Mac OS X 10.3 vs. Linux 659
M.Broil writes "This is a nice and fairly complete 'first look' at Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther), but author Chris Gulker, who I happen to know was an Apple PR guy years ago, spends a lot of time comparing the Mac 'Panther' release to Linux, which he seems to use most of the time these days. He obviously likes a lot about Panther, but he doesn't think many Linux users will switch to it, and that a lot of 'Classic' Mac OS users may not want to move to it, either."
One line that sums it up IMO (Score:4, Insightful)
Let the flaming commence !
Re:One line that sums it up IMO (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this the ideal behaviour for most people? No. But if this had happened on an X session would this reviewer have just assumed X itself was locked and kill it?
killing loginwindow usually resolves GUI problems (Score:5, Informative)
Re:One line that sums it up IMO (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One line that sums it up IMO (Score:2)
Another one liner (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and just the other day, a quick SSH from my Powerbook to one of my remote desktop clients running Linux revealed that it was only the GUI that had frozen.
In college I went through a Mac phase (Score:3, Funny)
I always loved the Mac interface because of its easy of use and very solid color support. I found that it was easy to make rainbows for my group's posters using the PageMaker software, much easier than anything on an IBM PC.
I eventually grew out of my 'rainbow' phase and am back using Windows and sometimes even Linux (Yellow Dog, for when I'm feeling a little 'crazy'!), but the experience just isn't the same. We Mac users are a happy community, and sometimes I just want to give old Steve Jobs a hand.
Re:In college I went through a Mac phase (Score:5, Funny)
Am I the only one that finds this remark a little disturbing? My Gods, the mental image I got from this!
Re:In college I went through a Mac phase (Score:3, Interesting)
I never even considered buying a Mac until I had played with OS X quite a bit. The classic MacOS sucked balls and it showed when one faulty application could lockup the entire OS. As far as I can tell that's still the case with
what about all 3 major OS's (Score:4, Informative)
its not up to date but its a pretty good comparison
Re:what about all 3 major OS's (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it treats the OSs differently.
Let's take DVD+RW support.
MacOS X is given a "no" without third party tools.
Windows XP is given a strong "yes" despite that you need third party tools to take care of it.
Another example is "Coexists with another operating system on disk":
Current macs won't boot into OS 9, but they can run OS 9 (through Classic mode) natively. They can also dual-boot with Linux without any difficulty. Surely this deserves the same rank as Windows.
iChat AV is listed as an "Extra cost option" when as of when that was written it was free. This is inconsistent with how Windows is treated.
Second, its selective about its categories. It covers 802.11b, but not 802.11g or BlueTooth. No mention of handwriting recognition (which MacOS X has built in via InkWell) , but things like "Web content on desktop" are included.
The list, of course, goes on. Its a very poor choice as comparison sites go.
Re:what about all 3 major OS's (Score:2, Interesting)
If you read the notes below the table you will find:
Virtually every DVD+RW equipped Windows PC on the market today supports DVD+RW functions transparently at the system level, usually with a packet-writing driver that meshes seamlessly with the standard Windows method of saving files to any available volume.
It covers 802.11b, but not 802.11g or BlueTooth.
Maybe he made it fair for all by using the older standard. Remember its only recently that 802.11g has been as afford
Re:what about all 3 major OS's (Score:5, Informative)
Just thought I would point it out.
un-install also mis-characterized (Score:3, Interesting)
Uninstallation service for installed programs: no. Most programs can be deleted by dragging files to the trash. This may leave files in the system folder or other locations.
Actually, dragging an application to the trash starts an uninstall script -- same thing happens on install. Maybe they thought they were deleting a single file, but most applications are actually directories that contain the "other locations" that they were probably thinking about.
There's a certain beauty in thing
MacOS (Score:3, Interesting)
Wheras MacOS makes the easy things easy, the hard things hard and the impossible things not possible.
Re:MacOS (Score:2, Redundant)
Wheras MacOS makes the easy things easy, the hard things hard and the impossible things not possible.
Great quote you got there. Too bad it's false unless you're willing to back it up with examples.
Re:That's not an example (Score:2)
Because you originally said.
The referred document was about what was possible with Linux. It said nothing about what wasn't possible with MacOS.
An example of why your statement is false has to be non-linear video editing and DVD authoring. These are both complex tasks that up until a few years ago would have been thought impossible for the majority of people
Re:MacOS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MacOS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MacOS (Score:3, Funny)
I had a Mac LCII many years ago. That thing was a POS.
Re:MacOS (Score:4, Insightful)
I admit I'm kind of curious what "hard things [are made] easier" on Linux that aren't also made easier under MacOS X? What impossible things are made possible that aren't that way under MacOS X?
Re:MacOS (Score:2)
Scaling down to near-nothing or up to supercomputers.
"What impossible things are made possible that aren't that way under MacOS X?"
Sourcecode modification of your gui?
Re:MacOS (Score:3, Informative)
Scaling down is easy. You can disable the GUI and the extraneous services, though if you are going to do that for all of your systems its probably best just to install Darwin by itself.
As to supercomputers, the Terrascale Computing Facility would certainly seem to qualify. If you are talking things like crays, I'd call that a limitation of the hardware support and not a limitation of the OS.
>Sourcecode modification of your gui?
Well, you can r
Re:MacOS (Score:2)
>regard to 'computers and operating systems' to tasks
>involving sitting in front of a box with display, keyboard,
>and mouse attached.
That would be the purpose of a discussion like this, yes.
Saying "Darwin is more limited because it won't run on embedded systems" misses the point of this entire conversation since (because of the initial article) it is about Desktops and Servers.
Sure, you can't scale it back to run on an embedded system, bu
Re:MacOS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MacOS (Score:2, Insightful)
Presumably you are refering to MacOS in the sense of 'MacOS Classic'. MacOS X makes the hard and impossible pretty much as easy (or difficult) as on any other Unix driven OS.
Remember AmigaOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Your funny statement notwithstanding, impossible things are by their very definition impossible on any OS in any situation.
Re:MacOS (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X make easy things non-existant! It does them for you, and this is the big benefit of using a mac. Imagine if every little chore you had to do on your linix box that made you sigh or groan just wasn't there anymore. How much more productive or happy would you be using your computer? Considering 80% of my time is spent doing simple stuff, 19% is spent doing hard stuff, and 1% doing impossible stuff, an OS that takes out the easy things and leaves the impossible is a gr
Re:MacOS (Score:4, Informative)
What makes MacOS X better... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are the applications... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Here are the applications... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here are the applications... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla, GIMP, Blender, Open Office and I guess many of the others run on OS X too, at least with the same quality (X11 GUI) as on Linux.
DAV over https? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DAV over https? (Score:2)
On Mac OS X specifically, or as part of the protocol? I have to admit I haven't heard of DAV over https.
If it's Panther in particular and you have a server in mind, I'll be happy to check.
Re:DAV over https? (Score:3, Informative)
Or at the very least, when I try connecting to my svn server over https it still says "The Finder cannot complete the operation some data in "url" could not be read or written (Error code -36)"
not switching? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is NO reason to run Classic anymore, except if you run classic hardware, in which you don't have the choice.
Dirk P
Re:not switching? (Score:2, Insightful)
I must disagree.
OSX (I'm typing this in it now) is better in a lot of ways, don't get me wrong. It's great to have a real command line - but the typical Mac user will never use it. It's great to have multitasking, and a real stable OS, that's for sure. The technical underpinnings of OSX are far superior to Classic.
But, if you look at the traditional Mac audience, the folks that have been their loyal customers all these years, the thing that's most important to
Clean GUI (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a TiBook. I'm typing on it now. The NeXTStep interface was cleaner than the MacOS Classic interface. The only thing that "dirties" the MacOSX interface is the "classic" look of apps that insist on drawing windows with their own application-specific goofy widgets that are designed to look good taking up all of a blurry 14" CRT screen.
Also, more time in the "lickable" Aqua world, and you will be instantly conscious of the mood altering effects of being surrounded by soft edges and clean surfaces with rich (but understated) textures when you switch back to the cold-hard Classic. It's easy to say "it's all just flash !*blink* *blink*", but you haven't really tasted both samples.
I've used MSWindows 3.0,3.1,95,XP; NextStep; BeOS FVWM, OpenLook, CDE, WindowMaker, AfterStep, Enlightenment, KDE, Sawfish, Black Box; etc.. I prefer the OS-X (still using Jaguar) interface. Keys include a cohesive window-management scheme, and *working* VFS. Also there's transparent terminals that use QuartzExtreme so that I can put a window with documentation under a Terminal.app window and type what I want based on the slightly blurred text underneath. Cocoa's message-passing for loose-types makes for a somewhat bloat-y experience, but it isn't something that scales with hardware. It runs nearly as well on a Grape G3 iMac as it does on my TiBook at twice the clock speed plus AltiVec and 32MB GPU.
That said, MacOSX is a logical continuation of NeXTStep. It is a leap from MacOS Classic. Let me say one thing: it is much less of a leap from Classic to OSX than it is from Classic to MSWindowsXP.
You can continue to run your old Classic apps in MacOS Classic if you like. I invite you to try EBay for an old NeXT cube/slab with some software on it. OSX has definitely met Classic users halfway. If you are so reactionary that you can't bear to part with your good-ol' key combo shortcuts and learn a new style, then you don't deserve to run new software that demands it. That's great if you're a "my own little world" style user who just needs Adobe apps and doesn't need UTF-8 international character support...
The bottom line is that you can hold out and save your money for a compelling personal reason to switch, but if you really want your old OS, the old interface guidelines, etc. it ain't gonna happen. Translating your comments in light of that makes your position sound more like "There are those of us who will never upgrade. Long Live Classic!" Whatever...
The classic approach is dead. (Score:3, Interesting)
We don't have to be puritanical about this. A little eye candy is perfectly harmless, although if it goes too far over the top it is distracting.
However, the old Finder was a masterpiece of UI design, built to exacting HCI standards and a coherent, ergonomically driven vision. Apple has abandoned that kind o
Re:not switching? - Business Reason (Score:3, Interesting)
Since MacAuthorize is not being supported any more by the company which owns the rights to it (Veri$ign), upgrading to an OS X version isn't an option.
Since the only OS X-native credit-card authorization software I've seen costs upwards of $1000/seat, that isn't an immediate option for many small businesses.
Even at this hour... (the Article) (Score:2, Informative)
An early eval of Apple's Mac OS X 10.3
By: Chris Gulker
Apple's BSD-based Mac OS X 10.3 Panther offers 64-bit processor support and new features wrapped in the latest version of a GUI that has its roots in the NeXT desktop. While Panther sets a new standard for ease of use and interface look and feel, it still lacks features that Linux users have long enjoyed.
Panther, billed as "the evolution of the species" and buil
Switching... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well he can put me down as a Linux user who jumped onto OSX.
I really like Linux, but I just never got on with it as a desktop OS - lots of little things used to irk me, and the frustration of trying to get Linux working with much more modern hardware (like my NForce2 board) just made me get fed up with the whole idea.
Using OSX is like having the ultimate Linux distro.. you have THE best GUI available today, there are loads of Window XP beating applications shipped with OSX as standard, and hardware integration is obviously perfect - stuff just works. Plus you can quite easily get into the underlying UNIX core, and tamper with things - having such a functional GUI, and being able to fire up a terminal and use things like openssh, pico, etc right out of the box just totally sold me.
I still use Linux on my servers though.. you just can't beat that reliability and flexibility.. though I haven't tried out OSX Server yet....
Re:Switching... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Switching... (Score:2)
I've looked at it from a little different perspective. I mean I know OS X looks good, is extremely easy to use, and is very well integrated. I have actually considered getting one of those sexy laptops, but when it comes down to it, I figure, novelty and "looking good" wears off, and it comes dow
Re:Switching... (Score:5, Informative)
Given, OSX's Aqua has cleaner better solutions than that, IE, GIMP runs fine under the X11, or you can pay $$25 and get an Aqua'd version from Open OS X [openosx.com]. As for virtual vesktops, there's a host of 3rd party apps for it, but make sure you give Expose a try first. Greatest thing since slice bread.
Re:Switching... (Score:3, Insightful)
Send $2000 to my address via PayPal and I will ship you a machine with modern hardware that works perfectly out-the-box with Linux.
Actually, don't do that - my point is that you're comparing apples (hardware+software) and oranges (just software). Apple have a distinct advantage in this area, in
Re:Switching... (Score:2)
I realise that its not really any fault of Linux that there is such poor hardware support.. its manufacturers opening up the specs to allow the developers to make drivers. Either that or the manufacturers making substandard Linux drivers in an attempt to keep Linux users at bay.
But at the end of the day, I want my
Re:Switching... (Score:2)
Re:Switching... (Score:2)
I went from using Linux on my main box to using an Apple as my main too, but the resemblence ends there.
I use the Apple because I have to have a few proprietary programs that don't have Linux versions. It was Apple or XP, and Apple wins that comparison hands down.
But I strongly disagree that it beats Linux, for my purposes, outside of that constraint.
Re:Switching... (Score:2)
So, how's OSX handling that NForce2 mobo?
A recent switcher (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm certainly not a linux newbie, started off with a slackware 0.99pl13 and been using various disties since, and it'll still run on my servers for the forseeable future, but I have to say that as a desktop OS OSX is hard to beat.
The bundled applications in the iLife suite are really something - plugging in a video camera and spooling a tape onto disk, editing it and burning to an indexed DVD took about 2 hours. Of course, there's plenty of stuff you can't do, but the OS basically makes the easy things trivial. Most of the things iLife offer can be done via Linux, but the beauty of OS X, for me at least, is that it all works _well_enuf_ out of the box - Linux is always a few hours tinkering to get the configuration you need. It's a shame that OpenOffice isn't better integrated into the system, but that's down to all of us getting our collective fingers out and doing something about it!
With the benefit of 'fink' theres plenty of GPL software out there, so in theory at least there shouldn't be much that you can do with Linux that's not possible on OS X (OK, OK, let's not get started about Aqua), but OTOH, linux gives you a sharp set of tools for doing the more sophisticated things that are difficult to do anywhere else.
Apple PowerBook quality, in my experience, hasn't been so great - my first machine went back because it had a duff DVD drive, current one has colour deformations on the screen, but that'll get sorted over time.
In short - OS X is a great OS for those people who want to do straightforward computer things (including content manipulation) but not for the dyed-in-the-wool linux hacker. Personally, I can't see myself going back to Linux for my desktop OS...
Re:A recent switcher (Score:2)
I just switched last week, and I really enjoy working with my new 12" PB. And like you, I have kept Linux in my flat as a server OS (on a small, silent Dell OptiPlex) - it's a stunning combo
User experience (Score:5, Interesting)
ever since I switch to Jaguar (My Panther box is somewhere between Cork (IE) and
What I could do on Linux and still can do on OSX:
What I still cannot do (I used to be able to do it under Linux)
So my point is not to troll (only people who disagree but won't argue might say so) but just to express the following : Linux is cool, nice, may even be optimized but my current powerbook is way faster than the P3/600 Linux laptop I had before switching (I don't care about existing models). I also benefit from many quality software and from a very cool development environement.
Finally, I won't step back because I just enjoy typing this on the sexiest computer I ever owned (I also own an Acorn RiscPC, a NeXTstation, a Bebox, a P4 PC, a Zaurus and a Sinclair ZX81).
Re:User experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:User experience (Score:2)
Mac OS X is what Linux wants to be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Major applications ported to it. (no WINE)
Lots of games. (not Tuxracer!)
And it's cool... (not trying to copy existing GUI's)
MacOS X and Linux are not comparable! (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason for that is the simple fact that Linux is CLI (Command Line Interface) first, GUI second. And in MacOS X is the other way round - the interface is the most important part of the OS.
Of course, you can compare the Linux kernel with MacOS kernel, Linux CLI with MacOS CLI, Linux filesystems with MacOS filesystems, and GNOME (or KDE) with MacOS X GUI, you can even compare a disto of your choice (be it RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian or Slackware) - with MacOS X, but not LINUX as a generic OS, for Christ sake!
Where are the Classic users clinging on? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm also wondering about his assessment of the speed of OS X on his G4. Now maybe 16 years of Mac use has blinded me to how slow Mac OS X really is, but I find it (on a 500Mhz G3) pretty snappy and nothing to complain about. Maybe I should see the light and install Linux.
I think not though, productivity would grind to a halt as I tried to get Linux to do the things I wanted it to.
One things is to be said, I would have never
Re:Where are the Classic users clinging on? (Score:2, Insightful)
Among the Mac users I know, only about a third have switched to X permanently.
Aside from the superior security, and the familiarity that makes 9 reliable for us (if you know how it works, and you don't run crappy software, it doesn't crash; and if you've got work to do, "Relearn ancient Unix and NeXt arcana" isn't high on your to-do list), what stops us from switching is the immaturity--still--of X in certain areas, like interface consistency, speed (at certain tasks), (certain kinds of) latency, and gener
Re:Where are the Classic users clinging on? (Score:2)
Umm, no it can't.
If you've tried it, and think you succeeded, then you don't have a clue what the Classic 'user experience' is.
You can sort-of-kind-of make Aqua *look* like Classic, but there are still so many key elements of the GUI missing and/or different, it's not anything close.
Stability (Score:5, Funny)
"I think nothing of leaving apps and files open for days or even weeks on the Linux machine.".
Now that is cool. Nice endorsment of Linux's stability. However I still think he should say that he does save once in a while as stable as Linux is it can't survive the power cord being pulled out the back or a child putting a pop tart in the CD-ROM drive
Rus
Re:Stability (Score:2)
Re:Stability (Score:2)
Funny you should mention that. What struck me when reading this statement was that it reflects exactly how I work on my MacOSX machine, and I'm pretty sure a lot of other Mac users do too.
I also note how Mac laptop users tend to come in with just their computer and wake it up from sleep mode, whereas PC users usually come in trailing bags and leads, and almost always have to boot up their computer before using it
Re:Stability (Score:2)
I had access to a PowerBook G4 TI for some months and while I certainly liked it very much, it seemed like suspend only lasted as long as the battery. Did I miss someth
Re:Stability (Score:2)
If you have a fully charged battery, it will last for a very long time, which is enough for me.
The People's Front of Unix (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hate to see users of two fantastic operating systems like OS X and Linux turn into bickering opponents not unlike the factious Judean liberation groups in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
IMO, there's more than enough room for lots of operating systems out there. I hope some of you posting comments favoring one or the other can keep the comments purely at a technical, respectful and impersonal level.
Re:The People's Front of Unix (Score:2, Interesting)
Take the problem of customization. Linux world is "customize everything, if anything else fails - just by tampering with the source code".
Re:The People's Front of Unix (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, as a software developer by trade, I sorta like it.
One of the very real problems with all computer systems (linux included) is the difficulty in discovering the capabilities and limitations of the software. This is where "X vs Y flame wars" come in handy.
Thus, in the eternal unix vi-vs-emacs war, I went with the vi side. But I didn't learn much about it from the docs. Where I really learned was the flame wars. Some emacs partisan would say "Emacs can do FOO and vi can't." A vi partisan would then say "Yes it can, here's how
It's a pity that this particular was seems to have somewhat died down. As a result, the younger generation no longer has this simple, elegant way of discovering the undocumented capabilities of these powerful tools. I often watch younger people laboriously trying to get them to do what to me are simple, quick tasks.
Meanwhile, on the GUI front, the X-windows world has a flock of window managers, most recently KDE and Gnome. As usual, the "documentation" mostly consists of idiot-level intros that are more marketing that education. If you want to find out how to do something, asking newsgroups or mailing lists mostly gets you a "RTFM" response. But if you can say "Gnome can do BAR but KDE can't" you often get a reply explaining how easy it is with KDE.
With both MS Windows and the Mac GUI, you don't have this. I've been playing with OSX for four months now, and there are a lot of cool things about it. But from my X-Windows perspective, the GUI sucks. The simplest things that I do with one or two events on my linux box can take the longest time. Even a simple cut-and-paste is 2 to 10 times longer than with X, and prone to frustrating errors. I can't background a window. There's only one desktop. You can only resize windows via the lower right corner. Terminal windows don't have borders, and changing the background color is extremely difficult, so the windows run together. And so on.
Yes, I've asked on
It's all very frustrating to know that such things have been solved on linux, but the commercial guys at both MS and Apple seem to have little interest in the possible solutions. And as a programmer, I don't have any practical way to implement a solution myself and offer it to the population of Mac users, as I've done in the past with linux and GNU software.
Or maybe I'm missing something
[Note that this message could be interpreted as an example of "linux can to QUX but OSX can't." I'd be happy to see it lead to a debunking of all my comments by explaining how too get a profitable linux-vs-OSX flame war going, so I can learn how to do things on OSX that I know how to do on linux.
to sum it up... (Score:2)
on the other hand side, as to customizing mac os can not compete with linux. also, in my opinion linux has more programs that are freely available (i know that osX is a bsd derivative, but I don't know if you can compile a lot of open source code on a osX platform). I work a lot on linux and mac
Re:to sum it up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is great for computer "gearheads". The equivalent of some guy 1983 whose only car was some beater that he constantly had jacked up to tweak the motor. On the other hand, if you have a regular 9-to-5 job, you can't afford to have your car not working every morning at 8 AM. One solution is to get another car. Another is to get rid
Re:to sum it up... (Score:2)
Well, I'm sold (Score:4, Interesting)
Are people working on getting something similar into KDE and/or GNOME ?
Mac User since 9 (Score:3, Informative)
I love 10.1 (and hopefully 10.3 once I can find 70 to drop for the students edition) - I can do 'boring' stuff on it, like run Word or Powerpoint. I can do arty / photographic things on there (Photoshop), and also run Apache, MySQL, PHP/Perl to develop websites.
In addition thanks to Fink I can use debian style package management tools with ease. Damn good OS.
linux may be great... (Score:4, Insightful)
She buys a digital camera, plugs it on a Mac, and iPhoto does everything for her.
If she plugs in the same camera on a linux machine, will it do the same thing?
Exclusive Linux Desktop User Responds (Score:4, Interesting)
Is Mac OS X good? Yeah. I'd say it's pretty darn compelling, and all Linux application developers should take a good long look at OS X in order to learn to see where it succeeds.
Running Linux on the Desktop does not make my day easier. Printing, clipboarding, decent-quality video drivers, fonts, app consistency - these are all still major issues that impact the further deployment of Linux on the desktop.
The amazing part of OS X is it's integration and consistency. Simply put, it's a cohesive environment, built as if one very talented person built almost all the applications. Every Linux distribution is years behind it in that category (although things are very slowly getting better!)
It's hard to force UI and feature standards upon desktop applications in the world of open source - the distributedness and the lack of centralization of open source makes it hard to achieve that level of clarity.
So the next question is - can it be done in Linux? Is it even possible to build guidelines and services that make it possible for an open source project to achieve what Apple has done for OS X?
If I ever buy a laptop, there is no doubt in my mind that it will be a Mac running OS X.
PS - every application should have a "print preview"! Damn it!
Re:Exclusive Linux Desktop User Responds (Score:2)
I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I use a Mac running OSX all day. I'm a sysadmin by trade
OSX has the tools to help me do that: good support for X so I can export displays back to my machine as needed. A real CLI. Standard unix tools.
And then, there is the other part of my job, and my hobbies. Opening word documents and writing technical specifications. Pri
This is silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux and OSX are part of the same culture.
Apple doesn't really compete with linux or the rest of the current UNIX crowd. Maybe SUN but they are screwed anyway. We are not talking about a fork of Unix but rather Apple embraceing a current implimentation (BSD/Darwin) and giving it there own "spin" by, bascially, bolting on their own propriety GUI (quartz and what ever that new metal look is called) plus a bunch of lifestyle apps.
As long as a program conforms to the POSIX stardard then it should compile on OSX just fine. If you absolutely must have all your software "free" in the idealogical sense then I think you can find a open source implimentation of Cocoa and afterstep - a standard which Apple more or less follows. Apple can's own UNIX as much as SCO can since it is a open standard.
What we are talking about is a company talking the best of open source and making it more friendly for your average consumer. This is someting that most linux distros try, the best example being Mandrake. but don't quite get right mainly due to technical (XFree86, dependency hell) cultural (pointless flamefests over which is the best editor) and social problems (not having one standard GUI, installing a million text editors, lack of propriety apps etc). Some of these problems can be overcome, but some, like the idea that to make more people use linux you have to clone the windows GUI are going to take years to get over. I for one am glad that someone is attempting to lead the way and give people what they what - a decent alterative to windows that dosen't require a degree to write your resume on. Yet still has the power of UNIX if yon need it.
OSX is UNIX. That Apple should chose this direction should be taken as compliment to Linux.
Sorry to rant but I wish for once us geeks would stop getting into pointless pissing contests about things which, in the grand scheme of things, just aren't really important. For example who cares that OSX can't crtl alt f1 to the terminal? this is just nitpicking.
NIS/YP (Score:2, Interesting)
Recommend Mac's to novices? (Score:4, Informative)
Personally I will stick to Linux because I like it but I think for a lot of novice computer uses currently using Windows because 'theres no other choice', I think should consider switching to Mac OS X.
I had always sort of them as being extremely expensive but the ones in the shop (which sells both Windows and Mac computers) were about the same price as the Windows ones.
The major problem is that as the sales guy explained to me, people don't realise a 800mhz G4 is far better than say a 1.5Ghz Pentium however when people see the 800mhz mac costing more than the 1.4 ghz PC they obviously go for the PC.
Kind of reminds me of the old saying that if it wasn't for Apple's pathetic marketing practises they would be the dominant software company of today (whether that is good or bad I don't know).
However, I think that for novice users who arn't quite ready to use Linux as a desktop (in its current form), then they should be recommended a Mac as they are atleast half way there and all competition is good for the computer industry, better than everyone dominated by one large monopoly anyway.
However, a lot of developers might want to move.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is my opinion that an OS that makes developers comfortable is going to be a successful OS, so full credits to Apple on this one. I would really never have considered buying a mac before OSX (come on, they didn't even have a command line!) but now I have, and it just let's me get on with doing what I love, writing software...
The enemy of my enemy... (Score:5, Insightful)
OSX and Linux can help each other by breaking the monoculture. There have been a few stories recently about the Linux user base being set to overtake that of OSX in the next few years. These stories are invariably followed by choruses of "Apple is dying." but consider: An (corporate) IT environment which welcomes Linux on the desktop and in the server room is a) more likely to consider alternate platforms and b) an extremely friendly environment (from a protocol standpoint) in which to deploy OSX boxes.
Unlike MS OSes, which expend a great deal of their energies in locking out other platforms, both Linux and OSX are commited to open standards; they are playing by the same rules and will always play well together. A world with (let's say) 85% Windows 10% Linux and 5% OSX on the desktop is a world where more attention and emaphasis will be given to open standards, where OSX will have less resistance to grow its share in many different market spaces, and (perhaps most importantly) a world where the barrier to entry for some theoretical new-and-better OS is much lower.
To look at this another way: As PCs become more commoditized, and as they move more toward being plug-in-and-use appliances, the OS must fade further and further into the background; it must become transperant to the user. The day will come when end users neither know nor care what OS they are using (some would argue that's always been true
The future is not a world where Linux (or MacOSX) has replaced windows on the desktop, but rather one where we have a burgeoning number of choices, and can pick amongst many tools to get the job done right. (I hope....)
-alex
Linux users won't Switch? Where has he been? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it at every PERL and PHP developers conference I attend, I see more and more carrying iBooks and Powerbooks? There are a few running Linux on a DELL or other PC notebook, but there were many Linux users that abandoned Linux on their desktop for OSX. Most "switchers" I know were from Linux to Mac, not Win to Mac.
I am one of them. I was tired of Windows crashing, even with 2000 and now XP being much better in that regaurds, and it was consent problem of not having drivers for the hardware I already had and what to consider in the future.
OSX came out and I waited until 10.1 for Apple to get the major bugs out of the software and when it came time to buy a new laptop, I chose an iBook. Why? I still have MySQL, PERL and PHP along with BBEdit now to code in and test in a *iux platform on my laptop. Plus, I can still communicate with the rest of the business world with MS Office, plus programs like Photoshop, QuarkXpress, GoLive, Dreamweaver, Flash, Quicktime, iLife, etc..
Apple beat Linux in the desktop market hands down. Truefully, the smaller businesses I deal with don't have the resources or the need for a dedicated IT person on staff. That want products that have a 1-800 number they can call for support or if they do need to hire someone to come fix something, that they at least know what they hell the program is.
Now, several SMB's I have delt with in the past six months have switched from Windows to Mac, and most have been perfectly happy because their systems don't crash, its easy to use. Some use it as a Point-of-Sale system with a CC reader. USB barcode scanner and USB cash drawer without any problems. Others just need MS Office, email, and Quickbooks. The biggest complaint I have heard was one manger loved the productivy, easy of use, and stablity of their Macs, but complained that the Mac didn't have solitare.
Until we see commercial vendors, the Adobe's and Macromedia's of the world, produce native Linux products, the platform in the US won't be takening off in the business world.
Part of the reason has to do with the Dot communism mystique of the OSS community. While businesses know that the deployment costs of Linux on the desktop is a hell of a lot lower, TCO may or may not be. I have only had one client switch his office over to mostly Linux. Their accounting and shipping units still use PC's because of their software needs. There was nothing there in OSS land that would have proved cost effective to switch too, and their PR department (2 people) are using Macs for page layouts and the like. However, this was a medium sized company with 40 employees including 5 IT guys that had been running Linux on servers for close to three years and played with the system at home.
I will place my own predictions: Linux users will continue to switch to OSX. Maybe not in droves, but proably more than one would think.
Re:Linux users won't Switch? Where has he been? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's Do It !!! (Score:2)
Smart, not only support a company that has a proprietary UI on a *nix with no intention of opening it, but also a company that has full control of its own hardware market as well.
Geesh... Even if you hate Microsoft, at least they support tons of hardware and don't force you
Re:Let's Do It !!! (Score:2)
that's not really true at all you know...the BSD license pretty much lets you do what you want with the code, there's no requirement to open derivative works.
Re:Let's Do It !!! (Score:2)
The license can be debated for hours, but you are also forgetting the basic MACH license, that REQUESTS that all derivative works be returned - i.e. Open.
Re:uhhh.... let's not! (Score:2)
Re:How about Gnome 2.4 vs KDE 3.2 vs Aqua 10.3 (Score:2)
>Finder vs Nautilus vs Konqueror
No contest. Finder. Now with things like Expose and that everything is automatically sent through the graphics card, the Finder has a lead and its just gaining more ground.
>Safari vs Epiphany vs Konqueror
I've never tried Epiphany, but I prefer Safari to Konqueror just because of how smooth my experience has been with it (
Re:predatory practices? (Score:2)
Their apps make such an extensive use of their proprietary frameworks, I don't think a port is really possible.
It would be nice, obviously, if they just opensourced all of Aqua, but they are not going to do that - thats how they make money! By attracting deve
Re:predatory practices? (Score:2)
>Source community
Oh really? They follow all of the licenses, they have helped improve many programs and libraries (gcc and KHTML come immediately to mind) and they have given us quite a bit (say, all of Darwin) that they didn't have to.
>They release a Quicktime player for Windows and not for
>Linux/FreeBSD/etc
That is because they are a "Company" trying to turn a "Profit."
Quicktime Player on windows makes sense--it is a mechanism to get th
Re:My opinion (Score:5, Informative)
It is usually possible to tell there's something wrong with a post when someone starts ranting and raving about GIMP. Yep, it's free, and no, it's no patch on Photoshop. In fact, GraphicConverter is in many ways better than GIMP.
Great, you've got 13 000 packages (and I hope you've tried them all, too!) - but no Photoshop? How about, say, Final Cut Pro? Hmm, I feel like a game of Diablo. Oh, what's that? You can only run it in emulation?
The point is, it comes down to quality, not quantity. Professionals use professional tools, not some I'm-a-CS-graduate-and-know-how-to-program-stuff. I'm willing to assert that a majority of the 13000 pkgs are under 500k. They're probably really neat, you'd probably download them and stick them in your utilities folder and they'd never get seen again.
1. It has the honour of being the first OS to do this, I suppose?
2. Can't make omelette without cracking a few eggs etc. GCC 3.3 broke shit. Get over it.
well, it'd also be the first OS to have hardware incompatibilities with one single type of chip. FFS buddy, nobody has not killed something somewhere along the way.
Yeah, and with every point release adds more features than Linux gets in a full digit release.
that, my dear friend, is a complete contradiction in terms. Apple's hardware is shiny, but their OS utterly dominates everything else out there in the desktop stakes. that's what makes apple zealots. It's also the reason so many people continually pine for OS X on Intel. The hardware's kinda cool, but the software kicks hind tit.
"Down hill". Hmm, I can think of all the
Linux certainly has it's place in areas where organisations can develop a full system, but where you want to go out and buy something and have it all work, intuitively, and stable-y, and without spyware, and without MS groping your HD, you go buy a mac. Simple.
-- james
Re:My opinion (Score:2)
Name me three innovative linux features in the OS, I'll name you a hundred innovative features in Apple's OSes. Nearly everything cool in Linux was done somewhere else first.
and before you ask, I can't be bothered to type them out - but I bet you I could find 100 features that apple had in their OS before Windows, or before Linux.
Re:My opinion (Score:2)
Re:I iknow lots of linux bugs and they are whacky (Score:2)
Re:Old Mac users and the Finder (Score:2)
I've been using OSX for two years now and I'm still not used to the OSX Finder.
I don't have Panther yet, but from the screenshot in the article, it looks mostly like a steel-woolified Jaguar finder. I remember watching Jobs' speech when he unveiled Panther, and one of his focal points was the new Finder. He talked about how the Jaguar Finder was computer-centric, and the Panther Finder would be user-centri
Re:A bug in Panther. (Score:2)
Here [wired.com] is a working one.
You do know html tags work on slashdot, right?
Never! (Score:2)
In common parlance, it isn't. (Score:2)
Then you shouldn't be comparing OSX to Linux - you should be comparing Darwin to Linux.
Let's be realistic here. "Linux", these days, effectively means "Linux + XFree86 + KDE or Gnome". If you say Linux, that's what most people thi
Re:Amazing Apple XCode was not highlighted !?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux people never remember that because it wasn't a rip-off of Minix. Linux was developed from scratch. In the early days, you needed to compile the kernel using GCC running on Minix - but that doesn't mean it's a rip-off of Minix any more than a program compiled with a compiler running on Windows is a ripoff of Windows.
Linux is not a rip-off of GNU either. GNU runs on Linux. That's why it's called GNU/Linux: it's the Linux kernel with the GNU userland. That's no different to, say, taking the OpenBSD kernel and packaging it up with the GNU userland. Or indeed, taking a Mac and installing the GNU userland.