4 ms·

I've switched from OS X to Ubuntu, and would never go back. I'm not really a developer, but I do some coding every now and then. Perhaps what I like most about

I've switched from OS X to Ubuntu, and would never go back. I'm not really a developer, but I do some coding every now and then. Perhaps what I like most about Ubuntu is that I can customize it to fix all those little annoyances that I couldn't do anything about on OS X. It's also trivial to install programs thanks to a real package manager (Fink doesn't count in OS X). GNOME is also the only GUI I've found that lets you type the whole filename to jump to a file/folder rather than jumping to the filenames that start with the last letter you typed. I suppose my biggest annoyance with OS X is that it doesn't let you actually have control. A perfect example is that I have SAMBA turned on in OS X to share some files to other computers on my network. For security, I have a separate user account for the share. I can't configure the shares and permissions in the GUI because it's not a "simple" setup, so I have to use the config file for samba. Every single OS update I get overwrites this file, so I have to re-create it every time. Furthermore, as of 10.5, permissions seem to just spontaneously change. I can no longer get group permissions to inherit. Another time, I needed to quickly use TFTP. Trying to get this setup in OS X is a nightmare, and after spending a couple hours on it, I just gave up. It's installed and there, but it for some reason its configuration is just non-standard. It's just these little things that make me glad I switched to Ubunutu, and I would never even consider using OS X again.

tlrobinson 19y ago
I prefer the OS X method of application "installation"... drag and drop to your applications folder. That way (as long as the app isn't sneaky) I know exactly where everything is location: the main application is in /Applications, the preferences are in ~/Library/Preferences, and various data is in ~/Library/Application Support.
- ingenium 19y ago
  This is true, but a lot of OS X programs now require an installer as well, and offer no way for easy removal. The simplest examples I can think of are Microsoft Office and the various Adobe products. Certainly many applications can just be dropped in the Applications folder, and I admit this is a great feature. But I still have to go out and get updates to those programs, and not all can be installed or removed as easily as moving the application folder. With a package manager, it auto-updates every program for security updates and sometimes bug fixes. If I add the repository for that particular application, it automatically gives me new versions when they come out. Everything is in one place. Furthermore, I can search for software that does a particular task and be presented with several choices that are just a click away. I'm glad OS X works best for you, but for my needs and uses, Ubuntu is a far superior choice.
  - wanorris 19y ago
    > With a package manager, it auto-updates every program for security updates and sometimes bug fixes. Yes. That and dependency management are the towering wins of package management. Installing an app when you first get it is generally the easy part of managing it.
    - tlrobinson 19y ago
      There's a program called AppFresh for OS X that checks all your application's versions against the latest known version.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
  - bkmrkr 19y ago
    office has an uninstaller
    - rbanffy 19y ago
      I don't trust Microsoft. ;-)
  - aragost 19y ago
    ...while in Ubuntu you can install/uninstall Office and Adobe products via apt-get. Oh wait...
- SwellJoe 19y ago
  Package management is so poorly grasped by folks who've never spent some time with the real thing, that they often think that what they're used to (an absolute lack of the capability--Mac OS X has, effectively, no package management, merely package installation, by a very loose definition of "package" and "installation") is superior in every way.
  - tlrobinson 19y ago
    My point is really there no need for package management on Mac OS X because most Mac OS X applications don't require 30 dependencies. A package management solution is probably better for server environments, but I don't really think it should be necessary for desktops.
    - SwellJoe 19y ago
      I have nothing else to add, as what I said above continues to apply to this comment.
    - rbanffy 19y ago
      Package management goes way beyond installing and uninstalling stuff. A good package manager, like apt or yum, will help your computer self-update (not only the core OS but every program you installed in your computer, through the same interface). It also shines where you don't want to know from where you download a given package - you just ask for the package manager to install it. The good package managers will also deal with dependencies and conflicts between packages, which is something that may not appear when you deal with applications but happens all the time with libraries. You insist there is no need for package management because you never had real package management. The Macintosh method is very simple (much better than the Windows way) but it fails miserably when what you are installing is not an application.
      - tlrobinson 19y ago
        I have used "real" package management, both on Linux and Mac OS X, and for native Mac OS X applications it's largely unnecessary. I rarely run into OS X apps that require I install a bunch of dependencies, and most OS X applications these days check for updates on their own. For those that don't there's AppFresh: http://metaquark.de/appfresh/ http://metaquark.de/appfresh/ However, I do agree the method "fails miserably when what you are installing is not an application." MacPorts and Fink are decent solutions, though I admit they could be much better.
boucher 19y ago
"GNOME is also the only GUI I've found that lets you type the whole filename to jump to a file/folder rather than jumping to the filenames that start with the last letter you typed." Mac OS X's Finder does the exact same thing. "It's also trivial to install programs thanks to a real package manager" I find installing programs to be trivial in OS X since it requires nothing but dragging them to anywhere on my computer. "I suppose my biggest annoyance with OS X is that it doesn't let you actually have control." OS X gives you plenty of control, it just hides most of it in the terminal. For almost every use case, this is great, because for the 1 or 2 things you actually want to do, Apple has made it drop dead simple. The rest of the time, if you really need to do something complex, there's usually a way to do it via the terminal. It sounds to me like you're main complaint is that OS X doesn't work like linux. This is true. If what you're looking for is a better linux, OS X is not that. Linux is all about being ultra customizable. OS X is about getting out of your way. In my opinion, Linux sacrifices usability and simplicity for customization, and for me (and I suspect most people) the trade off isn't worth it.
- ingenium 19y ago
  "OS X gives you plenty of control, it just hides most of it in the terminal. For almost every use case, this is great, because for the 1 or 2 things you actually want to do, Apple has made it drop dead simple. The rest of the time, if you really need to do something complex, there's usually a way to do it via the terminal." I agree that for some tasks, OS X is drop dead simple. The problem is that the other complex tasks don't involve just using the terminal. I have no problem using the terminal, and in fact usually prefer it to the GUI. It isn't that OS X is different from Linux, but that it's different from the Unix way. Program configuration files aren't in the places they're supposed to be, and in some cases the programs don't respect what's in those configuration files. The example I can think of off the top of my head is TFTP. I first learned Unix on OS X. In the earlier versions, it was great. Panther was very much like a traditional Unix but with a nice GUI. Tiger went a little further away, but was still OK. Leopard, however, is where I really started having problems, and is what caused me to move to Linux.
  - mrsteveman1 19y ago

tlrobinson 19y ago

I prefer the OS X method of application "installation"... drag and drop to your applications folder. That way (as long as the app isn't sneaky) I know exactly where everything is location: the main application is in /Applications, the preferences are in ~/Library/Preferences, and various data is in ~/Library/Application Support.

ingenium 19y ago
This is true, but a lot of OS X programs now require an installer as well, and offer no way for easy removal. The simplest examples I can think of are Microsoft Office and the various Adobe products. Certainly many applications can just be dropped in the Applications folder, and I admit this is a great feature. But I still have to go out and get updates to those programs, and not all can be installed or removed as easily as moving the application folder. With a package manager, it auto-updates every program for security updates and sometimes bug fixes. If I add the repository for that particular application, it automatically gives me new versions when they come out. Everything is in one place. Furthermore, I can search for software that does a particular task and be presented with several choices that are just a click away. I'm glad OS X works best for you, but for my needs and uses, Ubuntu is a far superior choice.
- wanorris 19y ago
  > With a package manager, it auto-updates every program for security updates and sometimes bug fixes. Yes. That and dependency management are the towering wins of package management. Installing an app when you first get it is generally the easy part of managing it.
  - tlrobinson 19y ago
    There's a program called AppFresh for OS X that checks all your application's versions against the latest known version.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- bkmrkr 19y ago
  office has an uninstaller
  - rbanffy 19y ago
    I don't trust Microsoft. ;-)
- aragost 19y ago
  ...while in Ubuntu you can install/uninstall Office and Adobe products via apt-get. Oh wait...
SwellJoe 19y ago
Package management is so poorly grasped by folks who've never spent some time with the real thing, that they often think that what they're used to (an absolute lack of the capability--Mac OS X has, effectively, no package management, merely package installation, by a very loose definition of "package" and "installation") is superior in every way.
- tlrobinson 19y ago
  My point is really there no need for package management on Mac OS X because most Mac OS X applications don't require 30 dependencies. A package management solution is probably better for server environments, but I don't really think it should be necessary for desktops.
  - SwellJoe 19y ago
    I have nothing else to add, as what I said above continues to apply to this comment.
  - rbanffy 19y ago
    Package management goes way beyond installing and uninstalling stuff. A good package manager, like apt or yum, will help your computer self-update (not only the core OS but every program you installed in your computer, through the same interface). It also shines where you don't want to know from where you download a given package - you just ask for the package manager to install it. The good package managers will also deal with dependencies and conflicts between packages, which is something that may not appear when you deal with applications but happens all the time with libraries. You insist there is no need for package management because you never had real package management. The Macintosh method is very simple (much better than the Windows way) but it fails miserably when what you are installing is not an application.
    - tlrobinson 19y ago
      I have used "real" package management, both on Linux and Mac OS X, and for native Mac OS X applications it's largely unnecessary. I rarely run into OS X apps that require I install a bunch of dependencies, and most OS X applications these days check for updates on their own. For those that don't there's AppFresh: http://metaquark.de/appfresh/ http://metaquark.de/appfresh/ However, I do agree the method "fails miserably when what you are installing is not an application." MacPorts and Fink are decent solutions, though I admit they could be much better.

boucher 19y ago

"GNOME is also the only GUI I've found that lets you type the whole filename to jump to a file/folder rather than jumping to the filenames that start with the last letter you typed." Mac OS X's Finder does the exact same thing. "It's also trivial to install programs thanks to a real package manager" I find installing programs to be trivial in OS X since it requires nothing but dragging them to anywhere on my computer. "I suppose my biggest annoyance with OS X is that it doesn't let you actually have control." OS X gives you plenty of control, it just hides most of it in the terminal. For almost every use case, this is great, because for the 1 or 2 things you actually want to do, Apple has made it drop dead simple. The rest of the time, if you really need to do something complex, there's usually a way to do it via the terminal. It sounds to me like you're main complaint is that OS X doesn't work like linux. This is true. If what you're looking for is a better linux, OS X is not that. Linux is all about being ultra customizable. OS X is about getting out of your way. In my opinion, Linux sacrifices usability and simplicity for customization, and for me (and I suspect most people) the trade off isn't worth it.

ingenium 19y ago
"OS X gives you plenty of control, it just hides most of it in the terminal. For almost every use case, this is great, because for the 1 or 2 things you actually want to do, Apple has made it drop dead simple. The rest of the time, if you really need to do something complex, there's usually a way to do it via the terminal." I agree that for some tasks, OS X is drop dead simple. The problem is that the other complex tasks don't involve just using the terminal. I have no problem using the terminal, and in fact usually prefer it to the GUI. It isn't that OS X is different from Linux, but that it's different from the Unix way. Program configuration files aren't in the places they're supposed to be, and in some cases the programs don't respect what's in those configuration files. The example I can think of off the top of my head is TFTP. I first learned Unix on OS X. In the earlier versions, it was great. Panther was very much like a traditional Unix but with a nice GUI. Tiger went a little further away, but was still OK. Leopard, however, is where I really started having problems, and is what caused me to move to Linux.
- mrsteveman1 19y ago