!"

      Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"

      Bullhorn: "You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!"

      Buyer: "But this dealership has mechanics on staff. If something goes wrong with my station wagon, I can take a day off work, bring it here, and pay them to work on it while I sit in the waiting room for hours, listening to elevator music."

      Bullhorn: "But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!"

      Buyer: "Stay away from my house, you freak!"

      Bullhorn: "But..."

      Buyer: "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
  • mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5This is weird... no Mac Kultists around?
    • lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Most of the apoligist are at the hospital for cutting themselves, while the rest of the honerable Mac users have decided that this article isn't going to affect how much they like using OS X and are probably viewing other digg articles.
  • purrdeta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I use a Mac, I like it... I use windows, it doesnt suck. I use linux and it doesnt suck either. They all have their good points and their bad points. Choose whats best for you :)
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2you're just asking to get buried with talk like that
    • Giever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That was kind of ironic.
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1you know what would be ironic? if a shark learned to surf to impress his friends, and he learned to do it so well that his friends mistook him for a surfer and ate him.
  • pornel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Great. Now let's benchmark using Photoshop... oh.
  • skeptik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Quite simply, while Linux may have outperformed OS-X in one important area, the headline is misleading because it presents a sweeping generalization using the word "trumps" - which is not supported beyond the specific case being cited. From the headline the reader could conclude that Linux is superior in every way to OS-X. The article certainly fails to make that case - but it is spun in such a way that it is worthy of comparison to the Fox "News" network.
  • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8comrades, it breaks my heart to see two brothers in unix (roughly speaking) being pitted against eachother. we must come together as one, to disillusion the proletariat about the common enemy that enslaves them!
  • zenlunatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3its about freedom NOT better
  • mass, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I love these Apple vs Linux articles; it shows who uses computers to be productive in work, research or school, and who is 13 years old. They are always filled with posts like 'my os is better than yours, so you must be gay. ha-ha'
  • zen.state, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4what people are forgetting is that osx uses true unix (freebsd) and that linux is merely a clone of unix.
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1merely? i take issue with that, good sir.
      where was bsd when we needed it? busy getting its nuts put through the wringer by sco, that's where. linux filled a need then and now
    • Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually FreeBSD is UNIX-like, not UNIX.
      That's the most common error I see when people argue about the BSD family.

      Anyway, is this article worthy of the front page? We all know that feature-wise, speed-wise, compatibility-wise, stability-wise and use of new tech-wise that Linux is clearly superoir to OS X.
    • xenoandroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And the current OS X actually uses Mach as it's core, which is known to have some performance issues. BSD is only a subsystem.
  • TeKoverride, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7The headline for this is rediculous. Of all the mac owners I know aren't using their OS to do Genetic Matching. Article is lame.
    • cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Try using digg's spell check button.

      Of all the Mac owners you know, this article might not be very useful. But if you knew a bunch of people who did statistical analysis then the article would be very useful. You're right thought that it is odd it got dugg to the front page knowing that it's a benchmark of one specific application.
  • ScnnrDrkly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Agenda, what?
    I can't take anything this asshat says seriously. Better performance in one area does not mean Linux trumps OS X.
  • northerncomfort, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I love the Digg comment system. If you agree, mod up. If you disagree, mod down.

    They say that digg is 100% community driven, and I suppose that it's pretty much true. It's a shame that a large portion of the community seems to be retarded, and ruins the comment system, which would otherwise be an excellent read.
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2you what the kids in special ed use as an insult to eachother?
  • liveinabin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4What a stupid digg this is! Never mind iLife, ease of use and perfect symbiosis of hardware and OS, it's all about crunching statistics. What?
    • igraham09, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3agreed... i think ease of use is much more valuable than who can calculate differential equations the fastest
  • DigDuality, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Linux and Mac fanboys, IMO shouldn't be competing against each other. They should be complimenting one another.

    There's a common goal. And no, not the end of MS, but to ensure that at some point, people have choice. That monoculture becomes a thing of the past..

    • CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah, it's not a "war" to be "won" with just one side "victorious". Only children think like that.

      We should be all glad we have some choice on the desktop, and for servers.

      Hang on, I do apologise for letting facts and straight-thinking get in the way of today's 2 minute hate...
    • an0nym0us, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...and I choose you, Microsoft Windows! :P
  • DigDuality, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I think it's fair to say when compared to Windows, both Linux and Mac are "limited".

    Mac isn't exactly winning the server market in the least bit with OS X Server.

    Linux's usability is keeping it off the majority of desktops.

    Neither are gaming platforms.
  • DanaG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This is lame.

    Apparently "Linux still trumps OSX" based on one application, or, as far as I can tell from the article, the "malloc" routine in one application.

    I want the time I wasted reading the article back.
  • lotusleaf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@DigDuality:
    "Linux and Mac fanboys, IMO shouldn't be competing against each other. They should be complimenting one another.

    There's a common goal"

    Please tell us in detail what that common goal is, I'd like to hear it.

    Can I install OS X on a PC for free?
    Can I examine the source code to OS X and make improvements?

    When was the last time you saw Bill Gates' face appear on a giant screen behind Linus on a stage?

    Why did the $100 laptop people refuse the offer from Apple and instead went with Linux?

    Free and open source software is about freedom. Perhaps someone needs to read the GNU Philosophy a few more times.

    Anyone who mods this down is probably too scared to reply.
    • nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3common goal is market share that windows doesnt have. even if steve jobs is taking it in the pooper from redmond
    • DigDuality, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm all about OSS, but i'm not about killing off proprietary as a whole. I think the main goal should be the end of the MS monoculture. People having a "choice" comes first and foremost before my values about OSS. Sorry. Right now we have an industry where one company in Redmond pretty much dictates to the world. While i don't view Apple as anything ethically better than MS, i do think people should have a choice of where they can go.

      At least if OS X and Linux each had say.. a 1/3 market share, you're virus problems would go down, among quite a few other issues that plague windows machines.
    • lotusleaf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@joshuapechter:
      "i am not too scared to both reply and mod you down for being such a jerk"

      Where did you answer any of my questions?

      I love personal attacks, btw, so keep them coming.
    • lotusleaf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@joshuapechter:

      To quote myself "Please tell us in detail what that common goal is, I'd like to hear it." was what I began the reply with, followed by questions. It seems my post was misunderstood and buried, so for a refresher, here it was:

      Please tell us in detail what that common goal is, I'd like to hear it.

      Can I install OS X on a PC for free?
      Can I examine the source code to OS X and make improvements?

      When was the last time you saw Bill Gates' face appear on a giant screen behind Linus on a stage?

      Why did the $100 laptop people refuse the offer from Apple and instead went with Linux?

      Free and open source software is about freedom. Perhaps someone needs to read the GNU Philosophy a few more times.
    • gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As Tensenki said, there is Darwin, of which is pretty much OS X without a GUI, and is released under various open source licenses.

      http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
  • eirik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Misleading headline. No digg.
  • reallydull, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It's that Sekhon guy again (see http://digg.com/linux_unix/Debunked:_Sehkon_s_Mac_OS_X_Ubuntu_WinXP_Core_Duo_benchmarking_results ). He made a whopper of a mistake (he originally claimed OS X was half the speed of Linux) and is now trying to restore his credibility.
  • sp3ctrecs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I used to be big into the OS argument - until I realized that it was pointless arguing.

    Seriously, think about it. We're all going to say that whatever we like is best, cause we like it! But that isn't enough to form a valid argument for what is "best". I've used every major OS as my primary OS for at least a year (Windows, OSX, Linux), and the only thing I've been able to conclude is that each has their own purpose. I'd never think of sticking my mother in front of a linux box (or even a windows box for that matter, with all the spyware and all [and yes, I've put her on Firefox and run her in user mode, and somehow she still manages to get spyware]), so for her I feel the best choice would be OSX. For myself, I tried Linux as a desktop for a full year. I liked alot of what it had to offer, but inevitably I switched back to Windows due to lack of hardware support (or maybe I wasn't l33t enough to write my own drivers... *shrug*). As for my webserver, I think the obvious choice is Linux... being able to use it effectively without a monitor mouse or keyboard and do everything via SSH is great (not to mention shell scripting and stuff like that).

    Now, could you do any of these things on any of the other OSes? Sure. Windows has remote desktop, Linux is immune to spyware too, and OSX can be a server too. But that's not the point.

    Its all about personal tastes and preferences. Not about which one is "better" than the other.
    • lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My grandma compiles her kernels with love.
  • alexanEmpire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You know what else would make linux ready for consumers? A movie editing program (like Final Cut Pro for Mac). Is there any free movie editing software for linux?
    • traherom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Kino works well and is pretty easy to use (as video editors go). I've heard Cinelerra is excellent, but I've never cared enough to spend time getting to know it well.
    • trollenlord, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Cinelerra should be a complete suite. It's not easy to use though, it's geared towards uber demanding professional use. If you manage to get it installed you're a guru too.
  • stephano, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0old news
  • FyberOptic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Whatever makes their e-penises feel a bit bigger.
  • brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a set of software Linux is pretty much ready to go for MOST users. Try installing a Canon printer or most wifi devices and then you are in the *****. Its getting better very very fast though. Brother are releasing linux drivers for their whole range and have already released a lot. HP has already done it. Really its only Canon, Epson and Lexmark that need to step up. And apparently one of the leading wifi stacks was open sourced which should improve things quite a bit on the wifi front. With those 2 things out of the way, Linux is a better o/s than Windows and only a year or so behind OSX. Use a hp or brother printer and get one of the few wifi devices that work out of the box and you are good to go today. Yesterday I installed a complete system with GUI desktop and standard apps, full multimedia and LAMP in about an hour. In Windows, that's about $1000 in software and 5 hours at least (with reboots and drivers). As for usability, I am really impressed at how fast and neat Ubuntu Dapper is. Hoary was really slow compared to Dapper and Windows. I reckon Dapper is equal to a clean XP as far as responsiveness goes. Now give it a month or 2 of Windows registry and drive fragmentation and Dapper will kill it - not to mention the obligatory A/V app that sucks up 2-5% of resources.
  • polumrak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll just insert my five cents, please.
    I'm glad I use Mac OS X, 'cause I love it. I don't really care for its speed - DVDs plays with only one speed and I can read only limited amount of mail in one minute.
    I'm glad I use Linux, I like it and I'm glad it's so fast - I use it to run stuff like CPMD or Gaussian, it takes sometimes up to two weeks to complete a calculation and additional speed can't be spare.
    Go, Mac OS X.
    Go, Linux.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.