What can Linux do that Mac OS X can't?

[Sephoroth]

I have been having a debate with someone that has been going on for a while and their argument seems to often be leading to what can be done in Linux that can't be done in Mac OS X. They don't seem to care about price, open source or the ability to modify things at a source code level but instead seem to wish to focus on professional-level programs.

Does anyone here use or know of any such professional programs available for Linux?

One I've mentioned so far is Autodesk's IFFFS.

[LaRoza]

Linux doesn't legally restrict you to what hardware you can use it on.

No matter how good OS X is, it is not an option.

[phoenix_snake]

I can't think of anything sorry for desktop use that is...lol. Most of the good open source apps are on Mac OS X and they in many cases work better on other platforms then they do in linux for example in my experience firefox 3 for linux wasn't as good as Mac OS X.

This is just my opinion though, free and being able to modify doesn't matter to regular people, I mean why would a regular person care if u can modify it right? Regular people ain't programmers.

My favorite OS is Mac OS X :)

[LaRoza]

This is just my opinion though, free and being able to modify doesn't matter to regular people, I mean why would a regular person care if u can modify it right? Regular people ain't programmers.

Regular people have no need for expensive proprietary software. Regular people don't want to worry about their legal media not working, now or in the future.

Regular people don't want to worry about legal talk.

[zmjjmz]

Compiz is another one. Oh, and customization.
The one thing I don't understand about OS X advocates is that OS X dominance would give a complete monopoly to Apple in both the hardware and software market.
I mean, having one OS is already ridiculous, but no choice in hardware? Seriously?

[blakjesus]

Well then that's an unfair debate; some of the best points of Linux is that its free, everything is modifiable, and the software is made by people in the "real" computer world and not just a bunch of software programmers trapped in a box (proprietary software does have its disadvantages)

Oh and here's a little extra: You can install it legally on anything. You dont have to buy an overpriced MAC computer

[Icehuck]

Compiz is another one. Oh, and customization.
The one thing I don't understand about OS X advocates is that OS X dominance would give a complete monopoly to Apple in both the hardware and software market.
I mean, having one OS is already ridiculous, but no choice in hardware? Seriously?

Apple is a hardware company first and software company second.

[phoenix_snake]

Regular people have no need for expensive proprietary software. Regular people don't want to worry about their legal media not working, now or in the future.

Regular people don't want to worry about legal talk.

if u want to argue over my opinion fine, regular people like quality software, lets compare with openoffice with lets say iWorks or GIMP with photoshop or maybe linux has a final cut studio equivalent.

besides, I can easily say regular people have no need for open source software either. why won't their legal media not work, isn't it linux in fact for which in the USA most codecs are illegal or something?

[LaRoza]

if u want to argue over my opinion fine, regular people like quality software, lets compare with openoffice with lets say iWorks or GIMP with photoshop or maybe linux has a final cut studio equivalent.

Regular people don't want the software to get in the way. It is only because of the choices of companies, not consumers, are proprietary operating systems common with regular users.



besides, I can easily say regular people have no need for open source software either. why won't their legal media not work, isn't it linux in fact for which in the USA most codecs are illegal or something?

I can't address that because I am not sure what you are saying. No one has gotten in any sort of trouble in the USA for using those codecs and even Windows and OS X users often use them.

[bash]

What can Linux do that Mac OS X can't?

Have endless discussions about what window manager is best ;)

[estyles]

What can Linux do that Mac OS X can't?

Right-click. :p

[master5o1]

Compiz is another one. Oh, and customization.
The one thing I don't understand about OS X advocates is that OS X dominance would give a complete monopoly to Apple in both the hardware and software market.
I mean, having one OS is already ridiculous, but no choice in hardware? Seriously?

Exactly:

When I had Gutsy, I had experimented with several docks (kiba, awn, etc), I had experimented with lots of different themes (emerald+gtk...) and I had experimented with different Beryl/Compiz Fusion plugins.

The only way I could is by the ease to customise my system.

[x0as]

Right-click. :p

Do people really still believe that?

[Frak]

I think OS X can do just about everything Linux can do, and a little more.

It is (loosely) based on BSD, which has nearly full Linux compat.

EDIT
1. OS X (macs) have had the ability to right click for the past 10 years. Apple didn't make 2+ button mice until 5 years ago. This was done for interface design purposes. It is easier for a user to use an application where all of the options are at hand. They switched mainly for applications that required two button mice, such as games.
2. You can buy hardware for Macs (Power Mac and Mac Pro)
OWC Mac store (http://www.macsales.com/)

[jimi_hendrix]

well people on linux tend to change their desktop background over mac users who keep the default one normally

[cardinals_fan]

1. OS X (macs) have had the ability to right click for the past 10 years. Apple didn't make 2+ button mice until 5 years ago. This was done for interface design purposes. It is easier for a user to use an application where all of the options are at hand. They switched mainly for applications that required two button mice, such as games.

Have they started including them with the new machines? Paying over $1000 for a new box and then having to buy a new mouse just for another measly button seems ridiculous to me.

[SunnyRabbiera]

For me Linux surpasses OSX for many reasons:
1: you can legally install it on any computer you wish
2: it is free to burn and redistribute
3: Linux development is faster then apples
4: you dont have a big huge corrupt company looking over your shoulders.
5: Linux can be customized a lot easier
6: Linux has a great community
8: hey what happened to 7?
9: there is no 9

[earthpigg]

i would say the premis of the argument is flawed.

if, after all the pros and cons of each are measured, your buddies realize that non of the pros of linux matter to them and that non of the cons of apple matter to them... ok, fine.

tell your buddies to enjoy their overpriced hardware while you, in turn, end up with more beer money at the end of the day.

[KiwiNZ]

As I right click on my iMac ... hmmm oh I just didnt do that , coz I cant.:)

Of course you can right click in OSX


Right-click. :p

[KiwiNZ]

incorrect

The mouse that was in my Imac box right clicks


Have they started including them with the new machines? Paying over $1000 for a new box and then having to buy a new mouse just for another measly button seems ridiculous to me.

[cardinals_fan]

incorrect

The mouse that was in my Imac box right clicks
It was an honest question, not sarcasm. I wasn't sure if Apple included two button mice. It's good to know that they do.

[Frak]

Have they started including them with the new machines? Paying over $1000 for a new box and then having to buy a new mouse just for another measly button seems ridiculous to me.
They have since the late iMac G4 (2003) models.

[LaRoza]

It was an honest question, not sarcasm. I wasn't sure if Apple included two button mice. It's good to know that they do.

Yes, you get an iMouse.

[KiwiNZ]

I apologise I was flippant

Its just as FUD about Linux annoys me , FUD about Macs annoys me




It was an honest question, not sarcasm. I wasn't sure if Apple included two button mice. It's good to know that they do.

[jimi_hendrix]

i still dont see 2 buttons on their laptops though

[gletob]

Well then that's an unfair debate; some of the best points of Linux is that its free, everything is modifiable, and the software is made by people in the "real" computer world and not just a bunch of software programmers trapped in a box (proprietary software does have its disadvantages)

Oh and here's a little extra: You can install it legally on anything. You dont have to buy an overpriced MAC computer

Installing on non apple hardware breaks the OS X EULA

[Frak]

i still dont see 2 buttons on their laptops though
Nope, still have to Cmd + Click to get right menu, but in a way, I like it that way. The Macbooks weren't made to do the things the desktops were, so they can still enforce the interface guidline on there. (The developers can't just disregard the laptop users to please the desktop ones.)

[x0as]

i still dont see 2 buttons on their laptops though

Better not look at the new ones, they haven't got any buttons :lolflag:


Nope, still have to Cmd + Click to get right menu, but in a way, I like it that way. T

Or tap the touchpad with 2 fingers.

[nerd0795]

Don't take this seriously lol.

Have a more complicated kernal panic.

Mac kernal panics are just like a shut down screen.

Where linux is alot of numbers :/ and assembly programming (I think)

[KiwiNZ]

Dont they have pressure points to actuate Right click , left click like the Mightymouse ?

I may well be wrong , actually likely to be wrong



Nope, still have to Cmd + Click to get right menu, but in a way, I like it that way. The Macbooks weren't made to do the things the desktops were, so they can still enforce the interface guidline on there. (The developers can't just disregard the laptop users to please the desktop ones.)

[zmjjmz]

2. You can buy hardware for Macs (Power Mac and Mac Pro)
OWC Mac store (http://www.macsales.com/)

I meant actual computers, i.e. I can't get a Mac netbook and quite frankly the iPhone/iPod Touch sucks for an MID because of the interface and restrictions.

[Frak]

Dont they have pressure points to actuate Right click , left click like the Mightymouse ?

I may well be wrong , actually likely to be wrong
I've owned a Macbook for 2 years now, and I JUST now learned about the two finger trick.

The click-bar (whatever it's called) is only left click.

[KiwiNZ]

This is from the Apple site for the new macbooks

"
Hey, where’s the button?

The amazing new trackpad doubles as a button — just press down anywhere and consider it clicked. No separate button means there’s 39 percent more room for your fingers to move on the silky glass surface. Now that Multi-Touch gestures have come to MacBook, all the function is in your fingers. Use two fingers to scroll up and down a page. Pinch to zoom in and out. Swipe with three fingers to flip through your photo libraries. Rotate to adjust an image with your fingertips. Using the new four-finger swipe gesture, swipe up or down to access Exposé modes and left or right to switch between open applications. If you’re coming from a right-click world, you can right-click with two fingers or configure a right-click area on the trackpad. The more you use the Multi-Touch trackpad, the more you’ll wonder what you ever did without it.

[zmjjmz]

I've owned a Macbook for 2 years now, and I JUST now learned about the two finger trick.

The click-bar (whatever it's called) is only left click.

Said trick doesn't work on Linux D:

[Frak]

This is from the Apple site for the new macbooks

"
Hey, where’s the button?

The amazing new trackpad doubles as a button — just press down anywhere and consider it clicked. No separate button means there’s 39 percent more room for your fingers to move on the silky glass surface. Now that Multi-Touch gestures have come to MacBook, all the function is in your fingers. Use two fingers to scroll up and down a page. Pinch to zoom in and out. Swipe with three fingers to flip through your photo libraries. Rotate to adjust an image with your fingertips. Using the new four-finger swipe gesture, swipe up or down to access Exposé modes and left or right to switch between open applications. If you’re coming from a right-click world, you can right-click with two fingers or configure a right-click area on the trackpad. The more you use the Multi-Touch trackpad, the more you’ll wonder what you ever did without it.
This is where my ignorance interjects...

I don't read something until I need it, then I feel like a fool for taking the long way around :P

[KiwiNZ]

This is where my ignorance interjects...

I don't read something until I need it, then I feel like a fool for taking the long way around :P


hahaha

i am geek , I admit it , I am always reading about new toys

[LaRoza]

This is from the Apple site for the new macbooks


Apple is known for their support: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2466?viewlocale=en_US

[Sephoroth]

Thanks for all of the replies. Most of it I have already mentioned though :/. I found it funny that I when I brought up CF again as software Macs can't run I was shown a picture of someone running Mac4Lin.

[Half-Left]

OS X has one good player(iTunes) and even that your locked into their music dictated by Apple and you get a crappy 30 second preview.

Get a real music service like Linux music players have (Amarok2/Rhythmbox) that has superb Megnatune and Jamendo integration. Mac OS X is just a bad platform, people say Linux is not good for gaming, it's a damn site more better than OS X.

[MaxIBoy]

OS X is rigidly locked and un-customizable. You have to look at that same old terrible theme, with that same old annoying dock, and it's a major pain in the neck to change it.
http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html
In general, they sacrificed usability for good first impressions; they threw in their own corporate branding at every turn; the interface is different just for the sake of being different (bad thing,) and they hid all their advanced options. I'd excuse that, if only it was possible to change, but it's not.

Modularity is one of the great things that results from using UNIX as a base, and they threw it out the window. Inconceivably stupid.

From what I can tell, advanced options are hidden in OS X. This made sense at the time, because they were/are desperate for market share. The advantage of a small set of simple options is that a beginner can soon figure out how to use the system. The disadvantage is that even a power user is forever tied to the level of a beginner.


Said trick doesn't work on Linux D:

I bet you it's an xorg option.

[Frak]

OS X is rigidly locked and un-customizable. You have to look at that same old terrible theme, with that same old annoying dock, and it's a major pain in the neck to change it.
http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html
In general, they sacrificed usability for good first impressions; they threw in their own corporate branding at every turn; the interface is different just for the sake of being different (bad thing,) and they hid all their advanced options. I'd excuse that, if only it was possible to change, but it's not.

Modularity is one of the great things that results from using UNIX as a base, and they threw it out the window. Inconceivably stupid.

From what I can tell, advanced options are hidden in OS X. This made sense at the time, because they were/are desperate for market share. The advantage of a small set of simple options is that a beginner can soon figure out how to use the system. The disadvantage is that even a power user is forever tied to the level of a beginner.



I bet you it's an xorg option.
Replace Apple with Gnome.

And it isn't an Xorg option.

[earthpigg]

Apple is known for their support: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2466?viewlocale=en_US

thank you for that outstanding find.

i rated that article 5 stars.

[SpenceMakesSense]

Right-click. :p

I for one find that absolutely hysterical

[MaxIBoy]

Replace Apple with Gnome.

Only partly, and only by default. Gnome tends to follow conventions very well, instead of being different for the sake of it. Gnome is customizable, I've run a very usable Gnome layout with six panels before (one top, one bottom, one auto-hide on left, one not-auto-hide on left, one auto-hide on right, one not-auto-hide on right. I don't run that layout anymore because I no longer need to have that much information readily accessible.) Or you can run it with no panels at all, that works too. With OS X, you're stuck with the same old layout.

I do agree that too many advanced options are hidden in GNOME, but at least GNOME doesn't hide the terminal the way OS X does.

[bp1509]

d

[KiwiNZ]

Lets keep this adult please , take arguments elsewhere

[Can+~]

...
http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html
...

Great read. I remember installing AWN twice, both times the same thing happened:

1. I configure the dock until it's usable.
2. Fill it with icons.
3. Later, proceed to do other stuff, sometimes triggering accidentally the dock, reconfiguring it.
4. Repeat 3.
5. After a day, the eye-candy loses effect, and I just remove the whole thing and go back to my gnome-panel.

Now that I'm past Docks, I can only ask what are they for, rather than plain eye-candy? I mean, Compiz-fusion is eyecandy too, but some effects are really useful (magnifier, wall, "scale")

[MaxIBoy]

Not to mention wobbly windows. If the windows actually have physics to them, I find I can connect better to them at a deep, primitive, reptile-brain level.

[cardinals_fan]

Not to mention wobbly windows. If the windows actually have physics to them, I find I can connect better to them at a deep, primitive, reptile-brain level.
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to let my window manager handle all the touchy-feely connecting with my windows. Hence the tiling window manager.

[KiwiNZ]

Incorrect

The terminal takes about 2.5 seconds to find

The desktop is changeable

The dock can be located at choice , sized , hidden etc etc etc



Only partly, and only by default. Gnome tends to follow conventions very well, instead of being different for the sake of it. Gnome is customizable, I've run a very usable Gnome layout with six panels before (one top, one bottom, one auto-hide on left, one not-auto-hide on left, one auto-hide on right, one not-auto-hide on right. I don't run that layout anymore because I no longer need to have that much information readily accessible.) Or you can run it with no panels at all, that works too. With OS X, you're stuck with the same old layout.

I do agree that too many advanced options are hidden in GNOME, but at least GNOME doesn't hide the terminal the way OS X does.

[Koori23]

change themes for free..

If there's a way to do this.. I've never heard of it.

[MaxIBoy]

Incorrect

The terminal takes about 2.5 seconds to find

The desktop is changeable

The dock can be located at choice , sized , hidden etc etc etc
You can find the terminal if you know it's there, but that doesn't constitute "un-hidden" in my book. In GNOME, during the course of ordinary use, you bump into the terminal fairly quickly. I think that's a good thing. You may never realize how useful it is if you don't even know its there. I will readily admit that GNOME needs to take that further and put more things into the default menu layout.


Since when did I say you can't change the desktop background in OS X? I've never said such a thing in my entire life.

The dock can be moved, sized, and hidden. That still doesn't make it usable. It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, if you'll excuse the cliché.

[KiwiNZ]

My 8 year old niece could find the Terminal on my mac in 3 seconds :)

please advise how the dock is 'unusable' in OSX as it is pretty usable on my machine

I said "desktop is changeable" not the back ground , this was in response to "With OS X, you're stuck with the same old layout. "




You can find the terminal if you know it's there, but that doesn't constitute "un-hidden" in my book. In GNOME, during the course of ordinary use, you bump into the terminal fairly quickly. I think that's a good thing.


Since when did I say you can't change the desktop background in OS X? I've never said such a thing in my entire life.

The dock can be moved, sized, and hidden. That still doesn't make it usable. It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, if you'll excuse the cliché.

[Frak]

You can find the terminal if you know it's there, but that doesn't constitute "un-hidden" in my book. In GNOME, during the course of ordinary use, you bump into the terminal fairly quickly. I think that's a good thing. You may never realize how useful it is if you don't even know its there. I will readily admit that GNOME needs to take that further and put more things into the default menu layout.


Since when did I say you can't change the desktop background in OS X? I've never said such a thing in my entire life.

The dock can be moved, sized, and hidden. That still doesn't make it usable. It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, if you'll excuse the cliché.
Applications->Utilities->Terminal

The Terminal is a Utility, therefore, it is in Utilities. The disk utility isn't inside the Applications folder for a reason; it is a utility.

As for the dock, I find it useful. It's quite a handy tool if you take time to work it into your routine.

[KiwiNZ]

I will also ask again

Please give sensible observations regarding OSX and Linux and DO NOT indulge in FUD

As we here hate FUD about Linux ,

[LaRoza]

please advise how the dock is 'unusable' in OSX as it is pretty usable on my machine


All interfaces are learned. OS X's interface has to be learned, and it isn't like most interfaces. I am most comfortable with a tiling WM. I can use a Windows/GNOME/KDE setup without much trouble, although I don't like them. I found OS X confusing because I was unfamiliar with it.

So to a Linux/Windows user, OS X's interface is probably not as usable.

[MaxIBoy]

There's a difference between find and discover. Anything as useful as the Terminal should be right in your face so you will try it and learn it.

The dock is unusable because it has way less information in way more space. I will once again refer you this article:
http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html
Which sums up my opinions nicely.

GNOME-Panel can be configured to make the same design mistakes. Take a look at the default layout for Zenwalk GNOME.

[KiwiNZ]

Applications->Utilities->Terminal

The Terminal is a Utility, therefore, it is in Utilities. The disk utility isn't inside the Applications folder for a reason; it is a utility.

As for the dock, I find it useful. It's quite a handy tool if you take time to work it into your routine.


And if you use the terminal all the time you can add to the Dock , and presto its there all the time :)

[Frak]

And if you use the terminal all the time you can add to the Dock , and presto its there all the time :)
I have iTerm (http://iterm.sourceforge.net/) in my dock. It mixes what makes UNIX powerful with what makes OS X so popular. It's the multimedia terminal :P

[akiratheoni]

I had used my friend's MacBook for about maybe five minutes and I was able to find the terminal quite easily, so it's not THAT hidden.

I like Macs and I would get one if I can save up the money (for now I just have my EeePC) but I prefer Linux over it. I'm not really a fan of the dock; I used AWN for awhile but I always find myself going back to Openbox and away from GNOME or KDE.

[MaxIBoy]

What if the cruise control on a car took the form of a few wires behind a panel of the car, with some spare toggle switches, a screwdriver, and a soldering iron velcroed to the dasboard. It's easy enough to unscrew the panel and solder the toggle switches to the wires, but only if you know the wires are there. The analogy doesn't hold too well, because it's MUCH easier to drag and drop to the dock than it is to solder toggle switches, but you see what I mean.

Ideally, you can see the cruise control even it you've never heard of cruise control before, and it's plainly labeled so you'll be able to find out what it's for.

[hanzomon4]

Hahaha LOL!!!!!! to Maxiboy's comment about power users being forever tied to the level of a beginner in OS X. Listen, I can do all of the same power tricks in OS X that I do in Ubuntu. If you are a power user the terminal is your friend. You can not say that OS X lacks the tools for power users. Superficals? Attack away.

However kde 4 brings full support for OS X so apps like Amorak 2 can run on OS X. Gnome already runs. OS X only loses in the areas of price and freedom

[cardinals_fan]

@MaxIBoy: I'm not a fan of OS X, but it can be customized if you know what you're doing. It's very possible to compile/install dwm or almost any other window manager. And there's always darwinports...

[MaxIBoy]

OS X isn't designed specifically with that in mind, Cardinals. GNOME/KDE/Xfce/*box can happily coexist on the same computer (and I do in fact have such a setup on both of my computers.) I'm sure that's possible under OS X, but it requires third party software which Apple makes no effort to promote.

[cardinals_fan]

OS X isn't designed specifically with that in mind, Cardinals. GNOME/KDE/Xfce/*box can happily coexist on the same computer (and I do in fact have such a setup on both of my computers.) I'm sure that's possible under OS X, but it requires third party software which Apple makes no effort to promote.
I don't much care what the designers promote, so long as I have the choice. OS X holds no advantages to me, which is why I don't use it, but I could if I had to.

[MaxIBoy]

The reason I'm so sore about this is that I periodically do have to use it. Use anything for long enough, and the flaws make themselves abundantly clear.

[KiwiNZ]

The reason I'm so sore about this is that I periodically do have to use it. Use anything for long enough, and the flaws make themselves abundantly clear.

All OS's , Apple , Windows , Ubuntu All OS's have flaws.

[MaxIBoy]

This is a thread about what is better in Linux than OS X.

Start a thread called "What can OS X do that Linux can't" and I'll be a regular poster there too.

[KiwiNZ]

This is a thread about what is better in Linux than OS X.

Start a thread called "What can OS X do that Linux can't" and I'll be a regular poster there too.


Please do not Troll

[MaxIBoy]

Evidently, something I just said qualifies as trolling. If I start trolling, I need to be notified.

With every intention of knowing what I did wrong so I will know what not do do again, what was wrong with what I said?

[patrickballeux]

Without having much experience with OSX, I would say that Linux have these advantages:

1 - Upgrading to the next major release is free
2 - The update via Synaptic updates all your softwares
3 - For power users, it's a dream come true...
4 - Better for software developpment
5 - Better as a "Whatever" server
6 - Can install on a variaty of hardwares (low and high specs)
7 - Update cycle is short and fast
8 - Can be as simple or as complicated as you want
9 - Gives you the choice of your GUI (Gnome, KDE, other...)

Of course, that does not mean that OSX is bad because it does not have those "features", but for me, Linux (Ubuntu) is a winner...

//Start Rant!
And, I am kind of tired of that Photoshop argument against Linux. The problem is not that Linux can't run Photoshop, it's just that it's not available... The day that Adobe will make it available, what will OSX user say?

Look at Flash 10, released the same day for Windows, OSX and Linux...

And are OSX user doing antything else than Photoshop? It seems like they're all Photoshop power user and don't do anything else... :) (I know it's not true, but it feels like that when you read a flame war between OSX and Linux...)
//Stop Rant!

Anyway, both are good, it all depends on what are your needs... I would love to see that GarageBand software, seems like a nice piece of software for music...

Have a nice day!

[MaxIBoy]

//Start Rant!
And, I am kind of tired of that Photoshop argument against Linux. The problem is not that Linux can't run Photoshop, it's just that it's not available... The day that Adobe will make it available, what will OSX user say?

Look at Flash 10, released the same day for Windows, OSX and Linux...

And are OSX user doing antything else than Photoshop? It seems like they're all Photoshop power user and don't do anything else... :) (I know it's not true, but it feels like that when you read a flame war between OSX and Linux...)
//Stop Rant!

Just this very evening, I got a free copy of Adobe CS3 from this old lady who'd been "meaning" to give it to me for months now, but had constantly forgotten. Attached to the bag was this note:


Sorry I forgot to double-check with you, but this is for Mac. That's what you have, right?

Windows programs I can run, OS X programs I can't. I just got a box fulla coasters.


So apparantly, not only are all Mac users good with Photoshop, all Photoshop users have Macs.

[KiwiNZ]

I am a Mac / Windows / Linux ( Ubuntu) user , I am also a Photographer , I do not use Adobe Photoshop on any of them , Generalizations are risky statements

[MaxIBoy]

You may find this (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irony) instructive.


I don't mean to be rude, but have you any sense of humor at all?

[Canis familiaris]

Run in my self assembled PC legally, period. So No OSX for me.

[beniwtv]

[rant mode on]

Hmm... using a Mac at my office for "professional work". OSX can't do:

1. You can't install every Unix app out there easily. Take for example Glade, which I use to design interfaces for GTK+, you have to install it from "Macports" or Fink, which then relies on X11 and does not integrate to the system cleanly anyway. Yay! So much for the excellent "Unix compatibility". At least I would expect X11 being integrated into the system, so I can run X11 apps. And some things do not even compile.

2. Have the entire GUI (except the dock) *NOT* freeze every morning for a couple of seconds when opening 3 apps at one. I can do that with Linux.

3. Have SSH nicely integrated into Finder. I often need to edit files on remote servers, and Nautilus browses them well. Why can't they do that in Finder? Also FTP is missing (at least on Tiger).

4). Have a decent terminal. Sorry guys, but the terminal is unusable for me in OSX. (Don't get me started on this one)

5. Have a decent multi-user system. Doing a "open ." in a terminal (which is logged in as "root") and opening that on my GUI (which is logged in as "beni") just doesn't seems right.

6. What about multiple users logged into the same machine remotely at once and having a *different* session?

7. Why oh why does "StuffIt Expander" exist? God... If I want to extract the file then I tell you. Just don't do it yourself - I just need to view the contents. Any why does it extract the "gz" part of a tar.gz and leave me with a .tar?!?!

8. Has anyone tried to compile FreeRadius with MySQL support? Good luck. (Though this may have changed on Leopard).

9. Terminal services? Anyone?

10. Where's the "Send To" menu? This is an inconvenience quite big for me. I often want to send files or entire folders via bluetooth, email, or MSN. I can do all 3 in Nautilus quite easily, from the context menu of the file or folder I need.

11. I much prefer Deskbar over Spotlight.

12. I stop it here, but you get the idea...
[rant mode off]

Sorry for the rant, but you asked what I don't like :)

In my opinion, Mac is a good OS - don't get me wrong. It may well serve for casual home users, or even artists.

But for a professional systems administrator and developer like I am, it just doesn't cut it. And it probably never will, because it's not intended for that. I just wish my boss would know :(

Cheers,

[MasterNetra]

For the average consumer Ubuntu would be perfect. Sense the average consumer really just needs to access the internet and to use a word program. Ubuntu handles that and is free. And as seen with dell, computers with Ubuntu pre-installed are much cheaper then with windows or mac (of course most are cheaper then macs anyway :P) sense your not paying for a over-priced OS.

Granted my needs atm are more then such sense my college classes do require the use of CS3 and Autodesk's 3Ds Max 2008. Though i hear wine now may be able to handle photoshop...but still doesn't do 3Ds max (at least not 2008 and above). I'm sure the people doing wine will get there though. :)

[bp1509]

d

[youngalfred]

I bet you it's an xorg option.
Don't know about that, but the two finger scroll on macs is. Doesn't work well though :(

[Erunno]

4 - Better for software developpment

I strongly disagree with that. There's no equivalent of the so-called "Core" frameworks in the Linux world which ease the development of applications due to a clean design and excellent documentation. Even the dreaded ancient QuickTime framework is being rewritten to better fit into the later core technologies. Plus, Apple has some interesting sounding new frameworks in the pipeline like Grand Central (parallelising of algorithms) and OpenCL which is meant to abstract the access to the graphics hardware for non-graphics computation.

[Frak]

But for a professional systems administrator and developer like I am, it just doesn't cut it. And it probably never will, because it's not intended for that. I just wish my boss would know :(

Cheers,

I like the Administration tools in OS X Server. It makes things twice as easy (You can record a workflow and have it repeat itself upon certain criterion.) As for programming, Xcode is the best I've ever found, and it uses GCC, so it still is in tune with Linux development. If you're talking about Interface design, it's quick and easy IMHO.

EDIT
Forgot about the frameworks. I've found no equivalent on Linux.

[Ub1476]

Open bug-tracking, all-in-one system/software update, endless customizing (not only theme but the kernel and much more), basically first out to support (open) standards, and probably something more I can't think of...

What I think OS X is better at? Font hinting.

[Frak]

(not only theme but the kernel and much more)

XNU Kernel source code. (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.3.2/)
You can theme OS X if you know what you're doing, much by the use of APE. Also, Mac supports 32-bit color, something Linux doesn't. (32-bit is just a bunch more alpha channels IIRC).

[lykwydchykyn]

I would never be interested in running a Mac. It really comes down to software freedom. There are two kinds of Linux users, mainly: those who get FOSS, and those who just like a Unixy OS (or any alternative to Windows) and don't really get the FOSS thing.

"Getting FOSS" has nothing to do with being a programmer or computer geek. It has to do with understanding how licensing limitations affect your use of software in the long term. FOSS doesn't always result in slick interfaces or pretty icons, but it does ensure that your use of the software won't be restricted somehow.

I "got FOSS" after repeatedly running into situations where my need to use software was restricted by the developer's license, or where software I used was "discontinued" because it no longer served the developer's profit model.

I can accept flaws or limitations of a technical nature, but it irks me when I hit a wall that is just an arbitrary limitation of the license. Or when I encounter engineered incompatibilities intended to force me to upgrade.

I guess it's something that's hard to appreciate if you haven't used free software for a long period of time and also experienced some of these things with proprietary software.

[patrickballeux]

I strongly disagree with that. There's no equivalent of the so-called "Core" frameworks in the Linux world which ease the development of applications due to a clean design and excellent documentation. Even the dreaded ancient QuickTime framework is being rewritten to better fit into the later core technologies. Plus, Apple has some interesting sounding new frameworks in the pipeline like Grand Central (parallelising of algorithms) and OpenCL which is meant to abstract the access to the graphics hardware for non-graphics computation.

What I meant was I can develop in what ever I want quite easily: C, C++, Python, Perl, Java, C# (Mono), PHP, PSP, Ruby, etc... All the tools are available simply by selecting the needed tools in the repositories.

Have a nice day
About the Core framework, it seems really interesting but for Macs only. In Linux, code is often targeted for portability between all differents OS (Win,Linux and OSX).

There are some "frameworks" depending on the plateform you selected and the language. In Mono or Java, you have a rich and easy way of producing nice softwares. For more power, there are tons of libraries to use in C++. Overall, you have the choice of how you want to build the software.

The "Core" framework is just another framework like .NET or Java but dedicated to OSX, and is probably the best to develop OSX software.

[aysiu]

Well are some things I can do in Linux that I can't in OS X:

1. Show/hide hidden files and folders without using the terminal
2. Alt-Tab-restore minimized applications
3. Alt-F10-maximize windows
4. Install and maintain all my applications through a centralized repository (yes, I know about Fink and DarwinPorts - no comparison to native apps installed through a package manager)
5. Resize windows from any corner
6. Change themes with a few clicks and no additional software installation
7. Have unique keyboard shortcuts for launching any application or command
8. Install as many copies of the operating system on as many computers as I want without violating the EULA
9. Rename with F2 and launch or open with Enter (instead of rename with Enter and launch or open with Cmd-O)
10. Delete with the delete key instead of Cmd-Delete
11. Not eject a drive if I drag it over the trash icon
12. Have the command sudo fdisk -l work
13. Install easily and get working updates on a non-Apple computer

[Half-Left]

I am a Mac / Windows / Linux ( Ubuntu) user , I am also a Photographer , I do not use Adobe Photoshop on any of them , Generalizations are risky statements

Isn't it a must for admins to use all OS's to make them look neutral, seriously since when can a admin look biased and use one OS. :p

you can hate OS's even though you use them, dont make you any more balanced, just give the impression of that.

[KiwiNZ]

I actually dont hate any OS's , umm with the possible exception of Windows ME

Its horses for courses , each have their role and client base.

As a System Builder (my business) and an IT Manager ( my employment) I need to know them all .



Isn't it a must for admins to use all OS's to make them look neutral, seriously since when can a admin look biased and use one OS. :p

you can hate OS's even though you use them, dont make you any more balanced, just give the impression of that.

[aysiu]

I actually dont hate any OS's , umm with the possible exception of Windows ME

Its horses for courses , each have their role and client base. Exactly the same here. Windows ME was a piece of garbage I wouldn't wish on anyone. Other than that, use what works for you. There are many things I like about OS X. I just prefer to use Ubuntu.

[EnGorDiaz]

well for a start i think linux is much more stable and better os than mac

more software
no proprietary crap (im really tired)
one thing i thank apple for is gimp

[hanzomon4]

well for a start i think linux is much more stable and better os than mac

more software
no proprietary crap (im really tired)
one thing i thank apple for is gimp

I hear a lot about Linux stability but I've found Ubuntu to be quiet frail. I could just plug an external montior into my laptop and watch it die. It's so bad that it makes using the system seem ridiculously harder then OSX/Windows

[MaxIBoy]

one thing i thank apple for is gimp

...what?


I'm sure Apple would prefer it greatly if the GIMP would dissappear. The existence of the GIMP makes it easier to do advanced graphics work under Linux, and Apple doesn't like that.

[KiwiNZ]

The Gimp and Mac go well together

http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/

Apple list it on their site

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/gimp.html

[LaRoza]

I get a new inexpensive computer, the Dell 910. I could put Linux on it, Windows but not OS X.

OS X can't be installed on a modern computer that Linux and Windows can run on. That is one thing OS X can't do. It is a pity it is by design.

If I want a small portable computer with OS X, I have to get one with one USB port (Dell 910 has three USB ports, ethernet, VGA, and a media card reader) and spend much more money.

[jimi_hendrix]

If I want a small portable computer with OS X, I have to get one with one USB port (Dell 910 has three USB ports, ethernet, VGA, and a media card reader) and spend much more money.

or an expensive macbook air and have to lug around a cd drive and stuff for everything...

OT: just installed ubuntu on a friends machine today...he uses a mac and seemed to like ubuntu a lot

[Frak]

Exactly the same here. Windows ME was a piece of garbage I wouldn't wish on anyone. Other than that, use what works for you. There are many things I like about OS X. I just prefer to use Ubuntu.
I hate FUD, and ME, and McDonald's Bacon Cheeseburgers... they're massive evil within 2 hours.

[LaRoza]

or an expensive macbook air and have to lug around a cd drive and stuff for everything...


Yes, I was describing the Air :-)

The lack of a CD drive isn't a problem. Optical drives will be obsolete soon. Right now, music (barely), videos (barely) and software (proprietary...) is what keeps them alive.

It is the one USB port and lack of everything else that is a problem. Not to mention its lack of customisation.

[Frak]

...what?


I'm sure Apple would prefer it greatly if the GIMP would dissappear. The existence of the GIMP makes it easier to do advanced graphics work under Linux, and Apple doesn't like that.

As long as Apple has a user-share/market-share, they're happy. Adobe is just a partner, not a selling buddy.


well for a start i think linux is much more stable and better os than mac

more software
no proprietary crap (im really tired)
one thing i thank apple for is gimp

1. Anything that can be run on Linux can run on OS X
2. Parts of OS X are fully open source (list (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html)) and there is software for Linux that is proprietary.
3. Do what?
4. I can't seem to break OS X without removing a system file.


Yes, I was describing the Air :-)

The lack of a CD drive isn't a problem. Optical drives will be obsolete soon. Right now, music (barely), videos (barely) and software (proprietary...) is what keeps them alive.

It is the one USB port and lack of everything else that is a problem. Not to mention its lack of customisation.

True dat.

[kaldor]

Mac is too restrictive.

In Linux, you can do virtually anything to fit your needs.


Even so, I love Macs just as much as Linux :)

[phoenix_snake]

I get a new inexpensive computer, the Dell 910. I could put Linux on it, Windows but not OS X.


This isn't OS X's fault, Apple makes the hardware and software, thats how they work. Since its Apple's software they decide the hardware it runs on. Besides it might actually run OS X illegally if you want.



OS X can't be installed on a modern computer that Linux and Windows can run on. That is one thing OS X can't do. It is a pity it is by design.


Modern Computer? The Macbook, iMac, Mac Pro aren't modern?



If I want a small portable computer with OS X, I have to get one with one USB port (Dell 910 has three USB ports, ethernet, VGA, and a media card reader) and spend much more money.
[/Quote]

Again this doesn't have anything to do with what OS X can or can't do, you are just don't like the choice of products Apple offers with OS X.

I hear they might offer a $800 notebook soon, but this last point really has nothing to do with what OS X can do.

[cardinals_fan]

This isn't OS X's fault, Apple makes the hardware and software, thats how they work. Since its Apple's software they decide the hardware it runs on. Besides it might actually run OS X illegally if you want.

OS X won't run legally on LaRoza's computer. That seems like a very valid thing that Linux can do and OS X can't.

[MaxIBoy]

Modern Computer? The Macbook, iMac, Mac Pro aren't modern?
They don't come close to comparing with a watercooled full ATX tower with four quad-core CPUs overclocked to 3.5 Ghz, 16 Gb RAM, 8 SSDs in a RAID 10, and a set of four overclocked Radeon HD 4870 x2 cards in CrossFire, all running with ultra-quiet pumps and radiators.
*Pauses to stare wistfully out the window...*
Macintoshes aren't bad, but they're certainly not top-of-the-line.

Linux could handle such a mad beast. OS X could not.

[Frak]

They don't come close to comparing with a watercooled full ATX tower with four quad-core CPUs overclocked to 3.5 Ghz, 16 Gb RAM, 8 SSDs in a RAID 10, and a set of four overclocked Radeon HD 4870 x2 cards in CrossFire, all running with ultra-quiet pumps and radiators.
*Pauses to stare wistfully out the window...*
Macintoshes aren't bad, but they're certainly not top-of-the-line.

Linux could handle such a mad beast. OS X could not.
Read my sig.

OS X runs the best on it. Also, my PowerMac G5's are Liquid Cooled (provided courtesy of Apple) and phase-change cooled (also, privided courtesy of Apple for my 4Ghz Dual PPC)

EDIT
And my liquid cooled XServe with 2 Xeons that match my Mac Pro along with 1 8800 and 1 CUDA.

[jimi_hendrix]

OS X won't run legally on LaRoza's computer. That seems like a very valid thing that Linux can do and OS X can't.

shes borg she will just assimilate it?

[KiwiNZ]

They don't come close to comparing with a watercooled full ATX tower with four quad-core CPUs overclocked to 3.5 Ghz, 16 Gb RAM, 8 SSDs in a RAID 10, and a set of four overclocked Radeon HD 4870 x2 cards in CrossFire, all running with ultra-quiet pumps and radiators.
*Pauses to stare wistfully out the window...*
Macintoshes aren't bad, but they're certainly not top-of-the-line.

Linux could handle such a mad beast. OS X could not.

An ATX tower is not a Note book

[PCessna]

I have been having a debate with someone that has been going on for a while and their argument seems to often be leading to what can be done in Linux that can't be done in Mac OS X. They don't seem to care about price, open source or the ability to modify things at a source code level but instead seem to wish to focus on professional-level programs.

Does anyone here use or know of any such professional programs available for Linux?

One I've mentioned so far is Autodesk's IFFFS.

I was just checking my goodbye thread when I stumbled across this.

Mac OS X, IMO, can do ANYTHING ANY OS IN THE WORLD can do and more.

[LaRoza]

This isn't OS X's fault, Apple makes the hardware and software, thats how they work. Since its Apple's software they decide the hardware it runs on. Besides it might actually run OS X illegally if you want.

It is OS X's fault, or rather, Apple's fault. Apple doesn't make the hardware by the way ;)



Modern Computer? The Macbook, iMac, Mac Pro aren't modern?

I didn't say that. OS X can't be legally used on most modern computers. I buy a new computer, and I can put anything I want on it, except OS X.



Again this doesn't have anything to do with what OS X can or can't do, you are just don't like the choice of products Apple offers with OS X.

I don't see hardware and software as the same thing.

Apple doesn't allow OS X to be run on other hardware.



I hear they might offer a $800 notebook soon, but this last point really has nothing to do with what OS X can do.

For $800 I could buy two Dell 910's.

[cardinals_fan]

Mac OS X, IMO, can do ANYTHING ANY OS IN THE WORLD can do and more.
There's a difference between can do and can do easily. I can install and run dwm on OS X, but it takes more work than on Linux/BSD.

[jimi_hendrix]

i hate OS X in every way shape and form...i find that it takes me forever to get stuff done and i want to maximize my windows when i use them

also i dont like its look (or the fact that no one i know changes the background from the default)

[MaxIBoy]

An ATX tower is not a Note book

I fail to see the significance of that. The machine I described could beat the pants off any production computer; it would have to be built from scratch, and computers which are built from scratch cannot legally run OS X.

And yes, you can build a laptop (almost) from scratch.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/06/oczs-diy-gaming-laptop-now-available/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/building-dream-notebook,1026.html


i hate OS X in every way shape and form...i find that it takes me forever to get stuff done and i want to maximize my windows when i use them

also i dont like its look (or the fact that no one i know changes the background from the default)

In the interests of fairness, the first time I ever used OS X, it took very little time to change the desktop background.

[KiwiNZ]

Your post 102 was quoting this

"originally Posted by phoenix_snake
Modern Computer? The Macbook, iMac, Mac Pro aren't modern?"

That is the significance of my reply :rolleyes:

Compare like to like if you are going to make plausible comparisons




I fail to see the significance of that. The machine I described could beat the pants off any production computer; it would have to be built from scratch, and computers which are built from scratch cannot legally run OS X.

And yes, you can build a laptop (almost) from scratch.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/06/oczs-diy-gaming-laptop-now-available/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/building-dream-notebook,1026.html



In the interests of fairness, the first time I ever used OS X, it took very little time to change the desktop background.

[bp1509]

d

[Frak]

here's what OS X can't do:

have a server that doesn't require a gui in order to reduce hardware expense.
Xserve rackmounts are headless. They run on a version of OS X that doesn't startup the GUI by default.

[MaxIBoy]

Xserve rackmounts are headless. They run on a version of OS X that doesn't startup the GUI by default.
Once again, in the interest of fairness, that isn't true, strictly speaking. In Windows NT, it's very true. In OS X, it's possible to remove/change the appropriate startup script and prevent a GUI from loading.

However, as is common for OS X, this feature is hidden and undocumented. In most Linux desktop environments, it's not too much trouble to create a text mode session and set it as default, using a graphical interface. (Does anyone else find this amusing?)

[jimi_hendrix]

another thing:

has anyone heard of a Mac OS X server?

[cardinals_fan]

has anyone heard of a Mac OS X server?
Yes. Read a few posts above you.

[MaxIBoy]

I have. It's not in common use, though, as you might as well just use one of the libre BSDs or Linux instead.

[jimi_hendrix]

Yes. Read a few posts above you.

missed that :oops:

[Frak]

Once again, in the interest of fairness, that isn't true, strictly speaking. In Windows NT, it's very true. In OS X, it's possible to remove/change the appropriate startup script and prevent a GUI from loading.

However, as is common for OS X, this feature is hidden and undocumented. In most Linux desktop environments, it's not too much trouble to create a text mode session and set it as default, using a graphical interface. (Does anyone else find this amusing?)
Let me clarify:

The XServe rackmounts are headless. This means they don't need a monitor nor do they even have the connections to support one. The rackmounts are meant to cluster or do independent tasks from the master, therefore, they are headless.

[MaxIBoy]

In that case, it really is impossible to run OS X without graphical services, as that trick only works after the OS is installed.

[Frak]

In that case, it really is impossible to run OS X without graphical services, as that trick only works after the OS is installed.
All of the installation/configuration is done by the master. Apple supplies a special set of DVD's for the master that allows it to install/remove/not install certain "parts" (can't call them applications). The rackmounts are dumb, they do not require any special treatment; they will do whatever the master says. The OS X Server install can be run over Ethernet, Fibre, Wireless, or Firewire.

Again, it's done at install time, not after. (Though, it can)

I'll be waiting for your response tomorrow, I have to make a run to service some XServes tomorrow. Therefore, I need to sleep.

[opothehippo]

The biggest difference between the to OS's is that one is open and one is closed. They both have benefits, but common sense just tells me to go open.

How can people use something like OSX and then defend it? You may like it, but dont get offended when someone tells you their OS is better. I hate to break the news, but apple does not love you back (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_apple).

[paintba||er]

1. You can't install every Unix app out there easily. Take for example Glade, which I use to design interfaces for GTK+, you have to install it from "Macports" or Fink, which then relies on X11 and does not integrate to the system cleanly anyway. Yay! So much for the excellent "Unix compatibility". At least I would expect X11 being integrated into the system, so I can run X11 apps. And some things do not even compile.

Actually, you can compile GTK apps without X now. Including Glade. They will still stick out horribly though...

[beniwtv]

Actually, you can compile GTK apps without X now. Including Glade. They will still stick out horribly though...

That's true - but I meant more the way to getting it to run. In Linux (or even Windows) I can download and install Glade easily - not so on the Mac. Fink, Macports, etc...

And both do not integrate well to the system. For example (This is on Tiger, though, not sure about Leopard), installing Python 2.5 + headers via Macports or Fink, other applications needing these headers do not find them by default.

Also, FreeRadius + MySQL support is a pain in the *** to compile.



I like the Administration tools in OS X Server. It makes things twice as easy (You can record a workflow and have it repeat itself upon certain criterion.) As for programming, Xcode is the best I've ever found, and it uses GCC, so it still is in tune with Linux development. If you're talking about Interface design, it's quick and easy IMHO.

EDIT
Forgot about the frameworks. I've found no equivalent on Linux.

Xcode may use GCC, but it's an Apple branded one. But nothing can beat Eclipse (the new 3.4) for me.

The server GUI may make things easier, but in the long run Mac servers are a pain to handle, and slow. I know because we have more than 15 Mac servers here (dual G5, running 10.3.9). See my note about FreeRadius above. And don't even mention Apache, PHP and MySQL (enthropy anyone?)

Also I'm missing KVM, Terminal server and others required for assembling and selling my product. There's just nothing that can beat Debian on the server (Just my opinion, though).

What I want to say with all that, if you need to do advanced tasks Apple hasn't thought of, it's really a nightmare and more time consuming versus an apt-get with debian.

And that's because it's not open. I can't tweak every aspect of the OS, and things not foreseen by Apple are very difficult - or plain out impossible. For example, try using ifconfig from the command line and then using the GUI afterwards - a no-go.

(Still I think Mac is a good desktop OS)

Cheers,

[phoenix_snake]

OS X won't run legally on LaRoza's computer. That seems like a very valid thing that Linux can do and OS X can't.

Seems like a valid reason cause you can't think of any other against OS X?

Since linux is a kernel technically, you can run Darwin on your machine am I right? You can also have your precious gnome on Darwin ;)


It is OS X's fault, or rather, Apple's fault. Apple doesn't make the hardware by the way ;)


I didn't say that. OS X can't be legally used on most modern computers. I buy a new computer, and I can put anything I want on it, except OS X.


I don't see hardware and software as the same thing.

Apple doesn't allow OS X to be run on other hardware.



For $800 I could buy two Dell 910's.

So you agree its Apple's fault then? Apple picks their hardware and assembles them and designs many things such as their computers so they are creating their hardware even if they haven't made every single chip in it.

Isn't that the reason OS X is great to cause Apple controls the hardware it runs on to give you the best user experience.

You can put OS X on your computer, it just won't be legal thats all. You are free to do whatever you want and its not like Apple's going to know about it right?

Apple aims a specific market with their products so if you want something cheaper then Apple isn't targeting you.

Now to Apple their software is for their hardware, they don't consider to be separate, believe it or not, they believe OS X is like the brain of their Macs and they don't want others to use software they have designed for their products, nothing wrong with that.

Another thing I don't get is why all of you hate Apple or OS X so much?

Desktop Linux vs OS X.....OS X is the winner.

The market share proves this, what would you rather have from a consumers point of view? If you even want my points on why OS X is better I will give them to you.

[LaRoza]

Seems like a valid reason cause you can't think of any other against OS X?

The lack of an ability to run the OS makes any other points moot. I mean, if by design it won't work on otherwise compatible hardware, there is really no contest. Linux, Solaris, DOS, Windows, BSD, etc are all better than OS X to me.



Since linux is a kernel technically, you can run Darwin on your machine am I right? You can also have your precious gnome on Darwin ;)

I do not like GNOME. OS X isn't Darwin. It would be the same as comparing OS X to the kernel source code instead of a distro.



So you agree its Apple's fault then?


Yes, I said that. Many times.



Isn't that the reason OS X is great to cause Apple controls the hardware it runs on to give you the best user experience.

No... OS X isn't great. I haven't been able to use it, because Apple controls the hardware. I prefer to think for myself, by the way. I don't need Apple overlords.



You can put OS X on your computer, it just won't be legal thats all. You are free to do whatever you want and its not like Apple's going to know about it right?

Do not advocate illegal activity on this forum. That is against the rules.



Apple aims a specific market with their products so if you want something cheaper then Apple isn't targeting you.

If I had no computer, and wanted OS X, I'd be able to get an Apple computer without much problem. However, why do I need to buy expensive new hardware when I already have good hardware? Windows doesn't require that.



Now to Apple their software is for their hardware, they don't consider to be separate, believe it or not, they believe OS X is like the brain of their Macs and they don't want others to use software they have designed for their products, nothing wrong with that.

Is that why they now make it easy to run Windows on their computers?



Another thing I don't get is why all of you hate Apple or OS X so much?

I don't. I can't use them. I use Linux because it is the best of the OS's I am able to try. I don't use OS X because I can't use it.



Desktop Linux vs OS X.....OS X is the winner.

Your opinion. I can say Desktop Linux vs OS X.... Linux is the winner. I have proof of this. It is on my desktop and OS X won't run on my desktop.



The market share proves this, what would you rather have from a consumers point of view? If you even want my points on why OS X is better I will give them to you.
In that case, Windows is better than OS X.

If we went by operating systems that were manually installed by the user by choice, I think Linux would be the winner.

[phoenix_snake]

The lack of an ability to run the OS makes any other points moot. I mean, if by design it won't work on otherwise compatible hardware, there is really no contest. Linux, Solaris, DOS, Windows, BSD, etc are all better than OS X to me.

Do not advocate illegal activity on this forum. That is against the rules.


Why do you keep saying it doesn't work, its just illegal, I know a few people with a hackintosh running the vanilla kernel on their machines. I am not advocating illegal activities, I just said you are free to do what you want, I am not forcing you to do anything illegal.



I do not like GNOME. OS X isn't Darwin. It would be the same as comparing OS X to the kernel source code instead of a distro.


I didn't aim this post at you, sorry, so do you use kde then? Just asking. The point of this post was that the person it was aimed to was talking about linux, and since linux is a kernel I mentioned Darwin.



Yes, I said that. Many times.


Agreed :)



No... OS X isn't great. I haven't been able to use it, because Apple controls the hardware. I prefer to think for myself, by the way. I don't need Apple overlords.


Thats your opinion and I have no problem with that, I will just say this most people love OS X and if I had to ask them to choose between that and Ubuntu they would pick OS X. I have asked many people, I mean come on people hack OS X to run it on their machines rather than choose a free OS, doesn't that speak for itself?



If I had no computer, and wanted OS X, I'd be able to get an Apple computer without much problem. However, why do I need to buy expensive new hardware when I already have good hardware? Windows doesn't require that.


Its Apple's software and they can choose to allow whoever they want to run it, and Apple is an OEM remember? Microsoft isn't, Apple makes hardware and they just give you a really awesome operating system with their hardware.



Is that why they now make it easy to run Windows on their computers?


They let people run windows cause its still a windows world and increase sales, it doesn't change the fact that they still think OS X is the brain of their machines, its unique to them.



Your opinion. I can say Desktop Linux vs OS X.... Linux is the winner. I have proof of this. It is on my desktop and OS X won't run on my desktop.

Just cause you run linux on your desktop it wins? lol or did you mean you have some other proof?



In that case, Windows is better than OS X.


OS X will never defeat windows cause of Apple's business strategy, but if OS X is set free, you can sit back and relax while Windows falls ;)

I have heard that Apple has one of the highest customer satisfaction and loyalty rates of any product, that doesn't come easy does it? I will try to find the link again, sorry for not posting it right now.



If we went by operating systems that were manually installed by the user by choice, I think Linux would be the winner.

What you say? Really? Are you sure people want to use an OS thats:

1. so ugly I could cry, don't talk to me about customization I have seen those other themes and they are worthless compared to OS X and Vista.

2. thats very difficult to use compared to OS X and Vista.

3. it has nor good drivers or horrible drivers for some hardware for example I love watching my title bars flicker using openoffice with nvidia. don't say its nvidia's fault, its your kernel devs fault that they can't maintain a stable API so people can right good drivers and its their fault that they try and force people to open source their drivers.

4. applications, people won't be able to use all those cool apps they use on OS X and Windows, again its your devs fault that they make it so difficult for software devs to ship apps for your platform, in fact even the good open source apps like firefox work better in OS X than linux. linux has was less choices of useful apps than OS X.

5. bugs, sorry to say this even though the linux is stable, its desktop and stuff is filled with bugs, I read a few where gnome has a bug it can't mount floppy drives and in kubuntu 8.04 d3lphin can't cut and paste files, what an embarrassment.

oh yeah updates breaking stuff.

6. devs don't care much since they do the work for free and if you have a complaint they tell you to fix it yourself, or you have no right to complain cause its free. ***? you must have read those kind of posts here.

7. power management, no comments on this but on a few laptops I tried it on power management is horrible.

8. the community, right now I am saying something good about OS X, I can't believe I haven't been called a fan boy by some loser here or I haven't been told to go back to windows or OS X.

some people here are think anything proprietary is evil and anyone who wants to make money out of their hard work is evil and they should just sell support. can you believe that?

oh yeah I was surfing through the debian forums cause I read that ubuntu was based on debian and I saw loads of posts of how they hate ubuntu. ***? they hate ubuntu, cause it became more popular than debian? what a bunch of losers.

Seriously why do they hate ubuntu? isn't it their fault their stable version has packages so old that they only support machines bought 10 years back...lol ;)

Now you are probably wondering what I am doing here, so just so everyone knows I am here to learn and stuff thats all, I will learn the new system just for trying out something new, thats all. I might keep Intrepid on one new machines if its good though after final release.

[estyles]

Desktop Linux[/B] vs OS X.....OS X is the winner.

The market share proves this, what would you rather have from a consumers point of view? If you even want my points on why OS X is better I will give them to you.

:rolleyes:
And Windows is better than both of them. The market share proves this, too. Bud Light is the best beer in the world too.
:lolflag:

I don't understand why there are so many Mac fanboys on a Linux forum. In my view, on the spectrum of OS's, you have Linux on one side - Open, Free, infinitely configurable, and transparent to the user. In the middle you have Windows - expensive, proprietary but at least partially portable, pretty configurable and powerful, hides some things from the user. And then on the entire other side is Mac OS - completely locked up, tied to hardware, also expensive and proprietary, and all configuration and customizability is hidden from the user. If you're coming from another OS that actually encourages user control, like me, you might think that the configurability isn't there at all, and might feel like the person looking at the outside of their iMac, trying to figure out where to put the video card.

Not only that, but from the Mac programs that I've had the misfortune to have used, the entire philosophy of user interface is incompatible with what I think are the strengths of Linux (and even Windows, to a degree). When I said that you can't right-click, this is based on Macs that I've used IN THE LAST WEEK, that are not more than 3 years old. So maybe some Macs come with 2-button mice these days, but I bet those mice just emulate Option-Click. With my mouse, I not only have right-click, middle-click, scroll up and down, but can also still use the keyboard for Ctrl-Click, Alt-Click, Shift-Click. But the point is not what hardware options you have, but how those options interact with software. In well-designed programs, I should be able to figure out how to do something in multiple different ways - whichever is most comfortable and intuitive to me, ideally. If I want to Copy/Paste, I know that I have the option of Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V, the Edit Menu, right-click and choose from a menu, or left-click highlight/middle-click paste. And this is true for all kinds of commands. There are keyboard shortcuts, toolbar buttons, and also context menus. Looking at programs written for a Mac, they try to "simplify", and thus there's only one way of doing most things. Sure, there are some keyboard shortcuts, but take iTunes - to burn a CD, you have to press the burn CD button on the interface - there is no item in any menu or context menu that will do it... only that one button. I've seen this type of thing many times in Mac programs, and I hate it. That, above all else is why I hate Macs. That, and the fact that they seem to want to make everything look like a white plastic toy. Soft edges and plastic-wrap and gradients and all that crap. And the proprietary, non-portable, expensive, hardware-tied thing is important too.

All-in-all, I don't have a problem with people that like Macintoshes. They're fine, if that's what you like. Everyone is entitled to compute in their own way. But I am so sick of Mac fanboys trying to push their crappy systems on me, and I can't understand for the life of me why there are so many Mac enthusiasts on a Linux forum. Linux is about customization, freedom, and all the things that are so antithetical to a Mac.

[Canis familiaris]

Desktop Linux vs OS X.....OS X is the winner.

The market share proves this, what would you rather have from a consumers point of view? If you even want my points on why OS X is better I will give them to you.
Microsoft Windows PWNS Linux and OS X as OSes if you go by that definition...

EDIT:eStyles beat me to it.

As a side note I'll say I'll even consider OS X as an OS if and only if it runs legally on my self-built computer. Otherwise OS X is nothing but firmware for Apple Hardware for me, period.

[LaRoza]

Why do you keep saying it doesn't work, its just illegal,
That is a restriction that I won't overcome.



I didn't aim this post at you, sorry, so do you use kde then? Just asking. The point of this post was that the person it was aimed to was talking about linux, and since linux is a kernel I mentioned Darwin.

No, I highly dislike all Windows/Mac interfaces. Windows, OS X, GNOME, KDE and others are all the same to me. I use xmonad mostly, but sometimes wmii. Highly advanced and functional window managers.



Thats your opinion and I have no problem with that, I will just say this most people love OS X and if I had to ask them to choose between that and Ubuntu they would pick OS X. I have asked many people, I mean come on people hack OS X to run it on their machines rather than choose a free OS, doesn't that speak for itself?

I think more people run Linux than OS X on non apple hardware.



Its Apple's software and they can choose to allow whoever they want to run it, and Apple is an OEM remember? Microsoft isn't, Apple makes hardware and they just give you a really awesome operating system with their hardware.

They give you no choices. Apple's software? You mean software they took ;)



Just cause you run linux on your desktop it wins? lol or did you mean you have some other proof?

Well, don't put me on the defense. You are the one who made the claim that OS X wins. Where is the proof? It is a silly statement to counter your even more silly statement.



I have heard that Apple has one of the highest customer satisfaction and loyalty rates of any product, that doesn't come easy does it? I will try to find the link again, sorry for not posting it right now.

I have heard otherwise. Also, it has been found that people will be more satisfied with something expensive, because of its price.

I did get the chance to try OS X, and I hated it. I wiped it with Ubuntu 6.06 after struggling with its non intuative interface and wacky behavior.



1. so ugly I could cry, don't talk to me about customization I have seen those other themes and they are worthless compared to OS X and Vista.

Very subjective and stupid to argue about.


2. thats very difficult to use compared to OS X and Vista.

I found OS X hard to use, and its interfaces confusing. All interfaces are learned.



3. it has nor good drivers or horrible drivers for some hardware for example I love watching my title bars flicker using openoffice with nvidia. don't say its nvidia's fault, its your kernel devs fault that they can't maintain a stable API so people can right good drivers and its their fault that they try and force people to open source their drivers.

I don't have that problem. Are your Linux problems the fault of Linux, the hardware, or you? Were my OS X problems the fault of OS X, the hardware, or me?

I have perfect support for all my hardware.



4. applications, people won't be able to use all those cool apps they use on OS X and Windows, again its your devs fault that they make it so difficult for software devs to ship apps for your platform, in fact even the good open source apps like firefox work better in OS X than linux. linux has was less choices of useful apps than OS X.

Wrong. I use the same apps on Linux that I do everywhere. Don't make assumptions about other people. Linux has been the superior platform so far.



5. bugs, sorry to say this even though the linux is stable, its desktop and stuff is filled with bugs, I read a few where gnome has a bug it can't mount floppy drives and in kubuntu 8.04 d3lphin can't cut and paste files, what an embarrassment.

GNOME isn't Linux. I had OS X giving me the pinwheel of death constantly.

Perhaps GNOME or KDE has such a but. I don't know. Perhaps it is fixed already or doesn't exist in other version (I'd bet on that). I don't use GNOME or KDE so the point is moot.



oh yeah updates breaking stuff.

That happens everywhere. I have never had an update break anything on Linux.



6. devs don't care much since they do the work for free and if you have a complaint they tell you to fix it yourself, or you have no right to complain cause its free. ***? you must have read those kind of posts here.

Wrong. Get your facts straight. Devs don't work for free. Users typically say stuff to that to trolls.



7. power management, no comments on this but on a few laptops I tried it on power management is horrible.

On laptops that come with Linux pre-installed, it works fine.



8. the community, right now I am saying something good about OS X, I can't believe I haven't been called a fan boy by some loser here or I haven't been told to go back to windows or OS X.

If you expect negativity you will get it. Some of your posts and statements are pretty flamish, and you should step back and see what you are saying and who you are saying it to ;)



some people here are think anything proprietary is evil and anyone who wants to make money out of their hard work is evil and they should just sell support. can you believe that?

What does that have to do with anything? Some people wait in line overnight to get the latest overpriced Apple product. Does that have to do with anything?



oh yeah I was surfing through the debian forums cause I read that ubuntu was based on debian and I saw loads of posts of how they hate ubuntu. ***? they hate ubuntu, cause it became more popular than debian? what a bunch of losers.

What? Now you are flaming Debian? Debian users will obviously think their choice of operating system is better than Ubuntu. Debian is better if one knows Debian. Debian is much faster and more stable. A Debian user would look at Ubuntu as being inferior for reasons that make sense to them. That is subjective.



Seriously why do they hate ubuntu? isn't it their fault their stable version has packages so old that they only support machines bought 10 years back...lol ;)

Another debian flame...

Their stable version is stable. Very stable. It puts OS X to shame I think ;)



Now you are probably wondering what I am doing here, so just so everyone knows I am here to learn and stuff thats all, I will learn the new system just for trying out something new, thats all. I might keep Intrepid on one new machines if its good though after final release.

No need to flame I think.

[aysiu]

Oh, I forgot: simple cut and paste of files in Finder.

Apple thinks it knows better than you what you want to do. If you drag a file within the same hard drive, it assumes you want to move it. If you drag it to another medium, it assumes you want to copy it. If you bring up the context menu, Copy is the only option. There is no Cut.

[Canis familiaris]

Since linux is a kernel technically, you can run Darwin on your machine am I right? You can also have your precious gnome on Darwin ;)

IIRC OpenDarwin is dead.

[lykwydchykyn]

8. the community, right now I am saying something good about OS X, I can't believe I haven't been called a fan boy by some loser here or I haven't been told to go back to windows or OS X.


Am I the only one who appreciates the irony of someone making an accusation at the same time they are pointing out that their accusation has proven false?

Of course, this kind of thing ONLY happens in Linux forums. I'm quite certain if I started a thread entitled "Linux is better than OS X" at a Mac forum, I wouldn't get flamed. I would only get reasoned, open-minded responses there. Really, no, it's true. Try it.

[phoenix_snake]

IIRC OpenDarwin is dead.

sorry didn't know that.


Amazing I just was called a mac fan boy for defending Apple from people who hate it just because Apple doesn't allow you to run their OS on anything other than their hardware.

In that case you all are linux fan boys.

As for my market share comment, if anyone read my previous post I wrote it very clearly that OS X will always have less market share than windows cause of Apple's business strategy, is that so difficult to understand?

Yes Windows is better than linux in many ways, now will I be called a Windows fan boy?

Before anyone argues about security Vista has UAC, the biggest protection against viruses is there, unfortunately many things that keep linux secure also prevent it from having great commercial software.

As for someone's comment as to why are mac users on a linux forum, that was lame, so mac users can't use linux huh?


That is a restriction that I won't overcome.

up to you then lets not talk about osx86 cause its against the rules so I won't mention it ;)


No, I highly dislike all Windows/Mac interfaces. Windows, OS X, GNOME, KDE and others are all the same to me. I use xmonad mostly, but sometimes wmii. Highly advanced and functional window managers.

sorry I don't know about them, can you show me a screenshot if you want.


I think more people run Linux than OS X on non apple hardware.

proof? why would they do that?


You mean software they took

what does that mean, do you mean freeBSD?


Well, don't put me on the defense. You are the one who made the claim that OS X wins. Where is the proof? It is a silly statement to counter your even more silly statement.

People still pay for proprietary stuff rather than take the free stuff? There is a reason for that right?


I did get the chance to try OS X, and I hated it. I wiped it with Ubuntu 6.06 after struggling with its non intuative interface and wacky behavior.

which version gave you problems, if it was before Tiger then I don't know, I never used them sorry, but I heard Panther wasn't that bad but 10.0 to 10.2 were slow and stuff.


I found OS X hard to use, and its interfaces confusing. All interfaces are learned.

I was talking about doing stuff in the terminal, otherwise linux interfaces like gnome and kde are not hard in my opinion.


I don't have that problem. Are your Linux problems the fault of Linux, the hardware, or you? Were my OS X problems the fault of OS X, the hardware, or me?

linux's fault, you never described your problems so can't comment.


Wrong. I use the same apps on Linux that I do everywhere. Don't make assumptions about other people. Linux has been the superior platform so far.

you don't need the commercial apps and stuff on other platforms? well many people like them and probably need them to for example final cut studio, thats just an example.


GNOME isn't Linux. I had OS X giving me the pinwheel of death constantly.

Did you complain to Apple, did you go to a customer care center, if it was me I would go there and scream and shout like hell and the best part is their community won't tell you to go back to windows or linux, or call you a fan boy or tell you something like we will fix it in the next release.


Wrong. Get your facts straight. Devs don't work for free. Users typically say stuff to that to trolls.

I think you should get your facts straight cause there are thousands of open source projects where devs work for free or in their spare time, and if you check out Kde they even have a link begging their users for donation or something.

Paid devs don't ask for cash.


On laptops that come with Linux pre-installed, it works fine.

Check out this laptop certified by a Novell engineer:

http://developer.novell.com/yes/91523.htm

I posted this link in another post.

Read the config notes:

"1) Intel 865GM graphics needs to install seperately, please download the driver from http://forgeftp.novell.com/hp/HP-Compaq-6510b, and follow instructions 2) Suspend to disk and Suspend to RAM: Hotkey (fn+f3) does not work, however, powersave -U and powersave -u function at the command line and hibernate, sleep works when invoked from the power management icon on the gnome panel. Occasionally, the system may need a reboot when waking up 3) Same behavior as #2 is observed when Desktop Effects are enabled."

How is that acceptable?


I have never had an update break anything on Linux.

works for you but check out other posts in the forums about updates breaking stuff, since you are in the staff, you probably already have read such posts.

Though I find it amazing since you started using linux, you have never had any issue at all?


If you expect negativity you will get it. Some of your posts and statements are pretty flamish, and you should step back and see what you are saying and who you are saying it to

I am not flaming you, who I am saying it to? are you trying to use your authority as a staff member to win a discussion?

As for the OS's looks, most people like how Aqua looks if not all but lets show the entire world what XFCE looks like and give them paper bags to vomit in as well....lol. Seriously though linux devs should work on making stuff pretty, if not please everyone, please the majority and Apple has done that don't you agree?


What? Now you are flaming Debian? Debian users will obviously think their choice of operating system is better than Ubuntu. Debian is better if one knows Debian. Debian is much faster and more stable. A Debian user would look at Ubuntu as being inferior for reasons that make sense to them. That is subjective.

I am just pointing out the fact that after reading their posts they seem like worthless jealous losers to me.


Their stable version is stable. Very stable. It puts OS X to shame I think

stable with ancient packages making it useless to most people since the majority likes to use the latest stuff.


No need to flame I think.

I didn't flame anyone specific or say something to anyone, how is pointing out linux's flaws a flame? please point me to a post where I insult another member specifically?

[phoenix_snake]

Am I the only one who appreciates the irony of someone making an accusation at the same time they are pointing out that their accusation has proven false?

Of course, this kind of thing ONLY happens in Linux forums. I'm quite certain if I started a thread entitled "Linux is better than OS X" at a Mac forum, I wouldn't get flamed. I would only get reasoned, open-minded responses there. Really, no, it's true. Try it.
go ahead and start such a thread in a mac forum, I don't care and it wouldn't be me that would flame you, in fact most mac users do like linux, I can't believe most linux users hate OS X.

[LaRoza]

go ahead and start such a thread in a mac forum, I don't care and it wouldn't be me that would flame you, in fact most mac users do like linux, I can't believe most linux users hate OS X.

In my experience, most Linux users don't hate anything. They don't like OS X and Windows usually, and find Apple and Microsoft to be undesirable though.

Also, in my experience, most Mac users are clueless when it comes to non Mac systems and overly defensive of their system. Mac users display fanboyism as it is called a lot in my experience.

[Canis familiaris]

Amazing I just was called a mac fan boy for defending Apple from people who hate it just because Apple doesn't allow you to run their OS on anything other than their hardware.
Sorry about that but in case you find something posted in this forum projected as a personal attacks, kindly report it. And please Don't make overly generalized statements like these:



In that case you all are linux fan boys.


And Yes I don't like OS X only and only because they restrict it to their hardware.

[LaRoza]

As for my market share comment, if anyone read my previous post I wrote it very clearly that OS X will always have less market share than windows cause of Apple's business strategy, is that so difficult to understand?

Is it so difficult to understand that Linux can be a fully operational and desirable OS over OS X to many people?



sorry I don't know about them, can you show me a screenshot if you want.

You are missing the point. A window manager is meant to be usable, not pretty. OS X, Vista, GNOME, KDE, etc all get in the way of their function. xmonad and wmii do not, therefore, there is really nothing to take a scrot shot of.



which version gave you problems, if it was before Tiger then I don't know, I never used them sorry, but I heard Panther wasn't that bad but 10.0 to 10.2 were slow and stuff.

Yes, I know, but it is still OS X.



Did you complain to Apple, did you go to a customer care center, if it was me I would go there and scream and shout like hell and the best part is their community won't tell you to go back to windows or linux, or call you a fan boy or tell you something like we will fix it in the next release.

No, I didn't complain at all. I did try to figure out the problems, but it was mostly OS X itself that I didn't like. Therefore, I excercised my freedom to use another OS, instead of telling Mac users how much better Linux is (like you, in reverse).



I think you should get your facts straight cause there are thousands of open source projects where devs work for free or in their spare time, and if you check out Kde they even have a link begging their users for donation or something.

What? I think you are over simplifying the matter. Yes, many devs contribute for no money, but open source is flexible. The core team will often be paid, and many projects are quite well financed. I am not saying all are. My sysres program has no money and is all volunteer work.



Paid devs don't ask for cash.

Microsoft and Apple ask for money, therefore, their devs don't get paid.



How is that acceptable?

You don't have to use it.



works for you but check out other posts in the forums about updates breaking stuff, since you are in the staff, you probably already have read such posts.

Yes, updates break Windows, OS X and any system. It is the nature of a system change.



Though I find it amazing since you started using linux, you have never had any issue at all?

Less than I did with Windows. My hardware is fully supported (video, printer, webcam, etc). I use xmonad, so I don't get any GNOME issues (although I don't have issues with GNOME, I just don't like it).



I am not flaming you, who I am saying it to? are you trying to use your authority as a staff member to win a discussion?

No, don't pull that card. Moderators don't usually moderate discussions they are a part of (the exceptions would be for things that require immediate attention).

And here is an example of your flames:


As for the OS's looks, most people like how Aqua looks if not all but lets show the entire world what XFCE looks like and give them paper bags to vomit in as well....lol. Seriously though linux devs should work on making stuff pretty, if not please everyone, please the majority and Apple has done that don't you agree?

I don't care about the majority, I care about me. I think you shouldn't tell Linux devs what they should do ;)



I am just pointing out the fact that after reading their posts they seem like worthless jealous losers to me.

Don't call people that. I won't stoop to that level and tell you that you seem like worthless Mac losers who don't understand Linux (sour grapes, and all that).



stable with ancient packages making it useless to most people since the majority likes to use the latest stuff.

Don't make assumptions about other people. You seem to know nothing about Debian. You want something more modern? Try Debian Testing. You want bleeding edge? Try Debian Unstable. Debian is a rock solid base, and many distros are based off of it, which use more recent software (for example, the next Ubuntu release will be using an experimental kernel I think).

Servers, which Debian is often used for, don't want shiny things. And Debian is very good at that.



I didn't flame anyone specific or say something to anyone, how is pointing out linux's flaws a flame? please point me to a post where I insult another member specifically?

You aren't pointing out Linux's faults more than you are pointing out your biases and ignorance of Linux.

[phoenix_snake]

In my experience, most Linux users don't hate anything. They don't like OS X and Windows usually, and find Apple and Microsoft to be undesirable though.

Also, in my experience, most Mac users are clueless when it comes to non Mac systems and overly defensive of their system. Mac users display fanboyism as it is called a lot in my experience.
They do hate Windows though :)

[Canis familiaris]

They do hate Windows though :)

Microsoft Yes but Not Windows.

[phoenix_snake]

Microsoft Yes but Not Windows.
they hate Microsoft cause they of their experience with Windows in the past or something, you must have heard of names like "Winblows" and stuff, it obviously means they hate Windows as well

[LaRoza]

They do hate Windows though :)

Windows is a piece of over popular and buggy software with severe limitations. Windows, by itself, is useless. It is the software that is sold that runs on it which keeps it alive. I think most OS X fans would agree that Windows is inferior software ;)

Linux users typically love freedom and value it over everything. Some Linux users willfully accept limitations to be true to their beliefs. Microsoft is a shiny opponent to this ideal and attracts a lot of ire.

Apple is looked at suspiciously, but is usually not intensely disliked because it isn't a monopoly, but is usually looked down on for being overly restrictive and focused on superficial stuff.

[LaRoza]

they hate Microsoft cause they of their experience with Windows in the past or something, you must have heard of names like "Winblows" and stuff, it obviously means they hate Windows as well

Most people don't say that. Yes, you'll see it on this forum and the shear number of members will give many oppurtunities to see it, but the majority of this forum isn't like that.

And there you are making assumptions what other people think. They deride anything Microsoft. You'll see derision towards Balmer, Gates, IE, Windows, butterflies, etc, but the focus is usually on Microsoft.

[lykwydchykyn]

go ahead and start such a thread in a mac forum, I don't care and it wouldn't be me that would flame you, in fact most mac users do like linux, I can't believe most linux users hate OS X.

How are you claiming that "most Linux users hate OS X" and "most mac users do like Linux"? Have you done a poll?

My point is that in every community there is an element of knee-jerk fanboys who cannot abide the suggestion that another platform has merit, and need to spout FUD and flames everytime someone comes along praising the alternatives or ridiculing the fanboy's OS.

You're suggesting that these folks are representative of the Linux community, while claiming that they are a tiny minority in the OS X community. On what basis? This has not been my experience, but anecdotal evidence is just a waste of time to debate.

I think you are confusing some peoples lack of interest in proprietary operating systems, or preference for Linux as "hatred of OS X". I do not "hate" OS X, nor do I think it's "evil". I simply do not have an interest in running a predominantly proprietary OS.

And your continued subjective statements about the look and feel of FOSS window managers are not opinions I share (what's wrong with XFCE? I use it daily, along with KDE4.), so simply stating that they are worse than OS X doesn't really get you anywhere.

[Canis familiaris]

they hate Microsoft cause they of their experience with Windows in the past or something, you must have heard of names like "Winblows" and stuff, it obviously means they hate Windows as well
Actually they(read I) hate Microsoft because they try to demolish their opponents by locking them out by their own standards rather than just outpacing by the quality of their software.

[LaRoza]

Actually they(read I) hate Microsoft because they try to demolish their opponents by locking them out by their own standards rather than just outpacing by the quality of their software.

I don't care about others, as long as they don't affect me. Microsoft has the primary goal of doing just that. They aren't content to release and market their products, but they try to destroy others by any means necessary.

[phoenix_snake]

Is it so difficult to understand that Linux can be a fully operational and desirable OS over OS X to many people?


no, but don't linux users realize there must be a problem with their OS that many people don't use it even though its free?



You are missing the point. A window manager is meant to be usable, not pretty. OS X, Vista, GNOME, KDE, etc all get in the way of their function. xmonad and wmii do not, therefore, there is really nothing to take a scrot shot of.


most people today expect stuff to be pretty, in my opinion none of them get in way of their function, so since this is just opinion lets forget but you must know that a huge majority of people like pretty stuff.



Yes, I know, but it is still OS X.


yeah but we all know early releases are never awesome, but these days OS X is, just check out kde 4, I am sure in the future most people will love it or at least most new users will.



No, I didn't complain at all. I did try to figure out the problems, but it was mostly OS X itself that I didn't like. Therefore, I excercised my freedom to use another OS, instead of telling Mac users how much better Linux is (like you, in reverse).

its a product and you have the right to insult it just like I can make fun of linux's problems, if you had a problem with OS X you should have gone straight to Apple to have them fixed, facing problems is unacceptable simple as that. If you still have that machine take it to them and ask them to fix it.


Microsoft and Apple ask for money, therefore, their devs don't get paid.

they ask for money for using their products, they don't ask for donations do they?


You don't have to use it.

what about the people who do get that machine? still I thought Novell was a pretty big company.



Yes, updates break Windows, OS X and any system. It is the nature of a system change.


very rarely in OS X and even Windows, but I have heard about this loads of times on linux, for example a kernel update breaks suspend.


No, don't pull that card. Moderators don't usually moderate discussions they are a part of (the exceptions would be for things that require immediate attention).

what do you mean?


And here is an example of your flames:

Thats not a flame, insulting a product is never a flame, I never insulted or said anything to another member, that would be wrong right?


I don't care about the majority, I care about me. I think you shouldn't tell Linux devs what they should do ;)

lol...:)



Don't call people that. I won't stoop to that level and tell you that you seem like worthless Mac losers who don't understand Linux (sour grapes, and all that).


are you defending people who hate your OS? Mac users know linux pretty well.



Don't make assumptions about other people. You seem to know nothing about Debian. You want something more modern? Try Debian Testing. You want bleeding edge? Try Debian Unstable. Debian is a rock solid base, and many distros are based off of it, which use more recent software (for example, the next Ubuntu release will be using an experimental kernel I think).

Servers, which Debian is often used for, don't want shiny things. And Debian is very good at that.


I know quite a lot, Debian testing and unstable isn't for regular systems according to their own devs, why not go tell Debian users to stop making fun of Ubuntu?

Thats the thing if its used for servers then why do they have a problem with it failing on the desktop, no one has a problem with linux on the server.



You aren't pointing out Linux's faults more than you are pointing out your biases and ignorance of Linux.

ignorance of linux, if you really want to defend it that much go ahead but there is a reason it has 0.9% market share, there is a reason no one supports it.

there is no problem with server linux, but there are loads of issues that will prevent linux from really becoming popular on the desktop.

[LaRoza]

no, but don't linux users realize there must be a problem with their OS that many people don't use it even though its free?

No, because we know why people use Windows. If people bought software and hardware seperately, instead of bundled, they would go for Linux for the reasons it is easier to install and it is free. People don't typically choose Windows.



what about the people who do get that machine? still I thought Novell was a pretty big company.

They don't normally sell systems I think.



very rarely in OS X and even Windows, but I have heard about this loads of times on linux, for example a kernel update breaks suspend.

Ever get a kernel upgrade in Windows? Ever do an upgrade of the entire OS? That is where the breaks come from. If one uses hardware that is supported, then breakages are much rarely. If you use proprietary drives, then it is more likely to happen. I have upgraded the OS many times, to an entirely different version. For free. In less than an hour. Without any problems.



are you defending people who hate your OS? Mac users know linux pretty well.

Mac users on Linux forums usualy know Linux to some degree. The Mac users I know in real life are baffled by other systems.



I know quite a lot, Debian testing and unstable isn't for regular systems according to their own devs, why not go tell Debian users to stop making fun of Ubuntu?

They can do whatever they want. I think Debian is better than Ubuntu also. Ubuntu, from a Debian perspective, is a sorry sight.


Thats the thing if its used for servers then why do they have a problem with it failing on the desktop, no one has a problem with linux on the server.

There are Linux distros more geared to the desktop than Debian. Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS spring to mind (openSuse as well). I have found them to be much easier to install than any other OS.



ignorance of linux, if you really want to defend it that much go ahead but there is a reason it has 0.9% market share, there is a reason no one supports it.

Get your facts straight. Canonical, RedHat and others support it. There are many OEM's that sell it. Some nations are pushing for Linux.



there is no problem with server linux, but there are loads of issues that will prevent linux from really becoming popular on the desktop.
Ok. What's your point? It works for me and I have seen it work for many others.

[aysiu]

no, but don't linux users realize there must be a problem with their OS that many people don't use it even though its free? Yes, but most of the problem lies in market forces and not the software quality itself. The software quality definitely could be improved, but as Apple has shown with Mac OS X's many design flaws, people overlook software quality if the market forces are in favor of them using the OS.

[Canis familiaris]

no, but don't linux users realize there must be a problem with their OS that many people don't use it even though its free?
It's because Windows is "FREE" for most people out there too.
http://dogbuntu.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/how-piracy-hurts-open-source/

and so is OS X. (People tend to think they are paying only for the Hardware but they are wrong)



most people today expect stuff to be pretty, in my opinion none of them get in way of their function, so since this is just opinion lets forget but you must know that a huge majority of people like pretty stuff.

yeah but we all know early releases are never awesome, but these days OS X is, just check out kde 4, I am sure in the future most people will love it or at least most new users will.

Funny most people don't like KDE4 (existing Linux users that is)




they ask for money for using their products, they don't ask for donations do they?
No they don't.



very rarely in OS X and even Windows, but I have heard about this loads of times on linux, for example a kernel update breaks suspend.
That's true. But this has more to do with the Hardware Manufacturers.



ignorance of linux, if you really want to defend it that much go ahead but there is a reason it has 0.9% market share, there is a reason no one supports it.
*sigh*. The market share and problems is a catch 22 situation.
(1)Due to existing low market share of Linux, Hardware developers do not focus on it.
(2) As a result they give us poor drivers.
(3) Thus because of poor drivers, people face problems.
(4) People don't switch to Linux.
(5) Market share remains Low
(6) See (1)


there is no problem with server linux, but there are loads of issues that will prevent linux from really becoming popular on the desktop.
True. But personally I don't care. Linux has been ready for me for almost 2 years now and also rapidly improving.

[Frak]

/offtopic

I like Darwin. Darwin is the precursor to the XNU kernel (which is open source and freely available). With the Darwin kernel at the heart of an OS, you could make 1 disc to support 100 peices of hardware (x86, x86-64, ARM, MIPS, PPC, PPC64, 68k, etc.) because of the Mach addition. Darwin (the kernel) is still alive, and all of the community additions that are allowed into the Darwin source are allowed into the XNU kernel.

Also, for the record, Apple provides scripts to compile your own XNU Kernel for your own Mac. (Aimed at developers, IT, technical users, and general server environments).

@beniwtv
You can change any server part. Parts of the OS itself are closed, but everything that handles server uses are open. Apple licenses its server components under APSL (which is FSF certified).
I found it quite easy to manage OS X server. I did the exact same as I would do in Linux (with the exception of installing packages, as they are pre-installed. This includes Apache, MySQL or PostgreSQL, PHP, and WebObjetcs). As for KVM, OS X uses BSD's KVM and Jails. If you're talking about KVM switches, I believe it is built in. (Over master or Target Disk on another Mac)

[ounas]

Linux doesn't legally restrict you to what hardware you can use it on.

No matter how good OS X is, it is not an option.

Exactly...
:guitar:

[angryfirelord]

What can Linux do? It can play anything! And I mean anything!

cat /usr/share/icons/*/* > /dev/dsp
Don't worry, it won't break anything since it's just reading the files. if you don't believe me, read up on man cat.

[LaRoza]

What can Linux do? It can play anything! And I mean anything!

cat /usr/share/icons/*/* > /dev/dsp
Don't worry, it won't break anything since it's just reading the files. if you don't believe me, read up on man cat.

Aliens :shock:

[Canis familiaris]

Aliens :shock:

I'm scared...

[cardinals_fan]

Why do you keep saying it doesn't work, its just illegal, I know a few people with a hackintosh running the vanilla kernel on their machines. I am not advocating illegal activities, I just said you are free to do what you want, I am not forcing you to do anything illegal.
Apple deliberately designed their system so that it cannot legally be installed on my machine, or LaRoza's. That was their choice, and I respect their decision, but unwillingness to break the law is a very valid reason to not use a system.


1. so ugly I could cry, don't talk to me about customization I have seen those other themes and they are worthless compared to OS X and Vista.
If you prefer the look of OS X and Vista, that is your choice. However, for me, my dwm desktop is the most beautiful I've seen.


4. applications, people won't be able to use all those cool apps they use on OS X and Windows, again its your devs fault that they make it so difficult for software devs to ship apps for your platform, in fact even the good open source apps like firefox work better in OS X than linux. linux has was less choices of useful apps than OS X.
Wrong. Photoshop (as an example) is not ported to Linux because Adobe does not think that there are enough Linux users to make such a port profitable. It has nothing to do with the quality of the system.


6. devs don't care much since they do the work for free and if you have a complaint they tell you to fix it yourself, or you have no right to complain cause its free. ***? you must have read those kind of posts here.

In all of my communications with developers, they have shown nothing but an almost religious devotion to making their code as good as it can be. However, since most volunteer devs write code simply to improve projects they use, they aren't likely to implement an idea that they consider awful simply because someone wants it.

they hate Microsoft cause they of their experience with Windows in the past or something, you must have heard of names like "Winblows" and stuff, it obviously means they hate Windows as well
I do not hate Windows. I feel that it is rather lacking compared to my preferred Linux/BSD distros, but it is not a terrible or evil system when managed properly. Only those with maturity issues (or, very rarely, valid grievances against Microsoft) use those absurd names.

no, but don't linux users realize there must be a problem with their OS that many people don't use it even though its free?

*facepalm*

I am not "many people". I am me, myself, cardinals_fan. I use Linux because it does what I want, how I want it. If other people don't want to use Linux, that is their choice, and I will respect that. However, while they have their own preferences and opinions, I am also entitled to mine. There is no "problem" with Linux for me, and I know better than anyone else what I should use, wouldn't you say?


are you defending people who hate your OS? Mac users know linux pretty well.

Why would "Mac users" (an epic generalization in and of itself) know more about Linux than, say, Windows users?

[lykwydchykyn]

What can Linux do? It can play anything! And I mean anything!

cat /usr/share/icons/*/* > /dev/dsp
Don't worry, it won't break anything since it's just reading the files. if you don't believe me, read up on man cat.

If I ever get back into writing electronica, this technique will be the centerpiece of my next album.

[bp1509]

d

[phoenix_snake]

Alright everyone, respond one at a time, I need time to think, just joking :p



Yes, but most of the problem lies in market forces and not the software quality itself. The software quality definitely could be improved, but as Apple has shown with Mac OS X's many design flaws, people overlook software quality if the market forces are in favor of them using the OS.


trust me if linux gets apps like time machine that are fun and easy to use and if they implement their widgets for example how OS X has them, it makes a lot cooler.

I bet if apps were of as good quality and it was fun and easy to use linux's market share could increase 20 times in a year.


No, because we know why people use Windows. If people bought software and hardware seperately, instead of bundled, they would go for Linux for the reasons it is easier to install and it is free. People don't typically choose Windows.

when they see the quality of the apps on linux then they may buy windows and this is just your own idea that they will take the free stuff, thats not important.


They don't normally sell systems I think.

but they certify horrible systems right?


Ever get a kernel upgrade in Windows? Ever do an upgrade of the entire OS? That is where the breaks come from. If one uses hardware that is supported, then breakages are much rarely. If you use proprietary drives, then it is more likely to happen. I have upgraded the OS many times, to an entirely different version. For free. In less than an hour. Without any problems.


whats this got to do with Windows? kernel updates break many things in linux all the time, simple as that, distro devs should do better testing.


Get your facts straight. Canonical, RedHat and others support it. There are many OEM's that sell it. Some nations are pushing for Linux.

Redhat doesn't bother much about the desktop, don't tell me Fedora is awesome for use on the desktop, its just a testing ground. Besides my post was talking about support from software and hardware devs.


Ok. What's your point? It works for me and I have seen it work for many others.

it works for how much % of the desktop market? 0.9%, too little, but it works very well for the server market, maybe that tells you that linux is better at being a server than a desktop OS.


Funny most people don't like KDE4 (existing Linux users that is)


do u bother to read? or do you just reply blindly, I said I think most people in the future might like it.


That's true. But this has more to do with the Hardware Manufacturers.


its hardware manufacturer's fault that a previous kernel of linux suspends to ram perfectly but a new one doesn't? yeaaaah right.


*sigh*. The market share and problems is a catch 22 situation.
(1)Due to existing low market share of Linux, Hardware developers do not focus on it.
(2) As a result they give us poor drivers.
(3) Thus because of poor drivers, people face problems.
(4) People don't switch to Linux.
(5) Market share remains Low
(6) See (1)


you have poor drivers cause your kernel doesn't have a stable API layer, hardware companies would actually like to support small markets as well did you ever think of that?

why? lets see, if you serve a niche market or growing market well when no one bothers about it then those people become loyal to you and as they grow they will spread the word about you and in the long run they will gain customers.


Wrong. Photoshop (as an example) is not ported to Linux because Adobe does not think that there are enough Linux users to make such a port profitable. It has nothing to do with the quality of the system.

not only market share but also because its horrible to ship software for linux, cause of a million different distros and package management system and libraries that keep changing and different desktop environments, etc.

then they also have to deal with the fact that some people won't buy their software cause it isn't open source and they feel less free or something.


In all of my communications with developers, they have shown nothing but an almost religious devotion to making their code as good as it can be. However, since most volunteer devs write code simply to improve projects they use, they aren't likely to implement an idea that they consider awful simply because someone wants it.

really the devs have always been nice to you? cause many open source devs like the kde ones just said they don't need users, probably cause they don't care about them.

some of them have the mentality "you don't pay I don't care what you want" and if someone wants a feature they should implement it, its all about what the users want not what you want.


Why would "Mac users" (an epic generalization in and of itself) know more about Linux than, say, Windows users?

***? EXCUSE ME! Where did I say Mac users know more about linux than windows users? liar....

[Canis familiaris]

you have poor drivers cause your kernel doesn't have a stable API layer,
Not Really. Please inform yourself more with what "API" actually means.


hardware companies would actually like to support small markets as well did you ever think of that?

Some do -> their hardware works pretty well.
Some don't -> their hardware doesn't work properly.

[cardinals_fan]

really the devs have always been nice to you? cause many open source devs like the kde ones just said they don't need users, probably cause they don't care about them.

some of them have the mentality "you don't pay I don't care what you want" and if someone wants a feature they should implement it, its all about what the users want not what you want.
Every time I have asked an honest question about bugs or lacking features in an open source project, I have received a helpful response. There is a difference between an honest question and a demand.


***? EXCUSE ME! Where did I say Mac users know more about linux than windows users? liar....
You stated that "Mac users know linux pretty well". I sourced the quote in my post. That would clearly imply that Mac users in general know a good deal about Linux. I don't believe that is correct, so I asked why they would know more than Windows users, as an example.

[aysiu]

trust me if linux gets apps like time machine that are fun and easy to use and if they implement their widgets for example how OS X has them, it makes a lot cooler. I don't deny that, and I was careful in phrasing my response. I don't want to deny Linux has problems or can use some serious interface improvements. But I just don't think you can ignore how powerful market forces are. Just improving the interface and usability isn't enough. For more details, see narrative number 1 in Linux-for-the-masses narratives (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/linux-for-the-masses-narratives/).


I bet if apps were of as good quality and it was fun and easy to use linux's market share could increase 20 times in a year. I actually find Linux easier to use than OS X for a variety of reasons, and the quality of apps really depends on the app. iPhoto is better than F-Spot but only by a little bit. I prefer iTunes to AmaroK even though AmaroK has better features, and I prefer Rhythmbox to iTunes even though Rhythmbox has fewer features. Firefox is better than Safari. And I prefer Thunderbird to Mail, although I love the universal inbox feature in Mail and would love to see that in a Thunderbird extension. Garageband is great and I don't think has a comparable Linux equivalent (even though alternatives exist). I don't think you can say across the board that Mac OS X apps are of superior quality.

If you like the way Apple does things, it does them fairly consistently. I happen to hate the universal toolbar, apps not quitting when the last window closes, zooming instead of maximizing, no cutting and pasting of files in the file browser, among a host of other problems in the Mac OS X interface.

Nevertheless, even if we were to hypothetically assume we were in agreement that Mac OS X apps are superior in quality, fun, and ease of use to Linux ones, I don't think making the Linux apps better would increase the market share 20 times in a year. You're basically saying Linux would be anywhere between 20 and 60 percent within a year. No way in hell that would happen within one year, no matter how good the apps. There are two main things people are looking for in apps: 1. Does it do what I want it to do and work with the file formats I already have used and saved in the past? 2. Am I already familiar with the interface or do I have to relearn a new way of doing things? Only after those two would come 3. Is the app "cool, fun, and easy to use"?

[lykwydchykyn]

really the devs have always been nice to you? cause many open source devs like the kde ones just said they don't need users, probably cause they don't care about them.

some of them have the mentality "you don't pay I don't care what you want" and if someone wants a feature they should implement it, its all about what the users want not what you want.


Which devs have been mean to you, phoenix snake? It's funny, I was on the kde forum yesterday and aseigo, the poster child "big mean kde dev" who got railed in Linux blogs for the behavior you're referring to, was participating in a thread about what people missed from KDE 3.x. His response to several posts was along the lines of "cool, we just finished that feature last week and it'll be in 4.2".

You are generalizing about the entire FOSS development community based on an overblown event with a handful of devs on one project. Does this kind of thing happen from time to time? Sure it does; when you have no marketing dept, customer service dept, or helpdesk to buffer interactions between users and developers, conflicts like this happen. And people pull out tired arguments and cop-outs like the 'it's free so you can't complain' bit. But that's not the majority of projects or interactions. But Steven Vaughn Nichols doesn't get page hits for writing about smooth community relations.

I've made feature requests and bug reports to several open source projects, and very often my requests were implemented. It's a gratifying feeling, let me tell you. In my experience (anecdotal, I know) most devs were very receptive and welcomed feedback on their project.

So can I get the same level of interaction with Apple devs? Do they hang out in a forum or subscribe to a mailing list somewhere? Will they talk about upcoming projects, and debate feature requests with users? Seriously, I ask out of ignorance, not as a point of debate.

[thumper13]

I have a scenario to add to this thread...

First off, I own a PC (Originally running windows xp Media Center, approx. 2 years old.) and a 15" Macbook (white, from 2 yrs ago.)

Of these 2 computers, it is only the PC that I still run. The macbook died. Excellent hardware. I also ran the Boot Camp feature (still in Beta at that time) and was quite upset at what the hardware specs were, in this 1600 dollar laptop. My pc was under 1100 (complete with monitor, speakers, printer, etc.) and as I said, I still use the pc. The macbook, if it were still operating, would be quite obsolete for gaming and photo editing (what I need a computer to do.) While it doesnt really have a whole lot to do with Linux, figure in costs:

Macbook: $1600 (I'm canadian)
PC: $1100

Adding a Linux OS to both of these: $0
Adding a Legal copy of windows (for some gaming):
Macbook: $200
PC: $0 (included with pc.)

Last I checked, $1800 > $1100. Linux wins, for me. (Just wish more of my games worked in Linux...:))

On a separate note, Support. I am not the world's greatest computer techy. I need help sometimes. When my linux breaks, I make a post in the forums. Average wait time's usually a day, and in that day, I have often many suggestions to try and fix the software. I have spent 3 hours for 1 technical problem with apple, the end result being I had to have my macbook sent back to Apple, thus I couldn't use it for a week, the week before exams. I was not impressed. On the other side, I have made a forum post, gone to the washroom, and refreshed the page, to see someone has posted a fix for my issue.

But again, cost is an issue. I paid $0 to the linux community for assistance. I paid $350 for Apple support.

And with cost, I enjoy the Open Source idea. I am also a person that donates to projects (money). If Windows and OSX were "donation" cost, I don't know if I would give them money. Support sucks, the software sucks, and Apple's hardware also sucks. Linux gets what I need to do, done, and quicker, with less headaches, than Windows, OSX combined...

I also read a post about someone complaining about problems in software, because the devs don't get paid... Some people do this for the love of computers, and get paid by donation. If I use their software, I'll pay for it through donation. But, because MS and Apple FORCE me to pay $50-100 and up for every piece of software I use, it should work PERFECTLY. Exhibit 1) Windows Vista. For 300 dollars, it should work Perfect. OSX Panther was another one that had the same sorts of issues, right out of the gate. Ubuntu also has problems, I'm not saying it doesn't, but the difference is, I don't HAVE to pay ANYTHING for Ubuntu.

One last point... I've asked some pretty dumb questions in these forums. Not once have I been insulted about it. Mac support called me a retard once. (And only once... Managers heard about that one.) Difference is again, Mac support=$350, Ubuntu support=$0.

Sorry to rant, but I felt I had to say something.

Thumper

[phoenix_snake]

Not Really. Please inform yourself more with what "API" actually means.


I think I know what it means, the only time hardware ever works properly with linux is when your kernel devs go and forceother companies to make their drivers open source for their competitors to see.


Every time I have asked an honest question about bugs or lacking features in an open source project, I have received a helpful response. There is a difference between an honest question and a demand.

you see thats the thing, developers better be able to take demands and threats cause just cause they are doing the work for free doesn't mean people should be nice to them.


You stated that "Mac users know linux pretty well". I sourced the quote in my post. That would clearly imply that Mac users in general know a good deal about Linux. I don't believe that is correct, so I asked why they would know more than Windows users, as an example.

ok then sorry about my previous reaction.


I don't deny that, and I was careful in phrasing my response. I don't want to deny Linux has problems or can use some serious interface improvements. But I just don't think you can ignore how powerful market forces are. Just improving the interface and usability isn't enough. For more details, see narrative number 1 in Linux-for-the-masses narratives (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/linux-for-the-masses-narratives/).

I actually find Linux easier to use than OS X for a variety of reasons, and the quality of apps really depends on the app. iPhoto is better than F-Spot but only by a little bit. I prefer iTunes to AmaroK even though AmaroK has better features, and I prefer Rhythmbox to iTunes even though Rhythmbox has fewer features. Firefox is better than Safari. And I prefer Thunderbird to Mail, although I love the universal inbox feature in Mail and would love to see that in a Thunderbird extension. Garageband is great and I don't think has a comparable Linux equivalent (even though alternatives exist). I don't think you can say across the board that Mac OS X apps are of superior quality.

If you like the way Apple does things, it does them fairly consistently. I happen to hate the universal toolbar, apps not quitting when the last window closes, zooming instead of maximizing, no cutting and pasting of files in the file browser, among a host of other problems in the Mac OS X interface.

Nevertheless, even if we were to hypothetically assume we were in agreement that Mac OS X apps are superior in quality, fun, and ease of use to Linux ones, I don't think making the Linux apps better would increase the market share 20 times in a year. You're basically saying Linux would be anywhere between 20 and 60 percent within a year. No way in hell that would happen within one year, no matter how good the apps. There are two main things people are looking for in apps: 1. Does it do what I want it to do and work with the file formats I already have used and saved in the past? 2. Am I already familiar with the interface or do I have to relearn a new way of doing things? Only after those two would come 3. Is the app "cool, fun, and easy to use"?

yes finally you seem to know what you are talking about and yeah I know when I said 20 times, I was just trying to make a point that linux market share could increase.

the thing I am saying linux devs and even ubuntu devs should make something so impressive that people want to use it.

for example the first time I used OS X was when Tiger came out, I had no idea linux existed at that time. anyway using Tiger, when I saw Apple's dock for the first time, the dashboard, their minimizing effect and how fast apps loaded.

I even noticed that Safari was so much faster than IE, and their interface was beautiful, and stuff like that.

I actually felt like learning it, I could even have stolen one at the time, though I didn't lol. The point is if something is awesome I think many people would give up what they are used to.

I agree that there is a fear of change, but when a person changes to linux, things not only change but they become difficult as well, for example I still haven't figured out why I can't rename my "/" partition in linux with nautilus even though there is an option to rename it. In Mac OS X things change as well, but they are still point and click, easy to use. In ubuntu intrepid I had to manually type in the resolutions in my xorg.conf to get a decent resolution just because the program someone has removed the program "displayconfig-gtk" which was there in Hardy.

Tell me how will a new user manage to do that, Hardy's method was so much easier.

I am also not saying all of linux's apps are horrible, for example firefox is great, amarok is great, but then if I use firefox in kde 4, it looks ugly and that ruins the experience.


So can I get the same level of interaction with Apple devs? Do they hang out in a forum or subscribe to a mailing list somewhere? Will they talk about upcoming projects, and debate feature requests with users? Seriously, I ask out of ignorance, not as a point of debate.

In Windows for example there is this customer experience program in Vista where you can give them your feed back, have you checked out the Windows 7 blog, they actually talk about the feed back they receive, they even mention some people give their feed back by calling customer care. This information is collected and because you are a paying customer you will actually get better treatment and not only that I bet you can shout at them right now and they won't say a thing :p

Here is the blog if you want to visit it:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

[lykwydchykyn]

In Windows for example there is this customer experience program in Vista where you can give them your feed back, have you checked out the Windows 7 blog, they actually talk about the feed back they receive, they even mention some people give their feed back by calling customer care. This information is collected and because you are a paying customer you will actually get better treatment and not only that I bet you can shout at them right now and they won't say a thing :p

Here is the blog if you want to visit it:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

Thanks, but how does that relate to Apple?
And again, I'd like to hear about your personal experience with open source developers and how they were unpleasant to you.

EDIT: interesting site, btw. Thanks for sharing it. I admit I couldn't read through much of it, because I'm not terribly interested in the future of windows.

[Frak]

Macbook: $1600 (I'm canadian)
PC: $1100

Adding a Linux OS to both of these: $0
Adding a Legal copy of windows (for some gaming):
Macbook: $200
PC: $0 (included with pc.)

Your numbers are a bit out there:

Macbook: $999 (I'm US, and yes, I checked)
PC: $700 (I'm US, and yes, I checked, and I compared)

Adding Linux OS to both of these: Usually $0 unless you need new hardware.
Adding a Legal copy of Windows (for some gaming):
Macbook: $100 - You don't buy a bloated version of Windows for gaming.
PC: $0 perceived, ~$200 in reality

The Microsoft Tax


And yes, Apple does charge you for OS X, it's included with the price of the hardware.

[lykwydchykyn]

@thumper13: To be fair, laptop hardware is generally more expensive than desktop/tower hardware, when comparing similar machines. Better to compare a macbook to a similarly equiped non-apple laptop.

[cardinals_fan]

I think I know what it means, the only time hardware ever works properly with linux is when your kernel devs go and forceother companies to make their drivers open source for their competitors to see.
Read, learn, understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API

Also, there is no requirement that Linux drivers be open source. Look at NVIDIA.


you see thats the thing, developers better be able to take demands and threats cause just cause they are doing the work for free doesn't mean people should be nice to them.
I'm not saying that we all need to be friendly and kind (although rudeness is a good way to deter improvements). This example is the simplest way I can think to say it:

Let's say that I decide to contribute to the openCucumber project. Over time, I ascend in stature within that community. Eventually, I become a core developer with full commit rights - in other words, a head honcho. If, on the project mailing lists, someone randomly pops in and says "My closedCucumber program has a dock, so yours should to, and your program sucks because it doesn't do what I want". Now, here's the thing: I'm not just a developer. I'm also a user. And if I feel that a dock would actually ruin the usefulness of openCucumber, I probably won't implement it, even though somebody asked for it. If I am volunteering my time, I will volunteer it on something that I think is useful.


In Windows for example there is this customer experience program in Vista where you can give them your feed back, have you checked out the Windows 7 blog, they actually talk about the feed back they receive, they even mention some people give their feed back by calling customer care. This information is collected and because you are a paying customer you will actually get better treatment and not only that I bet you can shout at them right now and they won't say a thing :p

Here is the blog if you want to visit it:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/
It's good to see that Microsoft is opening up their development process a bit. However, this blog prints what they choose to release - think of it as selective PR releases. I'm not saying that the developers are lying, but this isn't even a window into Windows development - it's more like a television screen showing what they choose to show. When I post on the Xfce mailing lists, I'm not just asking for a PR release. I am reading the actual messages between developers as they work on the program, and I am viewing the real process as it is built.

Also, does Apple have an equivalent to this blog?

[phoenix_snake]

Thanks, but how does that relate to Apple?
And again, I'd like to hear about your personal experience with open source developers and how they were unpleasant to you.

EDIT: interesting site, btw. Thanks for sharing it. I admit I couldn't read through much of it, because I'm not terribly interested in the future of windows.
Apple has the same thing you can talk about stuff you would like to change in a customer care center, thats how these companies collect feed back and stuff, sometimes they run campaigns to collect feed back, for example in Panther the option to fax was added cause some companies called Apple and they needed to fax and stuff.

[cardinals_fan]

PC: $0 perceived, ~$200 in reality

Actually, OEMs only end up charging the end-user about $20-50.

[Frak]

Also, there is no requirement that Linux drivers be open source. Look at NVIDIA.

Userspace drivers can have any license, but kernelspace drivers are required to be GPL. This is because kernel modules are considered (by some, this is a legal gray area) derivative works of the Linux kernel and therefore must be GPL. Therefore, Nvidia drivers are userspace.

This is why you cannot use proprietary drivers during startup. Instead, it uses GPL ones.

[LaRoza]

Actually, OEMs only end up charging the end-user about $20-50.

It varies, but I know Dell says it is $50, but I haven't heard it as low as $20.

Also take into consideration the trialware on the computers, which may mitigate the cost to the user, but MS still gets the money.

[cardinals_fan]

Userspace drivers can have any license, but kernelspace drivers are required to be GPL. This is because kernel modules are considered (by some, this is a legal gray area) derivative works of the Linux kernel and therefore must be GPL. Therefore, Nvidia drivers are userspace.

This is why you cannot use proprietary drivers during startup. Instead, it uses GPL ones.
I stand corrected. Yet another reason to use NetBSD... ;)

It varies, but I know Dell says it is $50, but I haven't heard it as low as $20.

Also take into consideration the trialware on the computers, which may mitigate the cost to the user, but MS still gets the money.
I don't really care if Microsoft gets the money, so long as I don't lose it. The $20 figure came from an OEM blog, but I can't remember which one. In any case, I think $50 is a fair average.

[phoenix_snake]

Read, learn, understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API

Also, there is no requirement that Linux drivers be open source. Look at NVIDIA.


already read that loads of times to understand it, I never said linux drivers need to be open source but devs did try and force nvidia to open source their right?



I'm not saying that we all need to be friendly and kind (although rudeness is a good way to deter improvements). This example is the simplest way I can think to say it:

Let's say that I decide to contribute to the openCucumber project. Over time, I ascend in stature within that community. Eventually, I become a core developer with full commit rights - in other words, a head honcho. If, on the project mailing lists, someone randomly pops in and says "My closedCucumber program has a dock, so yours should to, and your program sucks because it doesn't do what I want". Now, here's the thing: I'm not just a developer. I'm also a user. And if I feel that a dock would actually ruin the usefulness of openCucumber, I probably won't implement it, even though somebody asked for it. If I am volunteering my time, I will volunteer it on something that I think is useful.


exactly, you have to care about what users want more than what you as a developer want for example gnome developers don't add many features cause they think it will make it complicated, but if many users want it then it should be added.



It's good to see that Microsoft is opening up their development process a bit. However, this blog prints what they choose to release - think of it as selective PR releases. I'm not saying that the developers are lying, but this isn't even a window into Windows development - it's more like a television screen showing what they choose to show. When I post on the Xfce mailing lists, I'm not just asking for a PR release. I am reading the actual messages between developers as they work on the program, and I am viewing the real process as it is built.

Also, does Apple have an equivalent to this blog?

come on, they have a comments section, now Microsoft does something nice and all of a sudden you talk about it being something they choose to show, I am sure they have people that read every comment on their pages and analyze them otherwise whats the point of having a blog right?

no Apple doesn't have an equivalent to this blog.

[phoenix_snake]

thanks for telling me about openSUSE LaRoza, I will try that, it looks good, any other nice distros to try out? :)

[LaRoza]

thanks for telling me about openSUSE LaRoza, I will try that, it looks good, any other nice distros to try out? :)

OzOS http://www.cafelinux.org/OzOs/

[cardinals_fan]

already read that loads of times to understand it, I never said linux drivers need to be open source but devs did try and force nvidia to open source their right?
As Frak explained above, kernelspace drivers DO have to be open source on Linux. NVIDIA drivers are userspace. I stand corrected on this.


exactly, you have to care about what users want more than what you as a developer want for example gnome developers don't add many features cause they think it will make it complicated, but if many users want it then it should be added.
Who decides what is right? If I think that something is a fundamentally bad idea, why should I waste my own personal time to implement it?


come on, they have a comments section, now Microsoft does something nice and all of a sudden you talk about it being something they choose to show, I am sure they have people that read every comment on their pages and analyze them otherwise whats the point of having a blog right?

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that while this blog is a step in the right direction, you aren't watching the actual development of Windows 7. The developers aren't actually communicating with each other through this blog. The real development is happening out of sight.

[estyles]

I stand corrected. Yet another reason to use NetBSD... ;)

I don't really care if Microsoft gets the money, so long as I don't lose it. The $20 figure came from an OEM blog, but I can't remember which one. In any case, I think $50 is a fair average.

On pricewatch, new PC's with Windows tend to be about $70 more than the same models with no OS (going by the cheapest price for a PC with the same processor - which tend to have similar baseline equipment as well). It doesn't matter if Dell "charges" $20 or $50 for the OS, since they don't offer the same computer sans OS. If you can get the same basic configuration that they offer with Windows for $70 less on pricewatch with no OS, then the OS is costing you $70.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if $70 is the correct number or if it's a little more or a little less. It's definitely not $20.

[Frak]

OzOS http://www.cafelinux.org/OzOs/
You should really pass it to Joseph to try and make a PPC version. I'd donate server time to it.

[cardinals_fan]

On pricewatch, new PC's with Windows tend to be about $70 more than the same models with no OS (going by the cheapest price for a PC with the same processor - which tend to have similar baseline equipment as well). It doesn't matter if Dell "charges" $20 or $50 for the OS, since they don't offer the same computer sans OS. If you can get the same basic configuration that they offer with Windows for $70 less on pricewatch with no OS, then the OS is costing you $70.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if $70 is the correct number or if it's a little more or a little less. It's definitely not $20.
'Naked' computers on Pricewatch are not made by major OEMS. These OEMs use their bulk purchasing to cut deals with Microsoft. Also, the lack of a brand name reduces prices itself - that's much of why Pricewatch exists.

[phoenix_snake]

As Frak explained above, kernelspace drivers DO have to be open source on Linux. NVIDIA drivers are userspace. I stand corrected on this.


yes I know that, all I was saying was that I think its crazy that kernel devs forces nvidia to open source their drivers.



Who decides what is right? If I think that something is a fundamentally bad idea, why should I waste my own personal time to implement it?


thats the difference if users want something devs should implement it, and here my point comes in to place the idea of devs "you don't pay me I don't care what you want"

other devs do add requested features cause their customers pay them.



I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that while this blog is a step in the right direction, you aren't watching the actual development of Windows 7. The developers aren't actually communicating with each other through this blog. The real development is happening out of sight.

devs don't need to communicate with each other, its purpose is to get feed back from users, the reason their devs don't need to communicate with each other is they all work for Microsoft obviously and aren't scattered about all over the world like open source ones.

[cardinals_fan]

thats the difference if users want something devs should implement it, and here my point comes in to place the idea of devs "you don't pay me I don't care what you want"

other devs do add requested features cause their customers pay them.
Wait a second. In my example, why should I implement something that I think is a terrible idea? Don't I matter?


devs don't need to communicate with each other, its purpose is to get feed back from users, the reason their devs don't need to communicate with each other is they all work for Microsoft obviously and aren't scattered about all over the world like open source ones.
Of course they need to communicate! Just because they all work at Microsoft doesn't mean that they're all part of the Borg collective consciousness! Also, Microsoft employs programmers, testers, and market research employees around the world. Believe me, they do communicate - through email, video conferencing, and other means.

[lykwydchykyn]

Apple has the same thing you can talk about stuff you would like to change in a customer care center, thats how these companies collect feed back and stuff, sometimes they run campaigns to collect feed back, for example in Panther the option to fax was added cause some companies called Apple and they needed to fax and stuff.

Help me understand this, since I have no access to the customer care center. When you give feedback, do you have actual access to the people who are developing this software? Are you dealing with the people who write the code and make decisions about what goes in and how it's implemented? Or are you buffered through some customer relations/helpdesk department? Can I debate design/development decisions with the actual people doing the job?

And can I do this as joe user, not as a big company representing a large amount of potential revenue?

[lykwydchykyn]

thats the difference if users want something devs should implement it, and here my point comes in to place the idea of devs "you don't pay me I don't care what you want"


So do Apple et al implement every user request, or only the ones that have a significant ROI?

[phoenix_snake]

Wait a second. In my example, why should I implement something that I think is a terrible idea? Don't I matter?

Of course they need to communicate! Just because they all work at Microsoft doesn't mean that they're all part of the Borg collective consciousness! Also, Microsoft employs programmers, testers, and market research employees around the world. Believe me, they do communicate - through email, video conferencing, and other means.

devs matter but users matter more, whats the point of developing if you don't listen to users?

about the communication thing why do you take everything word to word, or are you just trying to make me mad? are you, cause its working.

anyone sensible enough will know devs communicate, all I meant was they don't need to communicate through a blog.


Help me understand this, since I have no access to the customer care center. When you give feedback, do you have actual access to the people who are developing this software? Are you dealing with the people who write the code and make decisions about what goes in and how it's implemented? Or are you buffered through some customer relations/helpdesk department? Can I debate design/development decisions with the actual people doing the job?

And can I do this as joe user, not as a big company representing a large amount of potential revenue?

the kind of involvement you want, I really don't know if that kind is there, but trust me no business survives without listening to customers and every business listens to customers if they want to survive.

[cardinals_fan]

devs matter but users matter more, whats the point of developing if you don't listen to users?

about the communication thing why do you take everything word to word, or are you just trying to make me mad? are you, cause its working.

anyone sensible enough will know devs communicate, all I meant was they don't need to communicate through a blog.

Maybe some people develop because they can't find anything that does what they want and make their own instead. That's the point I was trying to make with my example: developers are users too! If I am paid to develop something (which some kernel/GNOME/KDE/etc. devs are), then I am required to listen to customer opinion. If, however, I write code purely to create something that I can use myself, I have no obligation to ruin it with ideas I feel are wrong.

As for the communication, I meant that this blog doesn't let me, a non-developer, see what the developers at Microsoft are really doing. That, in my opinion, is the biggest advantage of most open source software: I can observe every link in the chain of software development. From discussion on the mailing lists to the actual code to bug tracking, I can see exactly how the product is really made.

[phoenix_snake]

Maybe some people develop because they can't find anything that does what they want and make their own instead. That's the point I was trying to make with my example: developers are users too! If I am paid to develop something (which some kernel/GNOME/KDE/etc. devs are), then I am required to listen to customer opinion. If, however, I write code purely to create something that I can use myself, I have no obligation to ruin it with ideas I feel are wrong.

As for the communication, I meant that this blog doesn't let me, a non-developer, see what the developers at Microsoft are really doing. That, in my opinion, is the biggest advantage of most open source software: I can observe every link in the chain of software development. From discussion on the mailing lists to the actual code to bug tracking, I can see exactly how the product is really made.
If you are making a program for your own purposes, then why even bother releasing something you don't want to improve by listening to consumers?

If you want to be that involved stay with open source software, but this advantage doesn't appeal many desktop users since they aren't developers.

Besides many open source programs are all there on Windows as well for example Picasa and Chrome etc.

[cardinals_fan]

If you are making a program for your own purposes, then why even bother releasing something you don't want to improve by listening to consumers?

If you want to be that involved stay with open source software, but this advantage doesn't appeal many desktop users since they aren't developers.

Besides many open source programs are all there on Windows as well for example Picasa and Chrome etc.
Sometimes people share common likes/dislikes. It's always good to share what you make.

I think we've gone WAY off-topic now :P

[aysiu]

There's a difference between surviving and thriving.

You're right. To a certain extent, businesses have to listen to customers in order to survive. How great an extent that is depends on how competitive an edge the business has.

If you are in a pool of about 100 other businesses that all have about equal market share, name recognition, and quality, then you had better listen to just about everything the vast majority of your customers want.

If you are total monopoly and basically the only provider of your services to the population, then you actually don't have to listen to your customers at all. They have to listen to you.

No one has a total monopoly in the consumer OS department, but what we see now is a lot closer to the second scenario than the first. Microsoft has pretty close to a monopoly, and Mac OS X appears to most consumers to be the only other choice (most are not aware of Linux or want to install and configure Linux themselves). So Microsoft actually has to listen to its users only to the extent to which the company is afraid its users will migrate to Mac OS X. And Apple has to listen to its users only to the extent it has to worry about its users going to Windows.

We saw this with web browsers. When Internet Explorer was the web browser, Microsoft saw no need to innovate whatsoever. "Everyone" was locked into IE, so they could just ride on inertia. Once Firefox started taking major market share away from them, they released IE 7 as fast as they could and implemented tab browsing and other modern web browsing features.

Microsoft and Apple only listen to their customers as much as they need to in order to survive. They do not strive to make everyone happy. They strive to do enough to keep their customers and gain more customers.

Do you really believe that if I told Apple I wanted maximized windows and cut and paste in Finder that they'd say, "Hey, this is what the customers want. Let's do it"? Instead of "No, this is the way we do things"?

Every developer does what she thinks is best unless she's paid to do otherwise. And unless the customer is the only client (and there isn't a manager who acts as a buffer), the developer doesn't do exactly what the client says unless the developer or her boss actually agrees it should be done.

The main difference with open source and proprietary is this: if proprietary software doesn't do what you want, the only thing you can do is keep using it or use something else. If open source doesn't do what you want, you can learn how to program and make it do what you want, or pay someone else to program and make it do what you want.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

One thing that keeps me away from OS X is the mouse acceleration. Really, the way the pointer moves in relation to the mouse hurts my hand. If I was to use MacOS for an extended time, I would probably injur myself.

And on the topic of MacOS having better software, I have recently become converted to The GIMP. Not because it has superior colour management, but because its interface is amazing. Yes, I said it. The amazing thing about GIMP's interface is no where the buttons are, but how each and every input device can have a different tool assigned to it. Right now my tablet eraser is the Smudge tool, my tablet's pen tip is a paintbrush and my mouse is used for selecting things. I may find a few extra mice just for fun, but perhaps I'll hold off on that magic until XInput 2 is stable.

Speaking of which, XInput 2 is Linux's Snow Leopard; the reason why I am super optimistic about the future. XInput 2 incorporates MPX (multi pointer X; multi-touch screens and multiple mice). Hopefully that will be allowing us (with some extra tweaking elsewhere) something truly revolutionary: Multi-seat machines without thin clients!

[phoenix_snake]

There's a difference between surviving and thriving.

You're right. To a certain extent, businesses have to listen to customers in order to survive. How great an extent that is depends on how competitive an edge the business has.

If you are in a pool of about 100 other businesses that all have about equal market share, name recognition, and quality, then you had better listen to just about everything the vast majority of your customers want.

If you are total monopoly and basically the only provider of your services to the population, then you actually don't have to listen to your customers at all. They have to listen to you.

No one has a total monopoly in the consumer OS department, but what we see now is a lot closer to the second scenario than the first. Microsoft has pretty close to a monopoly, and Mac OS X appears to most consumers to be the only other choice (most are not aware of Linux or want to install and configure Linux themselves). So Microsoft actually has to listen to its users only to the extent to which the company is afraid its users will migrate to Mac OS X. And Apple has to listen to its users only to the extent it has to worry about its users going to Windows.

We saw this with web browsers. When Internet Explorer was the web browser, Microsoft saw no need to innovate whatsoever. "Everyone" was locked into IE, so they could just ride on inertia. Once Firefox started taking major market share away from them, they released IE 7 as fast as they could and implemented tab browsing and other modern web browsing features.

Microsoft and Apple only listen to their customers as much as they need to in order to survive. They do not strive to make everyone happy. They strive to do enough to keep their customers and gain more customers.

Do you really believe that if I told Apple I wanted maximized windows and cut and paste in Finder that they'd say, "Hey, this is what the customers want. Let's do it"? Instead of "No, this is the way we do things"?

Every developer does what she thinks is best unless she's paid to do otherwise. And unless the customer is the only client (and there isn't a manager who acts as a buffer), the developer doesn't do exactly what the client says unless the developer or her boss actually agrees it should be done.

The main difference with open source and proprietary is this: if proprietary software doesn't do what you want, the only thing you can do is keep using it or use something else. If open source doesn't do what you want, you can learn how to program and make it do what you want, or pay someone else to program and make it do what you want.

This is true, but not all companies turn in to monopolies or giving their employees lets say poor working environments, some businesses have high moral standards.

Sure there is no such thing as perfect competition, what we are seeing in the computer industry is more like monopolistic or oligopolistic competition.

I know not every feature will be implemented but they definitely treat your request with a lot more importance than open source devs do, learn to program?

I doubt any regular person will learn to program, but you could always pay someone but that can be done in the commercial world as well and most people can't afford to higher some one to make tailor made software unless you work for a company.

[cardinals_fan]

I know not every feature will be implemented but they definitely treat your request with a lot more importance than open source devs do, learn to program?

I have submitted three ideas to Apple. I received no response to any of them. On the other hand, every single comment I have submitted to various Linux distros has been recognized with a response.

Where exactly was the "learn to program" remark stated?

[aysiu]

I know not every feature will be implemented but they definitely treat your request with a lot more importance than open source devs do, learn to program? Well, I think what you're talking about is a customer service issue, not a development model issue. If I make an unreasonable request to Apple or Microsoft for a feature I want that they don't, they'll have some customer service person tell me "Thank you for your input. We are constantly trying to improve our products, and customer input is an important part of that process. Unfortunately, we can't make any guarantees your suggestion will be implemented, but we appreciate your feedback and hope you will keep using our products" or something like that. If I make an unreasonable request to Gnome devs, for example, they'll just tell me they think it's an unreasonable request and won't do it.

Either way, my request got denied. You're just asking for customer service fluff instead of a straight answer, I guess. Since I work in a customer service role in my job, I can appreciate the importance of fluff and proper phrasing and tact, but I also recognize that smoothing over a delivery doesn't change the message.


I doubt any regular person will learn to program, but you could always pay someone but that can be done in the commercial world as well and most people can't afford to higher some one to make tailor made software unless you work for a company. Here's the difference, though: if you pay someone to implement one feature in an open source program, they have the program already written for them and just need to fix a few things. If you pay someone to implement one feature in a closed source program, they have to write the entire program themselves from scratch and replicate every function of the original program... and then implement the new desired feature.

[K.Mandla]

Moved to Recurring Discussions.

[seeker5528]

Hmmm, what a thread.

Never had access to a working OS X system long enough to build up a list, but with the limited exposure I have had.... With tools provided in OS X I....

Couldn't clone a drive.
Couldn't resize a drive.
Couldn't even create a partition in unpartitioned space without being told all partitions on the drive would be formatted. :shock: #-o

Even with Linux (from System Rescue CD) using gparted I could only make the Mac partition smaller, but it was a one way ticket, no way to make it larger again.

So after using 'dd' to clone the drive, I couldn't expand the partition to fit the new drive, and after booting into OS X (or booting from the OS X installation media) couldn't create a new partition in the free space without formatting all partitions on the drive.

I'm sure there must be something you can run from the command line in OS X to do the partitioning and formatting, without wiping partitions you want to keep in tact, still doesn't tackle the resizing issue.

Wasn't really interested in poking around the command line stuff at the time, was primarily to test some stuff out without doing something that would mess up the original drive, and the person I cloned the drive for was told by a Mac dude that he looks to for guidance in Mac affairs that you couldn't clone an OS X Mac drive. :-k

Later, Seeker

[lykwydchykyn]

I know not every feature will be implemented but they definitely treat your request with a lot more importance than open source devs do...

Again, you are generalizing about open source devs. Which ones have you dealt with? I've asked that question three times now.

In any software project -- or any creative endeavor for that matter -- you have a vision for the end result. The vision gets modified as you get feedback, and if you're good at what you do you take time to listen and consider the feedback. Sometimes you realize the things people want don't fit your vision. Sometimes you realize your vision stinks and you need to rethink it to incorporate the good ideas you get. For a company, this happens behind closed doors, and from what you have described to me the customer only gets to drop suggestions in the box and keep their fingers crossed. I wonder, how many Apple users were unhappy about the move from MacOS to OS X? I knew a lot who were, most of the professional musicians or producers with high-end ProTools rigs. Did Apple listen to the customer here? Should they have? Arguably, no. They had a vision for a better product, and they knew there were scalability problems with MacOS that demanded a new OS architecture. So they switched, and eventually customers came around. Howabout the move from PPC to Intel? Customer demand? I doubt it; how many customers wanted all their old software either obsoleted or forced to run in an emulator? Yet it seems the move was the right one. I am sure the poor folks at Apple Customer Care heard a few rants and raves about this, but I doubt the developers and architects who were building the future of Apple had to suffer through it. If they had, I'm sure you'd have seen some good flamewars.

Now, there are FOSS developers who don't listen to users at times. Usually one of two things happens: (1) the developer gets to flesh out his vision for the software, and people finally "get it" and decide he/she was right all along, or (2) someone who is listening forks the project.

[Frak]

Hmmm, what a thread.

Never had access to a working OS X system long enough to build up a list, but with the limited exposure I have had.... With tools provided in OS X I....

Couldn't clone a drive.
Couldn't resize a drive.
Couldn't even create a partition in unpartitioned space without being told all partitions on the drive would be formatted. :shock: #-o

Even with Linux (from System Rescue CD) using gparted I could only make the Mac partition smaller, but it was a one way ticket, no way to make it larger again.

So after using 'dd' to clone the drive, I couldn't expand the partition to fit the new drive, and after booting into OS X (or booting from the OS X installation media) couldn't create a new partition in the free space without formatting all partitions on the drive.

I'm sure there must be something you can run from the command line in OS X to do the partitioning and formatting, without wiping partitions you want to keep in tact, still doesn't tackle the resizing issue.

Wasn't really interested in poking around the command line stuff at the time, was primarily to test some stuff out without doing something that would mess up the original drive, and the person I cloned the drive for was told by a Mac dude that he looks to for guidance in Mac affairs that you couldn't clone an OS X Mac drive. :-k

Later, Seeker
1. dd to another disk
2. Go into Disk Utility and resize (unless there is only one partition)
3. Right click on the unpartitioned space and choose format

[ericesque]

Did anyone actually read the OP?

For the average person, no, Linux really can't do anything that a Mac can't. There's little commercial software developed for linux because the underlying ideology is to be open and share. That's not to say that the software can't perform at an enterprise level.

Linux shines as a server OS and clustering. That's why huge internet companies like eBay use linux. Through linux, companies can create an inexpensive scalable system that will grow with their business. I believe Pixar also uses linux computers for rendering.

Here's one example of a home user employing linux to cluster 6 systems in order to save money on creating his own render farm: http://helmer.sfe.se/ That's 24 cores and 48 GB of ram on 6 motherboards all outfitted into an Ikea filing cabinet. TRY DOING THAT WITH MAC! (note I did say 'save money' in there-- yes, macs can cluster)

[lykwydchykyn]

Did anyone actually read the OP?

Sure; did you read the intervening 20 pages? I hope for your sanity's sake the answer is "no".

[ericesque]

so maybe it was more of a one...two...skip a few...99, 20 pages! Perhaps I asked so that someone who HAD read all 20 pages could tell me ;)

[Canis familiaris]

Userspace drivers can have any license, but kernelspace drivers are required to be GPL. This is because kernel modules are considered (by some, this is a legal gray area) derivative works of the Linux kernel and therefore must be GPL. Therefore, Nvidia drivers are userspace.

This is why you cannot use proprietary drivers during startup. Instead, it uses GPL ones.

Exactly. That is in my opinion a problem. FreeBSD has an advantage in this regard (since it's licensed by BSDL)
However it has to be noted that for the such drivers small chunk of the driver should be in kernel space (How else would it function?)
http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/linux-kernel-2623-to-have-stable-userspace-driver-api/

I have no idea though how nVidia/ATI implement though...

[wolf1603]

Bump

[powerslave12r]

What this discussion seems to be missing is that Ubuntu isn't shiny enough out of the box as OSX (with the shiny macbook exterior) without some customizations - which require you know what you do. And that's why to an average user, Mac OSX is such a tempting choice.


EDIT: Sorry, just noticed the post date.