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

[xeekei]

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.

[newwen]

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.

[Apopas]

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....

[rikkinho]

ye

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

[jimbohale]

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.

You're the ignorant here, mister.

Says the guy who made a subjective statement appear objective.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jimbohale]

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

[xeekei]

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.

[dante]

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?.

[dragorth]

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.

[Luke_Wolf]

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.