Ok, so we all know why you use Linux over Windows, but I'm curious as to why you use Linux over OSX. I was having a discussion with an Apple fanboy and I want to know some of the reasons why people use Linux over OSX besides just "it's free, it's GPL" and what not.

Appreciate the input guys!

I think you are better off with discussing Open-Source vs Proprietary. In both development models, there are all manner of features and cosmetics that provide discrimination. Within Linux, there is considerable diversity---thus compare Linux with OSX (or Windows), you need to specify which Linux.

Linux is more flexible
offers lots of alternatives like KDE or Gnome or XFCE or...
Linux has no DRM

Linux runs on waaay more architectures than OSX does... and perhaps ever will. *BSD runs on even more architectures than Linux as well, but that is a bit off-topic

From my brief playing around with Macs at school, my preference to Linux and BSD is because they're more tinkerable. Everything in Mac is GUI, which made me feel that you couldn't play around with the insides like you could with Linux and BSD. And one of the reasons I prefer Slackware and the BSDs to distros like SUSE or RedHat is because they make the CLI prominent straight away. While I know there's a CLI way to do stuff in distros like Ubuntu and Mandriva, with the "Big Three" BSDs and Slackware you're basically forced to sort it out old-school first. I hear the same goes for Debian and Gentoo, which are also probably right up my alley in terms of getting dirty under the hood.

On the other hand, sometimes there's a bit too much to play with, and you really just want to get something done. That's why I've got a Xubuntu machine now. Runs Java and Eclipse and some proprietary apps I need for work like a charm. And that's all I really need that machine for, so it works. But for personal pleasure, I still prefer the lower-level systems.

For now anyway. Who knows, in twenty years it may get to be too much for me and I'll simply want an operating system that "just works". Apple, with their synergy of hardware and software, seem to be doing a great job at building a platform like that. Not as flexible, not as tweakable, but it almost does the "right thing" by itself, without you having to push it.

That's my take, anyway.

I hear Linux users saying that Linux overtook the BSDs, and I hear the opposite. Either way I guess their close now.

What did macosx create that was integrated into linux?
It's a real question, not a troll. I have no knowledge about macos-x.

That is true. I think *BSD and Linux don't fight against each other because they are completely different (from kernel to license) but still have the same thing in mind (open source). I think *BSD is still more used on the server side, while Linux on the desktop more as tradition: *BSD does a great job for desktop and Linux is great as a server. Both have its pros and cons, really

Because knowing Linux knows money.

First of all, let me establish where I'm coming from: in my office we've got several of all three types of machines... Linux, OS/X Macintosh, and .. Windows-XP (yuck).

And all of them are there for a purpose. That's why they were bought and that is the job that they do.

• The Linux boxes are there because they let me goof around on forums all d... ahem ... because they exactly replicate the server-environments found on web servers.
• The OS/X boxes do all the graphic-design, multimedia, DVD-editing and such work. Of course, it too is a Unix box.
• The WXP machine is used because some unenlightened clients (and our very-enlightened software products) run on it.

And that's basically the way that I think it should be: tools for the job.

I don't grok this notion that "you can save all this money because Linux can do this or that." Not because it's incorrect (it isn't), but because if a particular contract or requirement is best served by a particular piece of hardware and software, it's frankly very foolish to try to hobble along without it. Get the best tool(s) that you can... which is basically why machines of all types are here. You're doing a disservice to the job and to the Linux box by using the wrong tool for the wrong job if that's what it does turn out to be.

There are good, strong alternatives. For example, "who really cares about Microsoft Office?" Brand-names or the lack thereof mean very little in this business.

I like the way Mac OS X looks, but I like the way Linux behaves. And right now behavior matters more to me than looks.

I haven't touched OS X personally but it looks very interesting. But there's no way I'd pay the money required to purchase such a machine.

CLI is fun but I always manage to ruin the OS when I use it (at least in Linux.) In Windows cmd.exe I can't figure out anything but chdir and dir, sometimes I remember how to delete files.

I remember playing with older versions of Mac OS in 7th grade and I liked how it had the neat voiced text reading thingy. I always wished Windows had that.

OS X works right out of the box, it's very stable, and it just runs the software I need with no fuss.

Of course, I have different priorities because I use my laptop for work too, so I need something that will run all the software I need for work, be reliable, not take much time to setup, and just generally get out of my way so I can get work done.

If your goal is to learn more about computers and operating systems, Linux might be a good choice.

OSX sounds great, but I would like to run it without having to buy an apple. I never understood the argument mac fanboys had about apple hardware. Its just another board with memory, processor, hd, etc. And all those parts, apple doesn't even make, it just has an apple name, yet they treat it like it was something special. Sure maybe the only difference now with the apple hardware since they are x86 is the EFI bios, but the way I see it, if apple has switched to x86, then it is inevitable that people are trying to find ways of running OSX on their own x86 machines, (google OSX86 Project)

If Jobs were smart, which clearly he is not (yes I am attacking precious Jobs *gives the finger to all mac fanboys*, he deserves this), he would license MacOS to be able to run on all x86s, and not the 'apple x86'. Apple has right now even worse vendor lock in than Microsoft, at least you can RUN windows on any x86 system, even the one you build yourself. But Apple had always had a history of screwing people and even partners over as well, not just Microsoft. Remember the Starmax computers? A Motorola computer that basically ran Macos, it was apple's version of authorizing the 'apple clone', like the IBM pc clones. Then they pulled the plug. PFF..

As far as I can tell, it seems to me that Apple's only real seller, and the only thing now that keeping them up in the market, is the ipods and itunes, not the macs, otherwise, why even have an ipod/itunes? Microsoft doesn't fear Apple, because they know more people use windows. Why? Not just because its windows, but because most people refuse to pay the money that apple asks for their computers, when they can get a desktop that suits their needs for much less. Now, I know that I have bashed apple throughout this post, but as far as OSX is concerned, it is great, I have worked with it. Its not OSX that I have a problem with. It is Apple. I wish they would change their licensing, but... I guess thats just wishful thinking, and so thats just that much more money that Apple is not making, and thats their problem, not mine.

I agree with Jeebizz entirely. I just want to clear this part up:

"If Jobs were smart, which clearly he is not (yes I am attacking precious Jobs *gives the finger to all mac fanboys*, he deserves this), he would license MacOS to be able to run on all x86s, and not the 'apple x86'."

The reason Apple does not license OSX to X86 is because they consider themselves to be a hardware company, ratter than a software company (strange, but true). Releasing OSX to X86 would be a lot of work for them (I believe) such as giving support for the oddest piece of hardware available and making deal with driver vendors. Since they have their "own" hardware, they just have to worry about that hardware to make it work smooth and stable (and it does).

As many of you, I'd love to run OSX. Their hardware is pretty useless for me though...