I'd say there is a winner : Linux. Isn't it interesting that a software developped by a team of hacker (I'd say a chaotic, huge and ever growing) can make a monster like Ubuntu and get performances that don't pale against another OS which is designed by a very organised, super funded, super focused team of carefully selected programmers...
Ok, I assume a rather romatic view of linux development, but I'd bet I'm not that far from reality :-)
The article benchmarks the performance of Ubuntu and OSX, and finds them to be in a dead heat.
Ubuntu was developed at a lower investment on Canonical's part (OR with a larger team of less skilled developers, I can't tell which is more important to frownie).
Therefore Ubuntu represents a greater achievement relative to the resources invested than OSX does.
While Canonical has invested limited resources in Ubuntu, the overall amount of resources used to create the Linux kernel, the Debian toolchain, and the Ubuntu OS are far greater.
One could say they match or exceed the "resources invested" in OSX, which also uses a range of Open Source software and history (to name just one extremely important part: BSD Unix).
The two are actually broadly comparable in the work and effort put in, and apparently the results as well.
You could argue that Ubuntu has the greater achievement because they spent less money on it, but given the actual value put in, it seems like a moot point.
Certainly. However, I think most people looking at benchmarks like these are deciding which operating system to actually use. An entire OS created by a single teenager would be a stunning achievement, even if it ran terribly. That doesn't mean you'd choose it as your primary OS.
As it stands, the Ubuntu team can stand proud that they stood toe to toe with the Apple behemoth. But these benchmarks really don't give anyone (on either side) a compelling reason to switch.
Unfortunately, switchable/hybrid graphics remain
a pain in the ass under Linux. With Ubuntu 12.04 LTS,
the 2010 MacBook Pro had problems with either
open-source driver.So, yeah, you're being romantic.
* Seventy-five percent of all kernel development is done by developers who are being paid for their work. * The top 10 organizations sponsoring Linux kernel are Red Hat, Intel, Novell, IBM, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Oracle and Google - all big boys * Linux has Linus :)
Actually I think Linux has an organizational advantage, because companies can share risks.
A lot of the linux and GNU software is hardly just developed by "teams of hackers" at this point. As someone who got sent to a RedHat class for a week ( migrating from hpux -> linux), I can attest Linux has large corporate support at this point. My former employer wouldn't have touched it if it wasn't supported.
I'm afraid Dr. Stallman killed that with GPLv3. Each new OS X release comes with less and less GNU software.