Each system has it's strengths weaknesses and followings

English Soapbox
1

People are very reluctant to change … people as a rule want the easiest path to an end result
and this in itself is usually the path they know something about or have had their first
experience with.
“Murphy’s law states : If you try to please everybody, somebody isn’t going to like it!”

If we take apart the various system concepts maybe I can help demonstrate why the systems are different.
Windows:

  1. A paid for base product
  2. Consists of the kernel, integrated closed structure Window manager & Desktop with an open frame filesystem
  3. While many basic system device drivers for a wide variety devices are included in the install, they often
    require motherboard drivers provided by the MBO mfg to complete the integration.
  4. Apart from a few applications like notepad, wordpad, minesweep, solitaire, Internet Explorer, and Webmail
    the user is on his/her own to select and install what he/she needs.
  5. While this system has a CLI (command line interface) it is virutally baren of many of the more useful tools
    that one would expect from an OS.
  6. device drivers and a master registry are loaded during start-up and kept until shutdown.
  7. The operating system has no knowledge of what applications are available or from whom.
  8. Very loose security, many infection risks, poor memory management, etc…

Complaints:
*Progressivly runs slower as registry bloats and malware/spyware/adware accumulates
*Runs quite poorly with all kinds of crashes, freeze-ups, etc…
*Defragmenting of hardisk, scanning for infections, patching, and clean-ups take a huge amount of time.
*Lack of CLI tools
*Poor memory management prone to leaks and lockouts
*No secure point of reference on downloaded apps. Yes we can find all sorts of free downloads but there
really isn’t anyone responcible for test them to be virus free or properly functional.
*Lack of security
*Everything wanted or of real value costs money which doesn’t fit with many people’s economics

Praises:
*Installs fairly easy on a new system
*Very little to do once the MBO disc is installed and hardware supplied install disc’s done.
*Just works until it doesn’t

Mac:

  1. A paid for base product
  2. Consists of the kernel, integrated closed structure Window manager & Desktop with a Closed Frame filesystem
  3. Each system has a dedicated hardware and is supplied with the necessary device drivers.
  4. Applications supplied are few and alternate applications must be provided by the mfg of the Mac.
  5. No CLI to my knowledge (I haven’t found one in my brief experience with Mac’s)
  6. Not too much info about this very closed system is available. But it does seem to work with it’s limited
    functionality.
  7. The OS has no knowledge of what applications are available or from whom but, the whom is Mac since they are
    the only ones who can write apps for the system.
  8. Tighter security, fewer infection risks, reasonable memory management (does crash but does slow down)

Complaints:
*Very proprietary, Mac supplies hardware, OS, and Apps either from them or special venders with agreements
*Too stale and closed system
*Lack of cutting edge Applications with real power

Praises:
*Just works

Linux as a CLI

  1. A free OS base product
  2. Consists of the kernel, command line interpreter, and a secure frame filesystem
  3. Hardware support for various motherboard configurations is built into various versions of the kernel as
    software programmers manage to create the appropriate drivers to support them.
  4. Applications CLI based abound coming from all over the community. Anyone with the knowhow can develope
    applications for the benefit of all. The degree of usefulness of such apps varies by purpose and skill.
    In most cases, the apps can be .deb based or .rpm based.
  5. The CLI is the most powerful one in the industry. It encompases, multiple forms of help, device control,
    user control, group control, services control, and set-up of: networking, services, devices, etc…
  6. The system is highly stable, manages memory well by only loading drivers, libraries, and setting files for
    running apps.
  7. If the system is rpm based, there is a real application management system because as you encounter more rpm’s
    the system broadens the application base of what is installed vs what is available. If the system is .deb based,
    you usually need a separate program for managing repositories and package availability.
  8. Very tight security, on both the desktop and server systems. Infections are to date unheard of with the claveat
    that if you use VMware, or wine to run an insecure Windows based product you could damage your system.

Complaints:
*Don’t want to use a CLI
*Too hard to configure, have to read lots and think
*High learning curve, takes too long to become productive

Praises:
*Highly configurable
*Highly Stable
*Can function as a workstation, a server, or both

Linux as a GUI

  1. The x-86free or simular xwindow controller adds the basic structure for allowing for a GUI
  2. Various Desktops like KDE, Gnome, Xfce, CDE, iceworm, etc are made available. They each have their
    good and bad points, and each are being independantly developed by their own groups.
  3. GUI applications are likewise developed by independant groups and made available to the Linux community
    on the whole as free software under the GPL.

Complaints:
*Why so many desktops, why can’t Linux have one desktop that just works like windows
*Why can’t all GUI applications be from one central place for anyone using Linux

Praises:
*A choice of desktops allows me to choose what works for me no-one is forcing me
*Applications are available and can be managed through software management for easy add/remove

Linux as a distribution

  1. Each Distribution sets their own method of packaging through the use of repositories which are
    designed to simplify things for their users.
  2. Each Distribution sets their own propietary method of handling system wide set-up and control.
  3. Each Distribution has there own means of determining what to include or exclude based upon core values of
    stability, testing, conformity with community wishes, and legal issues.

Complaints:
*Distro such and such doesn’t do things like this one does
*I can get/use program xyz with distro x so why does distro y not include it
*I had Problems with distro x with my hardware but distro y worked just fine

Praises:
*Distro x is working so fantastic for me

2

As can be seen, Linux is not Windows, it is not a Mac, and each Linux Distribution is unique. While various Linux Distributions share much in common, they are still managed in an unique fashion.

Taking a look at the complaints about distro’s, desktops, servers, there has been a common theme argued back and forth across many forums. My summation from what I have read breaks down to this:

  1. Each vender has a following that claims their offering is the ultimate OS and that the others are
    somewhat lacking in performance. In most cases arguments lack back-up support for statements.
  2. There is no clear definition represented as to what makes a desktop “ready for prime time”
  3. There is no clear definition represented as to what makes a workstation “ready for client of server use”
  4. There is no clear definition represented as to what makes for a good to supurb server
  5. and without these clear definitions not being present, it’s hard to track the preformance of a system
    properly as either a server, workstation or desktop.

So then what makes one OS supperior to another? My short answer is that it must address as many key issues necessary for it to perform it’s objectives in it’s desired function as a server, workstation, or desktop.

For an OS to function as a server,

  1. it needs to have the stability to run for very long periods unattended without crashing, or locking up.
  2. it needs a strong security model which is difficult to impossible to crack
  3. it needs full networking capabilites with authentications, configurations, diversity in server functions
  4. and of course it needs to fully support the hardware needed to access networks.

The MAC OS/X architecture is intended to be used as a light duty server system. It’s stated primary role is to serve up webpages, email, itunes, and upgrades to client MAC systems. TechRepublic, ITNews, ITinMotion rate this OS as being stable over short periods of 1 to 2 weeks, somewhat slower than IBM X servers and Linux but faster than Windows server 2003. While security is tighter than Windows, it requires many add on packages to fully protect both the client and server sides. As a server it integrates well with the networking hardware and comes with a fair set of tools for purpose control although lacking in full server functionality.

Looking into the Microsoft offerings, Windows Vista Ultimate and Windows 7 server 2008 R2 is kind of mixed can of worms. Vista Ultimate failed badly as a server, firstly, deployment issues had far too many hardware issues to address. Secondly, keeping the server secure proved to be somewhat difficult moment to moment. Thirdly, keeping the server up over long periods degraded performance overall. And fourthly, it supported only 64 of the available 296 processors currently available on applicable desktops. The biggest part of the Vista problem has
centered around trying to support 32bit and 64bit versions of 64 processors at the same time with a short lifecycle. Windows 7 server 2008 R2 is coming out as 64bit version only but will accomodate 256 processors of the 296 currently available ones. I noted that nowhere do they explictly state which proccessors are or are not accommodated.

News on the Linux Kernels as they would pertain to servers returned the following results as reported through
IT sources: Stable versions starting with 2.4.37.7 thru 2.6.31.5 are basically the same. Average uptime before
a forced restart is greater than 1 year and based upon short cycles between major upgrades, units operating
as a server are taken down for service long before a forced restart would be required. This puts a Linux server
right up there with IBM X servers which are intended to be force restarted about every 1.2 years. Of all the
mentioned servers, the IBM X server and the Linux server are the only servers which during their lifecycles
between upgrades performed continuously without crashing or strange lock-up’s. Linux server models support the
strongest security model as long as windows style SMB and Samba are not used directly on the server. IT people
are reminded not to use folder naming conventions like c_win or dev_sda1 to point to which partition is
connected to where as this can compromise the security. While Linux has the strongest support for networking
capabilities, authentications, configurations, and diversity, there is an important issue of hardware
compatibility. Thusly, each peice of hardware must exactly match up with support by the OS in CLI mode before
being considered as a server. Why this is important is that say you have a wireless Lan card that supports
modes 801.11gna but Linux can only see and use the card as 801.11ga with it’s driver then this can lead to
problems.

For an OS to function as a workstation,

  1. It needs to be able to fully connect with the server under both hardware and software conditions
  2. It needs to be able to handle protocols and meet requirements of the server
  3. It needs to be able to function as a workstation in a client/server senerio.
  4. As a workstation it needs to be able to browse and work the network in accordance with it’s client side
    restrictions of what it may or may not access with-in the network inclusive of files, devices and programs
  5. As a workstation it must be able to utilize it’s local hardware properly as it pertains to the server
    applications it is running. Such that if it runs a music app from the server, the local machine must be
    able to operate it’s local audio device(s).
  6. It needs to be able to function repetitively between start-ups with stability and function overall without
    lock-ups, crashes, and be reasonably protected from receaving or distributing infections, malware, or other
    undesirable ill effects

As noted in the above, there is no mention of whether the OS is running in CLI or GUI mode. This is because
a workstation must be able to function in it’s native mode with a server. In the case of a MAC OS-X or Windows
the native mode is a GUI but in UNIX, and Linux the native mode can be considered either CLI or GUI.

For an OS to function as a Desktop,

  1. It needs to be able to have a stable desktop which maintains stability upon any occurance of application
    error. An application crash should never bring down the Desktop, the CLI or the OS.
  2. It needs to have a friendly look and feel that provides an intuitive guide to it’s general operation
  3. It needs to be able to access it’s defined area of the filesystem as defined under user/groups priviledges
  4. It needs to be able to access it’s allowed devices, allowed applications, and information systems from
    with-in the desktop structure.
  5. It needs to be able to be configured to meet the needs of the user.

While many will argue that my list seriously lacks a whole host of options and abilities, this is true. This
general list of requirements if not met will prevent many of the more desirable abilities from being achieved.
Any Desktop will evolve and as such will generally emphasis specific enhancements which makes it more desireable
to one group of users over another.

So then what about the Distributions? Well now things start getting vague again. On the MAC OS-X side we have
a single package running on Apple or Intel hardware which functions as a server, workstation, Desktop. The OS-X
OS is UNIX based and runs proprietary MAC software as well as open-source (many of which are hosted on Linux
sites). Microsoft provides Windows 7 and Windows 7 server 2008 R2 where the first is a workstation/Desktop and
the other is a Server. And finally, we have Linux which has hundreds of distributions but the main ones are
Ubuntu, KUbuntu, openSUSE, SLED, SLES, Fedora, Mandriva, Slackware, and Redhat. Linux versions can be configured
as workstation, Desktop, or server or any combination thereof. I guess what the most basic difference equates
to is what a distribution brings to the table.
MAC OS-X: The distribution contains the basic OS with the CLI tools and it’s GUI. Commercial apps come from
. Apple, hardware venders and Apple associated venders. Open source apps come from a series of Web based
. archives many of which are hosted on Linux sites. Hardware venders also supply software in support of their
. hardware.
Microsoft Windows 7: The distribution contains the basic OS as a GUI. Commercial apps come from a wide variety
. of Microsoft, software venders, and hardware venders. Downloaded apps which are closed source come from
. a multitude of places as shareware, freeware, and trialware. Hardware venders also supply software in
. support of their hardware. Downloaded apps may contain malware, viruses, spyware, trojans, and macros so
. anti-virus, anti-trojan, anti-spy, firewall, anti-ad software which is up to date is a must.
Microsoft Windows 7 server 2008 R2: distribution contains the basic OS server as a GUI. Server apps come from
. Microsoft or associated venders.
Linux Distributions: The distribution contains the basic Linux OS, the basic CLI tools, one to 10 different
. GUI’s (KDE, CDE, Xfce, Gnome, …), distribution specific CLI and GUI tools for configuring, updating,
. adding to and managing the system, and a huge list of CLI, GUI, Server, and Networking apps. Most of the
. bigger distributions maintain a forum for help, support and repositories of version specific apps which
. number into the thousands. In addition, many other repositories exist that provide apps not accepted into
. the distributions mainline. Commercial apps come from venders just like for the other OS’s. While you will
. find apps you may want for your distribution but not included in their repositories, there are many reasons
. why they may be excluded. 1) Lack of space on the installation media. 2) Application didn’t pass testing.
. 3) Application could not be included because it violates GPL legal constraints. 4) Application contained
. a potential security threat or other malicious code.

and this is about the best I can put it. Just to say a distro is bad is not enough because within each distro are many layers and
to truly fix a distro the component in the correct layer needs addressing.

3

Nice write up. One correction though. I have seen and used the CLI in Mac. Believe it or not, the Mac CLI is bash, and you can use the same UNIX/Linux commands. I have tested this out.

4

To use the funny phrase … “No ***, Sherlock” :wink: … OS X is a UNIX system, even a certified one so most if not all shells available for other UNIX/Linux systems will work on OS X. Apple prolly took Bash as default since it’s so popular these days

5

Ok folks I have some corrections to my post! My bad, I used an earlier study that I made which I didn’t realize
I hadn’t straightened out before including the new info. Guess I should proofread before opening my mouth.

Mac:
I mixed OS - X with their former Apple explicite offering. Thusly, OS - 9 has a closed Frame filesystem and
OS - X has a Secure Frame filesystem. The closed Frame is proprietary to Apple while the Secure Frame is true
Linux/Unix applicable. OS - X can be run on Apple MAC hardware or Intel/AMD hardware. Apple Mac applications
must be obtained from Apple or one of it’s afiliates. Open source apps can be obtained from applicable sources
and many are on Linux sites. OS - 9 does not have a CLI but OS - X contains a CLI in true unix fashion.

Complaints: OS - 9

  • Very proprietary, Mac supplies hardware, OS, and Apps either from them or special venders with agreements
    *Too stale and closed system
    *Lack of cutting edge Applications with real power
    Complaints OS - X
  • none

Praises:
*Just works

For an OS to function as a server,
The MAC OS - 9 architecture is intended to be used as a light duty server system. It’s stated primary role is
to serve up webpages, email, itunes, and upgrades to client MAC systems. TechRepublic, ITNews, ITinMotion
rate this OS as being stable over short periods of 1 to 2 weeks, somewhat slower than IBM X servers and Linux
but faster than Windows server 2003. While security is tighter than Windows, it requires many add on packages
to fully protect both the client and server sides. As a server it integrates well with the networking hardware
and comes with a fair set of tools for purpose control although lacking in full server functionality.
** The OS - X resolves most of the underlying issues except that Apple Mac software is noted to experience
hiccups now that the UNIX underlying system is being used.

Linux also fails to fully detail which processors it correctly and incorrectly functions on. Thusly we now have
MAC, Windows, and Linux users having to research a sometimes misleading array of web posts to determine exactly
what hardware architecture is needed for true full kernel support.

Again, folks sorry as I started this particular breakdown many years ago and finally decided to finish it and put it out there.

6

Yeh the commandline in mac is easy to miss, but so can the commandline in linux