as i sit on here at this 24" imac that cost over $1500 i can't help but be unimpressed with the os. shouldn't something that costs so much be head and shoulders over a free os?
what can osx do that ubuntu can't?
Archived thread 1051204 from Mac OSX. Markdown source: Mac_OSX/thread_1051204_what_can_osx_do_that_ubuntu_can't.md
Honestly, I can't think of anything that a Mac can do, that Ubuntu can't. I'm sure there probably is, but I just can't think of anything...
That being said, Apple is a fine company, with great support, and you couldn't have gone wrong with buying the setup you did. Beautifully designed computers and peripherals.
There is apparently software available for OSX, which can do things that there is thus far no equivalent for in the Linux world.
This is only something you will be aware of if you have need for these particular software abilities. If you don't need them, then you can easily say that Linux (whatever distro) can do everything that OSX can do, & under those circumstances that will be true, but the argument won't get too far amongst the people that it is not true for. :-)
On my 24" iMac, I rarely run OSX, just to play Guild Wars, (because the OSX ATi drivers are still vastly superior to the Linux ones) & to maintain my website, because there is no equivalent software available for Linux, & I did spend a good deal of time looking before I resorted to using an OSX solution.
I run Arch/Xfce on the iMac, & have never been happier with a system. I like the hardware (& I'm a retired hardware/OS tech') & I love the Arch/Xfce combo'. :KS
handy said: There is apparently software available for OSX, which can do things that there is thus far no equivalent for in the Linux world.
You've peaked my curiosity. Can you cite any examples?
This is only something you will be aware of if you have need for these particular software abilities. If you don't need them, then you can easily say that Linux (whatever distro) can do everything that OSX can do, & under those circumstances that will be true, but the argument won't get too far amongst the people that it is not true for. :-)
That's a pretty cryptic comment. See question above ^.
On my 24" iMac, I rarely run OSX, just to play Guild Wars, (because the OSX ATi drivers are still vastly superior to the Linux ones) & to maintain my website, because there is no equivalent software available for Linux, & I did spend a good deal of time looking before I resorted to using an OSX solution.
I don't do either of those, so, if you say so, I accept those as fact. But, I am interested in an answer to my question.
I run Arch/Xfce on the iMac, & have never been happier with a system. I like the hardware (& I'm a retired hardware/OS tech') & I love the Arch/Xfce combo'. :KS
That would be a dynamite setup.
:)
There is the possibility of Final Cut Pro and GarageBand.
WikipedianMarlith said: There is the possibility of Final Cut Pro
Cinelerra is mentioned often as a Linux alternative.
and GarageBand.
Jokosher?
It can cost you an arm and a leg and you have no input on development for the next release.
*@OrangeCrate:* I have previously listed my two examples that are from personal experience.
I have read here in the forums multiple times, over the years, how many people much prefer to use Photoshop, because they say that there are things that GIMP just can not do that PS can.
I can't vouch for that as I have no need for either of those pieces of software & so don't know from personal experience.
My wife uses Sibelius on her Mac, Sibelius is not available on Linux, & there is nothing that gets anywhere near the functionality of Sibelius as far as she is concerned, on Linux.
There would be other specialised pieces of software that only those who actually fully use the capabilities of the software are capable of making statements on how acceptable or otherwise the Linux equivalents are.
Of course there are those who will argue on this topic, though why I have no idea, apart from the effects of the chauvinism gene!
This discussion goes nowhere, as it ultimately comes down to the personal needs & experiences of the individual.
It's not about personal ideas, ideals & ego, relating to some imaginary form of competition involving OS's & the software they can run & what other people should be using & doing with their computer.
Let people use whatever satisfies them, wish them well & be grateful for all of the choices we have.
handy said: *@OrangeCrate:* I have previously listed my two examples that are from personal experience.
I have read here in the forums multiple times, over the years, how many people much prefer to use Photoshop, because they say that there are things that GIMP just can not do that PS can.
I can't vouch for that as I have no need for either of those pieces of software & so don't know from personal experience.
My wife uses Sibelius on her Mac, Sibelius is not available on Linux, & there is nothing that gets anywhere near the functionality of Sibelius as far as she is concerned, on Linux.
There would be other specialised pieces of software that only those who actually fully use the capabilities of the software are capable of making statements on how acceptable or otherwise the Linux equivalents are.
Of course there are those who will argue on this topic, though why I have no idea, apart from the effects of the chauvinism gene!
This discussion goes nowhere, as it ultimately comes down to the personal needs & experiences of the individual.
It's not about personal ideas, ideals & ego, relating to some imaginary form of competition involving OS's & the software they can run & what other people should be using & doing with their computer.
Let people use whatever satisfies them, wish them well & be grateful for all of the choices we have.
I agree with you, and I certainly wasn't looking for an argument on the matter. As I said in my first post in this thread, I was sure there probably was software that would only run on a Mac, and that there was no Linux alternative, but I couldn't think of any. I was curious if others had any examples of Mac only software without a Linux alternative.
I still can't think of any (Rosegarden is a Linux alternative to Sibelius), but I do agree with you, that Linux development on some programs lags far behind some proprietary software (Dreamweaver is the example that immediately jumps to my mind), and that the proprietary software is the best choice to use. But, Linux alternatives do exist, and development continues...
The question posed by the OP, was, is an Apple OS worth the money against Linux, and I personally say no, but, as I also commented on, the overall package that Apple puts in the marketplace, hardware and software, is pretty hard to beat for a proprietary system.
My Brother is currently on the market for getting a new computer for making music, but wants to do it cheap. I told him I could build a good setup for him that would run ubuntu (we already run xubuntu on an older compueter). His is insisting though he gets a mac G5 (so much for cheap) because he needs to run Logic. He was wondering if i could get this running under ubuntu, to which I said I could get a lot of windows ones running under wine but not mac. He has used cubase before which I know runs well under wine, but he says nothing comes close it Logic.
OrangeCrate said:
I agree with you, and I certainly wasn't looking for an argument on the matter. As I said in my first post in this thread, I was sure there probably was software that would only run on a Mac, and that there was no Linux alternative, but I couldn't think of any. I was curious if others had any examples of Mac only software without a Linux alternative.
My apologies if my reply was too strong, I was attempting to be clear & concise.
OrangeCrate said:
I still can't think of any (Rosegarden is a Linux alternative to Sibelius)
Rosegarden, as good an application that it is, does not fill the shoes of Sibelius when it comes to score editing/arranging. Perhaps Rosegarden is stronger on the sequencing side.
OrangeCrate said:
but I do agree with you, that Linux development on some programs lags far behind some proprietary software (Dreamweaver is the example that immediately jumps to my mind), and that the proprietary software is the best choice to use. But, Linux alternatives do exist, and development continues...
I agree. I am also continually astounded at the speed of development within the FOSS environment, we often consider things to be moving slow from our personal perspective, but if we can step back & observe, things look quite different.
OrangeCrate said:
The question posed by the OP, was, is an Apple OS worth the money against Linux, and I personally say no, but, as I also commented on, the overall package that Apple puts in the marketplace, hardware and software, is pretty hard to beat for a proprietary system.
It is such a tricky question, it is often asked in different ways in this forum; it unfortunately brings subjective biases head to head where they so often abrade one another. Which is often amusing, rarely ever educational, sometimes quite sad & usually boring.
To your above question I would answer that I have advised past customers of mine who could afford it to buy a Mac, so they could escape the unreliability & security issues involved with the windows OS's. Everyone of them has been very happy with the change, & all of them are 3 years plus on their Macs, none use anti-virus software, none have had security issues, all are on their initial install & everything is going perfectly well on their machines last I heard.
Yes, those people paid more than they would have for a similar spec'd windows machine, but, they have not had ANY maintenance costs, or security issues. I think that, that, more than covers the cost difference for a windows to Mac conversion, most especially for people that don't maintain there own computers.
I know, the above did not answer the question you posed. :-)
As far as whether it is worth buying a Mac as opposed to the PC/Linux combination is concerned? I would say that there are some ifs involved here:
If you are happy to use Linux? (Which is basically harder to learn & use than OSX & generally requires maintenance that OSX does not. This if, does have a few other nested ifs incorporated in it too.)
If you can do everything you need/desire to do on a Linux distro & the software available for it?
If the above ifs are ok with the user then I would say that generally a Mac is not the most economical solution.
If the above ifs are not ok with the user, I think that a Mac could very well be the most economical solution over the longer term.
For people that just want to use their computer & not be concerned about how it works, the Mac's with OSX really do make life very easy for them, imho.
OrangeCrate said: Honestly, I can't think of anything that a Mac can do, that Ubuntu can't. I'm sure there probably is, but I just can't think of anything...
That being said, Apple is a fine company, with great support, and you couldn't have gone wrong with buying the setup you did. Beautifully designed computers and peripherals.
Goodness the ignorance of OS X is incredible in this thread.
When it comes to music production, OS X has built in programs that surpass anything music production you can do on any Linux.
The same goes for movie editing, photo management/maniupulation, webcam, calendar, music playback, and built-in utilities.
OS X is also Unix compatible, making it the best choice for scientist.
Virtualization is also better in OS X.
Color management is also much better, its simply the best.
It's also much faster, and once Snow Leopard comes out, OS X will handily beat every other OS when it comes to speed.
I've never been able to get Ubuntu to open 50+ programs out once, it always manages to get really slow, then freezes completely. OS X however, I am able to open every CS4 app, ever Office2008 app, every iWork, iLife, and every other app on it at the same time and still run it perfectly smooth, without hiccup. I even played UT2004 the other day on OS X while running 50+ apps... it was amazing.
aceinthenight said: Goodness the ignorance of OS X is incredible in this thread.
Yes, though I have owned Apple products since the year 2000, (apart from a Mac+ I owned briefly in 1990, which died of boredom ;-)) I must admit that I too really don't know OSX all that well.
The 15" Powerbook that I bought early in 2000, caused me to quite quickly become bored with it, so I gave it to my wife, who still uses it in her business as a private music teacher, where it works for her quite well (upgraded to Leopard these days).
The 2 x 24" iMacs that we own are put to quite different uses:
My wife, again focused on her music enjoys the large screen, Sibelius & the other software she uses (naturally all available under windows), she also uses Firefox for research.
The benefits that she has experienced after moving from windows XP to using the Apple products are mainly due to the inherent system security with the bonus of simpler software installation.
As far as the comparison of the well known slow down that increases over time since installation caused on windows mainly by the registry & to a lesser extent by file fragmentation; we have found that due to the enormous number of music scores that my wife has stored on her iMac, it has also got slower & slower, it is also very slow to boot. I regularly run Diskwarrior over the disk, but it has not helped this problem?
We have also found that using an external HDD, controlled by the inbuilt backup software of OSX, slows the boot process down even more, so rather than just having it turned on all of the time, my wife manually turns it on when it suits her.
Whereas I, again, quickly bored by OSX, thoroughly enjoy running Arch/Xfce on my iMac, where I enjoy the open simplicity, the speed benefits, & the ability to install & customise everything to suit myself. :-D
Unfortunately I have found the inability to modify much of the Leopard front end to be one of the real drawbacks of OSX. The other thing, (which is a drawback I was obviously prepared to accept prior to purchase) is the fact that iMac's are even worse than most notebooks when it comes to user access to hardware. With most notebooks it is quite simple for the owner to upgrade the RAM & HDD. With the iMac, anything beyond RAM access requires the user to brave the removal of the magnetically attached glass screen & to then carefully delve into the depths to access the HDD, optical drive, fans, or in my case the need to repair a faulty audio-out plug.
Some notebooks are built with the ability to upgrade the GPU, it sure would have been nice if Apple had of incorporated that ability into their notebooks & iMacs. :-|
I enjoy my iMac, it serves its purpose & is very space efficient, which is the prime reason why I own it. My iMac is primarily used in my office for web access/reference for computer based projects that I can perform on more open hardware & software, these projects I find to be far more interesting than the closed Apple hardware & OSX. At least it is possible to install Arch/Xfce on the iMac, which has allowed me to express myself in what I find to be an otherwise sterile environment.
aceinthenight said: It's also much faster, and once Snow Leopard comes out, OS X will handily beat every other OS when it comes to speed.I installed the developer beta, and there wasn't any noticeable speed difference between it and Leopard 10.5.6
I personally like Mac OS X for its stability, the fact that its built upon BSD, and just its world class user interface.
For me, I can narrow down all of my computer-likes to everything based on Unix XD
Mason Whitaker said: I installed the developer beta, and there wasn't any noticeable speed difference between it and Leopard 10.5.6
I personally like Mac OS X for its stability, the fact that its built upon BSD, and just its world class user interface.
For me, I can narrow down all of my computer-likes to everything based on Unix XD
Oh really, I sure did. It was quite impressive, especially with CS4 apps.
It's really not a matter of what either OS can do that the other one can't so much as what apps exist on which platform, and which ones are more functional and/or feature-laden.
From everything I've heard, I would never run a Mac OS X-based server, but it's not a bad desktop OS.
MikeTheC said: It's really not a matter of what either OS can do that the other one can't so much as what apps exist on which platform, and which ones are more functional and/or feature-laden.
From everything I've heard, I would never run a Mac OS X-based server, but it's not a bad desktop OS.
What's really funny is it is an amazing server OS. Full Unix compatibility, and it is BSD?
Every credit authorization in this country runs through a massive xserve farm in California. I think that its good, and very secure, and very reliable, it they were willing to sink that kind of money into that.
MikeTheC said: From everything I've heard, I would never run a Mac OS X-based server, but it's not a bad desktop OS.
The server isn't that bad, its just that Linux is a better and cheaper alternative :P
Mason Whitaker said: The server isn't that bad, its just that Linux is a better and cheaper alternative :P
It's cheaper, but better? I don't think so...
aceinthenight said: It's cheaper, but better? I don't think so...I'm sorry, have you even have a server of your own?..and have you personally compared the two?
Mason Whitaker said: I'm sorry, have you even have a server of your own?..and have you personally compared the two?
Yeah, I have tried a few servers with the two, and OS X handles e-mail connections better. It also has superior support for the processors in my Mac Pro that I use as a home server... I get much better CPU usage stats.
aceinthenight said: Yeah, I have tried a few servers with the two, and OS X handles e-mail connections better. It also has superior support for the processors in my Mac Pro that I use as a home server... I get much better CPU usage stats.
Really? Because in my experience an Ubuntu Server ran much faster on my Mac Mini than it did running Mac OS X Server :S
Well I think it depends on what you are doing, and with the Mac Mini, it could make more of a difference. Ubuntu, and Linux in general, is not optimized for more powerful computers, but tends ot do better on a Mac Mini, in your case. I've noticed that across all Operating systems; linux does better on lower end systems, while OS X can't be beat on higher end systems.
Also, was it Tiger that you ran?
MikeTheC said: It's really not a matter of what either OS can do that the other one can't so much as what apps exist on which platform, and which ones are more functional and/or feature-laden.
From everything I've heard, I would never run a Mac OS X-based server, but it's not a bad desktop OS. +1
You don't use the OS, you use the applications that run upon it. As for the server, it's more suited toward small environments compared to a large one. I have a XServe as a web server and a seperate blade running as a domain controller to the other Windows/Linux/Unix/Mac clients.
Linux has been the most popular OS on Supercomputers since 2004.
handy said: Linux has been the most popular OS on Supercomputers since 2004.
Aye. It's cheap, fast, scalable, and fully configurable. I don't see why you wouldn't like it for crunching a few numbers here and there.
Frak said: Aye. It's cheap, fast, scalable, and fully configurable. I don't see why you wouldn't like it for crunching a few numbers here and there.
It will certainly be my first choice when I get my next supercomputer. :-)
Or decide to buy 3 PS/3's & build a cluster.
handy said: It will certainly be my first choice when I get my next supercomputer. :-)
Or decide to buy 3 PS/3's & build a cluster. http://us.fixstars.com/products/sony/ps3.shtml
Yes, I've seen that site & some info' on the famous professor who built the PS/3 cluster.
It's a shame Sony don't build a PS/3 with at least the provision to add more RAM. Just one RAM slot would make a lot of people very happy.
Obviously not enough sales in it to make it worthwhile, from Sony's perspective.
handy said: Yes, I've seen that site & some info' on the famous professor who built the PS/3 cluster.
It's a shame Sony don't build a PS/3 with at least the provision to add more RAM. Just one RAM slot would make a lot of people very happy.
Obviously not enough sales in it to make it worthwhile, from Sony's perspective.
But we know they could use any extra revenue... they are losing so much on the PS3. Good thing it is powerful enough to last a long time, time for prices to come down, and time for game developers to make games that came take advantage of it.
aceinthenight said:
The same goes for movie editing, photo management/maniupulation, webcam, calendar, music playback, and built-in utilities. I won't contest the music or video stuff because I don't use either, but I'm going to disagree about photo management and manipulation. I personally maintain my decent-sized photo collection (amateur photographer) with the trifecta of GIMP, Picasa, and GQView. I use the GIMP for more major or comprehensive editing, Picasa for quick fixes, and GQView to catalog and view my images. This setup works flawlessly for me. All of these apps run on both Linux and OS X (if you count DarwinPorts for GQView).
I'm sure OS X is better for those with specific needs (Photoshop?), but I don't have any. You can't make blanket statements about needs and preferences.
aceinthenight said:
OS X is also Unix compatible, making it the best choice for scientist. Apple paid to officially be genuine UNIX. Linux is UNIX-like and will do many things the same way, but I personally would recommend BSD or Solaris to anyone who needs a real UNIX system for research or scientific work.
aceinthenight said:
Virtualization is also better in OS X. Another super-subjective statement. I personally like VMWare, which runs on Windows, OS X, and Linux.
aceinthenight said:
It's also much faster, and once Snow Leopard comes out, OS X will handily beat every other OS when it comes to speed.
Got any evidence to back that up? And what are you measuring? Boot time, app launching time, RAM use?
aceinthenight said: It's cheaper, but better? I don't think so...
"Better" is a subjective term that will vary for different people.
OS X does many things very well for many people. So does Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Haiku, and just about every other operating system. Everyone has their own needs and desires, and only they can say what works best for them. Let's not go around putting words into people's mouths with generalizations and blanket statements.
aceinthenight said: But we know they could use any extra revenue... they are losing so much on the PS3. Good thing it is powerful enough to last a long time, time for prices to come down, and time for game developers to make games that can take advantage of it.
I agree.
From what I have read, the cell processor offers multiple challenges to software developers, which would be the reason why the PS/3 has not been flooded with software that pushes it too its limits.
Sony have stated that they will not market a more advanced version (PS/4) until software being produced for the PS/3 shows it to be necessary.
handy said: Yes, I've seen that site & some info' on the famous professor who built the PS/3 cluster.
It's a shame Sony don't build a PS/3 with at least the provision to add more RAM. Just one RAM slot would make a lot of people very happy.
Obviously not enough sales in it to make it worthwhile, from Sony's perspective. Aye
Even if it was FB-DIMM (expensive, but fully buffered, which is win for clustering) I'd buy the RAM for it. It'd be worth it.
cardinals_fan said: Got any evidence to back that up? And what are you measuring? Boot time, app launching time, RAM use?
Wouldn't matter anyways, since OS X will at least attempt to load most drivers from the EFI, saving it some serious time. There is no commercial computer that has this ability, which would skew actual times.
aceinthenight said: Well I think it depends on what you are doing, and with the Mac Mini, it could make more of a difference. Ubuntu, and Linux in general, is not optimized for more powerful computers, but tends ot do better on a Mac Mini, in your case. I've noticed that across all Operating systems; linux does better on lower end systems, while OS X can't be beat on higher end systems.
Also, was it Tiger that you ran?
Leopard on a 2GHz Mac Mini
Yeah I can see it not being that much of a difference or being very different. On my laptop, Ubuntu is much faster than Windows. On my Mac Pro, Ubuntu is uber fast, but OS X is faster.
OSX doesn't even compete with BSD/Linux/other Unix OSs at being used as a server. OSX is a very nice for desktop users who want a stable, consistent, chrome filled GUI, but as a server it looks rubbish compared to OSs like FreeBSD and customized Linuxes.
I'm not sure if this is true, but I read nearly three quarters the super computers in the world either run off a *BSD OS, Linux OS or a customized Unix OS of some sort. I doubt OSX even runs 1 of the worlds top 500 super computers.
OSX is for people who want a hassle free desktop, a music/video production suite or a fashion statement. It is very good at these things. All the power users I know simply won't touch OSX due to it's uncustomizable GUI and the fact that it has been proven to be one of the weakest platforms around. Yes, it is insecure. In the official security test of all the main OSs a year ago, OSX WAS WORSE THAN WINDOWS. Windows took longer to hack than OSX in the compitition. A FreeBSD OS with a customized kernel came 1st I believe.
When OSX users say that OSX is used a lot in servers, it just makes me laugh.
aceinthenight said: What's really funny is it is an amazing server OS. Full Unix compatibility, and it is BSD?
Mac OSX is *not* BSD, so don't try to assume it has all the benefits a BSD server/desktop would have. Yes it might have borrowed some BSD code to use as a base in the beginning but since then it has deviated so far from BSD that you really can't call them similar.
C!oud said: Mac OSX is *not* BSD, so don't try to assume it has all the benefits a BSD server/desktop would have. Yes it might have borrowed some BSD code to use as a base in the beginning but since then it has deviated so far from BSD that you really can't call them similar.
Exactly my point.
I think *BSD is superior to OSX, but that is my opinion.
I hate it when OSX users brag their 'BSD Kernel' when they have no idea what actually is. OSX has little if any positive similarities with *BSD.
I think a £400 64bit PC with *BSD would eat a £400 64bit Mac for breakfast as far as security, reliability and robustness goes. Even if the *BSD PC was running a full DE like KDE 4.2.
OS X and *BSD are two completely separate systems, though they have some similarities.
OS X's networking stack, VFS layer, POSIX system calls, and high-level abstraction (with the exception of threads) are loosely based on FreeBSD, though anything still directly related to FreeBSD is in userland.
OS X is built on a Mach kernel"), XNU. Mach itself forked from 4.2BSD I believe, and when Steve Jobs went to NeXT they used it along with the 4.3BSD userland for NeXTSTEP. Then Apple aquired NeXT, forked the OS again (basically making Raphsody")). They then proceeded to Darwin/OS X (server). The desktop incarnations of OS X started with Mach 4, I believe, and FreeBSD 3.1; 10.2 took code from FreeBSD 4.5, and 10.3 took code from 4.8. Tiger borrowed code from the FreeBSD 5.x series. I'm not sure what Leopard is using...
To further your education (and to have a defining "geek" moment), go print the UNIX History and put it on your wall or in your cubicle.
So, the OS X kernel, as well as init system, are quite different from any BSD.
Once you get past those differences, you get into the Single Unix Specification (SUS), which sets for the a list of qualifications to be called "UNIX" under the trademark. I follow NetBSD's philosophy, and "call it a duck".
I just stumbled across this thread, and thought I'd throw my 2 cents in, as I currently (must) use a Macbook Pro for all of my work, and the rest of my home is loaded up with Ubuntu and Slackware systems. My wife runs Win2k in a VM because, as a high school teacher, there are a few programs that are Win/ Mac only that she must use.
As soon as there is a viable, *professional* level alternative to Final Cut, Logic Pro, Photoshop, Illy, Indy and Flash I will jump ship with glee. It'd also be nice to see something like Automator.
For day-to-day consumer use, though, I cannot highly enough recommend Ubuntu to anyone and everyone unable to flee. :P
I think allot of people are looking at this problem from totally the wrong angle.
Linux based distributions (such as ubuntu, arch, fedora ect) do not aim at the same market as apple users, the problem with them is that they are 'geek centric' and are not designed to be a complete system yes you can have alternatives to most of the OSX apps but can you just simply download them and drag them to the apps folder? Do they have all the features of the commercial ( or even open source ) mac applications?
Is ok for people who are experienced Linux users to say that they can have the same features as the OSX system and its applications but not without allot of hustle that home users / business users just don’t want.
You may also say that you have more choice in a Linux system ( and indeed you do ) however choice is in fact an illusion because an average user is not going to sit down and compile different browsers and test them for days to find out which is best for them, they just want a secure browser ( that is not **** like internet explorer).
And to be quite frank I think it is elitist for people to say that you should not get osx because you have to have a mac that costs xxx money and you can get the same with a generic laptop with Linux ditro yyyy on it, not everyone is able or willing to spend that much time configuring an messing around with a system, because don’t tell me you can simply put a cd into a laptop and have anywhere near anything as rock solid easy to use and well supported as osx because it would simply not be true .
Don’t get me wrong Linux distributions have there place I run kubuntu with kde 4.2 on my main desktop pc and I love it its an amazing system but it took a hell of a lot of messing around to get it how I like it now I enjoy doing this its a hobby and my field of study/work but its just not really an option for the average user, although there are a few systems ( such as the custom xandros system on the eee pc) that do work out of the box and do allot people to just get up and go ( apart form the file manager that is just vvv bad ).
I have an iMac, that dual boots a small OSX partition & the rest of the HDD is set up for Arch. (Not Ubuntu, so I'm beyond the OP question to start with.:-))
Arch is my preferred software to interface with the iMac hardware, for many personal reasons, not the least of them being practical reasons.
Personal choice is like that. ;-)