Amid the buzz surrounding the latest Mac OS X release (Leopard), a
claim was made that OS X is a
better Linux than Linux. Let's shine a light on that idea from a
couple of different angles.
Different Goals
The article by Alexander Wolfe declares that Steve Jobs had done a
better job marketing open source software and building a more
successful operating system than Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux.
That analogy assumes they had similar goals, something that has never
been true. Jobs aims to monetize technology, while Torvalds wants to
improve it. Jobs tends to focus on the human interface, while Torvalds
tends to focus on the machine interface. The contrast between the two
personalities - and their goals - is so stark it is hard to find much
commonality.
Since commercial success was not a goal of Torvalds, it seems odd to
make that comparison. While Steve is the CEO of Apple, Linus is
not the CEO of Linux. Their positions and spheres of influence
are dramatically different, and comparing their respective achievements
in commercial terms is not very useful.
Different Strengths
The technology and licensing behind OS X and Linux highlight
different strengths. When comparing OS X to a Linux distribution,
you'll find that the hardware integration and focus on the whole
experience makes OS X a much more polished desktop system. Linux
has two major desktop interfaces, GNOME and KDE, and dozens of smaller
players in the window manager space. You have more choice in the Linux
desktop world, but none of your choices are going to match Aqua.
On the other hand, Linux offers you more flexible and portable
systems than anything offered by Apple. You have a wider selection of
hardware as well as highly customized distributions, such as dedicated
routers/firewalls, flash drive systems, Live CDs, embedded systems,
real-time systems, etc.
Then you have the freedom factor. Linux (the kernel) and most of the
application software that runs on it uses the General Public License
(GPL), meaning you are free to view and modify the source code of
the programs - and even distribute modified versions. In most cases,
Linux distributions are completely free. Zero cost. For many people,
that trumps the Genius Bar and the no hassle hardware integration.
Yet that freedom comes with a price - your time. If you add in the
time investment to make Linux work smoothly, the care and feeding of
your system, it can start to look expensive. A great deal depends on
which flavor of Linux Kool-Aid you drink. Ubuntu is the closest thing to a self
managing Linux system, while one of my long time favorites, Slackware, demands more of its users.
Value is in the eye of the beholder
I appreciate OS X as a desktop and the fruits of a stunning GUI on
top of the BSD/Mach plumbing. However, if you value the tightest
security or the most freedom, Linux
may be more satisfying. I still prefer Linux on the
server. The best approach may be to do what I do and run both.
Keith Winston is a recent Mac convert after five years of Linux on the desktop. He also writes for Linux.com and created CommandLineMac to focus on the Unix-y power of the Mac. If you find Keith's articles helpful, please consider making a donation to his tip jar.
