Why there is so much negativity about Apple products on Linux related forums

[asifnaz]

What I have seen on Ubuntu forums and other Linux forums that people usually have negative views about Apple products .

IMHO Apple produces one of the finest products in the industry and it has set many trends which have changed the face of I.T industry and society in general .

Yes they are expensive but you get what you pay for . Their hardware is good , casing is ultra cool . Not to mention Mac OS X which is considered to be finest Operating System for Computers (especially in productivity in Music , fashion and film industry )

You can find traces of OS X inspiration within Ubuntu (specially in Unity )

[JazzPotato]

The negativity stems from the fact that apple sells their hardware at ridiculous prices, and the fact that most linux users are free software fanatics. Apple does attempt to stop you from doing what you want with your device by policing the app store, etc...
But Apple do make one of the thinnest, lightest laptops around. They have been successful in turning their devices into somewhat of a fashion statement, and that is their best marketing tactic. I admire them for this reason, but, FSF for the win! :D

[tkod]

Well like you said - the inspiration mac os x has given to unity and other DEs is probably one of the biggest reasons I dislike apple.

Nevertheless a linux community is bound to dislike them, because they are probably the only company with more closed and "evil" :P policies than microsoft.
One thing that annoys is me is that you either have a smartphone or an iphone, either a tablet or ipad, either a pc or a mac. It is like apple is some so much better company than all other IT companies that their products are completely unique and incomparable which is just stupid.

One main issue I have personally with Apple is people in my university working with macs - they can't work with certain windows software, thus creating a larger workload for other group members (although their computer has corei7 and nvidia graphics just like mine), and the software they can work with on mac, is not quite compatible with the windows/linux versions delivering reports and data of terrible quality, that have to be edited for hours by someone with a pc.

And the last major thing - patent law suits and their devotion to destroy android. You can google the hilarious situation yourself, but the last thing I heard is that won a slide-to-unlock patent ruling.. Kudos Steve Jobs for bringing the world slide-to-unlock we would have never thought of it, and kudos to the guy that gave them the patent.

Sorry for the long post, but sometimes I take it personally :) everything is personal opinion so don't take it too seriously and hf :)

[spynappels]

IMHO Apple produces one of the finest products in the industry and it has set many trends which have changed the face of I.T industry and society in general

Maybe a little strong, which of their products is the finest in the industry? Their computer hardware is good, but the finest in the industry? I don't think so.

Not to mention Mac OS X which is considered to be finest Operating System for Computers (especially in productivity in Music , fashion and film industry )

Seriously? The people who consider OSX to be the finest OS are Apple fans. Again, for some things it is good, and it is used extensively by some creative industries, but so is Linux. As for it being the best OS in terms of customisability and security, I'd strongly disagree.

But what annoys me most about Apple is the cult that has been built up around them. Even daring to suggest that there may be problems with some aspects of anything Apple is enough to get you virtually lynched by fanbois in some quarters. All OSs have their devotees, but the Apple fanatics I know personally seem to treat it as much like a religion as anything else.

PS I've used Apple products, I like the MacBook Pro hardware, just don't like the OS. Runs Ubuntu very nicely though.

[cwklinuxguy]

Well, I'm biased here, because I actually started on Mac OS X before Linux. Mac OS X is good for multimedia, and has that "just works" kind of polish. I mean yes, it has it's bugs and issues, but in general Apple software requires a little less setup and maintenance than Linux, in my experience...just a tad simpler to work with. That said, I've come to be more and more frustrated with their locked-down business model over the years, and I too am starting to take a dislike to Apple. They produce GREAT products, but their business model, including the policing of the app store, not allowing customization of the mobile OS, and their intense obsoleteism is getting very annoying. If I weren't into multimedia to the point that I needed a Mac, I would likely not continue using one. If Linux will do everything I need once this Mac reaches the end of its life, I won't be buying another Apple machine.

May I also point out that Linux and Windows have their own strong followings, all of which are very devoted to their own opinion and don't like to argue which system is better? It's not just Apple, there are TONS of Linux fanboys too (myself included).

[oldsoundguy]

Think you see the negativity because of Apple corporate policies, not the quality of their product.
The issue of the price structure of their products PLUS
Their use of child labor in China in the manufacturing process. (something the new CEO says is being "looked into".
The tremendous amount of suicides by workers in several of their off shore plants. (another thing being "looked into")

Apple makes a tremendously good machine (especial for those of us in the entertainment business and arts), but AT WHAT COST? (other than capital outlay.)

[BrokenKingpin]

Yes they are expensive but you get what you pay for . Their hardware is good , casing is ultra cool . Not to mention Mac OS X which is considered to be finest Operating System for Computers
I almost pissed myself laughing when I read this.

The biggest reason for the hate around here would be that their software is all locked down garbage... you know, the opposite of Linux. Is it really all that surprising that open source enthusiasts would hate it?

[Bachstelze]

Because haters gonna hate.

[asifnaz]

Maybe a little strong, which of their products is the finest in the industry? Their computer hardware is good, but the finest in the industry? I don't think so.

Seriously? The people who consider OSX to be the finest OS are Apple fans. Again, for some things it is good, and it is used extensively by some creative industries, but so is Linux. As for it being the best OS in terms of customisability and security, I'd strongly disagree.



I think you should compare their products with similar ones . Compare Ipad 2 with any tablet , Macbook pro with any Laptop and Iphone etc accordingly you will come to know the are one of the finest if not "the finest"

OSX is good because it is based on Unix (like Linux ) and has very good software support like productivity etc(unlike Linux) and is very stable and good looking as well (Like Linux ) .

Yes it lacks freedom that comes with Linux and that's why I love Linux and sense of community built around it .

[spynappels]

I agree that some of their hardware is nice, but in other areas I have to disagree with you again. The iPad is hindered by some fundamental flaws IMHO, which have been purposely designed by Apple, such as no expandable memory (sd card slots etc). I would definitely not agree that the iPad is the best tablet out there.

As for the iPhone, I've had every incarnation of the iPhone up to the iPhone 4 through a previous job, and every single one had issues which definitely put it well down the list of good handsets for me. While Android is not by any means perfect, I've had my HTC Desire HD for nearly 2 years now and have no need to change it as it does exactly what I need it to.

Mac OSX is based on Unix, but there have been some serious problems introduced, many involving security or useability problems, so I wouldn't rate it very highly at all.

But look, if it does what you want it to do, then great, that's what it's all about. I'm just explaining why I wouldn't choose to use Apple products myself, I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone else from using it if it suited them and the way they work.

[Bachstelze]

Mac OSX is based on Unix, but there have been some serious problems introduced, many involving security or useability problems

[citation needed]

EDIT: I've certainly never heard of anything that comes close to the Debian/OpenSSL fiasco happening on OS X, for example.

[nikonian]

Two words: "free will". Noone makes anyone buy, use or complain about anything, they choose to.

Many are blinded by foolish fanboy tendancies. That's their choice, but we're all human beings, and we are all hyprocrites, and nothing in this life is perfect, so enjoy God's gift of life, and quit the self-satisfaction that comes from complaining too much.

[rg4w]

What I have seen on Ubuntu forums and other Linux forums that people usually have negative views about Apple products
LOL

Ever spend much time in Apple forums? Hang out at MacRumors, AppleInsider, TUAW, or the others and let me know if you can find anything kind being said about Linux and Linux users.

'Tis the nature of the beast, this lower-brain tribal behavior that compels us to draw lines in the sand.

Me? I use 'em all, Mac, Win, Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, iOS, and Android, depending on what I'm doing at any given moment. I like 'em all in different ways, but I'm a lonely guy: most folks use only one OS, and those who don't use other OSes are often the most vocal with opinions about them. ;)

And it cuts both ways. Seriously. Hang out in Mac forums and note the extreme bigotry about anything and everything else.

Tribalism isn't a Linux thing; it's a human thing.

[aliuntu]

i agree asifnaz, my only issue with apple, and really not an issue but more like something that bothers me, would be the single click mouse,lol, beacuse i have lucid lynx on my old emac g-4, and dapper drake on an old ibook g3..

[aliuntu]

back @ asifnaz, i honestly think alot of ppl are closed minded as there OS, where i live, you hvae to travel far out to even find a user of linux, IMHO, ppl who use open source are frowned upon by ppl who choose to use proprietary software, which to me is damn near incriminating when said that i use ubuntu, ppl look @ me like im some weirdo...

[asifnaz]

i agree asifnaz, my only issue with apple, and really not an issue but more like something that bothers me, would be the single click mouse,lol, beacuse i have lucid lynx on my old emac g-4, and dapper drake on an old ibook g3..

Single Click mouse have gone long gone , its like calling Linux a CLI OS . I would like to suggest you install Debian+LXDE on the Ibook g3 so that you can have the latest OS on it .

I am not an Apple advocate (I triple-boot Mac OS XLion + Windows 7 + Ubuntu 11.10 ) on my Macbook pro from 2010 .So i have best of 3 worlds .

[AnrDaemon]

What I have seen on Ubuntu forums and other Linux forums that people usually have negative views about Apple products .

IMHO Apple produces one of the finest products in the industry and it has set many trends which have changed the face of I.T industry and society in general .

Yes they are expensive but you get what you pay for . Their hardware is good , casing is ultra cool . Not to mention Mac OS X which is considered to be finest Operating System for Computers (especially in productivity in Music , fashion and film industry )

You can find traces of OS X inspiration within Ubuntu (specially in Unity )
The main problem is disjoint between usage experience and productivity.
Yes, using Mac OS is a breeze. Producing any results from it is PITA.
There's no meaningful file manager, no office programs that is compatible with other office formats. You have to rely on substitutions/replacements/compromises every day, every moment of your work with it.

P.S.
And Unity trying to copy Mas OS is a PITA as well. I've spent 15 minutes trying to find a terminal!!!
And I've yet to find a way to turn F## keys into F## keys in 12.04. Whereas in OS X Lion it's as easy as going into System settings - Keyboard and turning "Use F... keys as function keys by default" on.
But the most troubling issue is coming upgrade of all my Linux park to the new LTS. Unless I find a way to remove this "Unity" and install normal desktop environment, I would rather buy MS Windows. It's really cheaper, than hearing all whines and enduring the stress of my superiors accusing me for drastic reduction of employees' productivity.

[craig10x]

Using Unity it took you 15 minutes to find the terminal?

All you had to do was open the "dash" (unity search function) and starting typing the word terminal....i just did that and as soon as i typed a "t" it was the first symbol to appear...click it and the terminal application is on!

Real difficult, right? (lol) :)

[AnrDaemon]

Tried that, didn't helped.
Especially considering that I don't have a habit to look at monitor, when I do daily/recurring tasks. It's fully automated. Anything that break it takes a while to combat.

[Bachstelze]

The main problem is disjoint between usage experience and productivity.
Yes, using Mac OS is a breeze. Producing any results from it is PITA.
There's no meaningful file manager, no office programs that is compatible with other office formats. You have to rely on substitutions/replacements/compromises every day, every moment of your work with it.

That is, if you actually need an "office program" in the first place. Hate to break it to you, but not everyone does.

[aysiu]

LibreOffice has worked just fine for me on my Macbook Pro. It works also for me on Ubuntu and on Windows. It's only on rare occasions that I need Microsoft Excel for some complicated spreadsheet/pivot table stuff--and I just use my work computer for that (not often I need that level of complexity at home).

[cbanakis]

I will say is this...

I never hated Windows till I started using Linux.
I never hated Apple, till I started using Mac's.


For those talking about how exceptional Apple hardware is...

I agree for the most part, my biggest beef with Apple is their software.

But go buy a brand new top of the line Mac Pro Tower.
Then take off the side panel, and while admiring your top of the line IDE? DVD drive, make another post about their great hardware.

For the most part, they do have pretty cases, and they use good processors, etc.

But because only Apple makes Apple, there is better PC hardware available within days of Apple releasing their all new Top Of The Line model.
But you cant upgrade, you just have to sit tight for a year or so and wait for the next model, then buy a new Mac, and so on, and so forth.

And whats the deal with the IDE DVD drive?
Maybe someone should tell Apple that IDE has been obsolete for a decade.

[Bachstelze]

And DVD has been obsolete since when? Besides, the transfer rate of P-ATA exceeds that of the fastest DVD drives by a factor of about 4. S-ATA optical drives only make sense for Blu-ray.

[cbanakis]

Which also means you cannot upgrade your DVD drive to a Blu-ray drive, because you cannot get an IDE Blu-ray drive, and the Mac pro does not have a SATA port available for a 5.25" bay.

Its quite petty talking about the fact that they still use IDE.

My whole concern is, what other 10 year old parts are in here that I don't see?

Like I said, my beef is with Apple software.

I just brought up the IDE thing as a WTF?.

(Edit, I guess the newest models finally have SATA, but if your box is a year or so old, the only way to get Blu-ray is External, or with an internal IDE-SATA adapter.)


And DVD has been obsolete since when? Besides, the transfer rate of P-ATA exceeds that of the fastest DVD drives by a factor of about 4. S-ATA optical drives only make sense for Blu-ray.

[dpny]

Because people seem to need to identify with ideas or movements and dislike those not identified with that movement. Red Sox versus Yankees, Porsche versus Ferrari, etc.

Most people I know who really hate another OS have little or no experience with it. Most people I know who, like me, use Windows, Linux and OS X have preferences, but don't hate one or the other. For instance, I find Windows to be a pain in the butt, but I don't hate it. Too much wasted energy.

[conradin]

I have to pay to develop open source and community projects. Ridiculous.

[cbanakis]

Most people I know who really hate another OS have little or no experience with it.

I actively used Windows from 1993 till about 2007.
I still use windows in my living room, and bedroom for Media Center, otherwise I am completely switched to Linux.

I have spent 8-16 hours a day working on a Mac from 2003 till 2012. (Current)

And I have been actively using Linux from 2007 till 2012 (Current)

Keeping all that in mind, I stand by my previous post.

"I never hated Windows, till I used Linux.
I never hated Apple, till I used a Mac"

[aysiu]

I don't hate Windows, Linux, or Mac. For me, each platform has its pros and cons.

[chunky bacon!]

LOL

'Tis the nature of the beast, this lower-brain tribal behavior that compels us to draw lines in the sand.

Me? I use 'em all, Mac, Win, Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, iOS, and Android, depending on what I'm doing at any given moment. I like 'em all in different ways, but I'm a lonely guy: most folks use only one OS, and those who don't use other OSes are often the most vocal with opinions about them. ;)

And it cuts both ways. Seriously. Hang out in Mac forums and note the extreme bigotry about anything and everything else.

Tribalism isn't a Linux thing; it's a human thing.


Because people seem to need to identify with ideas or movements and dislike those not identified with that movement. Red Sox versus Yankees, Porsche versus Ferrari, etc.

Most people I know who really hate another OS have little or no experience with it. Most people I know who, like me, use Windows, Linux and OS X have preferences, but don't hate one or the other. For instance, I find Windows to be a pain in the butt, but I don't hate it. Too much wasted energy.


Both of these. I use Windows nearly exclusively at work, and manage numerous Windows servers. My phone is an iPhone. At home there is a Mac (predominantly my wife's), and Ubuntu is my hobby computer/programming computer.

I actually really prefer linux to almost stay my hobby, as I've learned the hard way that when you turn something you love into a paying job, the corporate world will completely suck the joy out of it.

That's a side rant, but the whole thing is like the programming language wars. That need for tribalism, which is actually silly, but sometimes fun to watch.

[oldsoundguy]

I too, use multiple OS computers. Several versions of Linux (all Ubuntu based) but, ON LINE .. for the sake of sanity and safety, I confine 99% to an Ubuntu box.

I do, however, have an XP box that is my box for photography. LOTS of Adobe programs that work with each other .. and lots of plug in programs that also are designed to work with Adobe. That box is also my "mailing" box and posting box for my auctions on eBay as I have an HP 2840 color laser for my shipping labels that has a "black & white" only setting with a separate cart that has NO driver for Linux OR OS-x plus, the photo files for the auctions are processed there. DO NOT SURF with that box for safety reasons .. saves having to run clean up every week!! LOL

[iponeverything]

What I have seen on Ubuntu forums and other Linux forums that people usually have negative views about Apple products .

IMHO Apple produces one of the finest products in the industry and it has set many trends which have changed the face of I.T industry and society in general .

Yes they are expensive but you get what you pay for . Their hardware is good , casing is ultra cool . Not to mention Mac OS X which is considered to be finest Operating System for Computers (especially in productivity in Music , fashion and film industry )

You can find traces of OS X inspiration within Ubuntu (specially in Unity )

I haven't seen what you're talking about with the negativity - this post just flame bate.

[0011235813]

What I have seen on Ubuntu forums and other Linux forums that people usually have negative views about Apple products .

IMHO Apple produces one of the finest products in the industry and it has set many trends which have changed the face of I.T industry and society in general .

Yes they are expensive but you get what you pay for . Their hardware is good , casing is ultra cool . Not to mention Mac OS X which is considered to be finest Operating System for Computers (especially in productivity in Music , fashion and film industry )

You can find traces of OS X inspiration within Ubuntu (specially in Unity )
Why do Linux users (including me) have issues with Macs? Hmmm... Well let's see; Linux is all about designing an open-source OS (free) that is the best it can possibly be. Linux believes in freedom and doing what you want with your OS. Apple believes in lynching customers money and locking them in (think "walled garden").

Not really, the first Mac didn't make any record sales, the iPod was nothing new- there were all ready plenty of mp3 players, and the iPad? Well, they weren't the first in fact, and the iPad sucks anyway IMO.

Hardware good? Apple has some of the most limited selection of hardware in the world, and is famous for being slow to adopt industry standards like USB 3.0, e-SATA and what not (I'll exclude BluRay- that's not really an industry standard thanks to DRM crap, but that's a different story) .

OSX inspiration in Ubuntu? How? The only thing out there is Cairo Dock and Macbuntu, which are specifically designed to look like OSX to help new Apple users acclimatize.

[1clue]

Speaking as someone who uses Linux and Mac OS X and even Windows in a limited sort of way, I'm going to make a pretty involved post.

First, each platform has its benefits. if you value one thing more than others, then you will make your platform decision based on that.

I use Linux because it lets me customize in ways nothing else even comes close to. My most expensive hardware uses Linux. It's a huge PITA to get bleeding edge hardware to work, and the interface needs serious work which either needs to be done by the distro maintainers or by the guy with the computer. Since I don't particularly care for the current Ubuntu desktop I whittled my own. And I love that I can do that.

I use a Mac because it is by far the easiest to use machine I have ever encountered. It lets me get things done in human terms. Frankly I think Apple's hardware kinda sucks, with the exception of their monitors which rock. No matter how you slice it, Apple desktops and laptops are expensive.

I use Windows because it's what my customers use. Granted, the Windows systems are on a testing license and are virtual machines on some other hardware, but I use them nonetheless. Nothing that I really care about other than compatibility with my customers is provided by Microsoft, so I don't really need to cover that end in this post.

Now, a Mac rant, but keep in mind that the machine I spent the most money on by far is a Linux box. I CHOOSE to use Linux.

Apple has repeatedly changed the direction of computing. They were the first to market at many things, and the first to market a VIABLE option of several things. Most recently IMO is a touch-screen tablet computer. When they released the iPad I was making bets with my buddies on how many weeks it would take for it to flop. I was obviously horribly wrong, the tablet is not only viable now for the first time, but also obviously here to stay for awhile.

Steve Jobs had a gift that I don't see anywhere else in computing. He saw ways to help people work better in intuitive and natural ways. I can't think of any company with more "why didn't I think of that?" products. If you think they are difficult to use or nothing special, then you didn't give them a fair shake or you tried to force your preexisting assumptions on a new system. If you give as much effort to understand an Apple product as you do your Linux box, you'll be impressed whether you actually like the company or not, whether you like the product as a whole or not. Apple makes consistent, innovative and generally high quality products. I'm referring to their software, not their hardware per se. As I said before I don't think very highly of their computing machinery.

The thing that keeps driving me away is Apple's insane death grip on the software they choose to allow to run on their systems. Granted they have a system that works really well for a lot of people, but they Do Not Like when you try to play by other rules.

[asifnaz]

I haven't seen what you're talking about with the negativity - this post just flame bate.


If you have not seen it doesn't mean there is not . My choice of words may not be good but people on Linux/Ubuntu forums usually dislike Apple/OS X






OSX inspiration in Ubuntu? How? The only thing out there is Cairo Dock and Macbuntu, which are specifically designed to look like OSX to help new Apple users acclimatize.

I am not saying Ubuntu is copying OS X but there is defiantly some resemblance (which is not a coincident IMHO)

[rg4w]

I am not saying Ubuntu is copying OS X but there is defiantly some resemblance (which is not a coincident IMHO)
I think it's fair to say that OSes influence each other across the board:

Top 10 features that Apple stole from Windows
http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/top-10-features-apple-stole-windows-966

Top 10 features Microsoft stole from Mac OS X
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mac/top-10-features-microsoft-stole-mac-os-x-971

5 things Apple borrowed from Android for iOS 5
http://betanews.com/2011/06/07/5-things-apple-borrowed-from-android-for-ios-5/

Jobs explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

[0011235813]

Speaking as someone who uses Linux and Mac OS X and even Windows in a limited sort of way, I'm going to make a pretty involved post.

First, each platform has its benefits. if you value one thing more than others, then you will make your platform decision based on that.

I use Linux because it lets me customize in ways nothing else even comes close to. My most expensive hardware uses Linux. It's a huge PITA to get bleeding edge hardware to work, and the interface needs serious work which either needs to be done by the distro maintainers or by the guy with the computer. Since I don't particularly care for the current Ubuntu desktop I whittled my own. And I love that I can do that.

I use a Mac because it is by far the easiest to use machine I have ever encountered. It lets me get things done in human terms. Frankly I think Apple's hardware kinda sucks, with the exception of their monitors which rock. No matter how you slice it, Apple desktops and laptops are expensive.

I use Windows because it's what my customers use. Granted, the Windows systems are on a testing license and are virtual machines on some other hardware, but I use them nonetheless. Nothing that I really care about other than compatibility with my customers is provided by Microsoft, so I don't really need to cover that end in this post.

Now, a Mac rant, but keep in mind that the machine I spent the most money on by far is a Linux box. I CHOOSE to use Linux.

Apple has repeatedly changed the direction of computing. They were the first to market at many things, and the first to market a VIABLE option of several things. Most recently IMO is a touch-screen tablet computer. When they released the iPad I was making bets with my buddies on how many weeks it would take for it to flop. I was obviously horribly wrong, the tablet is not only viable now for the first time, but also obviously here to stay for awhile.

Steve Jobs had a gift that I don't see anywhere else in computing. He saw ways to help people work better in intuitive and natural ways. I can't think of any company with more "why didn't I think of that?" products. If you think they are difficult to use or nothing special, then you didn't give them a fair shake or you tried to force your preexisting assumptions on a new system. If you give as much effort to understand an Apple product as you do your Linux box, you'll be impressed whether you actually like the company or not, whether you like the product as a whole or not. Apple makes consistent, innovative and generally high quality products. I'm referring to their software, not their hardware per se. As I said before I don't think very highly of their computing machinery.

The thing that keeps driving me away is Apple's insane death grip on the software they choose to allow to run on their systems. Granted they have a system that works really well for a lot of people, but they Do Not Like when you try to play by other rules.
You do know Jobs is dead right? Or was your use of the present tense accidental? As for the ease of use thing, all general purpose computing devices suck at ease of use, and I doubt there is much difference in terms of usage for Windows, OSX and Linux.


If you have not seen it doesn't mean there is not . My choice of words may not be good but people on Linux/Ubuntu forums usually dislike Apple/OS X



I am not saying Ubuntu is copying OS X but there is defiantly some resemblance (which is not a coincident IMHO)
What resemblance? Do tell, I'm quite curious.

[asifnaz]

What resemblance? Do tell, I'm quite curious.

Panel on the top, holding the tray, the running program's title or menu when the mouse gets over the panel and a couple of buttons; one for shutdown. Finally there is a launcher with the same features as the docky in OS X.

[0011235813]

Panel on the top, holding the tray, the running program's title or menu when the mouse gets over the panel and a couple of buttons; one for shutdown. Finally there is a launcher with the same features as the docky in OS X.

I think you'll find that the top bar in Unity works quite differently from OSX.

What launcher? Docky is another program specifically designed to be like OSX to help Apple users acclimatize. The launcher bar in Unity works completely differently from OSX.

In fact, OSX copied from Linux. Linux has had repositories almost from the beginning, and Apple didn't launch the "Appstore" since way after.

[asifnaz]

In fact, OSX copied from Linux. Linux has had repositories almost from the beginning, and Apple didn't launch the "Appstore" since way after.

App Store started with iPhone in 2008. Canonical thought it would work for desktop before Apple did.But the original idea was Apple's

[1clue]

You do know Jobs is dead right? Or was your use of the present tense accidental? As for the ease of use thing, all general purpose computing devices suck at ease of use, and I doubt there is much difference in terms of usage for Windows, OSX and Linux.


I didn't know the word "had" was considered present tense.

Apple "has", Steve Jobs "had". I mix present and past tense in my post, but I thought I had clearly indicated which ones are and which ones were. I have not edited that post.

The use of generalizations like the one above are useless IMO. It's impossible for two things to suck equally, which means some are better than others. IMO Apple has generally made things better with regards to user interface and worse with regards to interchangeability or interoperability.

[1clue]

I think you'll find that the top bar in Unity works quite differently from OSX.

What launcher? Docky is another program specifically designed to be like OSX to help Apple users acclimatize. The launcher bar in Unity works completely differently from OSX.

In fact, OSX copied from Linux. Linux has had repositories almost from the beginning, and Apple didn't launch the "Appstore" since way after.

Frankly I can't see how anybody could imagine Unity being anything like OS X. Maybe I haven't given it a fair shake yet, but I find Unity next to useless, and so does my extremely nontechnical girlfriend. Both of us like the OS X "equivalents" as being discussed here. Unity is not even slightly intuitive in any way I have yet found. But that said, I don't currently run it.

I can't document this, but I believe that Linux came up with a central Internet-based repository of software for a specific distro before any other platform (from PCs to mainframes to supercomputers) had anything like it. The rest came along when Linux hit the news with the RedHat IPO and Linux's reaction speed to bugs and malware were used to demonstrate why Linux was better.

I believe that the collective industry took a look and saw something that was not only good but critical.

[0011235813]

I didn't know the word "had" was considered present tense.

Apple "has", Steve Jobs "had". I mix present and past tense in my post, but I thought I had clearly indicated which ones are and which ones were. I have not edited that post.

The use of generalizations like the one above are useless IMO. It's impossible for two things to suck equally, which means some are better than others. IMO Apple has generally made things better with regards to user interface and worse with regards to interchangeability or interoperability.
I apologize if I misunderstood your post, maybe I just got a little confused that's all.

But I honestly don't understand the interface thing; after all, there are plenty of ways to replicate the Apple interface in Ubuntu, and neither KDE, GNOME or Windows seem difficult to me.


App Store started with iPhone in 2008. Canonical thought it would work for desktop before Apple did.But the original idea was Apple's
Ubuntu has been around for.. What, 10 years? And you're telling me that packet managers and repositories didn't exist until 2008?

[0011235813]

Frankly I can't see how anybody could imagine Unity being anything like OS X. Maybe I haven't given it a fair shake yet, but I find Unity next to useless, and so does my extremely nontechnical girlfriend. Both of us like the OS X "equivalents" as being discussed here. Unity is not even slightly intuitive in any way I have yet found. But that said, I don't currently run it.

I can't document this, but I believe that Linux came up with a central Internet-based repository of software for a specific distro before any other platform (from PCs to mainframes to supercomputers) had anything like it. The rest came along when Linux hit the news with the RedHat IPO and Linux's reaction speed to bugs and malware were used to demonstrate why Linux was better.

I believe that the collective industry took a look and saw something that was not only good but critical.

Thank you! I was honestly starting to think that some of the people in here are blind.

But as to your trouble with Unity; what is it you don't like exactly? I know the disappearing launcher bar can be a bit difficult for some people, especially Windows users. My only improvement for Unity would be to have the open windows show when hovering the mouse over the icons. Putting a search function in the top bar would be interesting as well, and make the launcher bar act purely as a dock.

[1clue]

I apologize if I misunderstood your post, maybe I just got a little confused that's all.

But I honestly don't understand the interface thing; after all, there are plenty of ways to replicate the Apple interface in Ubuntu, and neither KDE, GNOME or Windows seem difficult to me.


No problem. It was a bit long, and maybe could have been worded differently.

More below since it addresses your second paragraph and the next g#u#y# quote (of yours).


Thank you! I was honestly starting to think that some of the people in here are blind.

But as to your trouble with Unity; what is it you don't like exactly? I know the disappearing launcher bar can be a bit difficult for some people, especially Windows users. My only improvement for Unity would be to have the open windows show when hovering the mouse over the icons. Putting a search function in the top bar would be interesting as well, and make the launcher bar act purely as a dock.

Right now on Linux, I'm bouncing back and forth between a relatively customized older Ubuntu interface and FVWM, which I decided to get back into after however many years it's been. Probably more than a decade since I seriously looked at it.

KDE is not difficult. Almost none of the UI's I've seen in Linux are difficult to use or understand. They're just different. Unity is something I just don't grasp though. There's some underlying concept that just doesn't resonate with me.

My girlfriend has a Vista laptop. She almost never uses it, she uses her Ubuntu account on my box with the older UI. She couldn't figure out Unity either, but even that was better than Vista for her.

Now with regards to Mac OS: It's not just a list of features that Mac OS has that Linux does or doesn't. Technically I think most or all of it is present in Mac, Linux or Windows. The difference is in how it all comes together. I'm going to call it something fluffy like "user experience." It matters.

Apple does something nobody else seems to give much credit for. They have a guy, or a team, that sits down and decides how everything will go together. They give a lot more importance to that sort of thing than everyone else, or maybe they're just better at it.

Here's another example: Android vs iPhone. Pardon me for sidestepping the topic a bit, but Android is based on the Linux kernel and shares UI approach with Linux after a fashion, and Apple obviously uses the same approach on their iPhone as they do on their computers. I had an iPhone 3GS until a few months back. I switched over to a Samsung Galaxy S2.

I never once looked in a manual or needed the Internet to figure out how to use the iPhone. You turn it on and make calls, you hook it to your mac and it syncs. You think of something you want to use, you navigate to where you would expect that sort of feature to be and it's there, and it works the way you would imagine it to be.

The first day I had my SGS2, I tried to figure out how to get my addresses over from either the Mac or Linux or the old phone, and wound up using the Internet for that. Then I tried to mount the phone as a USB drive, and had to use the net for that too.

The SGS2 has more features than the iPhone I had. (2 years old iPhone keep in mind. I don't really know how the new one is) It's faster, bigger screen, better video, everything. But one thing it's not is easy to use. Why do I go to wireless and networking in order to mount the phone as a USB drive? It's not wireless OR networking. I would put it under storage.

There's a lot more where somebody designed a specific feature and lost track of the big picture. In many cases Android (and Linux) developers get tied up in the features they should put in, and in the process lose usability by increasing functionality. Or they put a feature in a non-intuitive place.

You could say that somebody could reorganize everything to be in the same places as it would be on Mac OS, but then why not get a Mac?

KDE, last I looked, was a useful, well turned out desktop environment. It wasn't like Windows or Mac or Gnome. It was KDE. It doesn't HAVE to be like something else, but what happened is somebody sat down and make the big picture into a relatively cohesive whole that is conducive to productivity.

Back in the day when I started using XFree86, there weren't a lot of window managers out there. I used FVWM2 (now they dropped the 2) and used the basic theme for UNIX at the time, with icons being running processes and a menu that pops up on any desktop. It was a usable system at the time, but FVWM is extremely flexible and you can make pretty much anything you want with it. The default FVWM themes did and still do kinda suck, so everyone who uses it either gets fed up and moves on, or they tailor the heck out of it and make something that does what they do really well.


After all this rambling, I'm going to get to the point.

I don't think Linux should emulate Apple at all, nor do I think they should emulate Windows. You can never be more than second best if you do that. There's nobody to beat, it's not that kind of race.

The race is to make something truly useful to some type of user. Apple has done so with a significant share of people, and so has Microsoft. Linux, it's a bit harder to say because there are a lot of approaches being used and no truly organized direction on a grand scale.

If a team comes up with a (hopefully unique) way to get things done that is consistent and predictable and as simple as it can get to be understood and appreciated, then you have something worth using.

Unity might be a good UI in a year or two, but it's not there yet. If you're going to have an intelligent UI then it needs to start with something decent. Sometimes I don't remember what app I wanted to use, or never knew it because I haven't used it yet. Or in my girlfriend's case she doesn't even know what word describes the type of task she wants to perform. Those cases the mouse is your friend, you narrow things down by finding a menu you can click on. I installed a few apps for CAD to research which one might do what I wanted, and then lost them because there were no menus or other evidence installed in my system.

I guess I haven't really finished but I've been typing so long I need a break. You guys can slice and dice my post all you want.

[0011235813]

No problem. It was a bit long, and maybe could have been worded differently.

More below since it addresses your second paragraph and the next g#u#y# quote (of yours).



Right now on Linux, I'm bouncing back and forth between a relatively customized older Ubuntu interface and FVWM, which I decided to get back into after however many years it's been. Probably more than a decade since I seriously looked at it.

KDE is not difficult. Almost none of the UI's I've seen in Linux are difficult to use or understand. They're just different. Unity is something I just don't grasp though. There's some underlying concept that just doesn't resonate with me.

My girlfriend has a Vista laptop. She almost never uses it, she uses her Ubuntu account on my box with the older UI. She couldn't figure out Unity either, but even that was better than Vista for her.

Now with regards to Mac OS: It's not just a list of features that Mac OS has that Linux does or doesn't. Technically I think most or all of it is present in Mac, Linux or Windows. The difference is in how it all comes together. I'm going to call it something fluffy like "user experience." It matters.

Apple does something nobody else seems to give much credit for. They have a guy, or a team, that sits down and decides how everything will go together. They give a lot more importance to that sort of thing than everyone else, or maybe they're just better at it.

Here's another example: Android vs iPhone. Pardon me for sidestepping the topic a bit, but Android is based on the Linux kernel and shares UI approach with Linux after a fashion, and Apple obviously uses the same approach on their iPhone as they do on their computers. I had an iPhone 3GS until a few months back. I switched over to a Samsung Galaxy S2.

I never once looked in a manual or needed the Internet to figure out how to use the iPhone. You turn it on and make calls, you hook it to your mac and it syncs. You think of something you want to use, you navigate to where you would expect that sort of feature to be and it's there, and it works the way you would imagine it to be.

The first day I had my SGS2, I tried to figure out how to get my addresses over from either the Mac or Linux or the old phone, and wound up using the Internet for that. Then I tried to mount the phone as a USB drive, and had to use the net for that too.

The SGS2 has more features than the iPhone I had. (2 years old iPhone keep in mind. I don't really know how the new one is) It's faster, bigger screen, better video, everything. But one thing it's not is easy to use. Why do I go to wireless and networking in order to mount the phone as a USB drive? It's not wireless OR networking. I would put it under storage.

There's a lot more where somebody designed a specific feature and lost track of the big picture. In many cases Android (and Linux) developers get tied up in the features they should put in, and in the process lose usability by increasing functionality. Or they put a feature in a non-intuitive place.

You could say that somebody could reorganize everything to be in the same places as it would be on Mac OS, but then why not get a Mac?

KDE, last I looked, was a useful, well turned out desktop environment. It wasn't like Windows or Mac or Gnome. It was KDE. It doesn't HAVE to be like something else, but what happened is somebody sat down and make the big picture into a relatively cohesive whole that is conducive to productivity.

Back in the day when I started using XFree86, there weren't a lot of window managers out there. I used FVWM2 (now they dropped the 2) and used the basic theme for UNIX at the time, with icons being running processes and a menu that pops up on any desktop. It was a usable system at the time, but FVWM is extremely flexible and you can make pretty much anything you want with it. The default FVWM themes did and still do kinda suck, so everyone who uses it either gets fed up and moves on, or they tailor the heck out of it and make something that does what they do really well.


After all this rambling, I'm going to get to the point.

I don't think Linux should emulate Apple at all, nor do I think they should emulate Windows. You can never be more than second best if you do that. There's nobody to beat, it's not that kind of race.

The race is to make something truly useful to some type of user. Apple has done so with a significant share of people, and so has Microsoft. Linux, it's a bit harder to say because there are a lot of approaches being used and no truly organized direction on a grand scale.

If a team comes up with a (hopefully unique) way to get things done that is consistent and predictable and as simple as it can get to be understood and appreciated, then you have something worth using.

Unity might be a good UI in a year or two, but it's not there yet. If you're going to have an intelligent UI then it needs to start with something decent. Sometimes I don't remember what app I wanted to use, or never knew it because I haven't used it yet. Or in my girlfriend's case she doesn't even know what word describes the type of task she wants to perform. Those cases the mouse is your friend, you narrow things down by finding a menu you can click on. I installed a few apps for CAD to research which one might do what I wanted, and then lost them because there were no menus or other evidence installed in my system.

I guess I haven't really finished but I've been typing so long I need a break. You guys can slice and dice my post all you want.
The thing is you see, Apple is aiming small, things like Windows and Linux are aiming for the masses. You can't please everyone with the same thing- believe it or not, some people prefer USB connection settings in storage while others in network. The point of any successful OS is to be adaptable, and the problem with OSX is that it just can't do that!

[nikonian]

Opinions are precisely that, and nothing more. Someone else's say so doesn't dictate my actions to me. Anyone who sits on forums and thumbs their nose at another product or person/group of people, has my compassion, not my contempt, as these are foolish things to do, for myriad reasons, but we're all human, not one of us being perfect, and where we pick the faults out in others' choices, we could equally (and quite justly) be on the other end of the pointing finger, were it to even matter.

Technology is marvellous, regardless of favoured platform or product. Choice is wonderful, life is wonderful. Enjoy everything!

God bless :)

[0011235813]

Opinions are precisely that, and nothing more. Someone else's say so doesn't dictate my actions to me. Anyone who sits on forums and thumbs their nose at another product or person/group of people, has my compassion, not my contempt, as these are foolish things to do, for myriad reasons, but we're all human, not one of us being perfect, and where we pick the faults out in others' choices, we could equally (and quite justly) be on the other end of the pointing finger, were it to even matter.

Technology is marvellous, regardless of favoured platform or product. Choice is wonderful, life is wonderful. Enjoy everything!

God bless :)
LOL I agree. But you see, humans are never happy with what they have (which is why we progress actually) and hence are always looking for more. Or looking to flame others. To be honest with you, I think all current operating systems on the market today suck for me, none of them do everything I want. To me, Linux just sucks the least ;)

[asifnaz]

To be honest with you, I think all current operating systems on the market today suck for me, none of them do everything I want. To me, Linux just sucks the least ;)

TBH , All three Major OSes(Ubuntu , OS X and windows 7) are at their best now . They are all stable, secure , good looking and easy to use .

I am triple booting mentioned abve OSes my Macbook pro so I can tell you they have pros and cons but don't suck at all .
I have best of three worlds

[0011235813]

TBH , All three Major OSes(Ubuntu , OS X and windows 7) are at their best now . They are all stable, secure , good looking and easy to use .

I am triple booting mentioned abve OSes my Macbook pro so I can tell you they have pros and cons but don't suck at all .
I have best of three worlds

Endless computing frustrations exist galore. If you think they all work brilliantly- well, I'm happy for you, but to me, I still hate them.

[richfaraone]

I think you should compare their products with similar ones . Compare Ipad 2 with any tablet , Macbook pro with any Laptop and Iphone etc accordingly you will come to know the are one of the finest if not "the finest"

OSX is good because it is based on Unix (like Linux ) and has very good software support like productivity etc(unlike Linux) and is very stable and good looking as well (Like Linux ) .

Yes it lacks freedom that comes with Linux and that's why I love Linux and sense of community built around it .

I have done the comparisons... I had an iPad2, my wife had an Acer Iconica w/the Honeycomb OS. The Acer is better and we wound up swapping - it now runs Ubuntu. I bought the iPhone 4s to replace my Windows 7 (WP7) phone and after a month, sold the iPhone and went back - my Samsung is faster in every way, has a better camera, had voice recognition like Siri before Apple did (not AS good, but it works all the time, unlike Siri) and it's easier to use. The new HP super slim, 9 hour battery life with the core i7 is as good or better than the MacBook Air, and it has 2hrs longer battery life, 9hrs v 7hrs...

I think most of the negativity usually starts with an Apple cult member, like a parent defending a child. I don't ever talk bad about Apple, just don't like their products at the price they sell them for. There was a time where I would say they were better than Windows, but not anymore, and the hardware manufacturers have caught up.

Both Apple and Micro$oft can play their money sucking game... I'll choose Linux, and when I need to run Window$ software, I'll just get a glass of Wine!

[synfluent]

Speaking as someone who uses Linux and Mac OS X and even Windows in a limited sort of way, I'm going to make a pretty involved post.

First, each platform has its benefits. if you value one thing more than others, then you will make your platform decision based on that.

I use Linux because it lets me customize in ways nothing else even comes close to. My most expensive hardware uses Linux. It's a huge PITA to get bleeding edge hardware to work, and the interface needs serious work which either needs to be done by the distro maintainers or by the guy with the computer. Since I don't particularly care for the current Ubuntu desktop I whittled my own. And I love that I can do that.

I use a Mac because it is by far the easiest to use machine I have ever encountered. It lets me get things done in human terms. Frankly I think Apple's hardware kinda sucks, with the exception of their monitors which rock. No matter how you slice it, Apple desktops and laptops are expensive.

I use Windows because it's what my customers use. Granted, the Windows systems are on a testing license and are virtual machines on some other hardware, but I use them nonetheless. Nothing that I really care about other than compatibility with my customers is provided by Microsoft, so I don't really need to cover that end in this post.

Now, a Mac rant, but keep in mind that the machine I spent the most money on by far is a Linux box. I CHOOSE to use Linux.

Apple has repeatedly changed the direction of computing. They were the first to market at many things, and the first to market a VIABLE option of several things. Most recently IMO is a touch-screen tablet computer. When they released the iPad I was making bets with my buddies on how many weeks it would take for it to flop. I was obviously horribly wrong, the tablet is not only viable now for the first time, but also obviously here to stay for awhile.

Steve Jobs had a gift that I don't see anywhere else in computing. He saw ways to help people work better in intuitive and natural ways. I can't think of any company with more "why didn't I think of that?" products. If you think they are difficult to use or nothing special, then you didn't give them a fair shake or you tried to force your preexisting assumptions on a new system. If you give as much effort to understand an Apple product as you do your Linux box, you'll be impressed whether you actually like the company or not, whether you like the product as a whole or not. Apple makes consistent, innovative and generally high quality products. I'm referring to their software, not their hardware per se. As I said before I don't think very highly of their computing machinery.

The thing that keeps driving me away is Apple's insane death grip on the software they choose to allow to run on their systems. Granted they have a system that works really well for a lot of people, but they Do Not Like when you try to play by other rules.
Good points.

I come to Ubuntu for much the same reason that I recall moving from a Trash-80 to an Apple IIC: the sense of pioneering and exploring.

Of course, when the business world embraced the IBM PC and it's OS, we had to have one of those in the stable as well.

I use Apple for the graphical work I do and a ThinkPad for the customer-centric side of work which embraces the best of both those worlds.

And, actually, that Trash-80 really did some nice things, too.

[aysiu]

I don't like Apple, but I do like some of their products. I certainly understand the appeal of the iPhone (though I prefer Android). I love my Macbook Pro--it's definitely the best laptop I've ever worked with. To each her own. If you don't like Apple products, don't buy them. If you like them, buy them.

[0011235813]

I have done the comparisons... I had an iPad2, my wife had an Acer Iconica w/the Honeycomb OS. The Acer is better and we wound up swapping - it now runs Ubuntu. I bought the iPhone 4s to replace my Windows 7 (WP7) phone and after a month, sold the iPhone and went back - my Samsung is faster in every way, has a better camera, had voice recognition like Siri before Apple did (not AS good, but it works all the time, unlike Siri) and it's easier to use. The new HP super slim, 9 hour battery life with the core i7 is as good or better than the MacBook Air, and it has 2hrs longer battery life, 9hrs v 7hrs...

I think most of the negativity usually starts with an Apple cult member, like a parent defending a child. I don't ever talk bad about Apple, just don't like their products at the price they sell them for. There was a time where I would say they were better than Windows, but not anymore, and the hardware manufacturers have caught up.

Both Apple and Micro$oft can play their money sucking game... I'll choose Linux, and when I need to run Window$ software, I'll just get a glass of Wine!

+1 to this. I totally agree; if other software makers can rip us off for selling inferior software, why not just let them realize that we, the customer, ultimately determine their fate?

[1clue]

i don't like apple, but i do like some of their products. I certainly understand the appeal of the iphone (though i prefer android). I love my macbook pro--it's definitely the best laptop i've ever worked with. To each her own. If you don't like apple products, don't buy them. If you like them, buy them.

+1

[Gone fishing]

I've avoided this thread as I do't want to have my post jailed. But as I'm in a devil may care wreckless mood.

The negativity is because Apple are Evil

Just Googled for some support for this reasoned well considered position here's some links

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/06/john-naughton-apple-dominates-market

http://www.cracked.com/article_18377_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-apple_p1.html

http://www.junauza.com/2011/11/why-apple-is-more-evil-than-microsoft.html

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-and-evil-license-agreement/4360

[cprofitt]

What I have seen on Ubuntu forums and other Linux forums that people usually have negative views about Apple products .

IMHO Apple produces one of the finest products in the industry and it has set many trends which have changed the face of I.T industry and society in general .

Yes they are expensive but you get what you pay for . Their hardware is good , casing is ultra cool . Not to mention Mac OS X which is considered to be finest Operating System for Computers (especially in productivity in Music , fashion and film industry )

You can find traces of OS X inspiration within Ubuntu (specially in Unity )



Apple is the opposite of Free.
Apple is a good hardware manufacturer that likes to have devices that lock users in to their 'brand'
Apple is, in most cases, over priced vs comparable products
OS X is a decent operating system, but since Windows 7 has been in 3rd place for features and stability

Apple is the opposite of what it started out as. I would not use an Apple product if it was given to me at no cost.

[aysiu]

Apple is the opposite of Free. Not always. Just two examples pop into my head: CUPS and WebKit. You can find more examples here:
http://opensource.apple.com/



Apple is, in most cases, over priced vs comparable products The top-of-the-line iPhone is priced the same (at least here in the US) as top-of-the-line Android phones. The iPad is $499. Most decent Android tablets are much more than that (no, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet do not count as decent tablets).


OS X is a decent operating system, but since Windows 7 has been in 3rd place for features and stability I use both Windows 7 and Mac OS X daily, and what you're saying here is bunk.


Apple is the opposite of what it started out as. I would not use an Apple product if it was given to me at no cost. Good for you. No one is going to give you an Apple product anyway, so everybody wins. The people who want an Apple product will buy it. The people who don't want it, won't have to buy it.

[0011235813]

Not always. Just two examples pop into my head: CUPS and WebKit. You can find more examples here:
http://opensource.apple.com/

The top-of-the-line iPhone is priced the same (at least here in the US) as top-of-the-line Android phones. The iPad is $499. Most decent Android tablets are much more than that (no, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet do not count as decent tablets).

I use both Windows 7 and Mac OS X daily, and what you're saying here is bunk.

Good for you. No one is going to give you an Apple product anyway, so everybody wins. The people who want an Apple product will buy it. The people who don't want it, won't have to buy it.
I think WebKit is the exception, not the norm. And look what they're doing to HTML5; Hi! My name is HTML5 and I want to make video on the Internet open-source and native!
Apple; Not if you don't use the propietary h.264 you don't!

What?! The iPhone 4s is 510 pounds in the UK, with the Samsung Galaxy Nexus with it's superior screen, processor and software, at 410 pounds. Sure, there are five hundred quid Android tabs as well, but they come with decent cameras, flash, a democratic market, and USB sticks and SD cards. [Disclaimer: I cannot say for the situation in the US, but in the UK/GB there is no doubt]

I agree with this, but let's stick to the facts OK?

[aysiu]

I think WebKit is the exception, not the norm. I agree. I was responding to the assertion Apple is the opposite of Free.


What?! The iPhone 4s is 510 pounds in the UK, with the Samsung Galaxy Nexus with it's superior screen, processor and software, at 410 pounds. That's why I put in the disclaimer about the US. In the US, the iPhone 4S with 32 GB of storage is $299, and the Galaxy Nexus with 32 GB of storage is $299.

[0011235813]

I agree. I was responding to the assertion Apple is the opposite of Free.

That's why I put in the disclaimer about the US. In the US, the iPhone 4S with 32 GB of storage is $299, and the Galaxy Nexus with 32 GB of storage is $299.

Only $300? Are you sure? Well it sounds like you're really lucky. Can you please give me a link about this? Thanks.

[aysiu]

Only $300? Are you sure? Well it sounds like you're really lucky. Can you please give me a link about this? Thanks. Right here:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone/iphone4s

US$, not UK£

[Gone fishing]

I agree. I was responding to the assertion Apple is the opposite of Free.

Apple is generally the opposite of free they have contributed in the form of Webkit and CUPS - but their OS is based on a BSD this is the very minimum they could reasonably give back to a community they are indebted to. Even Microsoft contributes to open-source on occasion so I don’t think we need to so thrilled with Apples generous contribution.

Generally when it comes to open standards, patents, abuse of copyright, unreasonable EULAs, vendor lock in, bullying and hypocrisy (its OK when we steel but if anyone else offers to produce a product even vaguely like ours expect to be in court.) etc, etc Apple is awful

[1clue]

The negativity is because Apple are Evil

Just Googled for some support for this reasoned well considered position here's some links

If you google for your opinion, you are bound to find lots of people who agree. IMO looking on anti-establishment sites, personal blogs and such are every bit as reliable as looking on the company's own propaganda site.

There's always a hater. Look for somebody who is associated with an organization that needs to take the heat for whatever the guy says.



Apple is the opposite of Free.
Apple is a good hardware manufacturer that likes to have devices that lock users in to their 'brand'
Apple is, in most cases, over priced vs comparable products
OS X is a decent operating system, but since Windows 7 has been in 3rd place for features and stability

Apple is the opposite of what it started out as. I would not use an Apple product if it was given to me at no cost.

Apple is exactly what it started out as. It was never designed to be free. There has never been free Apple hardware, and until a couple years ago there has never been any open source Apple software. Apple exists for the same reason as Microsoft or any other commercial for-profit entity: To protect the investment of its shareholders.

You may be referring to the fact that Apple was at one point considered to be anti-establishment. That was only true because "establishment" didn't drink the small computer kool-aid.

All that does not add up to "evil." It just adds up to something that some Linux people don't like.


Not always. Just two examples pop into my head: CUPS and WebKit. You can find more examples here:
http://opensource.apple.com/
...
I use both Windows 7 and Mac OS X daily, and what you're saying here is bunk.

Good for you. No one is going to give you an Apple product anyway, so everybody wins. The people who want an Apple product will buy it. The people who don't want it, won't have to buy it.

+1
+1
+1




The top-of-the-line iPhone is priced the same (at least here in the US) as top-of-the-line Android phones. The iPad is $499. Most decent Android tablets are much more than that (no, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet do not count as decent tablets).


I paid cash for my Samsung Galaxy S2, no contract. Purchased that way, the SGS2 was more expensive than the iPhone 4s.


Apple is generally the opposite of free they have contributed in the form of Webkit and CUPS - but their OS is based on a BSD this is the very minimum they could reasonably give back to a community they are indebted to. Even Microsoft contributes to open-source on occasion so I don’t think we need to so thrilled with Apples generous contribution.


Apple owns a commercial UNIX license. They bought Next, which had a full-blown commercial BSD. Yes, they did adopt a lot of OS into their operating system, the licenses of some of that allow the source to be hard-linked to commercial software. All their Open Source that they used is still Open Source, see the link above. They have also contributed Open Source of their own.



Generally when it comes to open standards, patents, abuse of copyright, unreasonable EULAs, vendor lock in, bullying and hypocrisy (its OK when we steel but if anyone else offers to produce a product even vaguely like ours expect to be in court.) etc, etc Apple is awful

I honestly don't see that. The premise of Open Source is that you can use it all, but at some point you need to contribute back to the community in some significant way. That's how you "pay" for the right to use it, even though that's an unwritten rule it's widely accepted among those who started the movement and still held dear among those who keep it alive by contributing today. How many of those who posted to this thread have contributed to Open Source?

In the end, EVERYONE who uses Open Source software uses a whole lot more than they contributed. Personally I'm just glad that some commercial interests support Open Source as well as they do. It wasn't very long ago when the very idea was laughable.

[Gone fishing]

If you google for your opinion, you are bound to find lots of people who agree. IMO looking on anti-establishment sites, personal blogs and such are every bit as reliable as looking on the company's own propaganda site.

I am guilty of using extremist any-establishment site such as the Observer and Guardian newspapers or even ZDNet. However, I would suggest another extremist site for keeping abreast of Apple issues www.osnews.com


Apple is exactly what it started out as. It was never designed to be free.

Certainly Apple was never free and I have no issues with that, however, it is not as it “started out” which was anti-establishment and hacker radical. I would give as an example Bill Gate letter to the Homebrew Club of which Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were members of as evidence of past Hacker tendencies and attitudes. Let alone Steve Jobs “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” Which I don’t think I’m alone in thinking meant that some of Apples ideas were less than entirely their own innovation. In light of this their current litigious zeal seems somewhat hypocritical


Apple owns a commercial UNIX license. They bought Next, which had a full-blown commercial BSD.

They also borrowed quite heavily from FreeBSD virtual file system, network stack, and components of its userspace so I think Apple can afford to give something back. With out wishing to upset FreeBSD users I would argue the Apples use of FreeBSD code is one of the best argument for GPL that I can think of.

As for not getting Apples unreasonable EULAs but here’s a link

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-and-evil-license-agreement/4360 Again you could argue that is Ed Bott as a Journalist for PC World, PC Computing it is extremist and overly radical.

As for Vendor lock-in if you Wikipedia "Vendor lock in" Apple is the example you get.

[1clue]

I am guilty of using extremist any-establishment site such as the Observer and Guardian newspapers or even ZDNet. However, I would suggest another extremist site for keeping abreast of Apple issues www.osnews.com


FWIW I'm only recommending that people use the same standards to judge software they don't like as they would to judge criticism of software they DO like. Use reputable news sources.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions here, just saying let's be rational here, rather than just an all-out bashing session.



Certainly Apple was never free and I have no issues with that, however, it is not as it “started out” which was anti-establishment and hacker radical. I would give as an example Bill Gate letter to the Homebrew Club of which Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were members of as evidence of past Hacker tendencies and attitudes. Let alone Steve Jobs “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” Which I don’t think I’m alone in thinking meant that some of Apples ideas were less than entirely their own innovation. In light of this their current litigious zeal seems somewhat hypocritical


Maybe you're not old enough to notice that as the way the world works. Every new idea starts out as anti-establishment. When the first human rode a horse, he/she was anti-establishment. Now, he would be retro. When the first person made a wagon for the horse to pull, it was new, innovative and anti-establishment.

As soon as an idea is widely adopted, it ceases to be anti-establishment and becomes establishment. The hippies of the 60's were anti-establishment, but you take a look at the people who were hip and happening back then, they're mostly really astute businessmen now. They're talking like old people, because they're old people with old ideas. It's why new people are born and old people die.

Let me reference a scene from "Finding Nemo" where Nemo winds up on the dock and all the seagulls look at him. They all start screaming "Mine! Mine!"

In that light, I don't think anything has really changed at all.



They also borrowed quite heavily from FreeBSD virtual file system, network stack, and components of its userspace so I think Apple can afford to give something back. With out wishing to upset FreeBSD users I would argue the Apples use of FreeBSD code is one of the best argument for GPL that I can think of.


Don't inflict your opinion on other developers. The people who contributed to FreeBSD did so knowing what the license was. There are other Open Source licenses, including the GPL at the opposite end of the spectrum. I never use GPL when releasing code. I more favor the Apache license. I don't have a problem with people using code I contribute in commercial software, only that they not claim they wrote it.



As for not getting Apples unreasonable EULAs but here’s a link

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/apples-mind-bogglingly-greedy-and-evil-license-agreement/4360 Again you could argue that is Ed Bott as a Journalist for PC World, PC Computing it is extremist and overly radical.

As for Vendor lock-in if you Wikipedia "Vendor lock in" Apple is the example you get.

I don't have an issue with zdet even if it is a bit outside the norm. I find some of their articles laughable but that's free press.

I have my own issues with Apple. I like the computers, I like the software, I could really do without the seagulls. I've bought several Apple machines in the past, and I have one now. I generally give up and swear them off, and then a year or so later they come up with something incredibly sweet and I have to give it a try again. I'm not trying to convince anyone else that THEY need to like or use Apple products, or that they even agree with my opinions about them.

That said, I don't feel that Apple has been unethical in their Open Source usage and contributions. I've looked at what they did and looked at the licenses for what they used. The only reason somebody might cry "foul" is because they feel that absolutely all Open Source should be GPL. If the people who wrote the software felt that way, then they would release their code as GPL instead of whatever else they used.

I also don't see what the evangelism is about. From either side. Some people like Macs. Some like Linux. Some like Windows. Some like iPhone. Or Android. Or whatever. And some people like several of the above.

Come on guys!

Use it because you like it. I like Macs, and I like Linux. Both for different but equally valid reasons.

Coexist.

Don't be a hater without a really good reason. If somebody else has different priorities or preferences than you, then it only makes the world a more interesting place.

[1clue]

They also borrowed quite heavily from FreeBSD virtual file system, network stack, and components of its userspace so I think Apple can afford to give something back. With out wishing to upset FreeBSD users I would argue the Apples use of FreeBSD code is one of the best argument for GPL that I can think of.



Oh yeah. Let's see: Windows, Mac OS, FreeBSD, pretty much any BSD-based UNIX or variant, that means more market share than Microsoft ever claimed, or IBM before that. FreeBSD's network stack is everywhere.

Frankly, if I were one of the guys who wrote the network stack used in FreeBSD I would have so many feathers in my hat I wouldn't even have to take them off the bird. The FreeBSD license is such that the people who release software under that license probably just want the recognition of their peers, and proper attribution.

Looks like those guys are the highest paid programmers in history, by that standard.

[0011235813]

What a boring long list of bashing that's been going on here. Sure, Apple uses BSD kernel, but a BSD kernel is popular and widely used, and Apple is not the only one using it for it's own ends. But anyway, what was the original thread asking?... I forgot with all this bashing going on.... *yawn*

[rg4w]

Not always. Just two examples pop into my head: CUPS and WebKit.
Well, WebKit anyway:

Apple orphans Linux CUPS features- handicaps open source printing
http://www.unixmen.com/201202-apple-orphans-linux-cups-features-handicaps-open-source-printing/

[WinterMadness]

Because linux people tend to be geeks/techies
apple people tend to be artists or snobby hipsters.

these groups have never got a long.

[0011235813]

Because linux people tend to be geeks/techies
apple people tend to be artists or snobby hipsters.

these groups have never got a long.

Not really, I've heard plenty of people using Linux and Windows to do video editing, audio editing, conversion, image manipulation, writing...

[1clue]

Because linux people tend to be geeks/techies
apple people tend to be artists or snobby hipsters.

these groups have never got a long.

Ever go to a developer symposium to learn about new technologies? I do, and I see an awful lot of Macs at places where Open Source is being used and/or talked about. I'm talking geeks and techies, using Macs.

I'm a professional programmer. My company bought my Mac for me because the owner thinks it's worth the price. I agree. It's a really nice developer platform.

[aysiu]

I'm a Linux user and a Mac user. Non-geeks think I'm a geek, but real geeks don't think I am (not knowledgeable enough). I'm also not an artist. Maybe I'm a hipster (depending on your definition) but not snobby.

[WinterMadness]

Not really, I've heard plenty of people using Linux and Windows to do video editing, audio editing, conversion, image manipulation, writing...

You should address the point instead of trying to shift the conversation.

[WinterMadness]

Ever go to a developer symposium to learn about new technologies? I do, and I see an awful lot of Macs at places where Open Source is being used and/or talked about. I'm talking geeks and techies, using Macs.

I'm a professional programmer. My company bought my Mac for me because the owner thinks it's worth the price. I agree. It's a really nice developer platform.

the word tend has a meaning, I promise.

[aysiu]

the word tend has a meaning, I promise.
Yes, but 1clue's point is that the open source developers tend to be using Macs.

Makes more sense to address your comment to 0011235813

[0011235813]

You should address the point instead of trying to shift the conversation.

I am addressing the point. You implied that only artists and hipsters use Macs, I said that there are plenty of artists who you use other platforms, and as one of the forum staff pointed out there are "geeks" who use Macs as well.

I'm not trying to support Macs; I hate their ludicrous prices, there endlessly copying from other platforms and claiming it's their own, their overated products, their religious zealoutry of their fans (which is especially offensive considering I'm an atheist) and all the $hit with insecure Safari and many of their bloated programs.

But that doesn't mean I'll ignore the evidence. A little off topic, but I wouldn't claim all theists are stupid or bigoted just because I don't particularly like them, and I wouldn't do the same to Mac users.

[1clue]

I am addressing the point. You implied that only artists and hipsters use Macs, I said that there are plenty of artists who you use other platforms, and as one of the forum staff pointed out there are "geeks" who use Macs as well.

I'm not trying to support Macs; I hate their ludicrous prices, there endlessly copying from other platforms and claiming it's their own, their overated products, their religious zealoutry of their fans (which is especially offensive considering I'm an atheist) and all the $hit with insecure Safari and many of their bloated programs.

But that doesn't mean I'll ignore the evidence. A little off topic, but I wouldn't claim all theists are stupid or bigoted just because I don't particularly like them, and I wouldn't do the same to Mac users.

Stop beating around the bush. Tell us what you REALLY think.


<duck-and-cover/>

:D

[1clue]

Yes, but 1clue's point is that the open source developers tend to be using Macs.

Makes more sense to address your comment to 0011235813

Thanks, I thought I wasn't getting through to anybody.

The first of these events I ever went to, I had the only Mac. The instructors had said it would work, but I showed up and it turns out that I was the first Mac user in their knowledge to ever attempt what they were doing. Since then I went full-on Linux for a few years and then started using a Mac again.

At first seeing anything other than PC hardware was a rarity, accompanied by a nightmare of my experience debugging their code on a Mac from that first class.

Now, the last 3 or 4 years, I'm constantly amazed at how many Macs are there, and in use not just by speakers or teachers but by the developers, even the stereotypical ones who don't smell very good. Meaning, EVERY time I go, there's more Macs than last time, and while they're still in the minority I think there are more Macs than the advertised market share would indicate.

Sorry but I don't have numbers.

Right now I'm at TechNexus in Chicago. It's an as-you-need-it office space, you can rent by the day or sign up for a regular contract based on the size of your company, but it's mostly software developers. I did a quick walk-through the halls. I can't see every desk from the halls and I didn't go poking around. I saw 37 laptops, 10 of which were Macs.

This is hardly scientific, because some of these guys are not developers and it's just one spot, and it wasn't a look-at-every-desk type of survey. But having spoken to a bunch of people here you're talking about anything from embedded software to smart phone apps to html5 to grails to medical software. Some Open Source and some very much not so.

[0011235813]

Thanks, I thought I wasn't getting through to anybody.

The first of these events I ever went to, I had the only Mac. The instructors had said it would work, but I showed up and it turns out that I was the first Mac user in their knowledge to ever attempt what they were doing. Since then I went full-on Linux for a few years and then started using a Mac again.

At first seeing anything other than PC hardware was a rarity, accompanied by a nightmare of my experience debugging their code on a Mac from that first class.

Now, the last 3 or 4 years, I'm constantly amazed at how many Macs are there, and in use not just by speakers or teachers but by the developers, even the stereotypical ones who don't smell very good. Meaning, EVERY time I go, there's more Macs than last time, and while they're still in the minority I think there are more Macs than the advertised market share would indicate.

Sorry but I don't have numbers.

Right now I'm at TechNexus in Chicago. It's an as-you-need-it office space, you can rent by the day or sign up for a regular contract based on the size of your company, but it's mostly software developers. I did a quick walk-through the halls. I can't see every desk from the halls and I didn't go poking around. I saw 37 laptops, 10 of which were Macs.

This is hardly scientific, because some of these guys are not developers and it's just one spot, and it wasn't a look-at-every-desk type of survey. But having spoken to a bunch of people here you're talking about anything from embedded software to smart phone apps to html5 to grails to medical software. Some Open Source and some very much not so.
Macs might be popular in the US, but in the world, there is no way they can ever be successful. Not with their pricing, their lack of hardware and their company policy.

[1clue]

Macs might be popular in the US, but in the world, there is no way they can ever be successful. Not with their pricing, their lack of hardware and their company policy.

Rather than make an assertion like that with no facts to back it up, why not ask yourself why they ARE successful as they are?

Wall street has cried impending doom on Apple since day one. Everyone expects them to collapse, but they still pull through, and next thing you know it they're on top of their game again. I saw Macs in Colombia, and iPhones and even a couple iPads. And not just in Bogota, but in outlying areas.

I don't know why Apple is as successful as it is. I know I see some value there, but when I try to anticipate what people will buy I seem to miss the mark a lot. I thought the iPad would be an immediate and profound flop, but now it's got everybody making tables.

Everybody likes to think of what they have as the best choice for everyone, but it's not true and really can't be true, especially with computing gear. There are so many end uses for computers that no one solution can or should own the entire market. I see the current trends as stabilizing on a more natural arrangement than has been in the past. Monopolies are not natural, and it takes a really well managed monopoly to benefit the society as a whole. Commercial monopolies almost certainly can't do it, and I have serious doubts a government-run one could either.

Apple is doing better than it ever has. There must be a reason, and I'm going to say there must be a reason other than pure marketing.

Again I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I'm not by any means a Mac advocate. I like them, but when it came time to buy my own hardware my biggest and most expensive machine is a Linux box on non-Apple hardware.

[0011235813]

Rather than make an assertion like that with no facts to back it up, why not ask yourself why they ARE successful as they are?

Wall street has cried impending doom on Apple since day one. Everyone expects them to collapse, but they still pull through, and next thing you know it they're on top of their game again. I saw Macs in Colombia, and iPhones and even a couple iPads. And not just in Bogota, but in outlying areas.

I don't know why Apple is as successful as it is. I know I see some value there, but when I try to anticipate what people will buy I seem to miss the mark a lot. I thought the iPad would be an immediate and profound flop, but now it's got everybody making tables.

Everybody likes to think of what they have as the best choice for everyone, but it's not true and really can't be true, especially with computing gear. There are so many end uses for computers that no one solution can or should own the entire market. I see the current trends as stabilizing on a more natural arrangement than has been in the past. Monopolies are not natural, and it takes a really well managed monopoly to benefit the society as a whole. Commercial monopolies almost certainly can't do it, and I have serious doubts a government-run one could either.

Apple is doing better than it ever has. There must be a reason, and I'm going to say there must be a reason other than pure marketing.

Again I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, and I'm not by any means a Mac advocate. I like them, but when it came time to buy my own hardware my biggest and most expensive machine is a Linux box on non-Apple hardware.

1. It's not economically viable for the world as a whole to afford Apple products (at least not legally)

2. Apple can never please large markets because Apple has very limited choice and it will never be able to have the flexibility of Windows and especially Linux.

I'm not making assertions, I am simply stating the fact that the way Apple's model is structured, it can never achieve widespread popularity.

[1clue]

1. It's not economically viable for the world as a whole to afford Apple products (at least not legally)

2. Apple can never please large markets because Apple has very limited choice and it will never be able to have the flexibility of Windows and especially Linux.

I'm not making assertions, I am simply stating the fact that the way Apple's model is structured, it can never achieve widespread popularity.

1. It seems to me that iPads are pretty cheap for what you get, and a lot cheaper than the equivalent functionality on a laptop or PC. And used equipment is inevitably cheaper than new equipment, if it comes to that. And even so, the limited exposure I've had to third world countries, there are still people with good things. Lots of Mercedes in Colombia, and even Porsche and Lamborghini every now and then.

2. Why do they need to please large markets? I don't think I've ever read anything where Apple was trying to own the world. I think it's a serious mistake to take the Microsoft route.

3. It seems to already have widespread popularity. In the small device market it seems to be the one to beat, and it doesn't get more "widespread popularity" than that.

You're saying Apple can't be what it already is, the way I see it. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just saying you seem to be imagining the world as it was, not as it is.

Apple has its share of faults, but face it. It's a viable company with a respectable product line. I don't see that product line taking over the computer world, but AFAICT Apple has never shown any sign that it wants to do that. It doesn't have to. I would hate to see ANY company be the new Microsoft, no matter what it runs. Diversity is good for any market.

[dpny]

1. It's not economically viable for the world as a whole to afford Apple products (at least not legally)

It's not economically viable for the world as a whole to afford MS products, either, as it proven by the vast installed base of pirated copies of Windows.

I'm not sure why we're arguing economic viability here. There are very few products which are viable the world over.


2. Apple can never please large markets because Apple has very limited choice and it will never be able to have the flexibility of Windows and especially Linux.

If flexibility was important Linux would have enormous desktop market share. As it doesn't, clearly flexibility isn't important. Windows overwhelming (yet shrinking) market share comes from millions and millions and millions of corporate sales, each of which counts as a Windows license sold. It has nothing to do with flexibility.

What's clearly important, judging by Apple's enormous profit, are devices which simply work.


I am simply stating the fact that the way Apple's model is structured, it can never achieve widespread popularity.

iOS has the largest installed user base of any mobile OS on the planet. Looks like reality doesn't agree with you.

Anyway: none of this matters, but I think it illustrates the point of the thread. Computer users become very attached to their machines, or operating systems, or phones, and with those attachments come strong feelings not necessarily based on fact. The same thing happens with car owners, sports fans, etc. Just looks like human nature to me.

[LinuxFan999]

I think Apple's hardware looks nice, but I dont think OSX is very good. I have personally found versions of OSX after 10.4.11 to be quite buggy, and 10.7 (Lion) is the worst of them. Safari is buggy too. OSX and Safari are also known for being insecure. Look at wikipedia's article on PWN2OWN, an annual hacking contest. Safari and OSX have always been the first to go down during the contest. I am actually not suprised at the amount of Apple Hate I have been seeing recently, but I am suprised at how few people hate Microsoft.

[1clue]

It's not economically viable for the world as a whole to afford MS products, either, as it proven by the vast installed base of pirated copies of Windows.

I'm not sure why we're arguing economic viability here. There are very few products which are viable the world over.


+1



If flexibility was important Linux would have enormous desktop market share. As it doesn't, clearly flexibility isn't important. Windows overwhelming (yet shrinking) market share comes from millions and millions and millions of corporate sales, each of which counts as a Windows license sold. It has nothing to do with flexibility.


I guess I can see where you're coming from, but I think you have an enormous blind spot right where the rest of us Linux users have one: Right square in the middle of your nerdness. (Is that a word? I think I invented a word.) :)

Linux can be made to be pretty flexible, but you have to know something to do it. Right out of the box, there's quite a bit about Linux that somebody who buys their computer from Wal-Mart or Best Buy just can't figure out, and since they would expect that sort of thing to just work they would consider that to be inflexibility. And I would have to agree with them.

Windows, you might need to talk to your IT guy, but chances are your IT guy has actually been educated on how to do what you're asking, and since Windows has the largest number of apps of any operating system, that means pretty much automatically that it can be seen as the most flexible OS from a user perspective. Not, mind you, from the perspective of embedded devices which would be pretty much irrelevant from an end-user perspective. If it's embedded they don't even consider it to be a computer. I don't know how many people I've had to explain why there had to be a computer inside their wireless router.

Apple, I guess that's why I gave up on iPhone: I've run squarely into the wall of inflexibility several times, and sitting right square in the middle of it was Apple's policy to prevent certain types of software from running on their systems. It's a bit less obvious and a little bit more difficult for them to police Mac OS, but frankly I think it's still there.



What's clearly important, judging by Apple's enormous profit, are devices which simply work.


I would want to modify that. People want devices which simply work, and work simply, and have a certain amount of flash while doing so.

When you install almost any modern Linux distro, the things it does out of the box it does pretty well, and it "just works" because a whole lot of people have spent a whole lot of time working on that. Ever since RedHat's IPO and before, the biggest barrier to Linux has been its user interface flaws. My girlfriend spends far more time on my Linux box than she does on her Vista machine. The caveat is that I've already configured the Canon all-in-one laser printer driver for it, and the webcam and all the other junk, some of which was bleeding edge and totally unsupported when I bought the machine.

The reason the iPhone rocks is because it works, and it works flamboyantly well. It's like watching a staged demo, only it actually works like that. Same thing can be said to a lesser degree about Mac OS. Whenever I try to figure out how to do something, I ask myself, "How would my mom do it?" Sure enough it works that way. My mother is 78 and is totally computer illiterate.



iOS has the largest installed user base of any mobile OS on the planet. Looks like reality doesn't agree with you.


+1



Anyway: none of this matters, but I think it illustrates the point of the thread. Computer users become very attached to their machines, or operating systems, or phones, and with those attachments come strong feelings not necessarily based on fact. The same thing happens with car owners, sports fans, etc. Just looks like human nature to me.

Correct, and proper with the exception of the part about facts. It's entirely proper that people really like what they have, or find something they can really like. The folks who Really Like Linux are using Linux. The folks who Really Like Windows are using Windows, and the folks who Really Like Macs are using Macs.

My only really strong feeling here is that you should see with clear vision why it is you like what you like, and why it is you don't like what you don't like. Look at reality, not at some irrelevant crap you found by talking to a bunch of haters or blind loyalists.

I seriously think a whole lot of Linux users love Linux simply because they're not obligated to pay money for it and no other reason. They happily embrace every fault as though it were a lovingly crafted feature and dream up all sorts of arguments to support what they don't really understand. Face it, there are some really really rusty aspects to Linux.

I imagine that Apple has a bunch of people who gave Macs to their least tech-savvy relatives, and then every time one of them asks a question they go back to the drawing board and say, "How can we make this so my idiot relative can figure it out without asking?" Linux needs a bunch of boxes and a bunch of idiot relatives. Ubuntu does a pretty good job as long as you're not trying to get not-easily-supported hardware or software to work.

[KiwiNZ]

Why there is so much negativity about Apple products on Linux related forums ?

Answer = Tall poppy syndrome

[0011235813]

1. It seems to me that iPads are pretty cheap for what you get, and a lot cheaper than the equivalent functionality on a laptop or PC. And used equipment is inevitably cheaper than new equipment, if it comes to that. And even so, the limited exposure I've had to third world countries, there are still people with good things. Lots of Mercedes in Colombia, and even Porsche and Lamborghini every now and then.

2. Why do they need to please large markets? I don't think I've ever read anything where Apple was trying to own the world. I think it's a serious mistake to take the Microsoft route.

3. It seems to already have widespread popularity. In the small device market it seems to be the one to beat, and it doesn't get more "widespread popularity" than that.

You're saying Apple can't be what it already is, the way I see it. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just saying you seem to be imagining the world as it was, not as it is.

Apple has its share of faults, but face it. It's a viable company with a respectable product line. I don't see that product line taking over the computer world, but AFAICT Apple has never shown any sign that it wants to do that. It doesn't have to. I would hate to see ANY company be the new Microsoft, no matter what it runs. Diversity is good for any market.

Cheap for what you get?! I'm sorry, but are you even listening to yourself?!! For 500 pounds, you get a small screen device that struggles performance wise when compared to laptops and especially desktops, lacks support for industry standards like Adobe Flash, lacks support for connecting them to other devices via USB, SD, DVD etc. and can only ever use software from a controlled appstore- software which was probably created with a "real" computer anyway. On the other hand, you can get a laptop for as little as 350 pounds that have much better resources, can use software from any source, are connectable, and do support industry standards.

If there were 15 different operating systems in the world, the world would be a very complicated place.

No, Android has more popularity than Apple...

I'm saying Apple cannot control large markets in the world- it still doesn't.

Diversity is good, as long as it's intercompatible. Apple doesn't want to make it's products intercompatible- quite the opposite, it requires Apple cables and Apple software. And in all due fairness, Apple clearly doesn't want to gobble up market share- it's quite happy draining money off the market it does have.

[0011235813]

I think Apple's hardware looks nice, but I dont think OSX is very good. I have personally found versions of OSX after 10.4.11 to be quite buggy, and 10.7 (Lion) is the worst of them. Safari is buggy too. OSX and Safari are also known for being insecure. Look at wikipedia's article on PWN2OWN, an annual hacking contest. Safari and OSX have always been the first to go down during the contest. I am actually not suprised at the amount of Apple Hate I have been seeing recently, but I am suprised at how few people hate Microsoft.

Agree totally, fat ratings be damed OSX and Windows are insecure from a practical perspective. However, I would like to say that Windows, despite it's many flaws, is an OS designed for the masses; there is no way you can please everyone (hence why it needs to be flexible!) . And to be honest, Windows is OK for the dumb computer user.

[Gone fishing]

Answer = Tall poppy syndrome

Patronising and untrue, there are many good reasons for Linux users to be negative towards Apple even if you don’t agree. The vision of Apple and the vision of many Open-source projects are diametrically opposed to each other. Apples use of Lock in, Software Patents and famous lack of openness are obvious points of divergence.

I don’t think many Ubuntu users begrudge Red Hat, Arm, HP etc their ability to generate revenue.

[iponeverything]

Hey! I have great idea for more useless threads:

"Why there is so much negativity about golf on tennis related forums"
"Why there is so much negativity about dogs on cat related forums"

[rg4w]

Why there is so much negativity about Apple products on Linux related forums ?

Answer = Tall poppy syndrome
Ah, if only things were so kind. But have you spent much time in Apple-related forums? Note the disdain regularly expressed in such forums for Linux (and Windows and anything else that doesn't come from Apple).

It's just simple tribalism, by no means unique to Linux forums.

[0011235813]

Patronising and untrue, there are many good reasons for Linux users to be negative towards Apple even if you don’t agree. The vision of Apple and the vision of many Open-source projects are diametrically opposed to each other. Apples use of Lock in, Software Patents and famous lack of openness are obvious points of divergence.

I don’t think many Ubuntu users begrudge Red Hat, Arm, HP etc their ability to generate revenue.
Agreed, can we close this thread now? Everyone has either stated that they don't like Apple because it's not open and free, or stated that they like Apple and use both. We seem to be veering way off-topic here.

[nothingspecial]

can we close this thread now?

Done.

If anyone has a desperate need to continue the conversation, PM me and I'll re-open it.