21 ms·

No clear winner... I'd say there is a winner : Linux. Isn't it interesting that a software developped by a team of hacker (I'd say a chaotic, huge and ever gro

by frownie 14y ago

No clear winner... I'd say there is a winner : Linux. Isn't it interesting that a software developped by a team of hacker (I'd say a chaotic, huge and ever growing) can make a monster like Ubuntu and get performances that don't pale against another OS which is designed by a very organised, super funded, super focused team of carefully selected programmers... Ok, I assume a rather romatic view of linux development, but I'd bet I'm not that far from reality :-)

SIULHT 14y ago
Your argument is that Linux is the winner because despite all odds, it doesn't suck shit as much as you'd expect it to?
- jcbrand 14y ago
  How does comparing very favourably against OSX imply that it merely "sucks shit" less?
  - mitchty 14y ago
    Probably referring to the All Software Sucks camp of philosophy.
- bgilroy26 14y ago
  It's a pretty solid argument if the premises are correct: The article benchmarks the performance of Ubuntu and OSX, and finds them to be in a dead heat. Ubuntu was developed at a lower investment on Canonical's part (OR with a larger team of less skilled developers, I can't tell which is more important to frownie). Therefore Ubuntu represents a greater achievement relative to the resources invested than OSX does.
  - orlandu63 14y ago
    Let's not forget that GNU/Linux is intended to run on any damn machine you throw at it, while the latest version of OSX is only intended to run on Apple hardware that is no more than 3 years old. It's amazing that Ubuntu is even competitive with OSX given these circumstances.
    - rytis 14y ago
      Well... Right from the article: Unfortunately, switchable/hybrid graphics remain a pain in the ass under Linux. With Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, the 2010 MacBook Pro had problems with either open-source driver.
  - calinet6 14y ago
    > relative to the resources invested While Canonical has invested limited resources in Ubuntu, the overall amount of resources used to create the Linux kernel, the Debian toolchain, and the Ubuntu OS are far greater. One could say they match or exceed the "resources invested" in OSX, which also uses a range of Open Source software and history (to name just one extremely important part: BSD Unix). The two are actually broadly comparable in the work and effort put in, and apparently the results as well. You could argue that Ubuntu has the greater achievement because they spent less money on it, but given the actual value put in, it seems like a moot point.
  - rauljara 14y ago
    > Therefore Ubuntu represents a greater achievement relative to the resources invested than OSX does. Certainly. However, I think most people looking at benchmarks like these are deciding which operating system to actually use. An entire OS created by a single teenager would be a stunning achievement, even if it ran terribly. That doesn't mean you'd choose it as your primary OS. As it stands, the Ubuntu team can stand proud that they stood toe to toe with the Apple behemoth. But these benchmarks really don't give anyone (on either side) a compelling reason to switch.
acomjean 14y ago
That gcc and a lot of the open source technology used by both OSs, is a win for the Open Source movement, and also may explain why performance is similar. A lot of the linux and GNU software is hardly just developed by "teams of hackers" at this point. As someone who got sent to a RedHat class for a week ( migrating from hpux -> linux), I can attest Linux has large corporate support at this point. My former employer wouldn't have touched it if it wasn't supported.
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  [pedantic] gcc isn't used much in OSX anymore; the 'gcc' that ships in OSX is a pre-GPL3 version (as are any remaining GNU tools) that's on top of LLVM, and I believe the OS itself and most apps are compiled with clang now. (though LLVM and clang were both born from similar communities)
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  "That gcc and a lot of the open source technology used by both OSs, is a win for the Open Source movement, and also may explain why performance is similar." I'm afraid Dr. Stallman killed that with GPLv3. Each new OS X release comes with less and less GNU software.
macco 14y ago
Linux is very well funded too und the developers are some of the most talented system programmers of our time. Just some facts from Annual Linux Development Report: * Seventy-five percent of all kernel development is done by developers who are being paid for their work. * The top 10 organizations sponsoring Linux kernel are Red Hat, Intel, Novell, IBM, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Oracle and Google - all big boys * Linux has Linus :) Actually I think Linux has an organizational advantage, because companies can share risks.
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
I believe there is an order of magnitude more people/companies involved on the entire Linux ecosystem than there's people involved on OS X. Obviously there's an overlap, some Apple engineers work on open source components, but even then the OS X stack shares more with FreeBSD than Linux. So, yeah, you're being romantic.

by frownie 14y ago

SIULHT 14y ago

Your argument is that Linux is the winner because despite all odds, it doesn't suck shit as much as you'd expect it to?

jcbrand 14y ago
How does comparing very favourably against OSX imply that it merely "sucks shit" less?
- mitchty 14y ago
  Probably referring to the All Software Sucks camp of philosophy.
bgilroy26 14y ago
It's a pretty solid argument if the premises are correct: The article benchmarks the performance of Ubuntu and OSX, and finds them to be in a dead heat. Ubuntu was developed at a lower investment on Canonical's part (OR with a larger team of less skilled developers, I can't tell which is more important to frownie). Therefore Ubuntu represents a greater achievement relative to the resources invested than OSX does.
- orlandu63 14y ago
  Let's not forget that GNU/Linux is intended to run on any damn machine you throw at it, while the latest version of OSX is only intended to run on Apple hardware that is no more than 3 years old. It's amazing that Ubuntu is even competitive with OSX given these circumstances.
  - rytis 14y ago
    Well... Right from the article: Unfortunately, switchable/hybrid graphics remain a pain in the ass under Linux. With Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, the 2010 MacBook Pro had problems with either open-source driver.
- calinet6 14y ago
  > relative to the resources invested While Canonical has invested limited resources in Ubuntu, the overall amount of resources used to create the Linux kernel, the Debian toolchain, and the Ubuntu OS are far greater. One could say they match or exceed the "resources invested" in OSX, which also uses a range of Open Source software and history (to name just one extremely important part: BSD Unix). The two are actually broadly comparable in the work and effort put in, and apparently the results as well. You could argue that Ubuntu has the greater achievement because they spent less money on it, but given the actual value put in, it seems like a moot point.
- rauljara 14y ago
  > Therefore Ubuntu represents a greater achievement relative to the resources invested than OSX does. Certainly. However, I think most people looking at benchmarks like these are deciding which operating system to actually use. An entire OS created by a single teenager would be a stunning achievement, even if it ran terribly. That doesn't mean you'd choose it as your primary OS. As it stands, the Ubuntu team can stand proud that they stood toe to toe with the Apple behemoth. But these benchmarks really don't give anyone (on either side) a compelling reason to switch.

acomjean 14y ago

That gcc and a lot of the open source technology used by both OSs, is a win for the Open Source movement, and also may explain why performance is similar. A lot of the linux and GNU software is hardly just developed by "teams of hackers" at this point. As someone who got sent to a RedHat class for a week ( migrating from hpux -> linux), I can attest Linux has large corporate support at this point. My former employer wouldn't have touched it if it wasn't supported.

ConstantineXVI 14y ago
[pedantic] gcc isn't used much in OSX anymore; the 'gcc' that ships in OSX is a pre-GPL3 version (as are any remaining GNU tools) that's on top of LLVM, and I believe the OS itself and most apps are compiled with clang now. (though LLVM and clang were both born from similar communities)
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
"That gcc and a lot of the open source technology used by both OSs, is a win for the Open Source movement, and also may explain why performance is similar." I'm afraid Dr. Stallman killed that with GPLv3. Each new OS X release comes with less and less GNU software.

macco 14y ago

Linux is very well funded too und the developers are some of the most talented system programmers of our time. Just some facts from Annual Linux Development Report: * Seventy-five percent of all kernel development is done by developers who are being paid for their work. * The top 10 organizations sponsoring Linux kernel are Red Hat, Intel, Novell, IBM, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Oracle and Google - all big boys * Linux has Linus :) Actually I think Linux has an organizational advantage, because companies can share risks.

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

I believe there is an order of magnitude more people/companies involved on the entire Linux ecosystem than there's people involved on OS X. Obviously there's an overlap, some Apple engineers work on open source components, but even then the OS X stack shares more with FreeBSD than Linux. So, yeah, you're being romantic.