My English teacher in High school is a big mac guy, he goes off topic on his lectures sometimes and starts bragging bout his computer skills on a macintosh. I think he's a moron for doing just that, BUT he knows I am computer literate, and that I'm a linux user. What can linux do that mac can't, or rather why is Linux better in general, comparing to mac's? Thanks to your tips.


BTW, is OSX10 open source now?

Mac's use proprietary hardware, which make them MORE expensive.........

why people piss and moan about M$ and proprietary software and then use Mac's is NOT logical.

It's for that reason that I personally hate Apple more than I could possibly ever hate MS. That, and that U2 IPOD... wtf?

Personally I think the U2 iPod looks cool but since I don't use iTunes (napster 2.0 since I don't have a credit card) it's a moot point.

Now back on subject. Probably the biggest obstical you'll face from him if he knows what he's talking about is that OSX is based on FreeBSD and that you can look at the source code if you want, just like Linux. What you need to inform him of is that you can only look at the FreeBSD part of the code. Besides that it's no different then any other commercial OS.

Another arguement is that you can get excellent quality software. In the open source world version 1.0 means, "our core team and many contributors have put a ton of time into this and we believe that 99% of the world can use it with no problem" (and they're usually right). In the closed source world version 1.0 usually means, "This just came out of beta and there's a 50-60% chance that it'll work but we'll have patches to fix the problems soon enough" (half true, pathes can, at times, take months to come out).

Another thing you can bring up is the command line. One of the major plusses of Linux, and one that many apple geeks have enjoyed in OS X, is the command line. In Windows the command line is rarely if ever used and a lot of times is almost harder to use then the GUI. In OS X you are more encrouraged to use the command line but don't need to. In Linux, with the exception of distros like Linspire and Xandros, you need to use the command line and for some reason it gives a sense of total control. It's like driving a stick shift. Instead of the car adjusting for you, you have to it. It may be more difficult at first but after you learn how to do it the power it gives will make you wonder how you ever did without it.

Besides the above, I can't think of anything. One of the major arguments, that Linux is more secure, is moot with mac because of the same reason. Crackers don't target it because so few people use it compared to Windows.

If you want him to try Linux see if there is a Mac Live Distro (like Knoppix for PC) and let him try it for himself.

I think we've all been there and done that... and not long ago

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=217722

Not quite true, and you're quoting an entry from Ballmer's own dance-ticket of lies.
An analogy:
In my neighborhood, there aren't that many houses with bars on the windows, security doors and alarm systems. Funny, it's always the houses that don't have those after-market add-ons that always get broken into. Are those houses broken into only because there are more of them?

No. It's because they represent an easy target.

Check web server OS exploit statistics. ms is in the minority, but is the majority compromised web server OS.

ms windoze is targeted because it's easy to exploit. 'Nuff said.

If your instructor crows too much, you can remind him of:
Apple Corp's fall from Open Architecture to closed-proprietary architecture.
the 25% of Apple Corp. that is actually owned by microsoft.
the fact that no Apple-supplied OS is actually Open Source. IIRC, OSX is BSD-derived, not FreeBSD.
the fact that Macs crash less often than windoze systems, but more often than i86x Linux systems.
the fact that you can build a screaming-fast i86x system for less than $1000.00, and he can't come close to doing the same thing.
the fact that that Mac of his is borrowing technology from the reviled PC-world (PCI bus, IDE drives, USB, etc.).
that he can't run his iMac or eMac as a headless server.

Ask him how many times he has optimized and re-compiled his kernel; which DTE he's tried, and which ones he likes best?

Hand him a SimplyMepis2004.04 CD and tell him to setup a dual-boot and try it out.

Nod a lot and act interested...smiling the whole time.

The ipod is mighty sexy though...

IMO, much of what has been said in the "What can be done in Linux that can't be done in Windows" thread, also applies to this one.

Yves.

you can install fink or gentoo for os x on mac. after that you can compile same stuff on your mac that you use on your linux. so, what´s the point arguing about differences in kernel?
i like both. i have both. both work fine. why is it that linux-folks start these pointless arguments all the time?

why IS coffee better than tea EXACTLY?

indeed...

and if you are like my sister, who is an art major, all the art software is mac only software. if you do photography or art for a living and you have $5k, you would probably get a mac.

As someone else mentioned, cost is the biggest factor. Apple hardware is ridiculously overpriced. And, despite what he might say, an equivalently priced PC will blow the doors off of any Mac.

Another analogy I like (though I forget who said it) also involves houses: You're a burglar with a choice of breaking into one of two houses. You have a detailed floor plan of the first house, and know everything about its design. However, there are locks on all the doors, bars on all the windows, alarms, and an attack dog waiting inside.

You don't have a floor plan of the second house, but you know there's no alarm or attack dog, and the owner tends to leave the back door unlocked.

Which house is would you break into?

As for the question at hand, the differences between MacOS and Linux come down to what you believe are more important attributes for a computer to have: Simplicity, ease-of-use, and sexy design with a hermetically-sealed case, or flexibility and extensibility, designed with the philosophy of allowing (and sometimes requiring) tinkering. If you don't care about the freedom to tinker, there's no reason not to use a Mac.

That is simply wrong. Firstly, a windows system needs to waste resource running virus scanner and spyware defense that isn't needed in OS X. And more firstly, the windows core (registry) is defenseless and there is no fix. Period

LOL....Tea is too weak, and doesn't taste like coffee.

Yes, and we're in a Linux forum....windoze doesn't enter into this at all--all your stated objections are moot.

Anyway....wapcaplet...mind if I quote you on that one?