Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu With Linux 3.16 Smashes OS X 10.9.4 On The MacBook Air

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
    It's great when someone tries so hard to be anything but ignorant, and then ends up being totally ignorant.
    Unfortunately, this is not a point at all.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
      OS X doesn't look better either. Porn comes to mind.
      I'm sorry, but I have never thought of porn when speaking about OS X. Never! Sure, it does sound like "oh sex" if you say it fast, but even then, sex =/= porn.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by nll_a View Post
        It's not even that IMO. Especially regarding the horrifyingly ugly traffic lights window buttons and the cold fake metal theme. It's just got some nicer animations.
        Nice animations, that's all. The one I like the most is the oppening of an application window from its icon or document icon. Everything else is quite ugly and less usable than Windows.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by startzz View Post
          cares linux trolls. But anyway, results are proportional to the hardware : osx - cpu - core i5 @ 1,3 ghz @ 2 cores, ubuntu 14.04 - core i5 @ 1,3 ghz @ 4 cores, ubuntu 14.04 + dev mesa & kernel - core i5 @ 2,6 ghz @ 4 cores.
          Always, in every benchmark (encoding, gaming, networking), OSX is and was slower than both Linux and Windows even in it's own tuned hardware. I don't even dare to think the results if OSX was allowed to run in generic pcs not optimized for it.
          Here Michael says clearly "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS x86_64 was then dual-booted to the same Apple MacBook Air.". Wonder who's trolling....

          Comment


          • #35
            ye

            Originally posted by Apopas View Post
            Always, in every benchmark (encoding, gaming, networking), OSX is and was slower than both Linux and Windows even in it's own tuned hardware. I don't even dare to think the results if OSX was allowed to run in generic pcs not optimized for it.
            Here Michael says clearly "Ubuntu 14.04 LTS x86_64 was then dual-booted to the same Apple MacBook Air.". Wonder who's trolling....
            it not run att all in generic pcs at least with amd cpu, this the main reason for osx only run with their macs

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
              Code:
              The reason I call it "Linux" is because "GNU" is ugly as hell. And also, people wouldn't know what I'm talking about if I said "GNU".
              OS X doesn't look better either. Porn comes to mind.
              Whether or not something looks good is pretty subjective. I along with probably most of everyone prefer how OS X looks. They pay people a lot of money to create a consistent UI that looks good to the general population and it appears to succeed, so yeah. Linux can learn a lot from OS X considering OS X has done the research.

              As I've stated before, using OS X for me is a lot easier than using Linux. I've used Linux for a long time, I know how to use it extremely well, but it requires effort to maintain and fuck that. I have much better things to do. I would GLADLY pay someone to do it for me, and I do. Got a high-end mouse? Good luck using that on Linux. It's impossible to configure the mouse speeds decently. The only decent configuration utility is Razercfg (I have a razer mouse because it's really nice) and it doesn't even save the configuration nor load it properly when you configure it. I don't feel like fixing it myself and there isn't an easy way to pay someone to fix it for me. Window tearing is a massive issue and while some people don't care, I do. There is a massive amount of fragmentation in all of the window toolkits, everything looks different and quite frankly like ass. GTK is good, Qt is good. They should not be intermixed because they look TERRIBLE when used with each other (i.e. some applications use Qt that are really popular while others use GTK and you're expected to use them both at once). The only exception to that rule has been VLC, it looks good while using GTK. The Linux desktop is not very usable for me and when there are bugs freely introduced into the code by novice programmers that does not appeal to me. I want something that works, just works, and never stops working. I don't care if it can load a file at 100MB/s vs Linux's 150MB/s. I don't care. On OS X I can load everything with the expectation of functionality and I receive it every time.

              Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
              You're the ignorant here, mister.
              Says the guy who made a subjective statement appear objective.

              Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
              Calling it GNU/Linux is completely correct. Userland is full GNU, including the vastly used Linux API implementation: glibc. Graphics interface is an add-on that doesn't count and is outside the main user land.
              KDE is called KDE SC, KDE Software Compilation which uses KDE Framework and Plasma Workspaces in a similar manner GNU uses Linux.
              Userland is NOT full GNU. glibc is a VERY small library compared to the rest of the userland that may or may not be GPL'd and certainly not written by GNU. Obviously Linux wouldn't have succeeded without GNU but we call it Linux not because it's correct but because it's easy. If we wanted to be correct we'd call it Fedora GNU/Linux or Arch GNU/Linux and fuck calling it that every time. We call it OS X or Mac instead of Mac OS X, we call it Windows instead of Microsoft Windows. Yes there are times when it's references by it's full name but who cares when it's not.

              Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
              The rest, I'm OK with that and you could call people from the US as "americans" because they're in America so americans is their generic type but programs for native Android are not valid for GNU nor BusyBox.
              BusyBox is such a massive piece of irrelevant software for desktops I cannot even fathom why you brought it up.

              Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
              Code:
              System branding. People don't normally say "Linux" in that context you are taking about, instead they say "Ubuntu" or "Red Hat".
              But in fact those are GNU/Linux systems. Their generic type is GNU which abstracts Linux.
              Today I think I'll download Debian GNU/Linux.
              I'm not anal about it. If I download something, I say hey I'm going to install Ubuntu on this server or whatever, and people will know that I mean Ubuntu Server GNU/Linux.

              Originally posted by nll_a View Post
              It's not even that IMO. Especially regarding the horrifyingly ugly traffic lights window buttons and the cold fake metal theme. It's just got some nicer animations.
              Have you even looked at the latest OS X? No, no you haven't. You don't have to like it but don't spread bullshit.
              Last edited by jimbohale; 07-14-2014, 06:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by jimbohale View Post
                Whether or not something looks good is pretty subjective. I along with probably most of everyone prefer how OS X looks. They pay people a lot of money to create a consistent UI that looks good to the general population and it appears to succeed, so yeah. Linux can learn a lot from OS X considering OS X has done the research.
                I realize you meant something else nvm about that part

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by jimbohale View Post
                  Got a high-end mouse? Good luck using that on Linux. It's impossible to configure the mouse speeds decently.
                  My ROCCAT Kone XTD works flawlessly, and has configuration software and everything. You should buy gear from the companies that support Linux if you want it to work.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Drago View Post
                    Seems like Germany(Linux) : Brasil(os x) to me.
                    Both systems are great , Linux won't beat OS X in every benchmark, both systems have particular applications which one performs better than the other….

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Filiprino View Post

                      Code:
                      System branding. People don't normally say "Linux" in that context you are taking about, instead they say "Ubuntu" or "Red Hat".
                      But in fact those are GNU/Linux systems. Their generic type is GNU which abstracts Linux.
                      Today I think I'll download Debian GNU/Linux.
                      This is a specious argument.

                      GNU does NOT abstract linux.

                      GNU is an organization that consists of multiple, loosely coupled software projects that can be used together or separately. One of these projects is GCC. Another is glibc.

                      GCC is a compiler that implements several standards that provide a platform agnostic abstraction of computer hardware. glibc is an implementation of the C standard library, which is part of the same standard that GCC implements.

                      THE STANDARD IS THE ABSTRACTION LAYER.

                      Let say that again.

                      THE STANDARD IS THE ABSTRACTION LAYER.

                      By your logic here, we should call it C Standard Linux. In which case, MOST OSes would be named the same way. Why is this true? Because we can compile the kernel using other c standard compilers, using other implementations of the c standard library.

                      OK, let's look at this from a different perspective.

                      Intel, Microsoft, AMD, and APPLE provide in some form or another a c standard compiler.

                      If you create a program from any one of them, you do not suddenly start calling the program Microsoft Autodesk MAYA under windows, Apple Autodesk MAYA under OS X or GNU (or whatever compiler they use on Linux) Autodesk MAYA under Linux. You do not call X11 the GNU X11, or the Apple X11, or the MingW X11.

                      As an artifact of the c/c++ standard, if you compile a shared library, you should use the same complier version for any program that you want to link against that library. This is not applicable for GCC due to their decision to keep a stable abi. Ironically, this is causing them issues with complying with the new cxx11/14 standard. This means it only makes a difference what system you use due to library linking.

                      Thankfully, the C++ ISO committee is looking at creating a solution to this problem, meaning multiple compilers and compiler versions could use the same libraries, making the actual implementation matter even less.

                      Finally, The GCC folks have made it very clear that using the GCC compiler or libraries in no way requires any legal or ethical obligations toward the GCC system, the output of their compiler is in no way related to GCC. If they were ever to specify anything different, they would find many more developers and companies jumping ship from contributing.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by dante View Post
                        Both systems are great , Linux won't beat OS X in every benchmark, both systems have particular applications which one performs better than the other….
                        Have you been paying attention at all to the phoronix OS X benchmarks for the last 4 years (I can't speak about before that as that's about when I started reading phoronix)? The only area where OS X has ever beaten linux in benchmarks has been when compared to the Open Source graphics drivers, and even on those Linux is usually ahead. For all other cases OS X is significantly slower than Windows or Linux.

                        If you stop and think about it, it makes sense, because nobody who cares about performance is using a mac. Super computers are primarily running Linux. Linux, Windows, a few proprietary UNIXes primarily from IBM and HP, and FreeBSD are the only OSes that matter in the server room. Render farms for the big animation companies are all running Linux, and gaming is done on Windows. Thus nobody is pushing apple to develop for performance.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                          Have you been paying attention at all to the phoronix OS X benchmarks for the last 4 years (I can't speak about before that as that's about when I started reading phoronix)? The only area where OS X has ever beaten linux in benchmarks has been when compared to the Open Source graphics drivers, and even on those Linux is usually ahead. For all other cases OS X is significantly slower than Windows or Linux.

                          If you stop and think about it, it makes sense, because nobody who cares about performance is using a mac. Super computers are primarily running Linux. Linux, Windows, a few proprietary UNIXes primarily from IBM and HP, and FreeBSD are the only OSes that matter in the server room. Render farms for the big animation companies are all running Linux, and gaming is done on Windows. Thus nobody is pushing apple to develop for performance.
                          To be fair, Linux (Android) is neck and neck with Apple in the mobile department, so you could say that in quantity:
                          Mobile: Linux=iOS > Windows Phone/RT
                          Desktop: Windows XP-7 > 8 > OS X > Linux
                          Server: Linux > BSD > Windows Server > Others

                          It's kind of weird when you look at that. To succeed in the mobile department you have to be small footprint, efficient and user-friendly. To succeed in the server market you have to be scalable, reliable, and powerful. To succeed in the desktop you need to be user-friendly, powerful, and flexible. Linux has all of these and yet they aren't so far ahead in the desktop. It'd be pretty neat to go to a computer store where the hard drive and memory aren't actually installed, and you can pick out a hard drive, shove it into an 'OS Loader' or something, and then it's ready to be installed in the laptop or desktop or whatever. Windows would be like $100-$150 and most Linux would be a whopping $0. I can guarantee that the amount of people running Linux would skyrocket just because of costs alone. The problem is that the people making the hardware often go out of their way to make sure it works with Linux, and then they have to price it the same or higher than Windows. It's a little retarded because they end up developing the crapware for Windows anyways.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by jimbohale View Post
                            Whether or not something looks good is pretty subjective. I along with probably most of everyone prefer how OS X looks. They pay people a lot of money to create a consistent UI that looks good to the general population and it appears to succeed, so yeah. Linux can learn a lot from OS X considering OS X has done the research.
                            Must be why the only thing Apple developers are good at is copying UI elements from GNOME 3.x. Seriously, check out how closely the latest Mac OSX update looks to GNOME 3.x -- check out all the features it's getting that GNOME 3.x developed -- speaks volumes in itself.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                              Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
                              Originally posted by Filiprino View Post
                              OS X is pretty, that's all.
                              And it's called GNU Linux, not Linux. Linux is the kernel, like Linux in Android.
                              It's great when someone tries so hard to be anything but ignorant, and then ends up being totally ignorant.
                              Unfortunately, this is not a point at all.
                              You mean like trying to tell people to call Linux, GNU Linux?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                You guys, if Torvalds and Stallman can't agree on what the scope of an "operating system" is, we probably won't either.

                                The fact is that the term is not very well defined, and there are enough variations to the answer of "how to operate a computer" to make it hard to encompass all of them. I'm old enough to remember that the "operating system" used to be mostly people before we had mini-computers. An "operator" was a full-time job, far more interesting than that of a "programmer."

                                The GNU userland is an important part of many free operating systems. But just how important? Historically, it was *crucial*: Linux simply could not have existed without the ability to instantly have the broad range of libraries and tools that GNU had already completed, tools that allowed Linux to compile and load and support many standard UNIX programs. Without GNU, Linux would have been an interesting embedded operating system looking for someone to build something on top of it.

                                And of course, very crucial is that Linus used the GNU General Public License. Torvalds could have chosen a BSD-type license, and simply forked the old BSD userland, like NetBSD, etc. But the decision to go with the incomplete GNU operating system project was all about its ingenius license. Argue all you like about the ideology, the fact is that the license has proved extremely effective in this case in doing exactly what it was supposed to do: forcing the hand of many big companies to release their operating system modules as free software, part of the Linux source code tree. Now that Linux is such an incredible success, such a strict license may not seem so necessary anymore, but I'm convinced that were it not for the GPL, Linux would remain a rather isolated project, like the BSDs.

                                So, it's clear that Linux owes a huge deal to the GNU project early on. But what about later?

                                Linux succeeded in taking over the server world, first for the early Internet, and now slowly encroaching on enterprise domains. But much of that success is due to the "LAMP" stack which also includes Apache, MySQL and PHP. So, should we call the operating system LAMP?

                                Its mobile success is due to Android (which really uses very little of GNU). Indeed, that's what we call it.

                                Linux has not really succeeded on the desktop, but even there, what success it has is also due to other important software packages. X11 (and its forerunners), Firefox, OpenOffice, KDE and GNOME were all necessary to turn Linux into a fully usable everyday desktop operating system. Is GNU important there? Sure. But is GNU what makes the desktop operating distinct? Not at all. Windows XP was an entirely different operating system (NT-based) than Windows 98, but it was still Windows: it ran the same software (the Win32 API) and behaved similarly. So, is the kernel important? Is it worth even emphasizing that it's "Linux"? For example, running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD will give you pretty much the same user experience as Debian GNU/Linux. Linux is, however, important to emphasize when you want to talk about the hardware/driver support of your operating system. FreeBSD and Linux support different hardware differenty, use a different set of filesystems, etc.

                                So, it's really a matter of your own emphasis. I'm surprised that two guys as experienced as Torvalds and Stallman don't understand this, and continue to argue about the name.

                                Me, I prefer not to use either "Linux" or "GNU"! Instead, I talk about "free Unix-like operating systems." They're are all very similar in terms of what you can do with them, and they all run a very similar set of software, despite using one of a few different kernels, one of a few different userlands, one of a few different desktop environments. The experience between them is very similar, down to the choices available. And let's not forget that there are all also "free BeOS-like operating systems" (Haiku) and "free Windows-like operating systems" (ReactOS). The point is that free operating systems, together and separately in their specific uses, offer a crucial alternative to the proprietary ones.
                                Last edited by emblemparade; 07-15-2014, 12:30 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X