OS's, Linux or Mac?

What are the main differences between Mac and Linux?
And in your opinion, which of the two is better?

 

Mac is based off of BSD, which is a variation of UNIX, but not really Linux. It's kind of hard to compare the two. The biggest differences IMO are the following:

1) Mac OS can only be legally run on a Mac computer. Linux can be run on both PC's and Macs, not to mention thousands of other little things (like cell phones, PSP's, etc). Mac OS has better hardware support than Linux because Apple only has to develop the OS for their particular hardware (not to mention much hardware is not recognized by Linux because of closed source propietary drivers).

2) Linux is free (typically). Mac OS requires you to not only buy the OS and most of the software, but as I said, the hardware as well. With Linux, you can take any old computer you have laying around and install it. Not to mention, there are a large number of distributions of Linux to accomplish different things; some are for servers, some are for gamers, some are for general destkop users. You can do a lot of trying around and get a distribution that will do pretty much anything you want it to. Also, most software for Linux is free.

Basically, asking which one is better is kind of pointless, as that applies to each individual user. Not to mention, in this case, it's really hard to compare the two seeing as they are trying to accomplish two different things in the software world; Linux aims to support Free and Open Source software, whereas Apple is more like M$ and is trying to develop a system that will be good and make them money. Personally, I love Mac OS X, but I'll stick with Linux. Why? Because I can buy whatever hardware I want and put Linux on it, and because I can try out several distributions to find one that suits me best, rather than just be given one and have to deal with all of its features, both good and bad. In addition to that, the open source kernel of Linux means that if there is a feature that I don't like, I have the right to modify that part of the Operating System as I see fit. Doing so on Mac OS would be a violation of the EULA. However, if I were looking for an OS that "just worked," had plenty of professional support, and a lot of software that was easy to install, Mac OS would definitely be the way to go. It just depends on what your needs and wants are, really.

 

It depends on what you want to do. I prefer to use Linux for... well, networking and server type stuff.
OS X is the middle ground between Windows and Linux. It's more user friendly, a hell of a lot easier to use, applications are easier to install, and there is generally more software for it.
Well, maybe not by sheer numbers, but you don't see stuff like Photoshop, Logic, or Aperature on Linux.

There really are a lot of differences between them both, some subtle and some not so. It's hard to explain, you really have to try both.

 

I'd say one the most important differences, quite related to the freedom Linux aims to provide as notebook_ftw said, is that there isn't one Linux. There is a plethora of distributions (hundreds), some of general use likewise Windows or OS X, some which are geared towards more speciliazed tasks (like setting up a router, firewall, running in a cellphone or PDA, running LAMP servers and nothing else, you name it). Even if we take only the general use distros (short for distribution), take for example Debian, Slackware, Fedora, SUSE, Gentoo and Mandriva, to only name a few of the big dogs, and you'll see perhaps more differences than between Windows and OS X! Plus, there are dozens of graphical ambients (considering both desktop managers like KDE, Gnome and XFCE and window managers like Window Maker and Enlighentment) to choose from, each may play quite differentley and have a different look and philosophy. Not to mention you can have different graphic engines (both different versions of X11 and altogether different rendering systems, although those are not commom). Different kernels? I guess you can get it now.
Linux is all about freedom of choice. In that respect, it is the antithesis of OS X. The advantages may be obvious, but there are disadvantages too - lack of standartization and a steeper learning curve precisely due to all the choices you have.
Technically, Linux (the kernel) is the only one of the big guns that have gone the monolithic kernel route. Linus discussion with Andy Tenenbaum about this has become part of the history of OSs. I'd say that both types (microkernels and monolithic) have their advantages/disadvantages which kind of cancel each other in real world usage - kind of like the CISC/RISC debate last decade.

So, I wrote a lot and probably didn't help you clarify your doubts.