OS X Vs. Linux On The Desktop 731
saintlupus writes: "There's an interesting article about the recent web browsing stats of Linux by Charles Moore, a fairly well-known web journalist in the Mac community. He asks whether OS X is the deathblow to Linux in the desktop and scientific computing markets. He also touches on the perennial "I'll run it on my Athlon or not at all" mindset of current Lintel hardware owners. Definitely worth a read." The article that Charles uses as his jumping point is the recent stats on Linux on the desktop. That article cites .24%, but Charles article has some pieces on why that number could be wrong.
OS X vs. Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, Aqua is smooooth!
Mandrake is pretty good for desktop users, and SuSE is pretty good for Windows "Power Users" and above.
I think there's a place for both OS X and Linux. Macintosh has a very loyal following, and so does Linux, so I don't see either team dying out any time soon. Personally, I'd rather have source code than fluff.
Re:OS X vs. Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux not only costs less, you can get hardware that will run it for next-to-nothing. The article's notation of a proliferation of ibooks at this or that conference is close to meaningless. Those conferences are damn expensive! You would have seen the same people with Apple Newtons (or whatever other pricy-trendy gadget) a few years ago.
Re:But for how long (Score:2)
Please excuse me from the "we" in your comment. I quite honestly don't know that OSX has a better interface than what is available for Linux. In a head to head comparison of both Aqua and KDE, for instance, where does Aqua excel exactly?
When evaluating OSX for some Mac users I support I ran into serious difficulties in how to make basic changes to the GUI. Dumb things, like the background graphic, system colors, and other stuff along them lines.
On the other hand, my first experience with KDE (back on 1.12 as I recall) I managed to locate all kinds of tweaks to the UI with mostly all the control center objects being where I expected to find them. Add to this seemless multiple desktop support and I just don't see the all the phu phu graphical effects from Aqua comparing.
I guess I may be trolling a bit here, but I get a little irritated at comments that suggest that either KDE or Gnome are somehow inferior products to what MS or Apple shell out. If anything it seems that both those companies have a ways to go to work in even a portion of the real usability features found on the *nix desktop.
Re:But for how long (Score:4, Troll)
The typical Windows user would start looking in the desktop properties. On a Mac it's in control panels. On Windows it's in control panel. On Linux it's in
The open-source ethos seems to dictate that many smaller applications from different authors are better than a big all-consuming application. I like this idea, but it means that every single unix GUI setup has different settings and applications, and this is not a good thing for the end-user.
This is why I don't like the idea of Linux on the desktop. OK, it may seem simple to the user, and this may be all well and good, but in actuality it *isn't simple*. Continuing the old refresh rate theme, what happens if the user's monitor isn't detected properly and the horizontal refresh range is set too high. If you say to a newbie Linux user "Oh, you'll need to reboot into a lower runlevel, login as root, and edit the appropriate section in XF86Config", they're not going to feel particularly confident about this Linux thing. Most Windows users wouldn't know what a horizontal refresh rate is.
The differences between OS X and Linux are huge: The Linux GUIs are programmed (mostly) for hackers by hackers. They're based on the huge estoteric heap of junk known as XFree. Whether it's the appropriate solution is not the point. The point is, it's yet another layer of complexity onto an already complex OS.
The OS X GUI is developed by a company loved by some for it's gorgeous design. It's developed by paid engineers for non-technical users. It's a window manager and desktop environment in one. It's vaguely based on an existing OS. And most importantly, it's designed so the user should never see the command line, unless they want to. Oh, and it's bloody gorgeous
I'm rambling now... I wonder if any of the above made sense...
Perennial attitudes (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I might consider OS X if Steve Jobs didn't have a perennial "You'll run it on our overpriced, single-sourced, proprietary, artsy-fartsy hardware or not at all" mindset.
Re:Perennial attitudes (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple comes up with a business plan to compete, on a small scale, with M$ and Linux users around the world complain about expensive hardware? They are *competing* with Microsoft (yes, you are complaining about hardware costs, and I am commenting on software competition - but, for the most part, with Apple you need to combine the two together - Apple is in the hardware and software market, and each computer sold is a unit of both).
No, BeOS demonstrated that it is going to be very difficult to design, write, sell, and support an alternative OS for the Intel market. Even Redhat and others are having problems, and they do not do the vast majority of R&D and writing on the Linux kernel.
Also look at it this way: Apple's hardware is well designed, and relatively fast. People who comment on Apple losing the "bang for the buck" competition never think that design is a desireable feature worth paying for.
Re:Perennial attitudes (Score:2)
BeOS had few if any of these advantages; I have never been tempted to either buy it or use it for free.
Another thing: the MS settlement might hopefully give hardware vendors the freedom to preinstall OS X along with windows. It would be nice to have the option to unlock either Windows or OS X on a freshly purchased machine. I'd choose OS X.
Unless and until all this comes to pass, I continue to fill my brain with Linux minutia.
Re:Perennial attitudes (Score:4)
If your memories continue to evolve, are you saying your static ROM memory is replaced on a regular basis? Wouldn't there be some rather high costs associated behind that?
The whole point, Mr. Anonymous Fscking Moron, is that you can't prove that your memory evolves because you can't prove that your past experience isn't fake, nor can you prove that you will have any future experiences. Try to find some imagination, loser.
I think you're a fucking lunatic who doesn't know a god damned thing about industry terms (otherwise you'd be saying EPROM or something, not a static ROM chip -- a ROM chip by definition IS static, you stupid fuck...once you're written to it, you can never write to it again)
It's an image that statically placed in a ROM, not an image in a "static ROM". Your anal retentive rant is nothing more than a figment of your inability to comprehend a simple sentence.
Not really a valid comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
I think OS X vs. Linux on PPC hardware is easily won by OS X. PPC Linux does not give you the ability to seamlessly run Windows software and games in an environment such as Wine like x86 Linux does. Sure, there is MacOnLinux, but Mac OS X's classic environment outclasses MOL's feature set and speed in nearly every aspect.
You also must consider the target of each OS. OS X is truly designed to be a desktop OS, with server use as a secondary function. They even offer a higher priced server version of OS X that would be more of a comparison for Linux on the server market.
I think with Macintosh hardware, OS X clearly wins over Linux. With x86 hardware, Linux obviously wins, because there is no OS X for x86 hardware
Its all in the hardware platform.. not the OS.
Unlikely (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Unless Motorola (ha!) or IBM (more likely, but still
2. Neither Linux (currently technically incapable) or OS X (incompatible hardware) are in a position to challenge MS for the commodity desktop. This situation is not likely to change any time soon.
3. OS X will
Peace,
(jfb)
Re:Unlikely (Score:3, Informative)
1) Wait till early next year, when the G5s are released. Speeds are rumored from 1 gHz to 2.2 gHz, plus with the G5's incredibly awesome SMP capabilities, multiple CPU configurations will not at all be uncommon. Add to that some very scientifically friendly things like the fact that it's a full 64-bit CPU (lots and lots of RAM) and the 128-bit vector units, and you suddenly have a VERY attractive package.
2) He never claims they'll be able to. Macs and Linux have always been niche markets. He's just claiming that OS X is nudging Linux out of its niche.
3) It doesn't really need to be. OS X works so well because Apple doesn't have to support a bunch of odd third-party hardware, so instead everything works REALLY well on their one platform. Apple's hardware is by no means second-rate. The build quality and nice little touches are tops over any I've seen on the x86 side of things. Apple sees themselves as more the Mercedes of computers, where Compaq would be the Toyota. And for the most part, as long as people adopt the hardware and software changes, software vendors are more than happy to port the software (and trust me, OS X is sooo much better than OS 9.)
Re:Unlikely (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it sounds pretty reasonable to me.
1. The rumored G5 is a joke. No, bear with me. The numbers bandied about for the (illusory) G5 at 1.6 ghz are preposterous (1342 SpecInt2000 and 1364 SpecFP2000 -- ha!), more realistic numbers are well under the current performance of high-end x86, and Moto's semi division is in even more trouble than Carly Fiorina.
2. Yes, Linux and OS X are niche markets; different niches. Linux is squeezing Solaris, and OS X is squeezing
3. We're in total agreement.
Peace,
(jfb)
Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Funny)
This is absolute bullshit... I have a beige G3 that is "supported" by OS X. Wanna know what happened when I bought OS X 10.1.1 to use with it?
The SCSI CD-ROM (Apple 12x) wouldn't boot the disc. I called Apple, they said use an Apple IDE CD-ROM, the old SCSI CD-ROMs didn't have the right firmware, so I bought an Apple IDE CD-ROM.
Then, I kept getting SCSI errors with my 2GB Apple SCSI hard drive. Yes, termination was correct. Apple responded that SCSI doesn't work very well under OS X on G3 systems due to driver issues with the built-in SCSI. They say try an IDE drive, so I go out and buy an IDE hard drive. Finally I get OS X installed.
Then, the graphics were slow and 3D acceleration didn't seem to work properly. Apple informs me that 2D acceleration is only partially implemented on beige G3 systems and 3D not at all, use classic for that since there are no plans to augment driver support for beige G3 systems.
So I was going to send off a letter to Apple to complain. I started up AppleWorks and typed in a nice letter, then went to try to use my Apple LaserWriter IIg, connected to my Beige G3's printer port.
OOPS! The built-in printer port on G3 systems is unsupported (it uses, you guessed it, AppleTalk). I call again, Apple says use classic if I need to print or get a new printer and a USB card since there are no plans to support AppleTalk/LocalTalk. I already bought a new CD-ROM drive, a new hard drive, and a new OS for this Mac. No way I was going to buy a USB card and a new printer just to print.
And unfortunately, the reason I switched away from Mac OS Classic on that machine is because the thing crashes any time you open more than four or five windows that are doing something. On my Linux box, I can open windows until the cows come home without bad effects.
So that's my story. I was all eager to try this wonderful new Linux-killing "perfect Unix" OS X. I shelled out for it, but turns out I got the shaft from Apple on THEIR hardware -- and RECENT, SUPPORTED hardware at that. Looks like OS X is only a bait-and-switch to get you to buy a brand new Mac with each release.
Slashdot readers are right. You can't afford OS X.
Re:Unlikely (Score:2, Funny)
Silly me. I guess I should've hired someone.
Re:Unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed.
Right now my main computer, an Alpha 21164A, is about five years old. It does everything I need it to do. I know it's not a speed demon anymore but to be honest, even the GHz+ computers can look just as slow because XP takes so much power to look pretty.
I think the computer industry is forgetting that actual people need to USE their machines and that people often end up feeling used when software bugfixes mean having to get new hardware. I've known a lot of people that have the idea that Big Hardware and Big Software are colluding, which is why the term "Wintel Duopoly" came about - new software required new hardware to work, and new hardware invariably required new software to work, and that support old software and old hardware is ignored. It's practically as if people using products even three years old have to go to flea markets to get stuff that works with what they have.
Heck, I tried getting Norton AntiVirus for my Dad, it turns out that the 2002 version _barely_ supports Windows 98B (~two or three years old now), only by means of including NAV 2001 on the CD for those users.
As for Macs, they look fine, seem to work fine for a lot of things, but some things are a real hassle.
The thing that I do like about Linux is that it's the users that decide obsolescence, not the companies. As long as there are available users they'll make their own determinations about what is obsolete. If it works fine for a person on a 386 then so be it.
Carbon vs Cocoa (Score:2)
Re:Unlikely (Score:2, Informative)
(1)(a). Mainstream scientific computing is done on big iron made by someone other than Intel. Solaris SPARCs are used a lot, for instance. My grad school days in Astronomy and Physics were spent on SGI Octanes (yummy).
(1)(b). You seem to have fallen prey to the MHz myths. Have you used a recent G3 or G4? The PowerPC architecture is *built* for heavy duty mathematical precoessing.
(2). Well, alright, point there.
(3). Sorting through this jumbled mass of points was a barrel of laughs. True, OS X won't go x86. And true, Apple makes a lot of money from hardware, thus supporting the lack of a port. Of course, this means that MS support can't send me to Intel and Intel can't send me right back to MS. If it's broke, you have only to make one call. That's as may be. Point me to reports of Apple alienating developers. They've spent loads of time and resources helping developers move to Cocoa. In fact, that's what Carbon [apple.com] is for. They also provide one of the best Java VMs [apple.com] out there. Apple is embracing (as in welcoming, not as in extending) the technology, rather than trying to quash it or "standarize it" out of existence. They even provide a Cocoa API for Java, should you wish to optimize further. They are bringing more developers on board, while making the trasnition from Classic to OS X as easy as possible. If anyone is alienating developers with their new OS, it's Microsoft [zdnetindia.com].
Re:Unlikely (Score:2)
Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple wants you to buy new machines because they are a hardware company.
GNU wants you to be productive with your software no matter what you run or how old it is.
Maybe in 10 years Apple will be gone and MS will rule the world or maybe the other way around. Either way GNU and Linux or HURD will still be there pottering round with a couple of % user base, one of which will be me.
Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about performance or commodity hardware. Since when do professionals or researchers care whether or not their personal machines are made from bargain-basement components? These are the same peole that are springing for $10-20k workstations out of their budget...
It's about having a computer that:
I'm not just saying this as a rabid Mac advocate. As an EE grad student I look around my department and I see a sizeable chunk of profs and students using Macs - myself included (though I still have a PC at home). My supervisor - a hardcore Mac user - has just switched to OS X exclusively. We don't all use Macs because we are a bunch of Luddites... we use them because, all things considered, we'd rather just get our work done: easily and effectively.
I won't even touch the x86 argument except to point out that re-compiling an app for a different hardware platform is done thousands of times a day by Linux developers - what makes you think it would be any harder for Apple developers to do? Though I agree we might be long accustomed to airborne swine before Apple publishes OS X for x86. =)
Re:Unlikely (Score:3, Informative)
Except if you need lots of math, which looks horrible under any of Microsoft's programs. Yes, I know there's an equation editor and whatnot, it still looks like crap.
In that case the only reasonable solution is latex+pdf, which beats powerpoint any day (granted, harder to get up and running). google on PPower4 or TexPower, the stuff out there is very impressive.
Re:Unlikely (Score:2)
But Steve Jobs said (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unlikely (Score:2, Informative)
And Darwin is just the kernel. That's all that's been ported to X86. The Quarts graphic engine is highly optimized for the PowerPC architechture, and only really performs decently when Altivec is present. That's one of the reasons OSX on a G3 is so dismal.
He's right. (Score:3, Flamebait)
Linux wins hands down (Score:5, Funny)
But normal people don't need these things. Who the hell needs MS Office except business zealots? Nobody needs anything more than vi or emacs and an encyclopaedic knowledge of the command line. With a bit of effort, I can do simple things like post emails, browse newsnet and rip mp3's too, and as nobody but closed minded GUI maniacs need some brain dead pointy-clicky interface, I don't see how retrogressing into the early 90's fraudulent GUI paradigm can do anybody any good.
GUI's are a productivity waste for dummies. Think how long it takes to move the mouse around and select some obscure option in preferences, as compared to editing rc files with sed. Any decent user worth his salt can make his PC sing with eternal, messianic, orgasmic glory as he ./configures, makes and make installs his way to ecstatic, orgasmic destiny.
Fuck this GUI shit. Look at my uid, I've been around since 1969 and used Unix since 1972, after graduating from Multics, and I still curse the day that the closed sourse idiots in Xerox started getting lofty ideas.
Sorry, but I just had to rant. This stuff makes me see red :-)
Re:Linux wins hands down (Score:2)
As we speak ABCDE is ripping my music collection to ogg - fetchmail [easy, easy] is getting my e-mail, and PINE is even there to help with reading USENET posts.
When you are poor like me, and only have one keyboard, mouse and monitor for two computers, you learn the command line utils a lot faster. When I dual-booted, I just flew into X and actually ruined more data that way. [actually not my fault - MandrakeUpdate[!] among other crap utils]
Now I learn what I'm actually doing, I've written my own scripts and more while leaving the easy work [or games] up to my [cring] windows PC. I know ANSI escape character codes, I know how to alias, I'm god!
Now if I had only installed debian on this machine, and not RedHat... but 6 weeks of uptime on a personal computer is too much to throw away.
Re:Linux wins hands down (Score:2)
So, how's that command-line version of Photoshop working out for you?
k.
Re:Linux wins hands down (Score:2, Funny)
pshop> create PSD -s 1024 768 -c 32bit RGB -t my_image;
image 'my_iamge' created
pshop> draw square
pshop> width 200px, 300px
pshop> pos 500px, 500px
pshop> fill #F4F6B7
pshop> border 2px, #000000;
square created. id: 000931231.
pshop> edit square 000931241
pshop> border 3px, #990000;
error: square 000931241 does not exist.
error: comamnd 'border' undefined.
pshop> edit square 000931231
pshop> border 3px, #990000;
border changed for square 000931231
pshop> preview;
tret
etet
09
trfd
tert
pshop> edit square 000931231
pshop> pos 400px, 200px;
position changed for square 000931231
pshop> create ovel
pshop> width 100px, 100px
pshop> pos 300px, 300px
pshop> fill #F4F6B7
pshop> border 2px, #000000;
error: no object 'ovel'
pshop> create oval
pshop> width 100px, 100px
pshop> pos 300px, 300px
pshop> fill #F4F6B7
pshop> border 2px, #000000;
oval created id: 00346583.
*sigh*
Re:GUIs a time waste? Hardly. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it isn't. Learn to recognise the difference between satire and truth, though it can be close, I grant you.
I suppose if all you do is view email and browse the web, then that isn't the case, but more advanced computer usage yields many cases where command line tools (not just a command line, it's actually the tools that one has access to that's important, like a base linux system) are many times faster.
YES! I absolutely agree, it is nice to see some people have sense and cling on to the old ways.
Re:Perception vs. reality again (Score:2)
HTML is crossplatform, easily parsed, and is only being phased out in favour of XHTML which forces it to be a fully parsable XML document.
PDF and Flash are garbage, proprietary.. they will never be able to take a foothold. Javascript (or better yet, ECMAscript) is standard and is ok, although potentially annoying. However, [Java,ECMA]script is totally reliant on HTML; The others, although good for media or layout, are NOT viable alternatives to HTML.
Why don't you go learn something about the technology rather then looking at banner ads and trying to twist your hair into points.
Re:HTML is hardly crossplatform (Score:2)
This past week, however.. I did do one that that makes one section render a little differently, I moved my "news" section from tables to CSS. It isn't a big deal, it renders in both new and old browsers; although older browsers such as NS4 render the news as text without the tables. I am considering moving it back to the way it was, however.. but the new CSS-enabled one looks so pretty
But it renders in Amaya, thats all that matters.. right ?
What? (Score:2)
Why can't they be fun? Or better yet, why can't they be fun tools? For someone who likes to brag about how smart they are, this was a pretty poorly thought out statement.
Re:Childish namecalling (Score:2)
If time is money, and you KNOW HOW to type the commands at a CLI.. then the CLI will be incredably faster then doing it via a GUI. Knowing the CLI is a valuable ADDITION to the GUI. I find it a lot easier and faster to have the ability to pipe commands into each other and perform 'batches'. Sometimes a GUI will be a lot slower or you will have to have custom software written to do that batch via the GUI.
A GUI is NOT faster, but it is stupid and people like stupid. Simple and Visual tasks are more easily accomplished in a gui; but anything complicated or requiring batch processing is definately and certainly faster and more easily done from a CLI.
I love using the Gimp, a graphical tool. But I also love bash, which can aid me in producing art of another kind
Re:Read the goddamn link (Score:2)
Of course, a good GUI tool MAY let you do it faster then me, but the problem is that if you have a very specific need you will need to write custom software to do it. Meanwhile, it is more likely that the existing commandline tools can be used together to perform the function without any additional time being spent on developing a GUI tool.
Bollocks. (Score:2, Informative)
- None of those times include the time wasted typing out those excessively long commands.
- Dragging and dropping is better than rsync, because with rsync you have to know and type out the name of the directory ahead of time. GUIs provide a nice spatial representation of the directory structure, and are very quick to scan and find.
- In order to know how to use any of those commands, you would have to spend years learning the intricacies of all the various commands, options, etc. Setting up a for loop and pipeline takes an excessive amount of thought and care to ensure that everything works as it should. A single typo can have catastrophic results (cf. "rm -Rf *.o" and "rm -Rf *
.o")
- Most people's needs are simple. They don't need to sync massive directory trees or save webpages or any complex bullshit like that. For everyday tasks like web browsing, WMA playing, and writing Word documents, the GUI is superior.
The CLI is fine for a few highly specialised tasks and little else. It is fine for batch jobs and remote administration where a Telnet prompt is all you have. For day to day use, the GUI is simply faster.OS X helps Desktop Unix (which included Linux) (Score:4, Interesting)
Had OS X become Apple's default years ago (presumably in the form of NextStep), perhaps Gnome and KDE wouldn't have gotten off the ground and *Step would've become the single dominant Unix UI. Now there's no holding back Gnome or KDE.
I'm slightly tempted by Macs now that OS X is shipping. I have mixed feelings: I hate MacOS, far more than I hate MSWindows, but I loved NextStep. Apple's hardware prices decide the issue for me at this time: no OS X.
Even if iWhatevers where cheap and I ran OS X, many of the applications I'd want to run would be Unix or Unix/X apps that I could also run under Linux or BSD.
Linux + OS_X == Windows - monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X will pull both current Mac users and Windows users into the Unix world and as any Unix geek knows once you learn it on one OS most of it translates pretty easily to any other Unix OS. After all these people learn Unix enough to accomplish their daily tasks they'll be much more likely to consider the free (as in beer and freedom) alternatives they keep hearing about.
Software ported to OS X should be easy to port to FreeBSD, Linux, and any Unix OS so this should mean a lot more commercial apps and games available for these Unix platforms and more programmers remembering the things that make Unix great.
Both Gnome and KDE are very strong platforms these days. They don't have the polish of the Mac GUI but it's my experience that they are more flexible and lighter in general. They are improving rapidly. Much more so than I would have expected possible a couple years ago.
Almost every basic home or business app that could be desired now exists for Linux, mostly as opensource, including games. With the extra pull Mac OS gives us we can seriously expect to start seeing the Windows empire crack even in their desktop stronghold.
I don't think Windows or Mac OS is going anywhere any time soon but if anything Mac OS and Linux will work together to end Microsoft's monopoly. A solution to fit every need.
Re:OS X helps Desktop Unix (which included Linux) (Score:2)
You're missing the most important part -- Mac OS X software is not neccessarily going to be any more portable to UNIX than Windows software is, because 99.9% of commercial developers will target the proprietary APIs like Cocoa. For example, Microsoft Office X (for OS X) is no more portable to Linux than Microsoft Microsoft Office XP (for Windows). Just because OS X has a UNIX core doesn't mean it looks like a UNIX at a high enough API level.
Okay, sure, if developers target X, using portable APIs like qt, then maybe your argument would hold. I doubt that will be the case, though.
Re:OS X helps Desktop Unix (which included Linux) (Score:3, Informative)
No, dude. Cocoa is pretty much just a new name for the OpenStep API, with a bit added. GNUStep [gnustep.org] is working on writing a fully OpenStep-compliant environment to run on *nix and Windows, and is coming along nicely. When it's more complete, Cocoa applications will be very portable to other operating systems.
Of course, that isn't to say I'd abandon this beautiful OS and go back to Linux, but hey
Re:OS X helps Desktop Unix (which included Linux) (Score:2)
And this would be bad HOW?
C-X C-S
More LIkely (Score:2)
If something runs on a X server, you can run it remotely on any machine, so a large organizations base level software will be served off of a central machine, and each person will run it on their local system. If something is Java based, it will run on the desktop of any system. This goes for any toolkit that can be run cross platform, so Tcl/tk, Perl, Python etc..If something is based on a cross platform Librarys, like Qt, it will run on any machine that supports it, albeit it with a recompile. And with Cygwin, if I write my apps to be Unix-compatible, they can run on a windows box as well. Throw
So software can and will be built that runs on multiple platforms. As a developer, If I were to write a desktop application, I would choose something that could run on as many different end systems as possible, so the difference between Windows, Mac OSX, Linux, Solaris, etc will be minimized.
As an IT person, I am going to look for systems I can deploy cheaply. Unless we have another explosion in growth like many companies expereinced during the
In defense of the article itself... (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing though is that this article isn't looking from the geek or computer programmer perspective...
It's looking from a World Market perspective, which is what companies willing to fund the development of a Linux GUI will be looking at. Linux isn't going to gain popularity on the sole basis that the public has no reason to like it. They have OSX for the Mac (which the educated public looking for something user-friendly will opt for) and WinXP for the PC (which everybody else looking for something user-friendly will go for).
Linux remains the domain of those who want to be able to tweak and toggle with the OS itself and want to play around with their friends' computers relatively easily. So the apocalyptic Linux-is-going-down attitude is harshly erroneous.
That being said, the point the article is _making_ is that Linux in a user-friendly form most likely isn't going to be made, because on the most part, Linux users can probably be quite happy with a hack-and-slash GUI and still can make quite the use of command-level prompts.
There is no market interest in doing a stable GUI for Linux... at least not to the extent that there is in having a clean and user-friendly GUI or WinXP or OSX. OSX is looked upon as the "ultimate alternative" because it's unix-based.
In reality, the only way Linux would gain worldwide popularity would be if Microsoft devoted its efforts to making Windows a Linux-based GUI shell.
But, with M$'s attitude towards Linux and the general geekdom attitude towards M$, it would be both inplausible [sic?] and most likely regarded by the geeks as a Bad Thing.
Re:In defense of the article itself... (Score:2)
A little misleading? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how much exactly is Apple's specific share of that 98%? 8%? 10%? Assuming it's 10%, that makes it 10 times more than linux's 1%. But that leaves Windows with ~90%, which is 9 times more than OSX!
So, not only should Linux users jump ship for OSX, but, based on the numbers, OSX users should jump ship to windows! Does tha sound right Mr. Moore, since popularity seems to be your major gauge?
Re:A little misleading? (Score:2)
Linux didn't have 1%, it had 0.24%, which gives Macs (at 10%) 42 times more than Linux, compared to Windows' mere 10 times over MacOS.
I'd reply to the point of your post, but I couldn't find it.
--Dan
Re:A little misleading? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:A little misleading? (Score:2)
Tim
Two Different Groups (Score:2)
What's with all the VS Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
I love OpenBSD and FreeBSD, but I'd hate to have them take over the world. Diversity in computing is cool and fun. Would we really be happy if Linux took over the world? There'd be no more Amiga users to poke fun at
OSX has already won, short-term... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been ranting about this for a few weeks now, ever since purchasing my first Mac to use, and my rather surprisingly pleasant introduction to OSX.
Linux has always had two major things going for it. Free as in beer and speech, and the open source development model for the kernel. But at the same time, what it's had going against it were a difficult install (not difficult for me, difficult for grandma) and the clunky, quirky system that is X11. (clunky compared to what it -could- be, not necessarily the current competition)
Linux isn't ready for prime time just yet. It could be, but it's not ready yet. Say what you will about Mandrake, but grandma can't use it.
Now, OSX has the advantage of a pretty decent Mach/BSD core, and an incredibly impressive and functional GUI. Aqua, for being as young and closed as it is, does a damn good job at innovating in the 2D paradigm. Transparencies, dialog boxes that attach to the affected window, an actually useful style of windowshading. And all this with the environment of *nix beneath. With OSX, more than half the work Linux needs to do to make it on the desktop has already been accomplished. People may call for Apple to open the GUI, or they'll whine and complain that it's not open enough. So be it. If you want it that badly, make your own that's better. Open source doesn't have to simply follow other ideas, it can innovate too.
"grandma" can't install Windows any better.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me a group of people who can sucessfully install windows and all of the necessary drivers, and I'll show you a group of people who can also install Linux. Technical ignorance plagues the Windows world just as much as it does the Linux world, just ask anyone who does tech support. If systems didn't come with windows pre-installed the barrier to entry for it would be just as high as for Linux.
Lee
I Don't Care (Score:5, Insightful)
As for OSX, yeah it's a fantastic product. The best OS in the world for desktop in my opinion. But that doesn't mean it'll stay that way.
Anyone remember 1984? Apple was the best desktop OS then too. They were really something to cheer for then. It wasn't just a new pretty and slick interface, it was a whole new way of working with computers. Sure, it was clunky in some ways, but Apple had the best system on the market for years.
So what happened? Well, most people know about this, but they got greedy and lazy. They overcharged. They stopped building the coolest stuff. They let the OS wither and die as we salivated over the ill-fated Copland. 3rd party developers abandoned us and unless you were willing to fork out hundreds of dollars for dev tools and docs, there was no way you were going to help the problem. They still had their strengths, but they were a shell of the vibrant company that they once were.
So here we are now. Apple's fixed things. They've got the best system on the planet. They've got slick hardware. They give the dev tools and docs for free again, AppleII style. People gush about the system left and right, and they should! It's really nice.
But who's to say that it'll be that way in two years? Apple could get lazy again. They could get greedy again. They could fire all their talent or let them leave again. And then everyone with macs will be back where they were five years ago, fretting over whether or not to move to windows.
And you know what? Linux will still be there,
I love Linux because it frees me, not just to work and learn, but to work and learn with confidence that my skills will be worthwhile, and that I will never be a commodity because I can contribute. I'm proud to be part of that 0.24% because that 0.24% isn't just something to be treated like pennies that someone is afraid to lose. It's 0.24% people who care, who can and do contribute. Linux is that 0.24%: it's people not stock options.
So you can keep your flashy system. I'm staying right here where I'm not just revenue on a balance sheet.
Re:I Don't Care (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with the mac community though, is that you control nothing. Apple owns you in every way, and when they drop the ball, you get dropped with it. You have no sway over your own destiny. I personally wasn't a graphic designer, so in the mid 90's I really felt fucked over. I didn't do photoshop or quark or freehand or premier or Kai or any of the other programs that Apple really loved. As a result, I felt alienated. I especially felt out becuase I wanted to create programs on the platform that was described as the platform for creative types. And I couldn't because I couldn't afford it.
What a load of shit.
Apple likes having a community around, but you have no power. You had no power to save cyberdog or OpenDoc or Quickdraw GLX or any of the other great stuff Apple put out. You had no power to say "I want OSX to support my older Powermacs!" You had no power to demand that games be made for the system (only recently has that even started to change). And you have no power to say "I want to buy my system from someone else." This is key, especially if you've ever tried to deal with upgrading a mac, and finding you're paying the price for a whole new machine (something I've experienced).
The Mac community is a strong and rabid one no doubt, but they hold no real sway. If Apple moves, you move with it, no ifs ands or buts. If IBM moves, I don't. If Redhat moves then I don't. I control my own destiny here because Redhat and IBM don't own Linux anymore than Slackware, Debian, or even Linus does. And if someone with a balance sheet decides not to bother with something I need because it's got nothing to do with Adobe products, then I'm not screwed. That's the difference between Mac and Linux, and that's why I made my switch.
depends on which desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got to tell you, KDE kicks Aqua's ass as a GUI. The multiple desktops, configurable hotkeys, tabbed Konsoles (with keystrokes for opening new tabs and switching between them), Konqueror, and KMail (with its ability to use gvim for editing) just stomp on the single-desktop, click-to-focus, barely-keyboardable Aqua for sheer productivity value.
I run OS X mostly to play. The ability to (easily) play DVDs; iTunes (hands down the *best* mp3 management software I've ever seen); Fire.app; and the fun of tinkering with a new OS.
For the past couple of days at work, I've booted the powerbook into OS X, but to actually Get Work Done I've fired up OroborOSX and run Konsole and KMail off of my desktop Slackware machine. It's not the prettiest desktop in the world when I do that, but it gets the job done and I get to toy with OS X when I need a break. I'll probably go back to booting it into Linux when I get back from vacation, though, as it's just so much easier to get around in.
Maybe those "it's the applications!" weenies are right... but OS X still seems to have a GUI that's designed around the idea that you'll probably be doing, at most, two things at a time. For a lot of people this isn't the case, and KDE addresses their (our) needs much better.
Incidentally, if you drop below the GUI, I still generally find Slackware easier to work with... it uses a lot more of the GNU software I know and love, which tends to be more featureful and flexible than its BSD counterparts. OS X also feels a bit like you're not really supposed to be running around down there under the GUI, but maybe that's just because I'm not comfortable in it yet.
Comparing oranges and bananas (Score:2, Insightful)
Comparing the two is silly. Their objectives aren't the same. Their 'customer' targets aren't.
1) The pseudo 'common' part is barely common at all, most of the BSD-ish tools on OSX are several years sometime behind what is available on linux.
For example, 'm4' is barely usable on OSX, it lacks all the FNU extensions that makes it usable nowadays.
Apple also has decided that the GPL was dangerous, and systematicaly removed everything that was GPLed. Bash went first in the DP series, while wget went rather recently out of OSX 10.0
2) On the other hand, OSX *does* have applications and development tools that are, as far as human interface is concerned, way ahead of what is available on linux.
The reason is simple: There are no Xlib vs GNOME vs KDE vs whatever dilution. Development is focused on one target, even is there are two way to reach the target (Carbon & Cocoa)
And, bless them, there are still people at apple who aren't geeks and try to focus on the end users, instead of on being 'customizable' or 'skinable'
That said, OSX sucks speedwise compared to a linux box. Just generally sucks I mean. Play an mp3 on iTunes, it eats *30%* of your CPU while on a slower laptop xmms will eat barely 1%. That might look like a cliche, but it's verifiable on many other 'serious' tasks. I have applications running on both.
So, well, 'desktop' is probably OSX major plus, and will stay that way. While 'OS/server' is probably where linux is better, and will stay better for a long time
Linux will dominate non-US markets. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux will dominate non-US markets. (Score:2, Troll)
Two different markets (Score:2, Interesting)
Im one of the converts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Afterthought? (Score:2)
Somebody help me out here (Score:2, Funny)
Silly article (Score:2)
OS X runs on Unix, that's true. But it doesn't really apeal to the same market as Linux. It doesn't have any more games that Linux does. I personally like OS X, but most of my classmates still mock anything to do with Macingtosh, so OS X is not l33t. Finally, Apple has expensive hardware.
Windows XP is a far far bigger threat to Linux on the desktop. Face it, Windows 9x operating systems were utter crap. They were the biggest reason to use Linux ever. With Windows XP, Microsoft has finally created a operating system that doesn't fall over every three minutes.
Of course, Windows XP, isn't going to stop Linux on the desktop because Linux is cheaper. In the next couple years I expect more and more coorporations to use Linux on the desktop to save money.
"the engineer community is abandoning it [Linux]" (Score:4, Troll)
"the engineer community is abandoning it left and right for Mac OS X."
I work for a government weapons lab and have seen no great move to OS X. And we are the largest Mac site in the world. What I have seen is people dropping their Macs, Windows boxes, and commercial Unix desktops for Linux in DROVES.
Linux is doing a good job of grabbing commercial Unix desktop and server market share; however, there have been practically no inroads into the Windows desktop/server space, and I don't expect to see it. Rare is it the Windows/Novell sys admin who shows any great interest in learning Linux. Face it, mousing around and figuring stuff out appeals to lazy people MUCH more that reading man pages. Thus, I don't see Windows/Novell IT shops dropping their platforms for Linux.
As for the common denominator desktop, do not underestimate the power of Office. A platform can not hope to succeed in the commercial desktop space without Office. Microsoft's contract with Apple to provide Office for the Mac at parity with the Windows platform has either ended, or ends soon as the 5 year contract was announced at MacWorld '97 in SF. Unfortunately MS holds the power to kill OS X as a viable commercial desktop because it controls the number one productivity package. And since the Bush administration has pussed out with the suit against MS, our only hope is that the hold-out states will get MS broken up into OS/App divisions with provisions preventing/limiting their collaboration, and a mandate to provide Office for other platforms at parity to Windows. I seriously doubt this will happen, but one can hope it will. Or pay enough bribes to counter-weight MS's payola to Bush....
OK, I guess I've ranted enough....
Apple hostage to MS Office (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the reason OS X will never have more than a minority share of the desktop market and will never be ported to x86 (aside from the nice hardware profits). Apple is hostage to Microsoft. If they ever pull the plug on MS Office for MacOS, Apple is dead in the business market. If there was ever a backroom deal where MS threatened this if Apple ported to x86, that would have been an antitrust violation, proposal to divide markets.
Re:"the engineer community is abandoning it [Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
"the engineer community is abandoning it left and right for Mac OS X."
I work for a government weapons lab and have seen no great move to OS X. And we are the largest Mac site in the world. What I have seen is people dropping their Macs, Windows boxes, and commercial Unix desktops for Linux in DROVES.
It depends on the area, I suppose. I was at the big Human Genome Project meeting this spring and there were OS X laptops everywhere. (Linux was the only other OS in attendance.) Molecular biology is a Mac-friendly area and there were a lot of Japanese attendees (another big Mac domain) so the jump to OS X for coders and informatics people is smaller than it would be in areas where Macs are unknown.
Re:"the engineer community is abandoning it [Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit. You aren't even in the top 5, there isn't any government facility in the top 5. The largest Mac facility in the world is Disney Imagineering in Burbank CA. Disney has a contractual obligation with Apple to never reveal the extent of their Apple CPU purchases. I know this because I negotiated that contract, and I was their sales rep. But now I don't work there anymore so fuck the NDA.
I'll run it on my dual athlon or not at all (Score:2)
By buying a mac you lose choice, you lose performance, you lose money. What you gain is a very very nice UI. OTOH when using an emulator you lose less money or none at all, you lose some performance or none at all (compared to mac, that is) and you don't lose choice. I know that two ppc mac emulators are in the works (but neither support dynamic recompilation AFAIK), so why bother with osx now?
The question is, if an emulator with respectable performance comes along, will people stick to native open desktops or use osx on their linux boxes instead? I, for one, will run osx, but I don't think I will be among the majority.
More browser-based OS lie^H^H^Hstatistics (Score:5, Interesting)
based on hits to two non-biased (OS-wise) websites: an anime
site I run (www.reimeika.ca), and the Math Department
website at University of Toronto (www.math.utoronto.ca).
The following results are completely unscientific, make
of them what you will:
reimeika:
linux ---> 3.91%
mac ---> 4.46%
win ---> 84.10%
other ---> 7.53%
utoronto:
linux ---> 3.24%
mac ---> 2.75%
win ---> 75.84%
other ---> 18.17%
These stats are for the last 22 days.
Linux is definately catching up (Score:2)
At the pace the Linux desktop is moving, 2 years from now it will be at OSX's level.
Its already at the level of WindowsXP and some people even say its easier to use. Linux easier than XP [theregister.co.uk]
As far as OSX, its not quite there yet, Linux is struggling to do what OSX does with ease right now. However in 2 years, expect to see a Linux far superior to the current OSX in terms of ease of use.
Remember, OSX has most likely been in development since before KDE and Gnome projects even exsisted, and WindowsXP is just Windows with a nice skin on top and in that case, it sucks.
So the point is, its only a matter of time, just like its only a matter of time before Mozilla is better than IE in everyway, if it isnt already.
Asking the wrong question (Score:2)
Most of the predictions that Linux would be a factor on the desktop were based on the rapid growth that was seen two or three years ago. That shift has stopped. And that is far more ominous for "Linux on the desktop" than arguing over whether the actual adoption rate is
Have Apple evangelists really stooped so low? (Score:2)
Much of the Linux software comes from GNU and friends and much of that worked its way into OSX. Kimbro's "OPEN SOURCE IS DEAD NOW!!!" statements are disgusting.
These statements are just sour grapes from a man who was insulted at insinuations that Linux could possibly be overrunning MacOS. Kicking around the underdog is embarassing.
Sure there might be a bit of a double standard here, but, really, how often do Linux evangelists come out and say, "Take that, Amiga! Die Atari!" The suggestion of such is ridiculous.
Slashdot's Numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see the number of Linux users browsing Slashdot. Just to see what a "utopian" Linux future looked like...
-Russ
Not as good as OS 9 (Score:2, Interesting)
There are hacks coming out for customizing the features, but not for all of them. I just bare it and grin. Thank gawd there's a BSD subsystem on this thing.
I stuck X-Windows on here and was happy to see wmaker again. The only problem is that this only helps with X-Window applicaion.
Okay, It is easier to intall than Linux with KDE or GNOME. All you have to do is get a mac and click on some buttons. No fuss, as long as you have that mac. which most of you have right? *cough*.
Why versus? (Score:3, Insightful)
But more specifically, it's no secret that Apple is the leading computer supplier for educational institutions. Soon, schools are going to transition from MacOS 9 to MacOS X. In the longterm, this has huge benefits for everyone. What better place to learn open source than at school? OS X is a pretty snazzy OS to learn it, too. It's got, of course, darwin, and a really slick GUI to fall back on. The kids, the ones who know they want to go into a tech, they'd probably stay after school just to learn the ins and outs of darwin. The skills learned from that are transferrable to Linux. And Linux is used in the real world. Yes, I know. Real world experience in SCHOOL. It's a first. But anyway, of course there are some major differences between the two. For example, I don't think installing MacOS X is anything like installing Linux. But nevertheless, OS X is a great starting point for kids, to expose them to the power of open source.
As for why Apple needs Linux, lets see what Linux has that Apple didn't have before OS X. The whole slew of technologies that *nix utilizes. Preemptive multitasking, protected memory, SMP. All of which are VERY important. A command line, which allows for unprecidented control of an Apple OS. A million and one Linux apps which are easily portable to darwin. And most importantly, the open source model that Linux shares with OS X. This will hopefully ensure that OS X doesn't fall behind in speed(slowness is in Aqua, not open source), stability, security, etc.
But where they both miserably fail is product recognition. Apple's trying to correct that with their retail stores, and hopefully they will succeed. Because a win for Apple is a win for open source. Well, only a win if the consumer knows that MacOS X's core is opensource, but that sort of goes with product recognition.
I'm an engineer and I'm not dropping Linux... (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps my attitude is not that uncommon, given that most reports of "engineers switching in droves" were based on watching engineeers who were away from their office (at trade shows) using laptops. But no one is moving me away from Linux!
I use Linux on my desktop for 99% of my job (and it will be 100% when we get a Citrix box running). I use Linux on a laptop for 100% of my field work. We had a loaner MAC with OS-X on it to look at last summer and we all liked it fine... but no one switched to it. We set up a VNC so I could get a MAC desktop on my KDE desktop... that was kinda cool. But when it came time to return the MAC no one cried... we just packed it up and hauled it away.
My work habits are sloppy enough to need the four desktops KDE gives me (or more if I wish) and I much prefer the KDE desktop to the OS-X version. Maybe when I can justify paying the $800 (and up) for a iMAC versus the $500 for a comparable PC, or when I can give up the clear path to hardware upgrades, or when more of the cool network tools one gets with a Linux distro appear on the MAC I'll switch. But I don't see that happening soon.
OSX and the Engineering desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
If anyone wants to know why Engineers might want a powerbook, look at the specs of the Titanium Powerbook - 1 gig ram - and the fact there is a clean Nix underneath.
A few months ago I did an experiment with OSX 10.1 -- basically I got my company's entire tree built just fine in 2 days. No code changed, just a few softlinks needed to be set up (Perl for example was in usr/bin instead of usr/local/bin. This tree is normally only run on Linux or Solaris's box.My next laptop wil be a TiBook -- especially now they have the CDRW/DVD combo drive.
I have been evaluating getting a PC laptop -- I can't find anything close to the TiBook -- try finding a slim design, with a 15" display and 1 gig Ram -- Sony slim Vaios max out at 512 or 384. Toshiba at 256mb. Please will someone point me at an x86 with those kind of specs, and I might go with Linux instead. I'd be totally convinced if it came with the cinema-scope style screen (2 emacs sessions side by side).
Now, for Desktops a whole different story -- we just got a rack mounted box for $4k -- twice the power of a E420, at 10% of the cost (and a 1/4 of the footprint and weight). I just couldn't fit it in my rucksack (close though, maybe in my 70 litre one)
Winton
p.s. This isn't a troll. I want a laptop with a gig of RAM (we're doing some hard memory intensive work)
Re:OSX and the Engineering desktop (Score:2)
Looks promising.
Winton
A Latitude C400 stacks up quite well...to an iBook (Score:3, Informative)
Now the Dell is $500 cheaper, so i changed the specs to try to get it to compete with the 2,299 TiBook: 256MB RAM, 20GB HDD and CD-RW/DVD drive, and the result cost $2,226.00, so price is about the same. But you get the screen of an iBook!
Illusions of freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
They were threatened with a lawsuit from Apple.
Remember when Apple didn't want to let their users upgrade their machine?
They were sent a firmware update that "accidentally" blocked upgrades.
Remember when some people made Apple parody sites?
They were threatend with lawsuits.
What happens if you want to upgrade your video card?
Ask Apple. They're trying to make all video card production in-house. $250 for a Geeforce 2 MX. Yeah....whatever.
What did Apple do when iMac analog video boards started to fail en masse?
Nothing.
Apple has some nice products, just don't for a moment think you're saying goodbye to having your computing experience dictated from some corprate office on the West Coast.
Innovate, not copy (Score:3, Insightful)
As another post has pointed out on here, OS X has essentially one for the moment. The GUI goodness of Aqua alone mops the floor with Linux.
Wait! Before you mod me down as a troll, let me explain.
First, I love Linux. I've used it for 5 years, and for the last 2 or 3, I've used it exclusively on my computer here at home. However, and I say this in a parent-who-loves-their-kid-but-has-to-punish-them- anyway kind of way... Linux's desktop GUIs suck.
Don't get me wrong - KDE is a good looking and extremely functional desktop. It's really slick, and I like a lot of the KDE apps. The same goes for GNOME, although it still doesn't feel quite as polished to me. The problem is, these desktops are all clones of Windows. One of the reasons I left Windows in the first place was the annoying GUI, and these "desktop environments" do little more than mimic it.
I want a Mac simply so I can play around with Aqua, because it's such a neat GUI, and I know from others that it is as efficient as it is beautiful. I want something like that on Linux, and unfortunately no existing project really gives that to me. Most window managers are, to some extent, Windows clones. As long as that's all there is, Linux will not penetrate the desktop market much further.
Major open source projects have gotten to the point where we're playing catch-up. Clone Office, clone IE, clone the desktop, and so forth. We need to innovate if Linux is to keep momentum. Simply playing copy-cat with everything that looks neat is not good enough. Don't copy Aqua - improve on it. Winning users over from Windows isn't happening at a very rapid pace anyway, so instead of worrying about alienating them with a frightening interface and copying the one they're comfy with, why not create something new? Something so cool, so pretty, and so functional that everybody will want it? That's a big chunk of what MacOS X has going for it, and Linux should have that too.
No way! Linux is almost ready. OSX is non-free. (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong. I think the Linux kernel is ready it's the software that runs on top of the kernel isn't.
OSX is a nice idea. Take a powerful kernel and put a nice happy face on it. It doesn't solve any new problems though. The closed hardware still costs a fortune. The closed software can't be ported. This is comodity software, (the OS, Web browser, email program, word processor.) This is software that should be free. Eventually it will be, it's just a mater of how long it will take.
I use Linux in the server space almost exclusively now. It works great there. It is good at web-browsing and email but it isn't good enough. I'm a Netscape 4.72 user and I won't even switch to the Linux version of Netscape 4.72. It's worse. Outlook+IE users have even more functionality missing if they try to switch over.
But! At this rate that won't last long.
Linux needs a good open source email/calandering client-server application that can interact with Outlook clinets and exchange servers. Then it will be ready to start creaping onto the Desktop for real.
When Linux is ready for the desktop it will go there and there will be no turning back. We are getting to that point and the changover is starting to happen already. I know some programmers and sysadmins who use Linux as their primarry desktop. I predict that next will come the power users/early adopters. Then the desktops will slowly start changing over.
In the middle there will be some failed attempts at selling Linux based computers in BestBuy and CircuitCity type stores for $400-$500. Then some clever company will figure out a really cool package to put together and it will sell like hotcakes. Not because it is Linux but because it is cool. Linux will simply have made it possible.
The changeover to Linux on the desktop will not happen until all the everyday things (reading email, web browsing, calandering, word processing) can be done better than in Windows. People won't switch unless the reasons to do so outweigh the reasons not to.
It's not really about having Linux on the desktop for it's own sake. The kernel doesn't care where it is. It's about having a better desktop. The Linux kernel is just a way to get there.
Slashdot's stats (Score:2)
Many people have said in response to this pile of stats that: I'd love to see the stats for Slashdot! Well, you can. It was mentioned in an interview done near on 23 months ago [slashdot.org]:
I've added the emphasis, and note that the figure quoted here is both anecdotal and severely out of date, so take it with an entire European salt mine. The guy who posted the question [slashdot.org] still has an account, but he's been AWOL since mid 2000.
It may have changed. I know that over the time since the comment was made that I've changed from using IE4 to IE5 to Mozilla, then over to Lnyx on OpenBSD and Mozilla and Lynx on Linux and now I'm writing this in Galeon on Linux. (I was testing it out - I recommend Mozilla and Skipstone).
Re:OSX on x86... (Score:2)
Re:OSX on x86... (Score:2)
Re:OSX on x86... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think Mac OS X is very attractive. My only complaint is that Apple hardware is a tad too expensive. Maybe once I have more money, I will purchase a Mac.
Re:BS (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:BS (Score:3, Insightful)
$3,795.00 (combo/drive, internal wireless, 1gig RAM). Maybe if I didnt have to pay the dumb Windows fee it might be cheaper.
However, this is with a 12.1 inch screen...
Apple, I can get the same for $3,948.00 -- and this is with the 15" cinema scope...
$200 bucks difference ? I have an Educational discount which wil bring this down to the same price (3700).
Winton
Re:Oh please!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
1)The Tibook is 1 inch thick and 5 pounds *WITH* the battery, the dell is 1.6 inches thick and over 6 pounds *WITH OUT* the battery. This is a big difference in size.
2)processor speed is a joke, your HD speed and graphics card make a more noticeable difference in any high end machine, PPC, Intel or AMD. Unless your grinding down massive files humans can't see these differences.
3)Why do people post screen resolutions when they talk about monitors? Color accuracy, now that is important, and can be checked. Screen resolutions are only useful when seenng how any OS chooses to draw the screen.
4)Macs can be more expensive, the dell is a butt ugly black slab, the Tibook is super cool. Yes, sexy costs. A lap dance from a super model will cost you more than a common stripper.
Re:Oh please!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
There are very compelling reasons to max out your RAM on a notebook computer:
1. 2.5" notebook drives tend to be slower than 3.5" desktop drives, so the RAM speed vs drive speed is much wider on a notebook than a desktop, meaning that any dependance on drive speed (say for swapping or re-getting something that could otherwise be cached), makes the notebook slower than the desktop. The speed gains of adding RAM are higher for notebooks than for PC's.
2. Those little 2.5" inch drives are expensive and have higher failure rates, they don't generally last as long as a desktop drive. With more RAM, there is less head movement due to caching, which can lead to longer drive life and...
3. less head movement = better battery session life.
I was sold on the i8000 until I saw the G4 TiBook. I am glad the TiBook can support up to 1GB RAM and when I get mine, that will be the first thing I upgrade it to.
and the powerbook doesnt come with 1 gig of ram either.
At least it is capable of supporting 1GB.
I will take more RAM over Mhz any day. I cringe when I see people complaining (at various work sites I attend) that their P3 750MHz Dell notebook is slow (and they demand an upgrade), when it only has 64MB RAM, so they get the latest machine which is only 30% quicker as far as CPU goes, yet has 256MB RAM, and they think the enormous speed gain was due to the quicker CPU. Blah. Of course, being executives, they're not interested in what I said about the cheap RAM upgrade, they want whats on the pretty web site.
the 2.5k dell totally destroys the TiBook in every area, better processor, better monitor, more ram, (Tibook comes with 512 megs of ram)
Destroys? The P3 1GHz is close to the G4 600MHz in the benchmarks I've seen. "Destroys" seems to be a school kid way of saying, "my PC is 15% quicker than yours!". I like the TiBook screen for what it is (wide screen), but I also like the i8000 screen and the TiBook is capable of supporting more RAM. "Destroy" is something a 2GHz Xeon does to a 4MHz 8080.
Prove you arent biased
You were'nt replying to me, though I can tell you, after 12 years with x86 (some of that repairing notebooks for NEC and DEC), am I much more impressed by what Apple is offering. They offer extreme stability and usability thanks to high quality hardware, limiting what hardware they support and their efforts of extending the super workhorse OS, BSD.
It's the package, the hardwareOS+app meld that works so well. After all these years putting up with x86, my next machine will be PPC. I will probably never buy another x86 again (besides SBC's I use for firewalls, etc, although I might look at PPC SBC's for them also).
Re:It wouldnt matter (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It wouldnt matter (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:let's not forget something important (Score:2)
Also, you -can- run make. All you need to do is install the Developer Tools (Free download after free registration with the Apple Developer Connection) and there you have it, make, cc, gcc, Cocoa, everything you need to not only compile applications for commandline and Aqua, but you can even use a nice tool like Fink to download and install X11.
Re:let's not forget something important (Score:4, Informative)
This offers a great advantage in that you can pick a WM that fits your style, unfortunately X11 is a very weak and, as the author put it, "clunky" base that they all must run on, and none of the choices offer the desktop ease of use and incorporation of graphics desktop users demand. It is childish to call OS X a "KDEish environment" when KDE cannot hope to offer an interface at the level of Aqua.
the only other "cool" thing i noticed with it is that you can switch back to Mac OS 9 (which takes about a good 2-3 minutes to do that)
43 seconds on my G4/466 MHz, which should be fairly middle-of-the-road Mac hardware (it's mostly disk operations anyway); I don't know any Mac that would take more than a minute.
unix shell in Mac OS X is nothing special... it's really limited to what you can and can't do in the shell
There are very few limits to what you can do in the CLI; it is essentially a full BSDish system. You can complain about what comes preinstalled, but I think it's fine considering most users will never touch the terminal; power users will most likely want their own favorite tools so it's just as well to let them download it themselves. Apple doesn't bundle make because almost all developers are going to do all of their compiling in Project Builder (why would you want to do it at the CLI when you they bundle such excellent DevTools?)
Re:let's not forget something important (Score:2, Insightful)
(why would you want to do it at the CLI when you they bundle such excellent DevTools?)
I don't know. Easy scripting? Familiarity? Simplicity? Not wanting to have to take one's hands off the keyboard to use the mouse all the time?
Its a matter of personal preference, and (AFAIK), OSX provides both options.
Re:Why doesn't /..... (Score:2)
Re:Why doesn't /..... (Score:2)
Why doesn't Slashdot take a poll of the OSs that hit it?
Well, for one thing there is this little problem that some of the HTTP proxy junkbuster packages can block the UserAgent information (like mine does) and so the numbers would be skewed.
Nice thought, though.
Re:0.24% (Score:4, Interesting)
I would have to say that it is easier to write the GUI for an OS X application since it doesn't involve writing any code.
Re:Linux is highly over-rated (Score:2)
If you like OSX, then please use whatever you want.
People who think droves of people will leave Windows for MacOSX, or leave in droves from Intel/Linux to MacOSX are taking something strong. Unfortuantly a lot of people are accustomed to MS environment to the extent that they fear to tread outside of its influence.
Going to Kinko's I have not seen anyone use any form of OSX.
Matt
Re:Don't confuse userfriendliness with marketing (Score:2)
I suppose my post up above is destined for Flamebait moderation for not joining into the group think that all things Apple are automatically the standard for ease of use.
For what it's worth, your dead on with your assessment. KDE is a far better, easier, and more flexible environment to work in. Yes, I am including newbies. I'll never forget trying to explain the whole drag the CD to the trash bit to someone new to the Mac. Or how about why the app is still running even after all the windows are closed?
I guess if you say something often enough it must be true.