PDA

View Full Version : Forget Ubuntu vs. Windows, let Ubuntu take on OSX!



reedlaw
April 18th, 2006, 07:18 AM
I would like to think that for most techie people (ie the ones reading this board) the debate is not over whether to use Ubuntu or Windows. Most of us know Windows is a joke and we would love to ditch it into a chasm if it weren't for that little "90% of software is written for it" problem. The real debate, in my mind at least, is whether to buy a Mac for its OSX or continue on the PC road with Ubuntu Linux as the only option. To tell the truth, OSX is a lot more appealing to myself than Ubuntu right now. I wish it weren't the case, but it's just the plain truth that OSX outshines Ubuntu in a lot of areas. Where OSX fails, however, is its proprietariness and cost. In other words, OSX is closed-source and costs an arm and a leg. If OSX came out tomorrow for regular PC (not the hacked Intel version but a bona fide Windows competitor) and it cost the same (currently around $130 for the software, likely subsidized by the fact that it only runs on Mac hardware) I would buy it in a second and say goodbye to Ubuntu. Even so I would have a twinge of regret at losing the openness of Open Source. So my question is: why all the effort at making Ubuntu as dumbed-down an dull as Windows? Why not make a true OSX competitor that could beat both OSX and Windows? That would truely be the OS of the future that could topple the Redmond giant.
How can this be done you say? How about a focus on rock-solid stability and great hardware interoperability. Ubuntu's already got great hardware and USB peripheral support. Breezy was not as stable as I hoped, but let's hope Dapper beats it. Ubuntu also needs to speed up its interface and media playback. Why does the Windows GUI feel faster and have no problem playing back full-screen HD content? Maybe this is a video problem that is fixed in X 7.0, but I suspect it is also a Gnome-related issue. Next, focus on a silky-smooth user experience. No more media codec mess. No more crashes or perplexing error messages. Just a smooth ride from start to finish. What about patents you say? Get licenses for DVD, MP3, and whatever else average Joe wants and sell them at a reasonable price. Let's say $5 for a set of licenses that can be purchased over the web, or activated by a card with a scratch-off code. People can buy the cards as gifts and give them out with a Ubuntu CD. That way there is some onus of the gift-receiver that the giver has at least paid for his gift. Most people don't understand free software and do not appreciate it when you try to "give" it to them. Not only that, but I detest giving Ubuntu to those who then turn around and expect me to be their never-ending source of free support. How about a community driven online help center where Ubuntu certified professionals can ssh or vnc into users' machines and fix whatever problems they have for a nominal fee? I already constantly use these tools to help the people I have installed Ubuntu for. I tell them if you need help, call me during my office hours and I will fix your problem over the phone. If we could have this same service performed by a network of qualified people think of how easily Ubuntu would be accepted by businesses and other institutions that know about the ease and quality of Ubuntu support.
So please stop comparing Ubuntu to Windows, it has already clearly won the battle for superiority. But so has OSX and it is still not the market leader. Let's focus on what Ubuntu can do to become the best OS on the planet. Any ideas, comments, or criticisms, please reply here.

dermotti
April 18th, 2006, 08:14 AM
Ubuntu outshines OSX in alot of areas too

1. Better Webserver
2. Better database server
3. Free

etc etc etc

They all have strengths and weaknesses.

I personally do not see any competition. I use which tool gets the job done the best.


If im going to game, im not going to cripple my performance and use linux (unless its native). Im going to use Windows

If im going to build webserver, im not going to cripple it and use windows server.

If im going to buy a computer for my grandma, im not going to cripple her and buy her windows or linux. OSX ftw.

poofyhairguy
April 18th, 2006, 09:59 AM
I was going to buy a Mac mini, but I prefer my Compiz now over anything in OSX.

With that said, if the intel iBooks come is black like the ipods I might buy two...

kabus
April 18th, 2006, 10:25 AM
[...] a focus on rock-solid stability and great hardware interoperability. [...] a silky-smooth user experience. [...] No more crashes or perplexing error messages. Just a smooth ride from start to finish.

Have you ever used a Mac ?

taurus
April 18th, 2006, 12:17 PM
A Mac!!! ](*,) #-o :-#

23meg
April 18th, 2006, 12:24 PM
why all the effort at making Ubuntu as dumbed-down an dull as Windows? Am I alone in not having seen any hint of such an effort?

Why does the Windows GUI feel faster and have no problem playing back full-screen HD content? Maybe this is a video problem that is fixed in X 7.0, but I suspect it is also a Gnome-related issue.It's an X issue; in rough terms X isn't truly hardware accelerated on Linux. Once X(e)GL is stable this will be a non-issue and we'll have all we need to put Quartz to shame.

dabear
April 18th, 2006, 12:32 PM
reedlaw; could you please format your post a bit better, it is quite hard to understand.

fuscia
April 18th, 2006, 12:40 PM
With that said, if the intel iBooks come is black like the ipods I might buy two...

WHOA! hold the phone! did you say...black? (dare i hope?)

pulver
April 18th, 2006, 01:37 PM
OSX may look slick, but so can ubuntu. I want customizability, and from what I've heard OSX sucks at that.

fuscia
April 18th, 2006, 02:50 PM
OSX may look slick, but so can ubuntu. I want customizability, and from what I've heard OSX sucks at that.

i asked about flexibility in OSX, on a mac forum, and the people who responded seemed to think wanting to tweak was for nutjobs.

DigitalDuality
April 18th, 2006, 03:13 PM
^
Agreed. I love the Aqua interface.. on OSX that is, trying to duplicate that on linux boxes is always horrible, especially the **** poor attempts at dock bars that have been made.

But after a while it simply gets boring. You want to change stuff other than your desktop background and whether or not text is highlighted in a pastel blue or a graphite like color.

You can customize far more on a windows box for crying out loud.

I like OS X i do, i love my mini, especially since i dropped a GB of RAM in it. But it just gets boring after a while. It's stable, it's secure, it's slick looking, just .. boring.

3rdalbum
April 18th, 2006, 03:42 PM
I like the look of Aqua, but I dislike the brushed metal and I HATE (absolutely despise!) the actual user interface of OS (ne)X(t). That's one area where Ubuntu definately has the advantage.

pulver
April 18th, 2006, 04:15 PM
DigitalDuality, agree what you're saying about trying to copy the aqua interface on linux. They all look like crap, cheap knockoffs, more or less. And nowadays everyone is trying to copy the vista interface, and it looks just as bad. Sure there have been poor attempts trying to make OSX like dock bars, however the old standalone engage from the enlightenment project is not a bad app.

aysiu
April 18th, 2006, 04:29 PM
I'll admit it looks slick and the animation is slick, but... that's about all that appeals to me about Mac OS X. That's it.

I don't like the money you have to spend to get it. I don't like that to customize things, you have to edit even more obscure config files (.plists, anyone?) than you do in Ubuntu.

I don't like weird behavior that just throws me off (it may just be what I'm used to, but I just don't feel like adjusting to it--whereas I was able to adjust to Ubuntu from Windows okay):

1. If I'm in Finder and press Cmd-Shift-A, the Applications window pops up--that's great. When I find the application I want and press Enter, it thinks I want to rename the application, not open it. How do I open that application with the keyboard? What's the point of having Cmd-Shift-A if you need the mouse to open an application?

2. If I Cmd-Tab to a minimized application, it doesn't unminimize. What's up with that? Any way I can change that behavior?

3. Why, after going through a whole installation wizard from a .dmg do I still have to drag some file to the Applications folder--can't the wizard just put it there for me?

4. This has been pointed out many times over already, but I still don't get why I drag a USB device to the trash to unmount it.

5. Sometimes if I'm trying to move an item, if I'm not selecting exactly the right area with my mouse, OS X thinks I'm trying to highlight multiple items.

6. When OS X tries to tell you keyboard shortcuts, it doesn't tell you the names of the keys but uses funny symbols instead. How am I supposed to know what those symbols mean?

Basically, I think the whole usability of it is screwy. Looks great, though. Looks f'in amazing.

hotani
April 18th, 2006, 06:12 PM
I'm preparing to move from OS X to Ubuntu. Care to guess my biggest problem yet?

No iTunes.

It's a weak complaint, but there it is. I hate not having iTunes, and the music player options (all 20 of them) just aren't cutting it. Wait, let me rephrase that - when compared to iTunes, the current music player options are pathetic.

Let me give some examples:
rhythmbox:
- can't sort a playlist unless it's a smart playlist.
- can't edit metadata
- no "add file to library" feature for importing

banshee
- no music browser.
- poor iPod support (just shows the library, no playlists)

gtkpod
- only good for organizing iPod

Listen
- one playlist
- no iPod
- select a bunch of songs to perform an action on, right-click and watch them all be de-selected. ouch.

Each of these has it's good points, but none of them are an iTunes replacement.

One of these decided to create a 0k dup of every file in my library. That was pretty awesome, and I had a good time cleaning up after the mess.</sarcasm>

Sorry, I'm all for the OSS movement and am ready for Ubuntu to be my primary OS, but I do like the iTunes, and honestly, it just frakkin' works - right NOW.

------

Music player aside (I have priorities!), there are some other issues with moving to Ubuntu from OS X. For me they are not a big deal and I can work around them. Things such as application installation, needing to hit the CLI from time to time when there is no GUI option (this just doesn't happen in OS X), and that oh-so-sexy Aqua interface. I can get around these, but Joe Sixpack can't. The typical Apple fan just won't. If my mom were an OS X user, I wouldn't suggest that she move to Ubuntu. Maybe next year that could change, but for now OS X is king in the ease-of-use arena.

All else being equal (hardware, OS X on intel, etc...), I'd still recommend OS X over Ubuntu to the new or inexperienced user even though I myself have chosen Ubuntu.

Oh, and the column view in the Finder just flat out rocks. Can we have that please? :D

aysiu
April 18th, 2006, 06:21 PM
It's a weak complaint, but there it is. I hate not having iTunes, and the music player options (all 20 of them) just aren't cutting it. Wait, let me rephrase that - when compared to iTunes, the current music player options are pathetic. I don't think it's a weak complaint at all.

I've found iTunes to be the best-integrated, slickest, easiest-to-use media player/ripper/organizer there is. I've had only good experiences with it in Windows and Mac OS X. I really wish Apple would make a Linux port for it, but they probably won't.

That said, I, like you, went looking left and right for the perfect iTunes replacement. I never found it, and I realized I didn't care. The entire environment of Ubuntu was worth switching over to, even though AmaroK can be buggy sometimes. Even though I can't find one application that can rip CDs, manage playlists, have easy ways to rate songs, edit tags (and mass-edit tags), and integrate well with external media players.

The one thing that's really won me over to using Konqueror, Goobox, TagTool, and AmaroK for all the tasks that iTunes alone can do is global keyboard shortcuts. When I'm listening to music, sometimes I want to change the volume or change the song while I'm doing something else (like typing a post to the Ubuntu Forums). In Ubuntu, with AmaroK, I just press two keys and it's the next song. In iTunes, I need to either Alt-Tab or Cmd-Tab to iTunes and then press the right arrow and then Alt-Tab or Cmd-Tab back to what I was doing, or (God forbid), use the mouse to click to the next song.

LMP900
April 18th, 2006, 06:45 PM
With that said, if the intel iBooks come is black like the ipods I might buy two...

I know how you feel...

As for Ubuntu vs. OS X, it still has a way to go. Looks-wise, OS X Tiger just seems very polished with careful attention applied to every little detail. It's simply beautiful. I've been using FC5 and Dapper and both are very impressive, I can't wait for what they have in store for future releases. Maybe then we can start talking about competition.

aysiu
April 18th, 2006, 06:54 PM
As for Ubuntu vs. OS X, it still has a way to go. Looks-wise, OS X Tiger just seems very polished with careful attention applied to every little detail. It's simply beautiful. I've been using FC5 and Dapper and both are very impressive, I can't wait for what they have in store for future releases. Maybe then we can start talking about competition. I don't know. I kind of feel the two have different target audiences. I mean, sure, hackers will always love Macs because of the *nix-like base and all the little .plists they can modify, but for general (from total novice to "power user") users, the appeals of Mac OS X are totally different from the appeals of Ubuntu.

Mac is commercial applications, few configuration options, total GUI, slick interface, high price.

Ubuntu is mostly free (and Free) applications, many configuration options, mostly GUI with some command-line, pretty but not necessarily slick or tightly integrated interface, completely free.

reedlaw
April 19th, 2006, 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by reedlaw
why all the effort at making Ubuntu as dumbed-down an dull as Windows?

Am I alone in not having seen any hint of such an effort?
I am referring to such dumbed-down things as the pop-up update notification. I know most people hated it and hope it's removed from Dapper. As far as being dull, I think there is not enough innovation in the Ubuntu desktop. Why did it have to do away with the innovative Spatial view (I know you can just turn it on, but why not make it default)? And brown everywhere looks dull to me. I'm not saying we should necessarily put shiny stuff everywhere like OSX, but in general eye candy is good. Eye candy doesn't have to be huge or consume a lot of resources either, it should just be clean looking and practical. All of those little movements and animation in OSX do something--they notify the user of some change.
iTunes is not my favorite player. I prefer a simple, fast player like Foobar 2000. The main thing is it always works. I despise seeing applications crash. Firefox seems less stable in Ubuntu than other platforms. If Dapper is rock-solid, I would much rather use it than OSX. If it is as buggy as Breezy, I'm likely to get a Mac.

OffHand
April 19th, 2006, 11:07 AM
I don't know. I kind of feel the two have different target audiences. I mean, sure, hackers will always love Macs because of the *nix-like base and all the little .plists they can modify, but for general (from total novice to "power user") users, the appeals of Mac OS X are totally different from the appeals of Ubuntu.

Mac is commercial applications, few configuration options, total GUI, slick interface, high price.

Ubuntu is mostly free (and Free) applications, many configuration options, mostly GUI with some command-line, pretty but not necessarily slick or tightly integrated interface, completely free.
It's not only 'hackers' that will love Macs but also people who work as a professional in graphic design and video editting. Nothing can beat a Mac with that, especially video editting. And even if it would, the standard in the industry is Mac (or Avid).

Edit: This whole 'vs' thing doesn't get us anywhere. Especially I don't see why we should take up the gloves against Mac. They can all learn things from each other and they all can be used for different goals.

aysiu
April 19th, 2006, 04:16 PM
It's not only 'hackers' that will love Macs but also people who work as a professional in graphic design and video editting. Nothing can beat a Mac with that, especially video editting. And even if it would, the standard in the industry is Mac (or Avid). That was my point--if you're not a hacker, you want commercial applications and such. My wife is a graphic designer and uses Mac and loves it. She'd be in pain using Inkscape and GIMP, I think.

fuscia
April 19th, 2006, 06:13 PM
That was my point--if you're not a hacker, you want commercial applications and such. My wife is a graphic designer and uses Mac and loves it. She'd be in pain using Inkscape and GIMP, I think.

will this still be true with intel macs? as i understand it, it was the nature of the ppc that made macs particularly useful for music and graphics (is that right?).

OffHand
April 19th, 2006, 06:24 PM
will this still be true with intel macs? as i understand it, it was the nature of the ppc that made macs particularly useful for music and graphics (is that right?).It's particulary useful it is very stable and usually doesn't crash. And there are some commercial applications that simply don't run on a PC (final cut pro and logic for instance).

qw3rty
April 19th, 2006, 08:07 PM
1. If I'm in Finder and press Cmd-Shift-A, the Applications window pops up--that's great. When I find the application I want and press Enter, it thinks I want to rename the application, not open it. How do I open that application with the keyboard? What's the point of having Cmd-Shift-A if you need the mouse to open an application?

Cmd-O opens the selected application or folder.


2. If I Cmd-Tab to a minimized application, it doesn't unminimize. What's up with that? Any way I can change that behavior?
Cmd-Tab switches between applications, it doesn't minimize or unminimize a window. Cmd-M minimizes a window in most applications, but to unminimize it you have to click on it in the dock or select it from the window menu. I see what you are saying but it makes sense not being able to unminimize it with a key command. If you had multiple windows minimized, which window would you want to be unminimized with the key commands.


3. Why, after going through a whole installation wizard from a .dmg do I still have to drag some file to the Applications folder--can't the wizard just put it there for me?
After going through an installation wizard, the application should be installed on your HD, usually in the Applications folder. If you just have to drag the application or folder to the Applications folder, that is all you have to do to install it.


4. This has been pointed out many times over already, but I still don't get why I drag a USB device to the trash to unmount it.
You don't have to drag it to the trash. You can right-click it and select eject, or select it and type CMD-E.


5. Sometimes if I'm trying to move an item, if I'm not selecting exactly the right area with my mouse, OS X thinks I'm trying to highlight multiple items.
You have to click on the icon or file name, not between the icon and file name, and if its a weird shaped icon clicking where the icon should be doesn't work, you have to click on it.


6. When OS X tries to tell you keyboard shortcuts, it doesn't tell you the names of the keys but uses funny symbols instead. How am I supposed to know what those symbols mean?
The only time I can think of them using a symbol instead of the name is the apple key or command key (same key), and both the symbols they use are on the key. If they said cmd key, a person new to Mac wouldn't be able to find it, so saying the apple key or using one of the 2 symbols to represent it makes sense.
http://www.seniorcomputerprimer.com/images/AppleKey.jpg

AlphaMack
April 19th, 2006, 08:15 PM
I'm preparing to move from OS X to Ubuntu. Care to guess my biggest problem yet?

No iTunes.

(snip)

You know there's also amaroK, right? I have it running in Ubuntu. That's the beauty of Ubuntu. You can mix and match KDE and GNOME apps while keeping your preferred environment.

aysiu
April 19th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Cmd-O opens the selected application or folder. Good to know. Thanks.



Cmd-Tab switches between applications, it doesn't minimize or unminimize a window. Cmd-M minimizes a window in most applications, but to unminimize it you have to click on it in the dock or select it from the window menu. I see what you are saying but it makes sense not being able to unminimize it with a key command. If you had multiple windows minimized, which window would you want to be unminimized with the key commands. Flimsy justification for a bad interface. If one command minimizes a window, there should be another to unminimize it.

Why would anyone Cmd-Tab to an application to not see what windows are open in it?



After going through an installation wizard, the application should be installed on your HD, usually in the Applications folder. If you just have to drag the application or folder to the Applications folder, that is all you have to do to install it. No, there are .dmg installers (most I've come across--Firefox, for example), where the wizard creates the icon within some white disk. You then have to open the white disk and drag that icon the the Applications folder to have it fully installed.



You don't have to drag it to the trash. You can right-click it and select eject, or select it and type CMD-E. Also good to know. Thanks again.



You have to click on the icon or file name, not between the icon and file name, and if its a weird shaped icon clicking where the icon should be doesn't work, you have to click on it. Yeah, I shouldn't have to work so hard at mouse precision. Again, don't excuse badly designed interfaces.



The only time I can think of them using a symbol instead of the name is the apple key or command key (same key), and both the symbols they use are on the key. If they said cmd key, a person new to Mac wouldn't be able to find it, so saying the apple key or using one of the 2 symbols to represent it makes sense. I don't know if separate Mac keyboards are different from laptop keyboards (my wife has a Powerbook), but on the Powerbook, the symbols are not all printed on every key (the Alt key, for example), and the symbols are kind of funny-looking: an empty arrow pointing up, two non-parallel horizontal lines converging to be parallel...? How am I supposed to know what those keys are? I usually end up finding out through trial and error.

Apparently, it depends on the keyboard. My wife has an external Apple keyboard and the Powerbook, and I just checked both, and there are no symbols. It looks as lot like this (http://www.spymac.com/upload/news/2005/09/27/m3261_Apple%20keyboard.jpg). Apparently, according to a Google search, though, there are keyboards that have the symbols on there--here's (http://www.raffaz.net/mac/prokeyboard.jpg) an example of one of those.

Compucore
April 19th, 2006, 08:27 PM
I can only speak for myself here. ANd I am just replying to this thread and your not attacking me personally on this. I have two older macs over here. But I also have two Nextstep workstation. I also tinkered with Sun Microsystems, I'm also setting up a SGI O2 for a friend of mine. For me an OS is an OS whether its OSX, Windows varient, Ubuntu linux Varient, Or a Unix Varient for that matter. Its a matter of choice for everyone. So long as it does it's job on a particular system for a particular user for a particular need. They all work well under what circumstances you need them for. For me I like Ubuntu right now because it fills a need that I need and use. Same with my windows 2000 pro fills aneed that I need to use that for any work in programming. I know for sure that OSX is just another Unix varient as well taken from freebsd if memory serve me right. Or it could be another linux like for the MAC before Apple took in the Intel Chip as its new CPU for their machines. Heck if I could I would install at a heartbeat Ubuntu on my 2 nextstep computers. But due to their age and not to blame ubuntu either its not possible and I understand that completely.

Compucore


Have you ever used a Mac ?

aysiu
April 19th, 2006, 08:28 PM
You know there's also amaroK, right? I have it running in Ubuntu. That's the beauty of Ubuntu. You can mix and match KDE and GNOME apps while keeping your preferred environment. AmaroK is a wonderful application, but it is not an iTunes substitute (nor is it intended to be).

I use iTunes (at work) and AmaroK (at home) extensively, and I love them each for different reasons.

AmaroK I love because it has global keyboard shortcuts and can fetch lyrics to songs.

iTunes I love because it integrates burning, ripping, organizing, tagging, and media player interacting.

I can't rate songs in AmaroK (something that appears to be like a rating, but I can't figure out how to use it) or change certain tags. AmaroK is just not iTunes.

qw3rty
April 19th, 2006, 08:37 PM
will this still be true with intel macs? as i understand it, it was the nature of the ppc that made macs particularly useful for music and graphics (is that right?).

It's the OS. When your using the computer, you can't tell what kind of processor is inside the computer, except that the new intels are faster.

Also you don't have to choose between Mac or Ubuntu. You can install both and dual boot. Just like you can dual boot between a Linux and Windows partition. And with the new Intel Macs you can install all three; OS X, Linux, and Windows.

prizrak
April 19th, 2006, 08:39 PM
It's not only 'hackers' that will love Macs but also people who work as a professional in graphic design and video editting. Nothing can beat a Mac with that, especially video editting. And even if it would, the standard in the industry is Mac (or Avid).

Edit: This whole 'vs' thing doesn't get us anywhere. Especially I don't see why we should take up the gloves against Mac. They can all learn things from each other and they all can be used for different goals.
That is a myth that has been debunked more times than I care to count. RISC architecture of the PPC CPU USED to be better at graphics intensive task than the "simple" CISC of the x86 family. However x86 has not been a true CISC in years, it uses a combination of two and has long caught up to Mac's in terms of graphics power. The issue is more along the lines of software, some of the software for OS X that deals with A/V stuff juts plain doesn't exist on Windows (source: a few mac using friends who did music).
SGI is still the best when it comes to professional graphics. In reality there is no point in a Mac anymore since the switch to the x86 platform has been made, you could buy better/more powerful hardware w/o an Apple on it.
To the point of this thread, very few people would go out and buy an OS. OS comes preloaded on your PC when you pick it up at Worst Buy, CompUSSR or Circuit ******. Linux usage on desktop is on par with OS X right now so there is hardly any need for Linux to try hard to compete with OS X.
To the end of eyecandy, I think that Ubuntu team should replace Metacity with Enlightenment and maybe tweak it a little to have sane defaults for new users. It looks good and it's not very resource intensive.

aysiu
April 19th, 2006, 08:45 PM
Worst Buy, CompUSSR or Circuit ****** I actually have nothing against these stores, but I found these names really funny. It's not like Winblows, *******, and Microshaft, which I see all the time on these forums.

qw3rty
April 19th, 2006, 08:50 PM
No, there are .dmg installers (most I've come across--Firefox, for example), where the wizard creates the icon within some white disk. You then have to open the white disk and drag that icon the the Applications folder to have it fully installed.
The .dmg is a disk image. When you open that, the image is mounted on the desktop. Inside the mounted disk is the application, but its not installed anywhere, you're just seeing it in the mounted disk image.


I don't know if separate Mac keyboards are different from laptop keyboards (my wife has a Powerbook), but on the Powerbook, the symbols are not all printed on every key (the Alt key, for example), and the symbols are kind of funny-looking: an empty arrow pointing up, two non-parallel horizontal lines converging to be parallel...? How am I supposed to know what those keys are? I usually end up finding out through trial and error.

Yeah, you're right. The up arrow is the shift key, btw. Now that I think about it, the delete key is sometimes symbolized by a arrow pointing to the left with an x inside of it.

aysiu
April 19th, 2006, 08:54 PM
The .dmg is a disk image. When you open that, the image is mounted on the desktop. Inside the mounted disk is the application, but its not installed anywhere, you're just seeing it in the mounted disk image. Thanks for the explanation (I didn't know that, actually), but from an end-user's standpoint, that seems rather an unnecessary extra step. It's the sort of thing that, if Linux distros did it, people would point as a reason why Linux "isn't user-friendly."

prizrak
April 19th, 2006, 09:17 PM
I actually have nothing against these stores, but I found these names really funny. It's not like Winblows, *******, and Microshaft, which I see all the time on these forums.
I knew people who worked in those places and the markups on some of the stuff you would not believe.

Wallakoala
April 19th, 2006, 11:00 PM
OSX is nice, but I am sorta against apple. I really don't like the way they control their customers. For example, why can't you just drag n' drop files onto your ipod? Why the hell do they make you go through a whole production just to put songs onto your ipod? If you are using osx, I believe that you HAVE to use itunes.

Also, I heard that in order to upgrade the ram on your mac mini, you have to open the thing up with a putty knife.

It is impossible to turn off dashboard. Even if you disable every widget, it still uses up resources. I remember on digg there was some special utility from this third party you had to download in order to rip dashboard from the operating system.

These things make me dislike apple, even though I have an ipod. I am thinking about installing ipodlinux or rockbox on my ipod.

aysiu
April 19th, 2006, 11:14 PM
OSX is nice, but I am sorta against apple. I really don't like the way they control their customers. For example, why can't you just drag n' drop files onto your ipod? Why the hell do they make you go through a whole production just to put songs onto your ipod? If you are using osx, I believe that you HAVE to use itunes. While they do lock you in, it's a bit the other way around. It's not that you have to use iTunes if you have OS X. It's that you have to use iTunes if you have an iPod in OS X.

My Sandisk MP3 player works just fine on my wife's Powerbook without iTunes. It shows up as a USB drive, and I can just drag and drop songs on to it.

henriquemaia
April 19th, 2006, 11:23 PM
Let Linux take my computer. That is enough for me.

Compucore
April 20th, 2006, 04:12 AM
I can agree with you on that too Prizak 1000%. I have seen it myself over here too in Canada. I had worked for one place that sold into the states at their satelite office over here. Its incredible sometimes at the pricess you see at what they cost to the company and what they are are selling it for. Again it also depends on what the thing is too. Even now. I was looking into some things here like complete computer systems to sell. And just clone wise for the basic systems. Its not worth it at all since anyone can create a basic system. From mom and pop stores to either one of us with our favorite motherboards and video cards. When I first saw this a number of years ago. Its like totally shock and it's like what the heck... Also it depends where your are geting it from. Like Micro Ingram, Tech Data are the two largest distribution centers that I know of that are selling in the states and in Canada. There are some smaller ones as well up here that prices are very similar for prices but not as much of a difference.

Compucore



I knew people who worked in those places and the markups on some of the stuff you would not believe.

reedlaw
April 20th, 2006, 04:50 AM
To the point of this thread, very few people would go out and buy an OS. OS comes preloaded on your PC when you pick it up at Worst Buy, CompUSSR or Circuit ******. Linux usage on desktop is on par with OS X right now so there is hardly any need for Linux to try hard to compete with OS X.

There was another comment about just running what works best for a particular task, which is fine for you and me and most computer whizzes. But we are not merely responsible for our own personal computer(s). We typically support a bunch of friends, neighbors, relatives, and are maybe even a few companies or organizations. That is the main point of this thread. I would never wish Ubuntu or any other OS to preclude any other OS's existence. I would like to see, however, an uber-OS that I can recommend to anyone and still use myself. I think Ubuntu is a very good candidate for this. But if it weren't for price, OSX would win. I have replaced many users defective Windows installations with Breezy, but if they want to buy a new machine I say get a Mac. Why? Because I typically never have to support a Mac user. Ubuntu users are a nuisance with their constant pleas to install media codecs and make their Word documents perfectly readable. I'd rather have a happy user and one less support burden than another Ubuntu convert. I don't blame Ubuntu for Word incompatibility, I'd rather teach users to use LaTex or PDF. But I do blame it when it is unstable or doesn't work in a production environment (such as a print server that often has to be restarted, sometimes due to Firefox in Linux' printing problems). That's not to say I don't hugely appreciate the work that's gone into it. I will always respect Ubuntu for that, but my decisions will have to remain rational.

prizrak
April 20th, 2006, 03:48 PM
There was another comment about just running what works best for a particular task, which is fine for you and me and most computer whizzes. But we are not merely responsible for our own personal computer(s). We typically support a bunch of friends, neighbors, relatives, and are maybe even a few companies or organizations. That is the main point of this thread. I would never wish Ubuntu or any other OS to preclude any other OS's existence. I would like to see, however, an uber-OS that I can recommend to anyone and still use myself. I think Ubuntu is a very good candidate for this. But if it weren't for price, OSX would win. I have replaced many users defective Windows installations with Breezy, but if they want to buy a new machine I say get a Mac. Why? Because I typically never have to support a Mac user. Ubuntu users are a nuisance with their constant pleas to install media codecs and make their Word documents perfectly readable. I'd rather have a happy user and one less support burden than another Ubuntu convert. I don't blame Ubuntu for Word incompatibility, I'd rather teach users to use LaTex or PDF. But I do blame it when it is unstable or doesn't work in a production environment (such as a print server that often has to be restarted, sometimes due to Firefox in Linux' printing problems). That's not to say I don't hugely appreciate the work that's gone into it. I will always respect Ubuntu for that, but my decisions will have to remain rational.
I see what you are saying, but if you think about it if you have someone preinstall Ubuntu (or any other Linux variant) on a computer and installs all the stuff OEM's normally put on a Windows machine for you there would be little reason for the users to bother you. The only thing would be adding hardware, like printers and such. I would agree for now though since there are very few places that will preinstall Linux for non business users OS X would be the better alternative for Windows.

xerman
May 4th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Where OSX fails, however, is its proprietariness and cost. In other words, OSX is closed-source and costs an arm and a leg. If OSX came out tomorrow for regular PC (not the hacked Intel version but a bona fide Windows competitor) and it cost the same (currently around $130 for the software, likely subsidized by the fact that it only runs on Mac hardware) I would buy it in a second and say goodbye to Ubuntu.
Besides updates to new versions cost also 130$. OSX is not an operating system, is a desktop interface, just like Gnome or KDE, on top of BSD and has Quarzt just as Gnome has Metacity-Gtk-Cairo or KDE has Qt and whatever.


How about a focus on rock-solid stability and great hardware interoperability.
OSX is not that rock solid even on **ple's HW. Freezes and Crashes happen more often than expected when you pay for a product. I don't get that level of unstability on Ubuntu. (Work every day with OSX,Win and Ubuntu, 90% of time on Ubuntu).
HW interoperability is better in Ubuntu. I own an iMac G3 that is usable in Ubuntu with an Ethernet-USB adapter that is recognized out of the box with UbuntuPPC. Never was able to use that in OSX (gave up after diggin internet for 14 months). I'm using Breezy PPC and Breezy AMD64.


Ubuntu's already got great hardware and USB peripheral support. Breezy was not as stable as I hoped, but let's hope Dapper beats it. Ubuntu also needs to speed up its interface and media playback. Why does the Windows GUI feel faster and have no problem playing back full-screen HD content? Maybe this is a video problem that is fixed in X 7.0, but I suspect it is also a Gnome-related issue. Next, focus on a silky-smooth user experience. No more media codec mess. No more crashes or perplexing error messages. Just a smooth ride from start to finish. What about patents you say? Get licenses for DVD, MP3, and whatever else average Joe wants and sell them at a reasonable price. Let's say $5 for a set of licenses that can be purchased over the web, or activated by a card with a scratch-off code.
As almost anything on DebianBased Distros, everything is Free as Open Source. If the policy is being free and just free software, the distro fulfills its commitments. Obviously it's easier for the end user have those codecs installed by default, but OSX doesn't have them either. Not all of them.


People can buy the cards as gifts and give them out with a Ubuntu CD. That way there is some onus of the gift-receiver that the giver has at least paid for his gift. Most people don't understand free software and do not appreciate it when you try to "give" it to them. Not only that, but I detest giving Ubuntu to those who then turn around and expect me to be their never-ending source of free support.
Spreading an OS is a decission. If you go and tell your friends to use it you cannot think you just drop the stone and leave it on the grass hoping it will be covered by leaves instantly. When you give an OS to anyone you must asume your responsability in such a fact. Mainly think that this one is Open Source and the system and apps are developed by common people.
Besides, Open Software is available as is, with no support. Certain projects have bug tracking, and they would never be available whithout helping hands from people all over the world. Don't expect people who develope for fun or just because they want to support you in any way. There are already companies that offer that support at a fee. If you don't want to help the ones you give the OS, give them the phone of that companies.


How about a community driven online help center where Ubuntu certified professionals can ssh or vnc into users' machines and fix whatever problems they have for a nominal fee? I already constantly use these tools to help the people I have installed Ubuntu for. I tell them if you need help, call me during my office hours and I will fix your problem over the phone. If we could have this same service performed by a network of qualified people think of how easily Ubuntu would be accepted by businesses and other institutions that know about the ease and quality of Ubuntu support.

There are already companies that offer that support, at least that is what I remember read in the ubuntu site.

If you give someone a fishing rod, don't expect him to eat fish unless you teach him/her how to use that appliance.

towsonu2003
May 4th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Am I alone in not having seen any hint of such an effort?[to dumb-down ubuntu like Windows]
I'm taking you didn't see Dapper's little warning baloons, update notifications, and tooltips that pop up from everywhere (up, down, sides) like angry ants? I mean, the tooltips (which cannot be turned off due to a bug) are so crazy, they appear on top of each other.

Pcmikepl
May 5th, 2006, 03:48 AM
I've completely switched from windows to ubuntu and i have noticed this: Store-Bought Windows XP w/SP1 is snappier and faster on ANY computer than ubuntu 5.10. This really bugs me, but after 2 weeks of web surfing the tables turn.

Now if ubuntu wanted to even try to compete with Mac we would have to develop a verison of iLife, a cleaner, more simple interface (who uses more than one desktop?), and a built-in verison of wine that works with almost everything.

Now all this is possible but OSS people can not standarize and use common tools- for example see how many media players there are for ubuntu.

And I have used Mac before and let me say-its beautiful as a rose but the interface is the thorns.

BoyOfDestiny
May 5th, 2006, 05:24 AM
I've completely switched from windows to ubuntu and i have noticed this: Store-Bought Windows XP w/SP1 is snappier and faster on ANY computer than ubuntu 5.10. This really bugs me, but after 2 weeks of web surfing the tables turn.

Now if ubuntu wanted to even try to compete with Mac we would have to develop a verison of iLife, a cleaner, more simple interface (who uses more than one desktop?), and a built-in verison of wine that works with almost everything.

Now all this is possible but OSS people can not standarize and use common tools- for example see how many media players there are for ubuntu.

And I have used Mac before and let me say-its beautiful as a rose but the interface is the thorns.

Try Dapper. I agree Breezy was a little sluggish (still quick though) IMHO.

You don't want multiple desktops? Try right clicking, choose "remove from panel", there gone. Also, what is an iLife?

Built in version of wine? It's an apt-get away, and not everyone's goal is to run windows software.

There are no common tools?
What's the gcc, alsa, sdl, etc? What is the gstreamer framework? Multiple players means there is choice.
Some may share the same base or be based on one another. Some maybe be using the same libraries.
Your example, is a bad example. If you mean that something built elswhere won't run everywhere, they are working on it with the LSB (Linux Standard Base).

Anyway, Ubuntu comes with Totem and rythmbox (if you have all the gstreamer backend stuff installed [which isn't included out of the box due to legal reasons!]) you can play any of the formats that gstreamer supports... That seems pretty unified to me, and gstreamer apps will the get the benefit. You can even change the backends to use xine... I mean there are so many interoperating parts to choose from...
I can only see something impressive here. Having one player would be lame. Out of the box is one thing, but everywhere? I hope they wouldn't charge extra for fullscreen playback...

3rdalbum
May 5th, 2006, 05:37 AM
OSX is nice, but I am sorta against apple. I really don't like the way they control their customers. For example, why can't you just drag n' drop files onto your ipod?

Amen! My father and I have been complaining about that one for years. It basically precludes anyone from using a new iPod on Linux, BSD, OS 9 or an earlier version of OS X; or from loading songs onto their iPod from a public/school computer where users don't have the ability to install software.

Admittedly, all hard disk MP3 players do it, and a couple of flash-based players do too (nice one, Creative </sarcasm>).

And while I'm on the subject of having to install extra software, is it no longer possible for digital camera manufacturers to have their products mountable using standard mass storage drivers? Why reinvent the wheel?

Pcmikepl
May 5th, 2006, 03:09 PM
Wah- chill down, I am not saying ubuntu sucks- in fully running linux only on all my pcs. I am just saying that if I wanted to edit video I would have to boot into windows or get a mac (ya ive tried cinelerra and kino, but they are eather too complex with to little features and intergration or that they cant multitrack) also if i wanted to produce a DVD photoslideshow, i have to go into command line- is that really "user friendly"? and iPod support is good and all but how come rthymbox isnt able to fully wourk with it like gtkpod, scence the libs are there and the heavy lifting is done. The media player problem- ya i do agree on choise but we should perfect AT LEAST one video player. Totem is close and VLC is in second place on the linux forfront. It just bugs me when whe have 20 different media players and still no fully workable video editor. Now if anyone says just use cinelerra, look at the interface and the setup of it, for a beginner and compare that to iMovie that comes with the mac.

And also to add im not saying that multiple desktops should be removed- just disabled by defult- it really confuses beginners and makes then harder to ajust. And i do turn it off- on EVERY pc i use/used because i really like the idea of it but its to trublesome.

BoyOfDestiny
May 5th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Wah- chill down, I am not saying ubuntu sucks- in fully running linux only on all my pcs. I am just saying that if I wanted to edit video I would have to boot into windows or get a mac (ya ive tried cinelerra and kino, but they are eather too complex with to little features and intergration or that they cant multitrack) also if i wanted to produce a DVD photoslideshow, i have to go into command line- is that really "user friendly"? and iPod support is good and all but how come rthymbox isnt able to fully wourk with it like gtkpod, scence the libs are there and the heavy lifting is done. The media player problem- ya i do agree on choise but we should perfect AT LEAST one video player. Totem is close and VLC is in second place on the linux forfront. It just bugs me when whe have 20 different media players and still no fully workable video editor. Now if anyone says just use cinelerra, look at the interface and the setup of it, for a beginner and compare that to iMovie that comes with the mac.

And also to add im not saying that multiple desktops should be removed- just disabled by defult- it really confuses beginners and makes then harder to ajust. And i do turn it off- on EVERY pc i use/used because i really like the idea of it but its to trublesome.

Well, I didn't see anything about editing video... I've heard good things about these two apps:
http://pitivi.sourceforge.net/
http://www.diva-project.org/

Sorry I got carried away, I thought you were just talking about playback...

As for interfaces and features, sometimes it doesn't hurt to file a bug report or make a feature request. That's one of the perks of open source :)

For dvd slideshows (they are using the command line prog as a base, I haven't tried 'em, just found them on google)

http://slcreator.sourceforge.net/
http://dvd-baker.sourceforge.net/

I guess with virtual desktops, people (in my experience) just haven't used it. As far as they know it's just 4 little boxes in the corner...

Anyway, I hope in time you'll have all the tools you need. It's getting there slowly but surely. :)

RR1991
May 5th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Mac will take over windows when they'll release software for i386. To bad linux did never achieved it, but every year I see more and more people using it, linux is really growing, but that will not compare to what mac will do.

BoyOfDestiny
May 5th, 2006, 04:53 PM
Mac will take over windows when they'll release software for i386. To bad linux did never achieved it, but every year I see more and more people using it, linux is really growing, but that will not compare to what mac will do.

Not really. They already made it for x86. They just limit you to running it on their hardware with DRM. There has been no word of them releasing OS X to install everywhere (would be interesting though).

Plenty of people complain about running Windows software under Linux. There is no wine yet for OS X (or maybe there is now? correct me if I'm wrong.) They'd run into the same snag either way, have to support a greater variety of hardware, plus there is a large price tag.

They have also taken steps to allow windows to run on their machines along with OS X... I dunno...

So I just plain disagree, since this is based on the "if" OS X is relased for generic PCs...

confused57
May 5th, 2006, 07:25 PM
This is probably old news to most:

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14195324

Ptero-4
May 26th, 2006, 06:02 AM
In my opinion, the linux GUI front (critical for user-friendlyness) can't yet compete with OSX. The OSX gui is quite inflexible (Yes, I use it every day so I talk from experience), but for linux to beat it they have to make a desktop that is simple, use the GTK2 toolkit (the bulk of the OSS apps use that toolkit), and have ALL of GUI functions and features that OS9 have (a real Mac menubar, the corner bar from OS9, spring loaded folders, color labels, capacity of using a user-defined name for the "/" drive instead of "FileSystem", etc) plus the drop shadows, transparencyes and eye-candy stuff from Xorg/Xgl. Currently that is something that haven't been achieved and by the looks of the developpers of the diferent DE's it seems that it won't happen. We got KDE which isn't simple and doesn't use gtk2, we got gnome, simple, gtk2 based, but doesn't fullfill the MacOS 9 look and feel (don't have a real, functional Mac-like menubar, the panel cannot be used as the OS9 corner bar, no color labels or spring loaded folders in Nautilus, etc), and Xfce, well, simple, gtk2-based, but it was designed to resemble the OLD CDE from solaris.
Now if the gnome development team implemented the missing Mac features (if we're looking to compete with Mac we need our DE to be able to do ALL the things and OPERATE THE SAME WAY MacOS does to play on the same advantage), Ubuntu began using a filesystem layout similar to the OSX one (/System, /Library, /Applications, etc instead of /usr, /bin, /proc, /mnt, etc), and had gensplash (for all three supported architectures), graphical yaboot/elilo (on PPC/x86 Macs). It would certainly kick some serious butt, but until then, OSX keeps in the lead.

warp99
May 26th, 2006, 08:06 AM
OS comes preloaded on your PC when you pick it up at Worst Buy, CompUSSR or Circuit ******.

We call in Beast Buy here in the midwest. :mrgreen:

RAV TUX
May 26th, 2006, 09:00 AM
I found OS X very disappointing, I wouldn't pay money for such an OS.

I would say that Ubuntu is better then OS X , and wiped MSN a long time ago.

abhitux
May 30th, 2006, 12:49 PM
This has been an interesting discussion here.

Long time ago, I loved the Mac OS for it's cool looks or it's sole visual appeal. It just seemed to be "invincible". However, I didn't discover Linux at that time and was stuck with Windows.

Mac's make their own hardware damned expensive. In India at least, it would be accessible to a few. Then the kind of RAM they put in is anemic. One has to cough up more. With paltry tech support (and payments to extend it), meant that I better avoid it if I had to pay for the "service engineer" coming from another city to tinker with it. I am speaking of real issues here.

Each version of Mac OS hardware seemed to be "5x times" faster than the previous one. First it was the g3 and then the power PC architecture and now the Intel dual cores. Whatever. This too pissed me off because it made the choice for owning the hardware all the more difficult. There was no mention about the support to older architecture/ older versions of software. If assuming that I owned a Classic Mac OS (9) and didn't want to upgrade to say Tiger, would the old one be supported for updates? No answer forthcoming.

It may be good for graphic designers (I am not), but well, how do you rate the practicality in real life? Most of the apps for Mac OS are shareware versions, which again means that for me in my country, using this would be a heck. Piracy is bad enough and in my opinion, someone who has spent resources to create something needs to be compensated for the same.

I got a cheap computer assembled (AMD), loaded up 256K RAM (this is what I could afford) and it is serving me great. I can change any component out of the box and Ubuntu recognises it straight away. It just works. Once the hardware has bottomed out on the prices, I pick it up and have it installed. Did that for a writer and then for a DVD player. In Apple, I'd have to contend with expensive hardware upgrades (if at all).

Hence, I value the freedom that comes with Linux. No lock in. Indeed, I am trying to have Mac OS style icons installed in Gnome (once I have time), just for the looks. It may not be the real thing, but I wanted to have Mac OS just for the appeal isnt it?

Overall, Mac OS may be good for certain tasks, certain people. The dapper release has made the experience even better.

MenZa
May 30th, 2006, 02:40 PM
Where OSX fails, however, is its proprietariness and cost.

The price isn't too bad; $130 if I recall correctly.

Oh yeah, the Aqua interface is proprietary. The actual operating system is not (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html) (the Intel version is.)

az
May 30th, 2006, 02:50 PM
The price isn't too bad; $130 if I recall correctly.
But even "freeware" is proprietairy.




Oh yeah, the Aqua interface is proprietary. The actual operating system is not (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html) (the Intel version is.)

OSX is based on open source stuff, but it is *not* free-libre software. You would have to be able to get the sourcecode for it and be allowed to change it and redistribute the changed application. You may have some of those rights with Darwin, but certainly not with any compenent of OSX.

aysiu
May 30th, 2006, 04:01 PM
The price isn't too bad; $130 if I recall correctly. Because once you pay the $130, you can install it on any cheap PC you have lying around, right?

B0rsuk
May 30th, 2006, 05:23 PM
To the topic starter: Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer would be proud of you. This way of thinking has been always very close to them: instead of making your product stand out, destroy the competition.

G Morgan
May 31st, 2006, 12:32 AM
This is probably old news to most:

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14195324

From that article.

"Mac OS X, he said, is designed to be Internet safe out of the box, without the need for firewalls or additional security software. He praised Mac OS X for making it easy for users to automatically install security patches."

No firewalls. Is it useful for people to be talking such crap. All machines on an open network will need a firewall. For people to suggest otherwise is just nonsense.

Anyway, Macs aren't worth the price they set. I can get an equally powerful PC a fair bit cheaper which I can then pocket since I run Ubuntu so don't need an OS.

By providing the whole package, Macs should be cheaper. They clearly aren't. Also for 90% of people Mac's are just a waste of resources. A lot of people would be happy on an 800 Mhz forget dual core processors.

Also I wouldn't buy a Mac because I prefer AMD chips. If Apple went for AMD instead of Intel they would have got a cheaper deal also the AMD dual core processors are simply superior due to the way the processors are linked together (or bottlenecked together in the case of Intel).

Kung!!
June 16th, 2006, 09:52 PM
I tried to log in under my old username, but either I'm an idiot and forgot it, or something like that. LOL


OSX is nice, but I am sorta against apple. I really don't like the way they control their customers. For example, why can't you just drag n' drop files onto your ipod? Why the hell do they make you go through a whole production just to put songs onto your ipod? If you are using osx, I believe that you HAVE to use itunes.

No, you don't have to use iTunes; and as far as dragging and dropping files onto your iPod, it can be done. Not all that easy, but it can be done. As to exactly how, I'll have to tell you once I get home :razz: because I'm at work, and can't multitask. Hee hee.


Also, I heard that in order to upgrade the ram on your mac mini, you have to open the thing up with a putty knife.

True, you do have to use a putty knife - or other thin tool, because of the way it's built; but if someone's adept with tools, it can be done. Not all that hard.


It is impossible to turn off dashboard. Even if you disable every widget, it still uses up resources. I remember on digg there was some special utility from this third party you had to download in order to rip dashboard from the operating system.

From Macworld (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2005/08/disabledashboard/index.php):

1. Bring up terminal.
2. Type defaults write com.apple.dashboard mcx-disabled -boolean YES
3. Type killall Dock
4. You are done. If you hit F12, nothing happens, except for a *doink* noise. It frees up quite a bit of memory, actually.

If you wish to bring it back, you'd follow the same instructions, except you just replace the YES with NO in step 2.


These things make me dislike apple, even though I have an ipod. I am thinking about installing ipodlinux or rockbox on my ipod.

Well, in all honesty, I'm not sure if I would count those huge 'problems.' I definitely understand your point of view, and I even agree to a degree. However, I've found the same to be the case with regular old PCs. Point in case: EVERY time I set up a Dell PC for someone (I'm an independent contractor on the side), I have to remove an enormous amount of software that Dell puts on there in the hopes that a regular old user (who has NO clue of how to tweak their PC) will use their software/hardware products, and their suggested associates' software - and ONLY that software/hardware.

In other words, Apple's not doing anything different than any other computer maker is doing. True, they do produce hardware, software, accessories, dongles and the like, and it's not always terribly easy to tweak stuff, but it can be done - and I find myself not wanting to tweak QUITE as much on my Mac (I just bought one, after having used PCs for years - and I've tried every flavor of *nix out there, including Ubuntu, which I think ROCKS).

As to your Rockbox/iPodlinux thoughts, if I were you, I'd probably lean towards iPodlinux. I've tried rockbox, and while it is EXTREMELY configurable, it is not AT ALL user friendly. If you have no problem with spending a LONG time tweaking your iPod, then fantastic.

Kung!!
June 16th, 2006, 09:58 PM
No firewalls. Is it useful for people to be talking such crap. All machines on an open network will need a firewall. For people to suggest otherwise is just nonsense.

I completely agree.....I don't care WHAT OS someone runs on their PC/Mac; telling someone "Aah, you don't need a firewall" is like telling a skydiver "Aah, you don't really need that backup chute."


Anyway, Macs aren't worth the price they set. I can get an equally powerful PC a fair bit cheaper which I can then pocket since I run Ubuntu so don't need an OS.[/quite]

Well, it depends upon how you look @ it. I have to admit that, from a purely financial point of view, Linux would be the cheapest. But for someone who wants/needs some tech support, OS X is, IMHO, no more expensive than a PC, because I can say for a fact that there are things that you can do out-of-the-box with OS X that you often can't do with many Windows PC's. For instance, burn DVD's, construct DECENT movies (with iDVD), author music (with GarageBand), and the like. To do the same with Windows, you'd have to buy that software for 100's of $, and by the time you do so, you've just spent as much as you have for a Mac.

That being said, the same tools for Linux are free; so if you are a true geek and like hacking around, like I do, I'm all for Linux. The only reason I bought a Mac are because

a) I want to be able to do some desktop publishing,
b) my PC was going kablooie,
c) I DON'T like messing around with spyware/adware/viruses - I do that enough on my work PC, and most importantly,
d) being as I use it at home as a work PC, I *NEED* professional tech support in a hurry, should the need arise.

[quote]By providing the whole package, Macs should be cheaper. They clearly aren't. Also for 90% of people Mac's are just a waste of resources. A lot of people would be happy on an 800 Mhz forget dual core processors.

Can't argue with you one bit there - I do think they should be cheaper - and I REALLY wish Apple had a way to use AMD chips. *nod*

Rick 1
June 17th, 2006, 08:42 PM
why all the effort at making Ubuntu as dumbed-down an dull as Windows? Why not make a true OSX competitor that could beat both OSX and Windows? That would truely be the OS of the future that could topple the Redmond giant.
You're not going to do that with either of the big Linux desktops. The tools don't have the chops, to put it simply.

You need something like what Steve Jobs has. Fortunately today those tools are readily available. Unfortunately no one seems interested in pursuing it. I am but I don't think many others are.

But you're right: it's all in perception. And in the ability to develop software. Neither GNOME nor KDE have what it takes - not from looks, not from functionality, and not from potential.

And that is exactly what is holding this show back. I've written to MS about this but who knows if he ever saw the message.

dareofficer
June 17th, 2006, 09:01 PM
I have used Mac's for years. I still like the Mac OSX system. However I have just recentley got into Linux. I have moved my main machine to Linux. Ubuntu, to me is the best after looking at many different ones. I will still keep one Mac Machine for digital video editing, I use Final Cut Pro. No dought Linux can do video editing, but for now I will stick to the Mac. If I could only have one machine I would keep Linux.

Citizen Kane:-P

poofyhairguy
June 17th, 2006, 09:50 PM
You need something like what Steve Jobs has.

A hardware platform with finite possibilities making much easier to develop for? Linux can't have that.

Nobody should make the mistake that Apple or Steve is magic. What gives OSX its power is that it only has to work on Apple machines- the "experiance" is controlled from top to bottom! If OSX had to work on the x86 wasteland like Linux and Windows do then it too would be held back. Just like with both these OSes, all the development time that Apple now spends on fun stuff (Spotlight, Dashboard, Quartz Compositor, etc.) would be spent on drivers and kludges to make sleep work on machines with broken ACPIs.

patrick295767
June 17th, 2006, 10:17 PM
A Mac!!! ](*,) #-o :-#

For me, the best OS's are MAC OS X, LINUX, and Unix.

We cant say that Mac OS X is not great. It has lot of good things.
I have one Mac OS X tiger too, and this guy is aimt for Working.
(Office stuffs)
There is no Adobe products in Linux :-(
Nothing better than Adobe Illustrator & Photoshop according to me and for my purpose/work.

abhitux
June 18th, 2006, 04:32 AM
There can be no last word on the Mac OS debate here. It's about the apps that work. Someone who is used to Photoshop would have a marginal earning curve to learn GIMP. For that matter any other application which is used routinely in the Windows world.

No wonder, most of the apps in Linux (and indeed KDE) give a very "windowish" look. Now there is a clamour to port applications to give it a "MacOsish" look and fucntionality. Give or take, can we really have a unique KDEish/ GNOMEish/XFCEish" look, to mention a few examples?

Mac OS is a hyped product. I haven't really used the versions after Classic MaC OS 9 though. What I heard was that the applications used to crash, the system used to hang and the Tiger is basically trumped up version of Jaguar. Or rather a Mac OS with a service pack? This is hearsay and I have had no means of confirming it.

As one of the members here posted about the Apple iPod. Is it really that good? Apart from the "looks" and dead pan menu, I couldn't find any reason to pay the extra premium to it. Battery life is a big hassle and so are the scratches. Plus, the proprietary locked in format that Apple pod plays the music which makes it useless to share it with others; there is no cross platform compatibility. This is something that I would factor in before putting down my hard earned money. Though, it's done a great deal of good for Apple's stock and perked up people's interest.

One more thing and indeed surprised that no one mentioned here. Apple is in the same league as Linux as far as gaming is concerned. Well, almost. How many games have been ported to Mac? And how is the playability? I was a gaming freak till recently and the demands of my profession have butchered my passion. Still, gaming is almost next to nil. Linux could easily play the works if the drivers are ported with native development for Linux. That would be a real Microsoft killer to a great extent.

On the whole, I believe its about coexisting with the other OS's. We cannot take over redmond even if it is a sinking ship. Apple Mac OS would slowly increase it's market share and each one would find something that suits him/ her needs.

Iandefor
June 18th, 2006, 06:32 AM
But even "freeware" is proprietairy. Which is beside the point. Since the rest of his response directly addresses the Freedom of OS X, it would seem like it would be obvious he was responding to the "Cost" part of the statement "Where OSX fails, however, is its proprietariness and cost."

You obviously can't be referring to OS X when you say freeware, because OS X is far from freeware- it costs $130 for a single copy. Since you make mention of no other software, it can only be assumed you mean freeware in general.

From Wikipedia:

The only criterion for being classified as "freeware" is that the software must be made available for use for an unlimited time at no cost. The software license may impose other restrictions that limit the user's freedom.

Freeware is defined by its' cost. Nothing else. Ergo, Freeware is not necessarily proprietary.

What do you mean, and how does it tie into MenZa noting that OS X costs $130?

joshu
June 18th, 2006, 08:43 AM
(...) why all the effort at making Ubuntu as dumbed-down an dull as Windows? Why not make a true OSX competitor that could beat both OSX and Windows? (...)
Let's focus on what Ubuntu can do to become the best OS on the planet. Any ideas, comments, or criticisms, please reply here.

Let me tell you up front: I'm shopping for the perfect Open Source solution. And I won't be happy until my machines are running the best OS on the planet...:D

I'm currently running Mac OS X on a beautiful PowerBook G4, Dapper Drake (dual boot with XP, but I use Dapper), and OpenSuSE 10.1. I plan to play with Gentoo, Yellow Dog, Knoppix and OpenBSD in the near future. Used to play with Red Hat and Mandrake in the past.

Although I have some reservations about ubuntu (it's "not there yet"), I have a sense that it has the greatest potential of the linux distros. It has shown a fabulous growth curve, a solid business plan, and a consistent and attractive philosophy. Humanity to others - what a beautiful contrast to Microsoft and Apple!

But I believe that ubuntu is living below its potential. It's being held back not by internal limitations, but by outside factors. Ubuntu, as I see it, has two millstones around its neck: Gnome and KDE.

Gnome/KDE are just not cutting it. Not as a development environment, and not as a user desktop either.
Thanks to the efforts of countless talented people Gnome and KDE are now as good as they can get. Unfortunately, that's not good enough. Not by a long shot. Gnome/KDE are maxed out. The flaws they exhibit point toward incurable conditions in the heart of their design.

So, when you talk about making ubuntu the best OS on the planet, I'm thinking, ubuntu may already be the best OS - except for the GUI/Desktop.

Surely that can be fixed?

Remember NeXTSTEP? Back in 1992/93/94? OpenStep? The NeXTStep (NeXTcube) machine on which Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web? Detachable and movable (sub)menus? Tabbed docks? A rocket of a development platform, cutting the time for developing new applications in half, or down to a third, or less. No wonder the www was first invented on a NeXTcube.

So what happened? I'm a bit hazy on it, this is ancient history, after all. But it seems that corporate greed killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. NeXTStep/OpenStep was sold (out). OpenStep went to Sun Microsystems, and then got mothballed. The programming language in which NeXTStep was written was locked up with patents. And NeXTStep was sold to Apple, where it was transmogrified, homogenized and pasteurized into Aqua and Cocoa, or so the story goes.

GNUStep, AfterStep, et al have been working on reviving the legendary NeXTStep. To no avail, as far as I can tell. Not enough resources, not enough community support. Just sort of dabbling in it.

But if you wanted to create the world's best OS, you'd also need the world's best GUI/desktop. Right?

paullinux
June 18th, 2006, 09:10 AM
As for someone who is particularly interested in a 'better desktop experience" I must say that my ImacG5's OSX is by far the most polished layout there is at the moment. Even the error messages (they don't appear much by the way) have a nice look. That said I must say that if you are interested in GUI-changing OSX is a pain in the ***!! It does not allow much changing or it is very difficult to do.
Ubuntu comes with a build in GUI-customize feature. With some clever tricks and enough phantasy you can do allot. But it does miss decent and stable build-in-3D-experiences like OSX has. I have not tried Compiz and Xgl yet (this 900Mhz AMD can't handle much) but it seems not stable enough at this time to be a competitor for OSX.
Do not forget that the 'Apple experience' is only there because of hard- and software that are especially designed for this purpose. This is something a stand-alone operating system will never be able to do, because of the hardware-dependency involved. Look at the Aero-Vista requirements for that matter... So making Ubuntu OSX-like will effectively limit it's range because of the hardware-needs. And since Ubuntu is all about democratising the computer-experience (read: make it available for all sorts of computers ) I do no think this will ever work. Perhaps different versions of ubuntu (Aero-ubuntu, Ubuntu-premium...., Ubuntu basic...)(Sorry for the simularity..) would allow an OSX-version of Ubuntu.

joshu
June 18th, 2006, 10:22 AM
As for someone who is particularly interested in a 'better desktop experience" I must say that my ImacG5's OSX is by far the most polished layout there is at the moment.
(...) Do not forget that the 'Apple experience' is only there because of hard- and software that are especially designed for this purpose. (...)
So making Ubuntu OSX-like will effectively limit it's range because of the hardware-needs.

I'm not aiming to make Ubuntu OS X like. Not at all. This is not a covert push for Apple. Far from it, this is borne out of frustration with Apple.
I'm trying to explore the feasibility of combining the brilliance, and the best, of the old NeXTStep with the new Ubuntu.
Don't forget that the old NeXT/OpenStep concept was that it should run on any platform, i86, apple, Sun, and so on.
The idea is to avoid hardware lock-in like the plague, and to provide the best possible GUI for development and end users.
Others have way more technical knowledge that I do in this field. But I watched this video from 1992:
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A&search=steve%20jobs
and I realized that Apple has been selling us a bill of goods. What you see is NeXTStep in action, more powerful and configurable and platform independent than anything Apple produced 10 years later, or to this day.
Again, others know more about the details, the workings under the hood, so to speak. I'm just wondering how open the Ubuntu community is to considering a better GUI.

AlphaMack
June 18th, 2006, 10:27 AM
I must say that if you are interested in GUI-changing OSX is a pain in the ***!! It does not allow much changing or it is very difficult to do.

Somewhat true. That is if you're talking about theming and changing the UI around. I personally use SmoothStripes from Max Themes (http://www.maxthemes.com/) as I personally cannot stand the brush metal and the excessive pinstriping. Then again, many themes come from packages or require additional third party infrastructure (e.g. Themechanger).

Many 'hidden' features of OS X can be either activated or altered by invoking the defaults command. I highly recommend CLIX (http://www.rixstep.com/4/0/clix/index.shtml) for navigating through the different kinds of commands you can use with OS X if you don't want to remember off the top of your head. For instance, you can enable Dock icon transparency to mark hidden apps, prevent .DS_Store files from ever appearing on a network, or pin the Dock to a particular corner.

AlphaMack
June 18th, 2006, 10:37 AM
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A&search=steve%20jobs


I've seen this video in the past as well. While NeXT did engage in hardware lock-in at first, they quickly found out the hard way that it was best to release it for x86. But you also have to remember what else NeXTSTEP ran on. Hence, it was portable by design. Apple knew all along about this yet chose to stick to their marginalized method. We're only seeing OSx86 now because IBM dropped Apple like a hot potato. IBM doesn't have time to cater to 2% of the desktop market when the money is in gaming systems.

If Apple were to release OS X to the masses on generic x86, of course it would be a mess, but not because of hardware support as NeXTSTEP was clearly capable of running on different architectures. OS X is a hodgepodge of leftover classic Mac OS poo wired into a mutant of NS in order to cater to the 'Maccie' crowd who refused to accept anything less than the misery that was OS 9. Rick 1 can better explain this than I can. ;)

Steve Jobs hasn't learned his lesson. Hardware lock-in isn't the way to go. NeXT had to liquidate their hardware line. How long do you suppose that Apple can remain profitable with their hardware? Never mind the fact that they rely on their own user base to stay in business.