10 ms·

> with Linux you give up great hardware (to varying degrees) I assume you're talking about Linux driver issues. But since we're talking about OSX vs Linux here

by xaa 14y ago

> with Linux you give up great hardware (to varying degrees) I assume you're talking about Linux driver issues. But since we're talking about OSX vs Linux here, it's only fair to note that Linux supports a much greater variety of hardware than OSX. Linux also tends to support the very newest hardware more consistently than OSX (perhaps excluding video cards). See eg the laughable specs of Mac Pros. Software also benchmarks faster on Linux vs OSX on the same hardware. So there is still an opening on Linux for people concerned with performance. But yes, the Linux desktop is still light-years behind in terms of design, for the reasons you mention.

scott_s 14y ago
it's only fair to note that Linux supports a much greater variety of hardware than OSX. Entirely true, but I also don't have to look up what is or is not supported by OSX. I just buy an Apple computer. Of course, there's obvious tradeoffs here about having the freedom to buy whatever hardware you want.
- shardling 14y ago
  Ubuntu has initatives to let you just buy a computer with Linux preinstalled too! http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/ http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/
- tsahyt 14y ago
  That hardly an achievement of OSX though. Supporting pretty much a single set of hardware and some variations isn't really hard and does not count as "great hardware support" in my book. That's just one of the advantages you get by selling the devices and the software.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    I don't disagree, but as a consumer, I just care that it's easy.
mbell 14y ago
> I assume you're talking about Linux driver issues. But since we're talking about OSX vs Linux here, it's only fair to note that Linux supports a much greater variety of hardware than OSX. I'll take supporting a limited set of hardware very well over supporting tons of hardware often in a mediocre at best fashion. I'm not just talking about video cards either, over the years I've had "fun" with everything from SATA controllers to sound chips that were 'supported' under linux.
- gst 14y ago
  If you're fine with limited hardware just use hardware that is supported by Linux. Every Thinkpad I've used so far worked perfectly out of the box. If you're not sure what to buy just look at the list of Ubuntu certified hardware: http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/ http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/
  - mbell 14y ago
    I'd rather spend time building. The value prop of doing the research isn't worth it when I can just buy a Macbook Air and not even have to think about it.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Frankly I have never done any research at all when buying laptops intending to use Linux on them. Maybe I've just gotten lucky, but I really don't think so. The last computer I purchased I purchased at a bar on my phone while rather intoxicated. The only thing I did was sort newegg's laptop selection by "cheapest first" and bought the cheapest. I don't think I missed out on any "building" time... If what everyone says about Linux hardware support was true, there is no way in hell that should have turned out fine.
      - tsahyt 14y ago
        Oh, statistically speaking I reckon this could work out just fine. However, Linux hardware support is a lot better than some claim here. The average desktop with it's x86 architecture, usually on-board sound and some mediocre GeForce is supported just fine. Seriously, that's what most people use. Concerning the video cards I think people miss out on the proprietary drivers from Nvidia here which have always worked brilliantly for me since mid 2007 or something. Yes, they are proprietary but so what? As far as I know ATI cards work pretty well too. Linux sound support works fine as well, it's still mostly ALSA underneath calling the shots which works like a charm. PulseAudio, I admit, usually doesn't. You always have the option to remove it from your system though - or even better: Don't install it in the first place. The actual drivers are in ALSA though, so nothing to complain here either. CPU and RAM support is a no-brainer with linux. Never had any issues. I actually had a ton more issues with it under Win7. Recently plugged some 32gig additional memory into a workstation (64GB now) and Win7 only accepts 48 of it. Booting into Linux everything works and I've got the full memory capacity at my fingertips. So I wonder, what is this all about? I've been using Linux on quite a few pieces of hardware and never ran into any serious issues. Yes, I had to screw with the X config a few times but that doesn't file as "not supported", just as "stupid defaults".

by xaa 14y ago

scott_s 14y ago

it's only fair to note that Linux supports a much greater variety of hardware than OSX. Entirely true, but I also don't have to look up what is or is not supported by OSX. I just buy an Apple computer. Of course, there's obvious tradeoffs here about having the freedom to buy whatever hardware you want.

shardling 14y ago
Ubuntu has initatives to let you just buy a computer with Linux preinstalled too! http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/ http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/
tsahyt 14y ago
That hardly an achievement of OSX though. Supporting pretty much a single set of hardware and some variations isn't really hard and does not count as "great hardware support" in my book. That's just one of the advantages you get by selling the devices and the software.
- scott_s 14y ago
  I don't disagree, but as a consumer, I just care that it's easy.

mbell 14y ago

> I assume you're talking about Linux driver issues. But since we're talking about OSX vs Linux here, it's only fair to note that Linux supports a much greater variety of hardware than OSX. I'll take supporting a limited set of hardware very well over supporting tons of hardware often in a mediocre at best fashion. I'm not just talking about video cards either, over the years I've had "fun" with everything from SATA controllers to sound chips that were 'supported' under linux.

gst 14y ago
If you're fine with limited hardware just use hardware that is supported by Linux. Every Thinkpad I've used so far worked perfectly out of the box. If you're not sure what to buy just look at the list of Ubuntu certified hardware: http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/ http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/
- mbell 14y ago
  I'd rather spend time building. The value prop of doing the research isn't worth it when I can just buy a Macbook Air and not even have to think about it.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Frankly I have never done any research at all when buying laptops intending to use Linux on them. Maybe I've just gotten lucky, but I really don't think so. The last computer I purchased I purchased at a bar on my phone while rather intoxicated. The only thing I did was sort newegg's laptop selection by "cheapest first" and bought the cheapest. I don't think I missed out on any "building" time... If what everyone says about Linux hardware support was true, there is no way in hell that should have turned out fine.
    - tsahyt 14y ago
      Oh, statistically speaking I reckon this could work out just fine. However, Linux hardware support is a lot better than some claim here. The average desktop with it's x86 architecture, usually on-board sound and some mediocre GeForce is supported just fine. Seriously, that's what most people use. Concerning the video cards I think people miss out on the proprietary drivers from Nvidia here which have always worked brilliantly for me since mid 2007 or something. Yes, they are proprietary but so what? As far as I know ATI cards work pretty well too. Linux sound support works fine as well, it's still mostly ALSA underneath calling the shots which works like a charm. PulseAudio, I admit, usually doesn't. You always have the option to remove it from your system though - or even better: Don't install it in the first place. The actual drivers are in ALSA though, so nothing to complain here either. CPU and RAM support is a no-brainer with linux. Never had any issues. I actually had a ton more issues with it under Win7. Recently plugged some 32gig additional memory into a workstation (64GB now) and Win7 only accepts 48 of it. Booting into Linux everything works and I've got the full memory capacity at my fingertips. So I wonder, what is this all about? I've been using Linux on quite a few pieces of hardware and never ran into any serious issues. Yes, I had to screw with the X config a few times but that doesn't file as "not supported", just as "stupid defaults".