As much as we may like free software, there is a lot of interesting commercial applications out there (be them free as in free beer or not). Given the origins and spirit of each OS, the amount of commercial applications available for them is vastly different.
Let's start with Ubuntu (strictly speaking, Linux). Although trends are slowly changing, the number of commercial programs that are addressed to Linux systems is really small. I've reasons to believe that this is because Linux, as a platform to provide such applications, is awful. We already saw an example of this in the software installation comparison because third-party applications have a hard path to distribute their software under the Linux world. We will see more examples about this soon in another post.
In my opinion, this is a disadvantage because, although there are free replacements for almost any utility you can imagine, they are not necessarily better yet. Similarly, there are tools for which no replacement exists yet. Or simply put the user may want to use such commercial tool because he prefers them over any of the other alternatives.
On the other side of things, a typical user will generally be satisfied with all the free tools included in the Ubuntu repositories. If not, sites such as Sourceforge or Freshmeat are full of Unix-based free applications. Generally they won't ever have the need to consider commercial applications so they won't have to spend any single amount of money to use their software nor keep it up to date.
Mac OS X is a different world; commercial software (shareware, freeware, etc.) is still extremely abundant in it. This is probably, in part, because the platform is also commercial: developers won't feel "strange" in providing applications following the same model, and there are chances that their applications will succeed. Fortunately, there is also a growing number of free applications that compete with these commercial ones, and they do a great job (to mention a few: Camino, Adium X, Colloquy, Smultron, etc.).
Even more, given that Mac OS X is based on Unix and that it provides a X Window System server, it is possible to run most of the free applications available under Linux in this operating system. Just check out, for example, The GIMP, or fetch pkgsrc and start building your own favourite programs!
Aside that, there are also very popular commercial applications available for this OS. These include the popular Apple and Adobe applications (iWork, Photoshop, Premiere, etc.) and other such as Microsoft Office, Parallels or Skype (I know, the latter is also available for Linux). It is a fact that nowadays some of these programs are superior to their free alternatives and some people will want to use them. But, ultimately, they have the freedom to make that decision.
In this area I think that Mac OS X is more versatile because it can take advantage of both free applications and some interesting commercial ones. Only time will tell if those will be natively ported to Linux some day or not, but if/when that happens, it will be as versatile as Mac OS X with the advantage of a predominating feeling of developing free software.
11 comments:
I agree I'm having a bit of Macintemtation myself. I'm a designer that uses Ubuntu and free software. And I have a friend of mine's Mac sitting right beside me just waiting to be used... Thanks for the post... I'll keep searching for more ubuntu vs mac osx... http://evercambio.com
You say that OS X can run linux applications. What are the prospects of Ubuntu running Mac applications? I'm not a technician, but I've been mulling this over thinking about the Novell / Microsoft transaction. It seems to me that interoperability with MS might be barking up the wrong tree, and that interoperability with Mac, especially via Ubuntu might the way to go.
Your thoughts?
I'm not sure you understood it correctly or I explained it well. Mac OS X cannot run *Linux* applications. It can build and run Unix programs that use "standard" interfaces. That is, you must rebuild a "Linux" program to run under OS X. And if that program requires any Linux-specific API (typically one that allows access to hardware) you are out of luck unless that application has OS X support already. Anyway, it is true that a lot of the existing applications work just fine! (For example: The GIMP, Vim, Apache, LaTeX, and a long etc.)
On the other hand, Linux cannot run OS X applications. You may want to take a look to the GNUstep project which provides some of the APIs used in OS X. It may be possible for you to successfully rebuild command-line applications only, but there is no support for Cocoa.
Let me note at last that NetBSD does have binary-compatibility support for Darwin programs, so you can run some OS X binaries straight on your system! (Again, non-GUI ones.)
At the same as an Ubuntu user, i cant think of any OSX only programs that i would ever need to run. Or that isnt a windows program in which i can run in WINE. No OS is as customizable and gives the end user such a plethora of choices on how they use their computers. Your end user desktop is your own and not some unflinching idea of what youll need. I'm not sure how long youve tried ubuntu. I say give it a bit longer go. I cant ever go back to any other os :)
To the last anonymous:
I can think of some programs I *want* to run that are only available in OS X, but not *need* them because there are other alternatives in other systems. To mention a couple, Adium X and iTunes :-) Oh, and Parallels, but that seems to be available for Windows and Linux too.
Anyway, I've been a GNOME user for a veeeery long time. Ubuntu only brought me some improvements over what I was used to under NetBSD. Basically: better handling of removable media, quicker software installation and easier system configuration. But that's about it.
Furthermore, before I used NetBSD, I had been a Debian user for some more years, so I know Ubuntu's internals fairly well too.
"Basically: better handling of removable media, quicker software installation and easier system configuration. But that's about it."
Isn't that what we all really want? :p
Sure. But you said I should have spent more time with Ubuntu before commenting about it. So what I mean is that I was already familiar with Debian and GNOME for a long time, so Ubuntu is not all that different to have to learn much new stuff.
"I'm not sure how long youve tried ubuntu. I say give it a bit longer go"
Using (K)Ubuntu is so-o easy a caveman could do it. Not NetBSD -- I'm a recent convert to Kubuntu. I turned away from Windows and never looked back.
I like that Kubuntu uses one Live CD -- I couldn't find one for NetBSD. I don't have a DVD burner so I can't make my own Live DVD.
Right now, I'm trying to configure Windows 98/XP on a QEMU/Bochs empty disk image: I still want to use Adobe software.
when it comes to professional audio and video apps, linux cannot compete (yet):
- there is really no true plug-and-play, always works, never fails solution for connecting professional sound hardware (new or old) to linux. this is mainly due to lack of drivers...
- also, the software packages available are decent, but come nowhere near a professional solution like Logic Studio, Cubase, or ProTools.
- no replacement for basic, consumer recording software like Garageband (easy to use "light" version of the pro apps).
- limited support for and availability of audio plugins
...so when it comes to creative tools (audio in my case), Macs still have a clear lead...beating linux and windows by a wide margin...
Aron I totally Agree. I use Ableton live and NI Traktor Dj studio for my home production and Dj'ing purposes. Its a pity not seeing software as proffesional and advanced as that on Linux. Closest I've come to is ubuntustudio but still it has a long long way to go. For now I'm settling for 2 systems. One Mac running my studio and another ubunto for my day to day internet activities. I wish there is a group of programers that would start a project in conjunction with some musicians and Djs.......
Post a Comment