Mac OS 9 Versus Corel GNU/Linux At CNet

petard writes: "CNet is holding an OS death match between Corel GNU/Linux and Mac OS 9. An advocate of each is invited to answer the question of which is better on the desktop in the areas of Installation, Interface, Applications, Hardware Compatiblility and Internet Support. At first I thought it was flamebait, but the article is reasonably well done and highlights genuine strengths and weakness of each OS." It's really easy to say, 'Yeah, well, wait for Eazel,' but this comparison is a hard reminder that people think about the here and now, not just the soon.

Comments

Corel LiGnuX!?

[Arandir]

What the heck is this title I'm seeing? "Corel GNU/Linux"? What the heck is that? I've looked all over the Corel website, and they don't offer such a product! The closest I could find was "Corel Linux". Is this what you meant, emmett?

I can only conclude one of two things. First, since Corel Linux is derived from Debian GNU/Linux, the names got confused while the proofreader was asleep. Or second, this is GNUspeak. Slashdot, beholden to the whims of the FSF, has to rename everything. God forbid they should get a reputation as independant thinkers!

Regardless of your views on the name of a certain operating system, at least have the moral fiber to call a rose a rose! You can argue all day whether the OS is GNU/Linux, LiGNUx, Linux or Fred(tm), but the name of the distribution offered by Corel is correctly spelled as "Corel Linux OS". Shortening the name to "Corel Linux" is certainly acceptable, but changing it is not.

Re: Apps for which Linux is superior

[rsfinn]

Simply to make the record complete:

Pretty much anything related to software development. I mean you get a free (high quality) optimizing compiler, debugger, a whole load of libraries, etc.

You can download MPW for free from Apple's web site: debuggers, libraries, and the compilers used to build Mac OS and the ROM, which I guess is high-quality enough for Apple (although Mac OS X does use gcc).

Network servers. I hope I don't need to say any more about that.

Well, you might mention that the first HTTP server outside CERN was written for the Mac, as is the one currently used by the US Army's main web site.

Remote access. I can log into my computer at work from home, and do everything I could do if I was actually sitting in my office!

Me too! Timbuktu (commercial) or VNC (open source).

Mathematical typesetting. Nothing beats TeX and LaTeX when it comes to this. Sure, there's TeX for Macs, but (AFAIK) you have to buy it.

OK, you got me: according to this page, the five versions of TeX available for the Mac are either commercial or shareware (as low as US$30).

I admit that if I was building a system purely for free software development or as a network server, I wouldn't think of the Mac first. However, I don't think these are the kind of "applications" the original author had in mind (except maybe mathematical typesetting).

Re:Poor advocates

[ka-klick]

I put MacOs9 on a 7100 recently and had actually recently downgraded the HD and left the RAM the same and it really runs pretty nicely. (Actually in some ways I think it's faster than 8.1)

I also have a (free) 486 that I had to upgrade the HD on to make linux usable and I couldn't upgrade the RAM (physical size problem) so I wouldn't want to THINK of running X on it.

You can be a cheap b*&^(* w/any OS and you can spend WAY too much supporting any OS.

Alot of speed issues come down to poor configuration.

If you'd like to see some of this, you could drop by on the way to the LUG meeeting tomorrow night! ;-) (I live pretty close to clc)

Re:Of course, there were some glaring errors

[Zico]

I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't read them at all, much less auto-mount them. For the 3 Mac users who might actually be interested in such a feature, I'd suggest they just use FAT-formatted disks when copying the files off their Linux box. :)

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Re:Indepth Analysis

[Tomun]

my perfect OS is apparently OS/2 Warp 4 and 5, PAH! pseudo scientific my auntie.
I would've answered other for all of the questions had there been the option.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[gclef]

Like the GUI, Apple didn't invent it, they just made it easy. Localtalk may suck, but it's totally plug-and-play. I can't tell you how many times I've just plugged two macs together, turned on Appletalk, and started moving files over...no config, no setup, just go.

The comment about them inventing it is hyperbole, certainly. I won't even try to defend it. But the networking on a Mac really is just like the GUI: simple, easy, and works out-of-the-box. That's the whole point as far as I'm concerned.

Re:A complete sham, this.

[HeghmoH]

- Where was the "system recovery" round? (I'm dealing with this right now, and let me tell you: at the best, diagnosing an ill Mac is a hair-rending, tooth-gnashing occation - and fixing it is worse, often involving three or four third-party apps).

I suspect this reflects much more on your experience with both platforms. I find things to go the exact opposite. My Mac, when it breaks, is fixed nearly instantly, and almost never requires 3rd-party apps.

- Where was the free support round? (Visit alt.linux, your problem is usually solved right there before you even have to post a question.)

You know, Macs have newsgroups too. There are also web sites, forums, and so forth. In short, the same sorts of resources that Linux users have. You don't have to ask Apple just because you own one.

- Where was the free documentation round? I can find out anything about linux for free, and usually right after I do a Google search. When I had questions about Mac, I had to BUY a book.

This reflects on your inability to conduct a coherent web search, as opposed to the lack of documentation. There are plenty of sites, ranging from newbie stuff to obscure things like how to change that enter key next to the spacebar on powerbook keyboards into a command key. There's also that little Help menu (did you miss it?) that will answer many common questions.

A complete sham, this.

[WorLord]

Oh, come ON... no one actually took this one seriously, did they?

Here are six reasons why you shouldn't have - or, rather, six rounds that would make this "shootout" somewhat more believeable:

- Where was the "stability" round? (no elaboration required)

- Where was the "system recovery" round? (I'm dealing with this right now, and let me tell you: at the best, diagnosing an ill Mac is a hair-rending, tooth-gnashing occation - and fixing it is worse, often involving three or four third-party apps).

- Where was the official bugfix round? It takes Apple weeks/months to release patches for buggy software, as opposed to a couple hours...

- Where was the free support round? (Visit alt.linux, your problem is usually solved right there before you even have to post a question.)

- Where was the free documentation round? I can find out anything about linux for free, and usually right after I do a Google search. When I had questions about Mac, I had to BUY a book.

- Most importantly, where was the FREE SOFTWARE round? By far, this was the *most* disappointing bit. Both sides were so fixated on shrink-wrapped software support from big names that no-one mentioned the somewhat important notion that, as far as software goes, LINUX CAN DO *EVERYTHING* A MAC CAN DO FOR exactly $0.00. Office compatability? Free. Graphic work? Free. View PC files? Free. Internet? Free. All of these cost money on the Mac, and will *only* cost a Linux user if you're paying modem costs per minute. It may still be cheaper, 'cause linux apps are generally much smaller then Mac apps (the most bloated of all).

Until these, and other simple and important rounds get addressed, this "OS Death Match" should be taken in with the same amount of seriousness as Monty Python's "Holy Grail". (Note: the fact that the article briefly mentioned that Apple HW is more expensive does not dismiss the money issues listed above).

May the One shine in us all, even if OS X might be worth it in the future.
--WorLord

Re:A complete sham, this.

[Colin Simmonds]

Tell you what, I'll read that help menu as soon as you give me a coherent, relevant, and competant description of how to turn on the iBook in question without it bombing due to a rotating cast of type 11, bus, and address errors at startup, before the extention loading phase.

I have an iBook, and this sounds like a serious hardware problem. You'll want to take it back to your dealer or Apple to be repaired, not search the Internet for software fixes. This is no different than if you were getting memory access errors on startup on an x86 laptop running Windows or Linux.

Re:A complete sham, this.

[HeghmoH]

"You know, Macs have newsgroups too."

Yes, for Warez. Not interested.

Obviously you've either never actually looked for them, or you're a total smeghead. (Ok, ok, it's possible your ISP doesn't carry them. If they don't, sorry.) Check out the comp.sys.mac tree.

"this reflects on your inability to conduct a coherent web search, as opposed to the lack of documentation."

[snip commentary about lack of info on problem]
Ah, sarcasm. Tell you what, I'll read that help menu as soon as you give me a coherent, relevant, and competant description of how to turn on the iBook in question without it bombing due to a rotating cast of type 11, bus, and address errors at startup, before the extention loading phase.

Have you called Apple? They offer free support to their users for a reason. This sounds like a fairly serious problem. Anyhow, without more information I can't say for sure, but here are some things to try. First, boot while holding down shift. If that works, then it's probably a bad extension; look through the Extensions manager and turn off any 3rd-party ones. (I believe MacOS Help should work at this point as well.) If that doesn't work, then your system is probably shot. I can't recommend anything better than booting from the CD and reinstalling the OS, and even that's not guaranteed. As another poster said, this sounds like it may be a hardware problem.

Re:A complete sham, this.

[Zoop]

Ooof, between you and the PhD computer scientist above, we're going to start to have to give IQ tests before you can use a Mac.

Please. Both of you are bitching about a lack of documentation and help for the Mac? Why not try searching the internet. Did you forget the process of learning you had to do with Linux? Did you think the Mac was so easy you could do everything without even bothering to go through the online documentation (which is usually ignored but copious)? Have you never heard of versiontracker.com (freshmeat before freshmeat or download.com existed)? Macfixit.com? Or the thousands of websites with Mac info, or the free discussion boards on these sites and on usenet that offer? Or did you never bother to visit usenet sites that nobody told you about? Hey, try Sherlock if you're unused to searching the net. Or try Google. But this time, type in "Macintosh". Geez.

My god, the Mac has plenty of bad points without having to say "I wanted it to think for me unlike every other computer in existence and I couldn't be bothered to spend a second learning how to use it because my brain turned off when the startup chime sounded."

And really, if you want to bitch about something, don't bitch about problem solving on the Mac. Yes, you might have to visit a few websites (ever heard of the TIL, the best and most authoritative bugfixing database anywhere, in an obscure website called www.apple.com?), but once you learn it, there are about three things that need to be done to fix a sick mac, and they don't involve reinstalling every application on your computer like with Windows. And if you know what you're doing, it can be with either only one or none 3rd party apps (depends on how much work you want to do).

As for free software, there's tons of it for the Mac. Most of what isn't free is shareware that's on the honor system. So yes, if you believe software development shouldn't be compensated, there are plenty of places for you to free ride, leechlike, on the Mac. And you know what? GraphicConverter, which is honor-based shareware, is a competitor for the Gimp. And if you pay, it's $35. And it has a predictable GUI. In fact, the GUI on almost all free- and share-ware on the Mac is better done than the almost-ready-for-KDE crap you frequently find for Linux. Good functions, terrible interface.

And please, you can't do color matching for any price on Linux, let alone free. Hey, what antialiased font did you just install for free? I have about 230, and I didn't pay for a single one.

I like Linux. I use Linux. I like BSD. I use BSD. I use Windows (I hate Windows). I like Macs. I use Macs. But I don't bitch about not having good color correction or vector drawing tools on Linux, nor do I bitch when my Mac crashes (on a well-tuned Mac, about once a month or less). They are different tools for different jobs. They all have to be learned, and the all have strengths and weaknesses. But get the right ones matched with the right platforms, dammit.

Re:A complete sham, this.

[WorLord]

"Obviously you've either never actually looked for them, or you're a total smeghead. (Ok, ok, it's possible your ISP doesn't carry them. If they don't, sorry.) Check out the comp.sys.mac tree."

Just FYI, I did, and Airnews (Usenet provider I have) is one of the best. Still, I stand by my assertion that if the problem isn't so minor as to be a mild annoyance which can possibly be completely ingorned, nothing of relevance is spoken of.

"I can't recommend anything better than booting from the CD and reinstalling the OS"

I took your advice and resorted to this last night. I said "screw it," and applied the M$ Windows fix (i.e., reinstall the OS). This finally did the trick. I also spent 1/2 hour getting all the patches for it, and upgrading those, too. Thanks for the help, and just to brighten your day, I only did a "dirty" install... all of the software didn't have to be reinstalled.

May the One shine in us all, even if OS 9 is better then 8.6
--Worlord

Re:A complete sham, this.

[WorLord]

"You know, Macs have newsgroups too."

Yes, for Warez. Not interested.

"this reflects on your inability to conduct a coherent web search, as opposed to the lack of documentation."

That's funny, I used the same search engines I always do. I typed in "mac tech support," and the closest thing I got was macfixit.com and lowendmac... neither of which had anything of real relevance or great detail. At least, not enough to tell me what's wrong with the damn thing.

And forget the TIL and Apple forums. If your problem isn't basic enough to ignore, neither of these formus/archives help.

"There's also that little Help menu (did you miss it?)"

Ah, sarcasm. Tell you what, I'll read that help menu as soon as you give me a coherent, relevant, and competant description of how to turn on the iBook in question without it bombing due to a rotating cast of type 11, bus, and address errors at startup, before the extention loading phase.

Deal?

May the One shine in us all, even if MacZealots strike.
--WorLord

Deathmatch?

[(void*)]

Right, like I am going to die laughing from watching two twerps utter banalities at each other. Next article please!

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[divec]

Gimp is [...] too big for joe average user

I quite agree. I'd recommend ImageMagick for such a person.

LaTeX is 80's technology.

Don't write LaTeX off. The default document classes are indeed academically-orientated. But if you're a power user (and who else'd use LaTeX) you'll write your own document class for to suit your needs, in which case LaTeX is still not really all that beatable.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[gwernol]

IIRC, office LANs started taking over the world (well, according to the commercials) as soon as Xerox released their coax Ethernet. Actually LANs probably started cropping up long before that, but it seems like they were pretty prevelant in the 70's, and Macs didn't appear until the early 80's IIRC.

Not really. There were very few office LANs in existence before the mid 1980's. Ethernet was mainly used to connect minicomputers to their peripherals before that (and even then, serial lines were much more common).

Macs were the first mass market machines to have Local Area Networking built-in. It wasn't Ethernet, but it was easier to network Macs for years before it was easy to do it to Intel-based PCs. I think the claim is good, at least from the mass market perspective.

Note that I'm too young to actually have experienced any of this, so a lot of it could be wrong.

Without wanting to sound too old (too late, too late...) I was around for this stuff.

Re:macos wins internet????

[spyderbyte23]

I can't believe they gave macos the internet support category. It took me months to find ssh for the mac. ssh is definetly an internet necessity. Also outlook sucks and crashed many times on my mac eudora doesn't come with an imac or macos. You can download the free version but then you get an advertisement filling your screen.

Ludicrous. Eudora isn't even available for Linux. Also, if you don't want the ads, Eudora Light versions are still available(no 4.x versions though). Also, there are other options for MacOS (Green comes to mind).

With linux I can do what I want on the net. proxies, servers, clients. Not so with macos, does apache run on a mac.

They appear to be judging desktop OS's as opposed to server OS's. There may be a case to be made for Linux as a desktop OS, but your post isn't it.

LocalTalk has been around forever -

[phandel]

It was on early Macintoshes, and even on the Apple IIGS, imo one of the best personal computers ever made. I'm using a now-free UNIX variant called GNO/ME with Derek Tauberts GS/TCP (unreleased) to serve web pages (currently down, I'm moving to CA).

Re:LocalTalk has been around forever -

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't know Steve. Everything I've heard about him indicates that he is an asshole of the highest caliber. I honestly don't think that he has any friends.

If I had a choice though, I'd rather know the Woz.

As for referring to famous people in the computing industry by first name, initials or nickname, that's just commonplace. Steve, the Woz, Bill, Paul, Linus, RMS, etc. That's how it is. I don't need to know them.

Re:LocalTalk has been around forever -

[cpt kangarooski]

1985.

They couldn't even do it while Steve was in charge. Most of the important people on the Mac project (Steve came in late and contributed relatively little; he's a royal jerk) knew about the importance of networks. And even knew about ethernet. But when asked what network they were going to put on the Mac, Steve replied by handing them a floppy disk.

(and in fact, that the Mac had a 3.5" drive was an act of rebellion by the engineers...)

Re:LocalTalk has been around forever -

[phutureboy]

True, true.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[seebs]

Heh. "As long as all apps use Ctrl+click the same way". Of course, they don't; many, many apps use command-click. Quite a few use option-click. One uses keypad-=, or command-R.

I have a four button mouse, and three of its buttons are dedicated to providing right-clicks for various applications which I find important.

This is a tribute to the difference between UI consistency (won't always work) and OS support (will always work, but may surprise you).

I would not call the illusion of supporting multiple buttons "seamless" on a Mac. Netscape doesn't use ctrl-click for pop-up menus... Right there, boom, no standard interface. None of my word processors do it, either.

I really wish they'd gone the other way; establish multiple buttons, then let the user configure some modifiers as equivalent to buttons, or something like that.

next death match from C|Net...

[passion]

just imagine...

BeOS vs. DOS 2.1

Let's see... both have CLIs, both run on intel chips, uhh... they both can boot from a floppy. Sure - let's do a death-match

Installation:

• DOS 2.1 - no install, just boot from floppy
• BeOS - quick, intelligent install, though can also boot from floppy
• Tie

Interface

• DOS - CLI with a limited set of commands
• BeOS - purty GUI with POSIX-compliant CLI
• winner: BeOS

Applications

• DOS - Lotus 1-2-3, and IBM Write
• BeOS - many, many found on http://www.be.com/software/ including Quake II.
• winner: BeOS

Hardware Compatibility

• DOS - need really old machine, probably 8086 >= x >= 386
• BeOS - need rather new machine, pentium class and higher
• tie - BeOS requires expensive equipment, whereas DOS restricts me to only using shit I should have recycled ages ago.

Intenet Support

• DOS - I once used my 9600 baud modem to gain a telnet connection, where I could surf the web using lynx.
• BeOS - native TCP/IP
• winner: BeOS

Stability

• DOS - I never saw it crash
• BeOS - I never saw it crash
• tie

Price

• DOS - (originally bundled with $5000 piece of hardware) currently - $.25 at local garage sale
• BeOS - (originally $100) currently - free Lite version, full version is $69.95
• tie

Death Match winner: BeOS

Come back next week when we pit the Palm OS vs. Irix

Re:internet services are a *bad* thing?

[Penrif]

Yes, it is preferable to not have these server services running (or even installed) by default for a desktop user. A "typical" desktop user doesn't even know what the heck telnet is, let alone find it a useful tool. If, however, they do find such services helpful, they can get them for the Mac. And if they like them too much, they can get OSX, or for that matter, LinuxPPC, Yellow Dog, whatever.

Well, that sure sucked.

[CdotZinger]

Bluargh! I say.

This could have been an interesting comparision if:

1) These buffoons had non-cursory familiarity with the OSes they were allegedly advocating.

2) They hadn't chosen Corel. I mean, come on. That's like comparing American to British pop music, giving the Brits XTC (=Mac OS 9) and sticking the US with Ricky Martin. How 'bout a Debian/OSX column next year, when a comparison is both technologically valid and logically arguable? Take two big-time OSes with similar capabilities and notable pros and cons, list 'em and debate 'em. That's all.

3) No one named Becky had been involved in this. I want a guy named Eugene and a woman with an unpronounceable Chinese name telling me which OS I should use, not some pom-pon girl from Long Island. I'm almost ashamed to be a Mac weenie.

But I use both. Linux guys mostly don't know what's possible in Mac OS, because they don't know how to use it, and vice-versa. They are both easy to install if you're not a Becky. They both have workable GUIs, though the current Mac's is more coherent. They both have tons of applications if you don't have a Becky-ish need to use Microsoft's various hand-holding memory-leak-generators. They both have command lines if you want 'em; the iMac I'm typing this on has six different ones, in fact. ("What?! What the hell's he talking about?! Brain segmentation fault!") A default install of either OS = a huge, messy pile of crap that does way too much and lets you do way too little. True, and who cares.

Let's make it a real challenge. Brainiac Linux guy says, "I can telnet with SSH," Mac guru says, "Me too, no prob. I've got Photoshop with true color-matching capabilies, how's yer li'l GIMP doin'?" etc, etc. That could be interesting.

Re:Well, that sure sucked.

[CdotZinger]

The "Capabillies" being, of course, a band of rednecks in wheelchairs who go around to junior high schools and sing country songs about how they're no different from the rest of us. Sorry 'bout that.

PREVIEWPREVIEWPREVIEW!

There can be only one "OS death match" winner

[seebs]

http://www-ccsl.cs.umass.edu/~barrett/bm/Viewer_Se ctions/Articles/15_BS2

BS/2. The world's fastest OS.

Re:prediction

[znu]

http://www.apple.com/macosx/

--

Re:Poor advocates

[SoftwareJanitor]

Interesting, that it is such a small world.

My brother has a 7100, which I believe only came with 16M of RAM and a 1G hard drive. Many of the even older PPC Macs (6100, etc) were not even equipped that well -- I've seen a number of them with 200-500M HD's and only 8M of RAM. A 1G hard drive is probably adequate, but would MacOS 9 actually run very well in 16M of RAM? Especially when it came time to try to run heavyweight applications like Microsoft Office or Photoshop as mentioned in the article?

Most of the 486's I have can be bumped up to at least 32M (if not 64), which is adequate for most things for Linux. The exceptions would be wretched abominations like a couple Packrat Bill's I've seen which could only go to 20M (4M soldered, and 4 30-pin sockets). I've actually used Word Perfect 8 under KDE on a 32M 486 box, and it was usable. You can actually get by for light usage on 16M, but that can be a little painful in X.

BTW, if you are at the LUG meeting, say hello so I have a clue as to who you are... You obviously know who I am.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[jbarnett]

Applicatons: truthfully I would rather have vi then quicken or rather have vi then notepad, word, Word95, any MacOS or Windows Editor.

Why do I choose `vi`, well because I am a system admin and wanta be programmer and could give a shit about `easy to use` and want `effective to use`, I don't want to trip over any dam pull down means or stroke my mouse off to save a dam file, I want it raw.

But then again, I am a system admin and wantabe programmer, I want a Unix or Unix-like system to work with, not some glossy peice of shit as my server. I want to be able to sleep 5 hours staight without getting a call saying "You know that iMac with MacOS 9 you are using for your web server/ ftp/ radius and email server for 50,000 users? Yea, surpise it went down again, please fix it again"

But then again I have differant requirements in OS then other people, surpise NOT EVERYONE in the world wants the exact same thing. Sure Macs and great, for GrandParents, but they totally suck as server, as Linux totally sucks as a "point-click-drool" type of system.

I wonder if CNET is doing an article next week "Apples VS Oranges, the DEATHMATCH, which really is the BEST fruit"

Dam atleast the Gnome Vs KDE or BSD Vs Linux or vi Vs Emacs had some dam content, atleast they where comparing to things that it made sense to.

CNET next week, which is the BEST FOOD, find out in our next DEATHMATCH: Ford Vans Vs Empty Soda cans.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[CrowT42]

"I would not call the illusion of supporting multiple buttons "seamless" on a Mac. Netscape doesn't use ctrl-click for pop-up menus... Right there, boom, no standard interface. None of my word processors do it, either." Thats strange... My three button mouse (with scroller) with ctrl+click on the right key, works fine in Netscape, Word, and Claris works... ---- Joel.. For x-mas, I want to decide who lives and who dies. Um.. Well.. I don't know.. ----

Re:Eazel, KDE

[NaughtyEddie]

Grow some balls? Coming from an AC that's almost funny. Can you see the smirk on my face?

Sorry if my use of the jocular "Good Thing(tm)" annoyed you so much. My advice is to chill the fuck out. It would be a Good Thing(tm).

Re:Where is Mac OS X ?

[steffl]

well, since mac os X is bsd based I see no reason why you can't run X server (I think it already uses X server, right?) + fvwm / gnome / kde / enlightenment... there goes your "single, elegant, easy-to-use UI". Aqua will be just one of the many mac UIs:-))

erik

Where is Mac OS X ?

[Nonac]

How can they do a Mac vs. Linux article and not mention BSD-based Mac OS X?

I don't follow Apple very closely, so I don't know if OS X is officially released yet, but I would think that either way it would factor heavily into this comparison.

Re:Where is Mac OS X ?

[divec]

"OSD/DFSG compliant" - uh, is that something you made up?

Nope. OSD, DFSG.

Can I read the source? Yes. Can I modify the source? Yes. Must be open source then.

Can Apple ban me from distributing the modified source on the slightest whim? Yes. All your efforts can be rendered useless if it happens to suit Apple to ban you from distributing the source. (It says in the license that if they claim that you infringe their IP, you have to stop distributing modified-APSL software until it's sorted out in court. That could potentially be indefinitely). [At least, this was all true the last time I checked the APSL].

Everything else is just grousing

You can't e.g. have a viable business strategy that permanently depends on the whim of a potential competitor.

Re:Where is Mac OS X ?

[Frizzle Fry]

But they're only comparing things that are available now. What's the point of comaring things that aren't out yet? If the Mac defender can use OS X as evidence of how great the Mac is then the Linux guy would have to be able to talk about Netscape 6/ KDE2/ Eazel. The discussion would just degenerate into what great stuff both platforms may have someday. The only fair discussion is one based on what's available now that people can actually use.

The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land

Re:Where is Mac OS X ?

[gwernol]

How can they do a Mac vs. Linux article and not mention BSD-based Mac OS X?

That's a great question...

I don't follow Apple very closely, so I don't know if OS X is officially released yet, but I would think that either way it would factor heavily into this comparison.

Mac OS X DP4 (that's Developer Preview #4) was released to developers last week at Apple's annual World Wide Developer's Conference. In the conference keynote speech, Steve Jobs announced that a public beta of Mac OS X would be available this summer, and it would ship pre-installed on Apple hardware starting in January.

Mac OS X looks very good so far. Its got the Mach kernel, with BSD on top (all opened sourced as Darwin). Above this sits three API layers: Cocoa - dervied from the NextStep operating system; Carbon - essentially the legacy Mac OS APIs; and Java - the JDK 1.3.

On top of these API layers is Aqua, which is the new improved Macintosh UI. This is gives a single, high quality user experience to the OS.

The Eazel work is potentially very interesting, but its still going to be just another of many Linux UIs. Apple hardware will have full-on BSD with a single, elegant, easy-to-use UI. Its going to be a compelling experience to use one of these new Macs.

Re:Where is Mac OS X ?

[w3woody]

How can they do a Mac vs. Linux article and not mention BSD-based Mac OS X?

It was mentioned.

I don't follow Apple very closely, so I don't know if OS X is officially released yet,...

It's not out yet.

Re:Where is Mac OS X ?

[Evro]

Above this sits three API layers: Cocoa - dervied from the NextStep operating system; Carbon - essentially the legacy Mac OS APIs; and Java - the JDK 1.3.

I was under the impression that the three layers were Cocoa, Carbon, and Classic -- classic being the layer that still runs legacy apps.

Ahh, here's the picture I was thinking of: http://www.apple.com/macosx/inside.html .

__________________________________________________ ___

Re:Where is Mac OS X ?

[divec]

Is Darwin Open Source (TM) now? (Its licence used to be non OSD/DFSG compliant).

Pretty Balanced

[mizhi]

As the subject goes... they did a good and fair job. I thought the internet decision was a little dicey just given my experience with macintoshes and networking in general. IMHO, I don't think you get much better (or faster) net apps than with Linux/Unix. But ofcourse, that's just a preferences.

Re:Pretty Balanced

[maddurbation]

NO. Pioneering and inventing are two different things. It said "pioneered".

"spare the lachrymosity when the fulminations have inveighed"

Re:Pretty Balanced

[nullset]

Yeah, and i didn't realized that apple invented LANs....

Yes, the apple proponent DID say that apple invented LANs. So was that when Al Gore was the CEO?

Re:Pretty Balanced

[phutureboy]

Macs had Localtalk (PhoneNet) built-in from very early on (possibly the beginning - not sure), up until recently, when they dropped the serial ports and went to all USB & built-in Ethernet.

IIRC, Localtalk was a shared broadcast network running at 400Kbps. Slow as sin compared to Ethernet, but you have to remember that this was in the era when ArcNet and Token Ring were still around, although Ethernet was starting to take over.

Real networking was expensive and quite complicated then, and so it was really impressive to be able to plug 3 stock Macs together with a cheap cable, turn them on, and have them networked, sharing printers, hard drives, etc.

Re:Pretty Balanced

[SoftwareJanitor]

IIRC, Localtalk was a shared broadcast network running at 400Kbps

I believe it was 230Kbps, unless you purchased 3rd party add-ons to upgrade it to 400Kbps.

Re:macos wins internet????

[znu]

Apache will be preinstalled in Mac OS X. The little personal web sharing feature built into OS X is going to be based on it (talk about overkill!).

--

The curse of WordPerfect...

[MythosTraecer]

WordPerfect is cursed, I tell you! First, Microsoft starts beating WordPerfect (the original company) with Word, so they sell to Novell, which subsequently falls into its worst market position since the 80s (until 2 weeks ago, anyway). Then Novell sells WordPerfect to Corel, who's now knocking at death's door, too. WordPerfect is cursed, I tell you! Cursed!

Seriously, though (so as to avoid an "off-topic" moderation, I suppose), I do not think Microsoft Word is the end-all be-all word processor like the Mac person in this article seems to think. In fact, I hate Word, with all the hate one can have for a stupid piece-of-junk software program. Impling that Word is the only real word processor like she does is an affront to all of us who just want a nice, easy-to-use word processor (despite WordPerfect's curse).

Re:Poor advocates

[ka-klick]

When I got it (used) it had 24mb of RAM and a 700mb hd. While it was my main machine I had a 4.5G hd and bumped up the RAM to 88mb. Recently I acquired some other machines and moved the 4.5G hd to my current main machine and swapped the 1G from the newer machine into this one. So this machine has had it's config played w/ a bit, but it was running 8.1 till a couple weeks ago and I decided to check out 9 on this machine. I think much more of the OS is now native and is therefore a bit peppier than before.

As for expandability, the 7100 could take up to 4 32MB sticks (128MB) and had 8MB on the mother board IIRC. The 486 that I have can only use single sided SIMMs and I didn't feel like searching for higher density SIMMs for that, so I'm currently stuck at 16mb on that machine. I'm not complaining (too much) as it was free, but my point was that I put MacOS9 on a 7100 as it sat in my bedroom, while I have had to upgrade and limit the functionality of Linux on the "free" 486 I have. That's OK, I have fun w/it. Both machines serve purposes in my house and I do think the whole concept of the article was silly (along the lines of: what is more masculine, a pinapple or a schoolbus?) and was argued by advocates that were woefully inadeqately knowlegable about their opponent's OS (and in some cases their own).

PS. The 6100, 7100 and 8100 are exactly the same age. they ware all first gen (nubus) 601 ppcs. w/different clock-speeds and different cases. The 6100 which was the low end could do up to 72mb IIRC (2 SIMM slots + 8 MB on mother board) Anything older is moot or this discussion as MacOS9 only runs on ppc machines.

some nitpicking

[Scudsucker]

"The Mac has offered USB support from day one."
Day 1 would be when?? the coming of Christ? some time in the early 80's or at the inception of the IMac sometime within the last 2 years. Seems like history is a bit vague here. How could i have missed that usb adapter on the Mac+ or the MacII, Any 680X0 Mac. How about the first 4 years of Power Macs. they all had USB too. As far as you know.

Since USB was introduced, duh. What else would he be referring to?

They invented Cdroms, local area networks and floppy drives?

Don't know about the lan's, but he said pioneered, not invented. Apple was the first comapny to ship standard 3.5 floppies and cdroms, and of course mice.......

wow.. so thats where the mouse came from. And all this time I was sure that they had taken it from xerox just like everyone else.

So long as you remember that Xerox got paid with Apple stock. And we're still talking about pioneering; just how many desktop computers has Xerox made?

There is no place where they talk about the power of linux as a server.

No shit. When I read the "Internet" section, my first thought was, has cnet never heard of sendmail, nfs or routing? Obviously the section was only about user software, like web browsers, email clients and messengers like icq. They should have made that clear thou, or at least mentioned the server capabilities of Linux......many of which you can do on Mac OS 9, but generally only if you shell out hundereds of dollars for commercial, closed source applications.

This article is lame...

[MythosTraecer]

I'm sorry, this article is lame. Period. People use Mac OS and Linux for vastly different reasons, largely because they are vastly different operating systems designed to emphasize vastly different things. That CNET actually ran this article leads me to believe that either their content is getting thin, or their editors are smoking something they should be passing around...

Re:Both suck...

[Dredox]

It doesn`t matter how much you improve and upgrade a buggy. It will never become a Mercedes Benz.

Linux, MacOS, Windows, etc are based one truly obsolete principles. Trust me, I know all these OSs from top to bottom.

Mark my words. :) Within two years my post would be rated "5 ingightful"

coming at the same thing from opposite directions

[staggerlee]

two completely different operating systems...one started from the point of being robust and bulletproof and is trying to evolve a human face, the other started as amazingly user-friendly and optimized for the newb and is trying to evolve toward stability. OS X will be slick, BSD-based, with more available source code than you can get from M$...of course, the Eazel guys invented useable GUI...the only real hard fact is that cNet obviously know what two groups of fanatics they can exploit when it comes time to drive up the hit count...

Re:Another off-topic troll.

[Androgynous Coward]

You, my friend, are wise....

More quotes from the "off-topic" zone

[Androgynous Coward]

there are about three things that need to be done to fix a sick mac, and they don't involve reinstalling every application on your computer like with Windows

Has anyone else noticed how a majority of the claims regarding Mac superiority from the Evangelistas invlove pulling out the MS Windows card when this thread is suppose to be about Linux? I think they're getting desperate.

AC

Re:Eazel, KDE

[NaughtyEddie]

You misunderstand me.

In the UNIX environment you have a few dozen major command-line tools, and hundreds of secondary ones. Each does a specific task. You use the "shell" to invoke these tools; the shell can pipe results between tools, etc. etc.

In the environment I allude to, you have a few dozen major COM components (or similar) and hundreds of secondary ones. Each does a specific task. You use the browser to invoke these tools.

The "browser-as-focus" model is a lot closer to the old UNIX model than you think. It certainly doesn't imply statically linking all the code together!

Potential for market growth

[blindbat]

I use Windows and Linux. Lots of Windows users will migrate towards Linux as it matures. Not many will migrate towards the Mac from Windows (or Linux). I've used Corel Linux and find it to be an emasculated version of Linux compared to RedHat or Mandrake.

Re:Potential for market growth

[Simm75]

Please specify who the "they" is/are (?) that you're referring to.

Is the group "they" iMac buyers? What are the numbers, compared to Linux converts? Where's your statistical data? Is the "they" the large number of folks that are disgusted with Windows' apparent instability (really a combination of bad coding on Microsoft's end and bad setup on the users' end...it's unbelievable how many resources are ate up by all those stupid taskbar apps...anyway)? Sorry, pal, but I run Linux. I'm not one of the "they".

I would strongly suggest taking a course in logic. It helps with critical thinking skills. (That's not meant purely as an insult; it's also meant as a genuine urge to get help.)

Re:Potential for market growth

[B-B]

Ok, Troll,

Since all you have done is supply your personal (read anecdotal) evidence and did not supply stats either, and resorted to the (ever so lame) ad homynym attack against me personally I do not know why I am bothering...but here it goes.

1) MA in Philosophy from University of Illinois
2) MA in History from University of SOugh Florida
(kinda stepped in it here)
3) http://www.apple.com has some stats from VERY
complete new buyer surveys. 1/4 IMac buyers are new to personal computing and 1/3 are wintel converts. You can also watch the several Jobs keynote speeches over the last couple of years.
4) people do not only change OS/platform because of (supposed) stability. If this were true, we would all abandon Linux and go to BSD or Solaris.
There are form factors like aesthetics and fit and finish where the Mac shines. NEWS FLASH: Cool factor sells stuff.
5) I am not your pal, buddy.
6)I do not have data for Linux converts...But this is your job. Rather than expand your anecdotal evidence to ligitimate a trend when real proof is lacking, perhaps you can get ME some stats.
7) I do not know why I am responding to a troll.

Have a day.

Tom

Re:Potential for market growth

[B-B]

And, looking briefly at your posting history...Do you find it impossible to make a post without name calling?

Tom

Re:Potential for market growth

[B-B]

Over 1/3 of new iMac buyers are Wintel converts. Sorry. They are converting to the Mac after all.

Tom

A complete source of FUD, you

[Scudsucker]

- Where was the "stability" round? (no elaboration required)

- Where was the "system recovery" round? (I'm dealing with this right now, and let me tell you: at the best, diagnosing an ill Mac is a hair-rending, tooth-gnashing occation - and fixing it is worse, often involving three or four third-party apps).

Hmmm, have a Mac crash on me every three days (just hit the reset switch and in less than a minute be back at what I was doing) or have a linux box crash once a month (from a bug or power out, whatever) and spend 40 minutes manually fscking all my partitions, potentially losing some. Contrast that to the Mac OS, where a simple "rebuild the desktop" at system startup and a run of Disk First Aid (free from Apple and installed with the OS) will fix 98% of the problems that will pop up.

- Where was the official bugfix round? It takes Apple weeks/months to release patches for buggy software, as opposed to a couple hours...

Apple released a fix in a couple of hours for that DDos attack possible with OS 9.

- Where was the free support round? (Visit alt.linux, your problem is usually solved right there before you even have to post a question.)

- Where was the free documentation round? I can find out anything about linux for free, and usually right after I do a Google search. When I had questions about Mac, I had to BUY a book.

Are you dumb or just lazy? As a couple people pointed out below, there are plenty of newsgroups and websites for Macs. Apple has the Tech Info Library containing info all the way back to 80's hardware and software (see you do that for a 1.1 Linux kernel), the product spec page and the tech exchange board if you want to ask questions.

LINUX CAN DO *EVERYTHING* A MAC CAN DO FOR exactly $0.00.

Just because it can do the same job doens't mean it can do it as well.

Graphic work? Free.

The Gimp may be a neat open source graphic app, but Photoshop it is not.

View PC files? Free. Internet? Free. All of these cost money on the Mac, and will *only* cost a Linux user if you're paying modem costs per minute.

Really, I was under the impression that Macs ability to read PC files and floppies was built into the os, and internet apps like Netscape and ICQ were free for the Mac just like they are for Windows. And of course Mac users are forbidden to use freeware or open source software of their own, only UNIX users can do that. Thanks for enlightening me.

Re:A complete source of FUD, you

[WorLord]

"Hmmm, have a Mac crash on me every three days"

And this isn't a problem?!

Now I see why you disliked my opinion. You *expect* errors.

"and spend 40 minutes manually fscking all my partitions, potentially losing some"

I've only been running Linux for two years now, on all the time.

I have never once lost a file, despite many power outages. I suspect your troubles arise more from poor surge protection then a faulty OS or fsck.

"Are you dumb or just lazy? As a couple people pointed out below, there are plenty of newsgroups and websites for Macs. Apple has the Tech Info Library containing info all the way back to 80's hardware and software (see you do that for a 1.1 Linux kernel), the product spec page and the tech exchange board if you want to ask questions."

See my other post about such resources. Basically, if your problem isn't so minor that it can't be ignored completely, then it isn't even discussed in the TIL or forums available.

"Just because it can do the same job doens't mean it can do it as well."

Either you're MSOffice compatable, or you're not. Either you can work with graphic formats, or you can't. This isn't a sliding scale here, it's a binary, yes-or-no situation.

"he Gimp may be a neat open source graphic app, but Photoshop it is not."

I can do everything with it that I can with PS5.5 . Maybe you don't like to work without all the pretty, soothing pictures to guide you, but I can do without that bloat.

"and internet apps like Netscape and ICQ were free for the Mac just like they are for Windows"

Actually, I see how you read that, and I apologize for being unclear.

This was more geared towards MSOffice apps then anything else. You have to buy office for the Mac (or steal it) to work with office files. Period, end of story. I do this for free in *nix, and in the same amount of time (or even faster, usually).

May the One shine in us all, even if we are misdiagnosed as causing FUD.
--WorLord

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[Maxintern9]

Windows has had a similarly simple local protocol - NETBEUI - for some time. No config.

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[Master Bait]

Tell me that Joe Average-end-user uses CMYK more heavily than is supported by Gimp.

Joe average user doesn't buy or use photoshop and doesn't know what CMYK is (neither do the otherwise-talented developers of gimp). So, I digress... Gimp rules 'cause you can make web dings and put some fine sparkle in Gramma's eyes.

But Gimp is a big pig, too big for joe average user who is better served by the 'light' program that came with his digital camera. And if anyone needs to bill clients for time spent with big bitmaps, that big pig called Photoshop will put food on the table.

As for LaTex vs. Word... well apart from them both producing ugly crap only suited for academic papers, I think we have MacWorks (formerly ClarisWorks) which is actually very good, lean and mean. And for Linux, there are tons of fine word processors.

LaTex is '80s technology. Go download Framemaker for Linux.

Re:I couldn't finish this poor excuse for a compar

[Graymalkin]

Did you read the articles? They tell exactly why they picked either OS to win in a catagory. It was a c|net article written for the average suit or home user not dudes who think in Assembler.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[MrBogus]

The standard MacOS context menu action is not Ctrl+click (although that often works) -- it's Click+hold for a couple seconds.

Since the default configuration of Windows is to wait about a second before the context menu comes up, it's about the same difference even with one mouse button.

Re:Please

[Xenu]

Only an incredible dork would buy a $70 NIC for a home machine - nice Netgear 10/100 cards are at any office supply store for $25.

I must be an incredible dork. I've had nothing but bad luck with no-name and off-brand Ethernet cards. The last one I bought, a LinkSys PCI card, produced random system lockups and went deaf on a regular basis. I've never had any problems with 3COM cards. They just work and they are well supported with drivers. Your mileage may vary.

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[ZikZak]

Tell me that Joe Average-end-user uses CMYK more heavily than is supported by Gimp

Joe Average doesn't use Photoshop or GIMP. Joe Average uses Paintshop Pro on his PC or whatever crappy software came with his $99 scanner. And now that Fireworks and Imageready are available most web designers don't use Phtotshop or GIMP either.

So who does use Photoshop? Print designers (yes, in spite of the internet there are still a lot of them, and they do stay busy). And what do print designers need? Kick-ass CMYK. GIMP's cool, but it ain't no Photoshop yet.

Re:Actually, I was going by Corel's own words

[frank249]

SEC requires a worst case scenario. Yes the merger did not go through but Corel still has liquid investments and many options for other financing. This will only be required if revenues continue to decline. We will know for sure in a few weeks but early indications are that sales are picking up after the Y2K dip and there is new revenue coming in from CLOS and WPO4L. Remember there was a 55,000 seat sale to DoJ and $4 million to Cdn Govt that will start to show up this quarter. The problem with the media is that they took the three ifs and a may out and turned it into 'Corel is going bankrupt'. Not quite a fair statement.

are we still on the damn mouse?

[A moron]

I've got a contour Unimouse and a Micro$oft Intellimouse. 3 and 5 buttons respectively. The software that comes with them is amazingly configurable. I can make any button do any number of predefined actions, or make my own. If an application has something funky then you can make the mouse buttons change for that application. So it would be nice if everyone agreed on a control+click but if they don't it can be handled.

I'm so tired of people picking on mac users because of the one button mouse! It's such as moot point.

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[ZikZak]

Ha! We wrote the same rebuttal, almost verbatim :)

Re:Indepth Analysis

[Zorikin]

> and another thing! why is it when people say "i have the following apps for my new X," when X is a PC they list games and useful apps like photoshorp, and when X is a linux comp they list apache ??

That's a good point. Apache has been ported to Mac and Win32, but that shouldn't be a surprise. Everything that's really worth having doesn't stay platform-specific for long, too many coders will want it on platform X. Nethack is the greatest game ever made, Vi is highly prolific because of its elegance, and C/C++ compilers are ubiquitous. The Gimp is being ported. And so on.

Nice things that I have in Linux which I haven't been able to find elsewhere include the Gnome panel, really pimp terminal emulators, and lots and lots of non-interactive tools. And the uptimes, of course.

Re:Apps for which Linux is superior

[Zorikin]

> And if you ignore the monetary bit, I'd say Codewarrior is probably the best IDE for code-developing there is.

Foolish mortal! Your Integrated Development Environment cannot defeat my Graphical Debugger! My structures are beyond your imagination!

TCO

[mindstrm]

Actually.. TCO *IS* well understood in companies. Believe it or not, most cfo's and finance types, ceo's, upper management *WILL* hear a different solution, other than windows, based on TCO. They understand these financial terms better than the technical ones. Usually, I find the argumen thinges on two key points.

1) What is the TCO according to the IT dept. analysis?
2) Is your IT dept. competent enough to handle the scope of the switchover?

#2 is by far the biggest.
I mean.. heck.. I sit in a company. I *know* that in the long run, a linux/solaris mix (solaris for those engineering apps that aren't 'ported' (recompiled) for linux yet) may cost more in initial setup and outlay, and appear to do less, but cost out over the next 3 years, it more than pays for itself in reliabilty alone, nevermind the way cool integrated IT environment you could build out of it.
My problem is putting it down on paper, in terms that beancounters can understand. You have to be very thorough with these guys... VERY thorough. It's big business. There can be no doubt as to your numbers.

If an IT professional took a week to install corel linux, he should go learn some basic computing theory.

You make a good point.

[mindstrm]

Linux seems strange to some because windows (or perhaps the mac) is the *only* thing they have ever known. Some of the concepts involved are completely alien (like.. partitioning...)

I find it strange that people can be sysadmins, be responsible for million dollar budgets, tons of computers, yet not understand what partitioning really is. It makes me damn ANGRY!

CORRECTION

[phandel]

Becky: The Mac has offered USB support from day one.

I believe she meant to say iMac.

Re:Apache Runs on Mac!

[MrBogus]

Isn't WebTen a version of BSD that runs as a Mac application? -- I know that they make a product called MachTen that is, and WebTen looks like the same thing with a prettified admin interface.

Re:BeOS, hello?

[Graymalkin]

Unfortunately Be is missing alot of the things c|Net was paying attention to. If every OS was as easy to set up and use as Be the desktop world would be a wonderful place.

Re:internet services are a *bad* thing?

[Pinky]

I bet you use outlook too.. *sniker*...

Re:Dogs Versus Cats (humor)

[GeZ117]

> Interface:While some users prefer the limited functionality of the Cat, the variety of commands available with Dogs is more suitable for the "hacker".
No, I disagree. Dogs are not for hackers, they are the average-user user-friendly pet. Some features in dogs are automatically turned on and can't be disabled, like "barking each times someone pass thru the street" and "following its master everywhere". The experienced user, who know how to watch his beasties, can tell you a cat is as reliable as a dog for these purpose, only they are more silent and discrete, and that's what I want from them.
And, that's a matter of taste, but I prefer the "soft caress" interface of the cat to the "slobbery licks" one of the dog.

Apps for which Linux is superior

[hackerhue]

Show me one category where Linux offers better apps than the Mac, and I'll eat my PowerBook.

Well, let's see

• Pretty much anything related to software development. I mean you get a free (high quality) optimizing compiler, debugger, a whole load of libraries, etc.
• Network servers. I hope I don't need to say any more about that.
• Remote access. I can log into my computer at work from home, and do everything I could do if I was actually sitting in my office! (Well, I would be able to if I wasn't running off of a 28.8k modem. But I can still do nearly everything.)
• Mathematical typesetting. Nothing beats TeX and LaTeX when it comes to this. Sure, there's TeX for Macs, but (AFAIK) you have to buy it.

OK, so these aren't exactly the sexy apps that will make the average Joe user switch over, but then again, the typical Linux user isn't an average Joe user.

Re:Apps for which Linux is superior

[tao]

Show me one category where Linux offers better apps than the Mac, and I'll eat my PowerBook.

Well, let's see:

Pretty much anything related to software development. I mean you get a free (high quality) optimizing compiler, debugger, a whole load of libraries, etc.

While gcc/gdm etc are great and for free (and, maybe more important, FREE), there was no comparision in price. And if you ignore the monetary bit, I'd say Codewarrior is probably the best IDE for code-developing there is. I know that there is a Linux-version there as well. I don't know if they compare, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't out-do the MacOS version...

Network servers. I hope I don't need to say any more about that.

Well, that depends on what kind of servers we're talking about. If it's mail-servers or news-servers, Linux wins hands down. No question about that. Web-servers too, I guess, apart from one VERY important detail: for E-commerce, nothing can out-trumph WebOjects. Neither of the OS's does NFS (ok, Linux claims to, but its NFS-support sucks elephants through a straw. I hope the v2.4 kernel will finally remedy this and fix all imcompabilties et al is suffers...), but you're right, when it comes to server-applications, Linux is superior. But I got the distinct feeling that the article wasn't about servers, but about home-computers.

Remote access. I can log into my computer at work from home, and do everything I could do if I was actually sitting in my office! (Well, I would be able to if I wasn't running off of a 28.8k modem. But I can still do nearly everything.)

There are perfectly good applications for MacOS to do this too, but alas!, I can not recall their names (it might be Apple Remote Access, ARA.) You can do anything you'd ever like, though.

Mathematical typesetting. Nothing beats TeX and LaTeX when it comes to this. Sure, there's TeX for Macs, but (AFAIK) you have to buy it.

No, you don't have to buy it. It's for free. You only have to pay for it if you want it delivered to you on CD's rather than downloading it, but that's kinda normal, huh? Trust me, I have OzTeX installed, and it works perfectly.

And when it comes to normal typesetting, Linux lacks my absolute favourite program; Quark XPress. And there's nothing remotely similar. Not too strange either, since those programs are quite complicated things. However, I do think that Adobe Indesign would be pretty easy to port because of its modularity. Quark, on the other hand, is a nightmare, both code-wise and format-wise. Those who ever considered Word-documents to be next-to-encrypted, have a look at a Quark XPress document...

I do really hope that a lot of Joe average users do switch over to Linux. But I hope they do it on a decent hardware-platform, be it PPC, Alpha or some redesigned ia64-platform. Because the "continue patching the cruft to keep it from falling apart"-philosophy of the current PC-architecture won't hold forever. This is one reason Apple has a good situation: they don't need to care for old hardware backwardscompability if they realise those solutions stink. I wish the PC-platform could evolve likewise, and dump ISA once and for all, standardise PCI further... But now I'm getting off-topic here, so I'll end now, I guess.

Wait a minute

[dont_forget]

first off i would like to say that i like linux more than mac os... however i do think that mac os deserved to win the contest... they have better office applications, and it's a hell of a lot easier to use.. except for those god damn one button mice.. those have to be the most annoying thing about macs.. it's hardware support is also better, even if you have to buy stuff specifically designed for macs..
onto my main beef with the article.. how could mac have beaten linux in internet applications?? i mean come on.. excluding freeBSD nothing out their has better net support than linux.. nothing.. macs net support is probably it's worst feature.. the pages load slowly, it's tcp/ip stack is weak.. so what if linux requires a little more fine tuning.. you get more than your bucks worth, when it comes down to it.. i still can't believe that cnet put mac above linux in the internet category.. what where they thinking?!?

Apples Vs. Oranges

[Denor]

Really, though - that's what this is. The two operating systems are, at this point, not really comparable.
It's comparing Apples to Oranges.
I like oranges better.

Hmm, that's not as hard as a lot of people make it out to be....

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[bughunter]

You can buy a multi-button mouse, but the only way to use it is to bind the buttons to things like modifier-clicks

And this is a flaw because?

The default function for the right button of most n-button mice for Macs is the ctrl-click combination, which in Mac OS9 activates a context-sensitive pop-up menu in the Finder and other Mac OS9-savvy applications. It works much better than Windows' right click, is more responsive to the user, and it's configurable to boot. (I could do without multilevel pop-up menus, but both OSes fail me there.) Your only criticism is that it can also be accessed by single-button mouse users by the ctrl-click combination?

Funny, the ctrl-leftclick and ctrl-rightclick combinations don't seem to do a thing on my NT4.0 Workstation here at the office. Holding down the modifier keys and clicking doesn't change the pop-up menus at all in Windows NT explorer, on the desktop, or in Navigator 4.7. Once within NT Explorer I got the ctrl-rightclick combo to bring up the desktop's rightclick menu, but I couldn't get it to repeat once I leftclicked on an explorer pane... that kind of inconsistency is actually more damning than anything I've seen under MacOS9.

So your criticism is based entirely on the fact that the right button's functions are availble to the left button with the use of a modifier key? I fail to see anything negative therein...

because the OS still has no concept of additional buttons

This argument is entirely semantic. The Mac OS offers contextual pop-up menus in the file management and most productivity applications. Game Sprockets allows multibutton devices to be configured for specific applications. The OS is in fact very multibutton savvy. It just doesn't work the same way as does Windows.

The multibutton argument against the MacOS died as of OS 8.1 or thereabouts. Find something else to pick on... there are plenty of valid things.

A Few Topics Missing...

[Rydell]

Don't you think that a few very important topics where completely absent from the artical? For instance, Stability. When choosing an Operating System and/or platform, stability IS an important issue. And how about performance? Even when Linux is running a GUI like KDE or GNOME, it still requires MUCH less RAM then MacOS 9 with all the standard Extensions turned on. Not to mention the ambiguity in the "Internet Support" category. If they mean sheer ease of getting hooked up to the Internet, sure, I would say Mac could take that one. But really, in the general sense Linux is a much more useful Internet tool, since it works very well in both client and server situations. When is the last time you have been on a large website served on a Macintosh?

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[faust2097]

I agree with a lot of your points. This article seems like it was written by people who had never used either before.

Hardware: I'm not sure what the editor's point is. Macs support most standard interfaces so you can get most any PC hardware to work. The only problem is when there's no driver. You can bet the Linux people will write one themselves before the Mac gets one.

Good point on drivers, except I haven't found anything I've needed that didn't have Mac drivers.

I don't know what they're talking about in that section. Are "Mac" IDE drives more expensive? PC100 RAM? USB Printers? This guy sounds like he's living in the Bad Old Days[tm] when 2400 baud modems cost $50 more because they had a Mac serial cable on them. Yes, Apple hardware is expensive. I feel like I get what I pay for it though [mouse and keyboard excepted]. Anyone who's installed RAM in a mid-90s 7100 or 8500 know what I'm talking about. As far as the floppy issue goes, I bought a VST drive for work and I haven't used it once.

I used to use *nix a lot back when I was programming. I love CLIs. The problem is that I'm a graphic designer now. Ask anyone who knows: Corel Draw and Corel Paint are no match for Photoshop and Illustrator. In fact, they suck pretty badly. Before anyone says "What about the GIMP?" I'd like to state that if I want to use Photoshop 3.0, I still have the CD sitting around somewhere.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[MrBogus]

According to the old magazines, the "Year of the LAN" was in 1986, IIRC. This is about when Novell NetWare 2.x, followed by OS/2 the next year.

Note that most of those early PC LAN installations were ArcNet (Novell) or Token Rink (IBM), or even [gasp] LocalTalk using special cards and software for the PC. Ethernet started getting real big by the late 80s, and UTP cabling cemented it's victory.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[MrBogus]

I suggest you spend a few hours trying to install the DOS LanMan drivers on random 1980s Ethernet cards, and then get back to us with that "No config" part.

Don't forget to optimise with QEMM, or you'll never get Lotus running.

Impossible to compare

[Broccolist]

Cnet, as you might expect from an "OS deathmatch", considered only the needs of a certain class of users. You might as well compare Vi versus Microsoft Word and try to find a "winner". You could divide the properties of each editor into various categories: UI, features, cost, etc. but that wouldn't change the fact that each is aimed at a different market and has different uses. Coding in Word would be positively painful, OTOH my mom doesn't want to use Vi for word processing.

Same thing goes for the OSes. I haven't seen MacOS run on any web servers lately, even though it's the "better OS". My mom thinks it's a better OS, but RMS considers it a tool of Satan :). It's all a matter of your needs and perspective.

MacOS only won because they mostly considered the needs of what they considered Average Joe Desktop User. For me, their whole discussion on interfaces was ludicrous: for most tasks, I only use a GUI when I'm forced to. I couldn't care less who has drag-and-drop or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, MacOS's lack of a decent CLI makes it the instant loser.

I'm not saying the MacOS sucks. Just that the article sucked :). I think if they had said at least "best OS for the average user" I would've liked it a lot more.

New machine or upgrade?

[matthewp]

It's an interesting and thought-provoking review, but the debate seems to be argued at cross-purposes. There are, of course, factual errors and misconceptions, but there's a bigger problem herer. The underlying assumption is a comparison between Linux as a software upgrade to Windows and Mac OS as new hardware.

It's not really that the article is biased; this problem hits both operating systems equally hard. Linux loses points on installation because, um, you have to install it if it's not pre-installed (duh...): only relevant if upgrading. OS 9 loses out because the hardware's more expensive than a Windows box: only relevant if buying a new machine.

However, they don't even seem sure that that's what they are comparing. OS 9 picks up points for preserving preferences when you're upgrading. Linux loses out because popular Microsoft apps aren't available, but also because of the complications of dual booting with Windows.

Interesting, nevertheless.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[GeZ117]

> This seems like two zealots largely ignorant of the other platform talking past each other.
Indeed. And I often disagree with C¦Net point. MacOS 9 wins for Internet, because Linux don't have Flash and MP3 players ?! But, I have them! With Linux! A wider choice of browser because they have both Netscape AND IE ? Do they have Lynx, Mozilla, KFM/Konqueror, whatever? It's interesting that Opera and Amaya were forgotten.
On the user interface side, I was surprised they say MacOS was more secure, because each virtuel desktop is protected by a password. Hey, that's what a user is made for, and then he can have multiple desktop.
And for the supported peripheral, they make Linux wins. Because it can support oldies device, like ISA cards ?

In fact, I think people in C¦Net were just willing to surprize people by making each OS win were it lose. I don't have MacOS, so I didn't notice incoherence about it, but considering from what they're saying on Linux, I doubt it's a serious match.

A very intelligent post!

[Ukab the Great]

>MacOS cut and paste is like standard >input/output in Unix -- the system is built >around it so it always works the way it should. >To me, that makes up for having to do more than >a mouse click to paste text. (I never understand >why X users find Cmd-C so difficult but think >Emacs is straightforward. Although my girlfriend >complains that dragging a folder to the Stuffit >icon is too complicated and wonders why it can't >be something obvious like tar -cvf directory.tar >directory; gzip directory.tar.)

Thank you, I have been saying the same things for years! I think that a lot of people who have never owned a mac don't understand the second mouse button is not as important when you have an OS (and a lot of applications) that apply keyboard shortcuts and drag and drop in a highly consistent manner. From day one, the mac keyboard shortcut for quit has been command+Q throughout all mac applications throughout history. Constrast this with Windows/*nix, where sometimes the keyboard shortcut for quit might not exist, might be Alt+F4, Alt+q, Ctrl-q, Alt+F+Alt+X, etc. Consistency, more than anything else, is the true halmark of ease-of-use. On the subject of Command+C, it is only natural that using command key (aka alt on windows + linux) keyboard shortcuts would work well. It places the two most dextrous fingers humans have (the thumb and index finger) in a natural position that gives good, equal coverage of all keys on one side of a keyboard equally. Contrast this with Ctrl keyboard shortcuts, which don't use the best fingers for the job and do a poor job of covering keys east of the 'D' key and west of the 'L' key. Poorly Chosen(aka Ctrl)keyboard shortcuts irk me, and make me do silly things like open GNOME applications and recode/recompile them with keyboard shortcuts that don't suck.

Re:Yes, Internet Services on a -desktop- are bad.

[GeZ117]

One of the argument of Corel for their promotion is that Corel Linux can be a server out-of-the-box. They should have put (at least) two install categories (like RedHat, Mandrake,...), but hey!, that would have been a "difficult to install" distro: you have to make yet another choice! Yet another click!!! Awful. A corporate sysadmin just can't handle such things.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[MrBogus]

Even the 128K Mac had the hardware to do LocalTalk, although memory usage would get tight, so usually a 512K was recommended.

Re:Sorry, but as someone who tried...

[Graymalkin]

This is a good point, for any OS discussion including NT. If it takes me a week to get a box up and running smoothly or I have to spend X number of hours of my day reading manuals on how to do something it adds to the overall cost of the system. Lets say I want to put in a SCSI card and hook up a RAID to a system. With Linux I have to find a SCSI adapter that will work (Adaptec 15xx series tend to work well but that may or may not suit my needs) and then get a RAID setup. If I was using many other Unix vendors finding such hardware would be easy, I call up the Unix vendor and tell them what I need. With Linux you don't have that sort of support which is a serious drawback that many people don't think about. If I have MacOS or Windows on a machine I can grab a SCSI card that in Windows or Mac compatible (has drivers written) and then order a RAID that is also certified for the OS. A really great IT dude would know these things before hand but not every company can afford such IT dudes.

Re:macos wins internet????

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

Yeah, Linux has great apps for every aspect of the Internet...except for what people actually spend 99% of their time on the Internet doing: browsing and email.

Email is of course a matter of preference, although the fact that until Evolution there won't be a good multi-pane GUI email/PIM program for Linux is a definite weakness of the platform overall. Pine may be good enough for you, but for someone whose job revolves around contacts, meetings, etc, it doesn't cut it.

As for browsing--which, for most, *is* the Internet--there's simply no comparison. IE 5 for the Mac is hands-down the best web browser ever made. (Except for the fact that most Macs only have 1 mouse button; of course, that's hardly IE 5's fault.) If you disagree with me, it's almost certainly because you haven't used it. And no, I'm not a Mac owner. In any case, Netscape for Linux (or anything for that matter) is objectively god-awful, and Mozilla, Konquerer, etc., while promising, are not ready for prime time yet.

Frankly, for the way most of the computer-using population (and the people for whom this article--and Corel Linux, while were at it--was targeted) use the Internet, the Mac is clearly the better platform.

A mac user! That respond to questions !

[GeZ117]

Good. Just WHAT is the ALT+TAB equivalent on macs, to switch applications ? If someone can give me the answer, I'll be able to explain it to an aquaintance of mine who is suffering nervous breakdown each time he must use a mac.

Now, about the fact that MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about., I think they WILL be complaint about it. Want some easy ones ? Okay, the kernel is OSS, but not Cocoa, Carbon, Aqua, right ? A kernel is not everything in an OS, and it's one of the more frightening part to hack (for a beginning programmer). Will MacOS X include themability, for those who will dare not to like the Aqua interface ?
Your fifth point (Runs on fast, pretty hardware) is not really the definitive killer argument. An OSOS (open source operating system) can run on fast and pretty hardware too. And also on ugly, old or slow hardware, if you have strong money limitations. Fast and pretty hardware is truly good, but it's also expensive. And when it's at last cheap, say three years after, but some part ages more quickly than other, well, it's magically became a old and slow hardware.

Re:A mac user! That respond to questions !

[etceteral]

>Good. Just WHAT is the ALT+TAB equivalent on macs, to switch applications ?

On Mac OS 8.5+ it's Command-Tab. If you're still running OS 8.1 or earlier, there's a freeware program called "Program Switcher" you can find in about 30 seconds off of VersionTracker.

>I think they WILL be complaint about it. Want some easy ones ? Okay, the kernel is OSS, but not Cocoa, Carbon, Aqua, right ? A kernel is not everything in an OS, and it's one of the more frightening part to hack (for a beginning programmer). Will MacOS X include themability, for those who will dare not to like the Aqua interface ?

If you can show me one secretary, accountant, or other "desktop user" who will complain about not being able to hack the kernal of Mac OS X, I'll personally donate my next pay check to the MS Legal Defense Fund =)

I'm not going to respond to your last paragraph because I'm not really sure what you're trying to say....

-jc

Re:A mac user! That respond to questions !

[Golias]

Tell your friend that the pull-down menu in the upper right corner of their screen is a list of all open apps. Instead of hitting alt-tab over and over until you get what you want, just choose it from the menu. Those who insist on the "Windows" way can use ctrl-tab on newer versions of the OS, and use free third-party hacks if they have an older system.

As for older, cheaper hardware, yes. Those who want to use OS X will need to be running a G3 or better... because, among other reasons, the "Aqua" shell relies of vector graphics that are tweaked specifically for the cards of the newer macs.

On the other hand, I have found that old Macs still have a lot of life in them, even if you can't use the latest OS version. System 7.5.3 runs on almost all macs, is a free download, and works great. Most of the upgrades from 7.5 all the way to 9.0 have been minor tweaks, and improved support for the PowerPC hardware (which is of little importance to a Mac IIfx user).

PC's from that same era can run Linux, but I found little use for my old IBM 386sx... to slow to be a server, to weak to be a desktop system. If I needed another shell terminal in my house, I suppose it would be fine for that... but that's about it.

Re:A mac user! That respond to questions !

[GeZ117]

OK, thanks for the hint. What i was saying about hacking was a response to this:
While I'm on the soapbox, I might as well say it, MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about. The kernel is Mach, which is BSD compatible. The kernel is also open-source, and thus, hackable (See Darwin). Is has:

• 1) MacOS interface.
• 2) UNIX reliability.
• 3) UNIX compatability (command line programs should compile without complaint as they would on FreeBSD, X Window server is availible as an option)
• 4) A great selection of business applications.
• 5) Runs on fast, pretty hardware.

I could even go on to speculate that it should be possible to write support for PPCLinux executables into the kernel, the same way that X86 Linux executables will run on FreeBSD.
As I understood that, we were speaking of complaint from anyone, not just mere "desktop user". And even a secretary can become bored of Aqua and want to theme it, no ?

For my last paragraph, I was just saying that running on fast and pretty hardware is not MacOS' exclusive privilege. And also that it can't work on old computer. So this point was pointless.
I know I don't write english as good as if it was my mothertongue, so it's maybe why peoples have trouble catching what I'm trying to say.

Re:A mac user! That respond to questions !

[shilly]

Your friend may be interested in having a look at KeyQuencer, a shareware program that provides powerful and simple scripting facilities for the mac which are triggered by key-commands.

Re:Mac floppies

[MrBogus]

Macs have used the same 'low level' format as PCs since about 1988. You can buy Windows drivers that will mount Mac 1.4M disks, so I imagine that Linux can do, or could do it with a little effort.

With 400K or 800K disks, you are SOL, but that's true even on newer Macs with floppy drives.

Re:Current user interfaces are pitiful !

[TWR]

I have been programming for the last 10 years. I am pursuing a PhD in computer science. I have installed Linux networks, and even have coded some Linux device drivers. I can thus be called fairly familiar with computers.

No, you can be called fairly familiar with the computers you USE on a regular basis. My BS and MS in computer science and programming experience dating back to the early 80s doesn't make me a OS/390 guru. Ask me about a Commodore 64 though, and I'll spin your head ;-)

(Aside: isn't logic still a required course for computer science? I forget the name of the logical fallacy where expertise in one area is used as proof of expertise in another area.)

The Macintosh is even worse. You just can't order it to do something if it is not proposed in the standard choices. Some system options, for instance in PPP, are hidden in some obscure dialog boxes and no documentation is available. I have just spent some time trying to get a Mac to export a drawing into PostScript: impossible, or there is yet another obscure choice to make.

If you want to setup PPP and you don't know how to do it, you could go to the Help menu in the Finder, choose "Mac OS Help" and type "PPP" into the search bar. It will then show you what to do. If you want to know what those "Obscure options" in the Remote Access control panel do, click the "?" icon and point at the text. The balloon help will explain all. I guess this is too simple for someone working on a PhD.

To print to a postscript file, you create a PostScript printer and tell it to save to a file. Or you can download a half-dozen utils to make .eps files out of PICTs or whatever. This information could be gleaned from about 5 minutes of searching on the web. I thought PhDs learned how do research when exploring new areas....

-jon

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[etceteral]

> Do they have Lynx, Mozilla, KFM/Konqueror, whatever? It's interesting that Opera and Amaya were forgotten.

Actually, yeah... someone ported Lynx over, mozilla is there (though it reeks), dunno what KFM is, but does Linux have iCab? WebThing? Opera is coming out with a Mac rev, too...

>On the user interface side, I was surprised they say MacOS was more secure, because each virtuel desktop is protected by a password.

Well, security can mean lots of different things.. as far as Internet Security goes.. Macs have linux bet hands down. It's pretty hard to get root remotely on a machine that doesn't have a CLI! Macs don't have any ports open on a standard install... and buffer-overflow exploits almost never do anything significant on a Mac (the recent AppleShareIP exploit is the first one I think i've ever heard of). Security when someone is actually at the computer is irrelevant... anyone can boot a Mac with extensions off, and anyone can boot a linux box in single user mode... physical security is up to You.

If it's good enough security-wise for the military to switch their webservers to Macs, it's good enough for me... -jc

Re:Dogs Versus Cats

[AnarchoFreak_00]

Interface:While some users prefer the limited functionality of the Cat, the variety of commands available with Dogs is more suitable for the "hacker".

While that is true, I have seen many dogs that crash when given commands. This makes dogs some unrealiable.

Applications:Most cats will retrieve all sorts of dead animals for you; Dogs can be used as NT Admins for your home network.

Hey. I have to dissagree with that. I run both a cat and a dog, and my dog is just as capable of retrieving as many smelly, dead animals as my cat. Hmm.. maybe it's running an emulator or something.

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[GregWebb]

The other thing to consider, of course, is the castly different user bases. Unix boxes will often get used by geeks who like being able to bost aout an uptime in months, Macs tend to get used as workstations by the designers. Hence likely lower average uptime as they get switched off at the end of the day.

It's a few years since I've used a Mac unfortunately - though I want to play with iMovie :) - but my memory of their uptime was that some apps would crash fairly frequently but the system stayed up pretty well. And, importantly, when it _did_ crash, it was quick to reboot.

To a user, a crash matters a lot more if the rebooot takes 10 minutes (as with my Windows box if it has to ScanDisk) than if it takes 10 seconds (as with my old Amiga before I started adding lots of toys to it...)

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[itachi]

What she said is correct:
"...Apple pioneered 3.5-inch floppies, the mouse, local area networking, CD-ROMs, and FireWire."
LocalTalk was built in to every Mac and ethernet support has been around from the beginning. Ethernet became standard in high-end Macs around mid-1993, and standard in even the lowest end machines by 96, I think. LocalTalk was great for dirt cheap, dirt simple networks. Just run some phone copper and hook up some adapters, and you have a network. No hubs or switches needed, no cases need to be open. Of course, LocalTalk is not fast and not that reliable, but compared to the network support that was shipping with your average PC back in 1984, it rocked. Most PC-based networks involved buying a lot of really pricey ethernet cards and a Novell file server. For a Mac LAN in 1984, you didn't need to add anything to the machine itself or to the operating system.
I don't know when the earliest desktop PC that shipped with some sort of built in networking shipped, but I know I didn't start seeing it until roughly the same time period as the P2...

itachi

One of the poorest comparisons i have seen.

[Last Warrior]

The problem with this shootout was that it was not at all representative of the strengths and weaknesses of either system. It was more of a comparison to see which system more closely matched the sought after functionality of windows. Every argument seemed bogus.

Becky couldnt contain her childish"my father is bigger than your father attitude and made some rather nonsensical statements.
"The Mac has offered USB support from day one."
Day 1 would be when?? the coming of Christ? some time in the early 80's or at the inception of the IMac sometime within the last 2 years. Seems like history is a bit vague here. How could i have missed that usb adapter on the Mac+ or the MacII, Any 680X0 Mac. How about the first 4 years of Power Macs. they all had USB too. As far as you know.

In fact, the Mac OS had built-in USB support before Windows, just as Apple pioneered 3.5-inch floppies, the mouse, local area networking, CD-ROMs, and FireWire.
They invented Cdroms, local area networks and floppy drives? wow.. so thats where the mouse came from. And all this time I was sure that they had taken it from xerox just like everyone else.

Rex needs to come up with a more original argument that using "Linux, on the other hand, works with all the cheap PC hardware and peripherals out there. Try buying a new Mac for $400--can't be done."
who cares!. I dont use linux because its cheap. I might have tried it because it was cheap way back when, but do you think I would still be using it if the price was the only noteworthy point. Get a job!

In addition to that, its useless to use that argument "Well we dont have it now, but we will very soon." and "Our market share is increasing faster than yours" if you want to win an argument.

I could go on for days.. but since I have more sense than that and more respect I wont.

The Comparisons: They caught that the MacOS was more polished and in this category, it would most certainly win against the current incarnation of X11.

Unfortunately there were many things that were not mentioned about the lack of useability on the system nor the actual strengths of Corel Linux. now Corel may promote itself as an easy alternative to a full blown unix system.

There is no place where they talk about the power of linux as a server. They dont mention its processing power nor its multiprocessing power.
Joe Schmoe might not be able to tell the difference, but this group is attempting to compare apples to oranges.
Becky blatantly points out the benefits of being prevented from running services on your machine. "And if you want to get technical, the Mac OS is inherently better protected from hacker and virus attacks than either Linux or Windows, partly because most malicious code is written for Unix, and partly because the Mac doesn't allow many network services (such as FTP), which have to be blocked by a firewall or turned off in other OSs.". yes Becky, I suppose that is a bit technical for you. Call us in 2010 when you get your high school diploma. Rex doesnt have the sense to point out having the ability to limit your services is nice, but being limited as a competent user the ability to use simple network based services ?

What kind of advocates are these that cant even make logical arguments in favor of thier chosen platform.

LW.

Re:Eazel, KDE

[GeZ117]

Yes, but that was poorly made with MS. KFM, and the now-in-beta-stage-Konqueror, can browse web and ftp as they browse local file. That means you can drag'n'drop a link to file to the tree views on the left, or to an apps. With Explorer/IE, you (transparently) change the windows. Downloads must pass by a boring dialog boxe. The interface is not common. Then, it was not the combined interface that was complained at, but the inclusion of IE as a part of the core OS. As far as I know, KDE is not an operating system. You can use Linux without.
Please don't take monopoly matters for interface matters. That's not the same thing.

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[mr]

>As I post this message my OS 9 server(it provides email and backup services for a small company) has an uptime count of 840 hours 37 minutes and 35 seconds. That's pretty good stability,

And I set up a BSD box on a 486 with 32 meg of DRAM handling 20,000 seperate e-mail users that has 228 and 847 DAYS of uptime. If you use the Micro$oft downtime methods, it was up for over 1000 days. (They had to unplug it to move the box.)

840 hours is not a timescale Unix users consider 'long'

Re:Another off-topic troll.

[schuster]

AYE!!!! A thousand times, AYE!!!! Our two groups have so much to learn from each other. I continue to maintain the hope that Mac OS X/Darwin will become the ideal operating system for the desktop while linux/bsd will rule the server. Would this not be a wonderful senario? Is there anyone who really believes that linux can be adapted to the desktop? Is there any good reason to do this? Likewise, is there any good reason to make the mac into a high-end server? Let's just do what our groups do best and focus on our strenths. Linux doesn't need the desktop and the mac doesn't need the server. Let's work together to bring quality software to everyone, not just techies, not just the elite, but everyone.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[cpt kangarooski]

The Fat Mac (512KE) could do it IIRC. I still have one of those around someplace running a *very* old system.

I'm iffy on the 512K. I don't remember if it had it or not.

And given that LaserWriters cost $7000 and Macs were only around $2500 or so, you HAD to have printer networks. They were going to introduce a central file server too, but it never worked and was killed off. Not many people remember the 'Macintosh Office' ad (also known as Lemmings) from the 1985 superbowl.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[Otter]

A couple of clarifications:

Cut and paste: Try selecting part of an image in xv and pasting it into composer. For that matter, it always takes me a couple of tries to paste text from xenon into a Qt-based application. MacOS cut and paste is like standard input/output in Unix -- the system is built around it so it always works the way it should. To me, that makes up for having to do more than a mouse click to paste text. (I never understand why X users find Cmd-C so difficult but think Emacs is straightforward. Although my girlfriend complains that dragging a folder to the Stuffit icon is too complicated and wonders why it can't be something obvious like tar -cvf directory.tar directory; gzip directory.tar.)

Applications: My point wasn't that vi is better or worse than Quicken. (What would that even mean?) My point was that depending on what you're trying to do, one platform or the other might be a better fit. For those mentioning Gnucash or Gnumeric, two things. First, try the KOffice beta! If you haven't seen it, you'll be amazed. Try it, submit bug reports and feature requests. Second, I'm not saying that there are no desktop apps for Linux. I'm saying that if you're at all honest, you've got to admit that they're still not up to the quality of Office or Quicken.

Re:Mac floppies

[cpt kangarooski]

Do you mean Zip disks, or Zip archives? I'm hoping the former, 'cos the latter's pretty obvious.

Not that it matters much whether you can read them or not. Too many damn Mac files have dual forks which makes them hard to deal with on single fork systems.

Re:Eazel, KDE

[NaughtyEddie]

Whatever. Maybe when your testosterone settles down in a few years you'll get over it.

Re:I couldn't finish this poor excuse for a compar

[BitMan]

Dude, I think most MacOS and Linux users and the applications for each systems are quite different.

To take your example, I would tell the home user to get a system with Corel Linux PRE-INSTALLED instead of trying to install it him or herself! And there are other issues (again, I didn't read the whole thing because it made me sick).

There was such a narrow focus (like the fact that you can get Corel pre-installed) and a lot was left out that it was just pitiful. Add to the fact that most home users would be better served by Windows instead just kills me.

Again, most MacOS and Linux users are quite different beasts, at least at this point. They should have never been compared as there is little overlap in their markets.

And I do not consider "anything but Windows" to be a good argument or market. Apparently this is what the media keeps harping on, and that makes Windows advocates hate Linux even more.

And yes, I use Linux everywhere, at home and work because I'm not even 25% as productive in Windows.

-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

Re:Current user interfaces are pitiful !

[Golias]

You could also mention:

6) NextStep-like developer platform.

I agree that the Chooser should go away, but I could see getting used to the dock if it works as well as it looks like it will.

Services aren't bad, it's shared code that's evil.

[Ukab the Great]

I think one could make the arguement for Linux that the services aren't required to run for basic desktop usage and web surfing and don't have to be running. Although probably these services should be turned off by default.

The part where MacOS 9 kicks some serious butt is that it has far less dynamically linked stuff than any Linux distribution (or Windows 9x/NT). Because many applications on OS 9 will be statically linked, installing one piece of software will not break another application, nor will it preclude the user from installing yet another application. I don't care what anyone says about performance/bloat of statically linked stuff. We are not talking about The World of The Server, we are talking about The World Of The Desktop. In The World Of The Desktop, users in general (especially those coming from Wintel) are absolutely terrified that some aspect of software installation is going to destroy their currently working computer. They are often also extremely frustated with software that refuses to install (often because of some dynamically-linked snafu).
I absolutely guarentee you that if you interview a thousand people walking outside of CompUSA and you ask them if given the choice between software that requires more ram/disk space or software that will always painlessly install with absolutly no bad consequences whatsoever, they will *always* pick the latter.

And now the test...

We'll install on each machine 1000 applications of many different varieties dating from the present to the last 3 years. Yes, this might involve using a version of sendmail older than your grandmother. Absolutely no patching, recoding, upgrading, or rpm/dpkg guru finagling permitted (rpm -i only). At the end of the test, OS 9 would have far more working applications installed than linux and would give the tester far less "I'm sorry but I can't do that Dave" type messages. Not that linux is inherently inferior to OS 9 in this regard (and certainly windows with its DLL's would have the same problem too), but up till now, much of the linux development community has made a legitimate engineering trade-off that favors high performance/less bloat over robustness of installation. The million dollar question is whether we penguinheads want the desktop badly enough that we will swallow our pride and statically link stuff into a real, honest-to-goodness newbie distribution.

Os 9 wins how do they figure that

[xtink]

First off the 5 points they judge are Installation interface applications hardware compatibility and internet support. Ok ill give the installation one to os9 it's easy to make a program the installs easily and correctly when you know that your dealing with a vary small rage of hardware I mean no one knows Apple's hard where better then Apple right. but interface there are so many different window managers and a lot of them have support for thems that means you should be able to make it look feel and act any way you want the only limiting factors are your skill and imagination #3 Applications there probably are more commercial software tittles available for the Mac I have to concede that the Mac has been around for years and has a library of software tittles second only too that monopoly we know and love. What they didn't mention are programs like wine that allow you to run win32 apps on you linux box take that into account and suddenly there a lot more options in the linux world. plus if you have a windows boot on the same machine you can buy one copy of a program and use it in either environment. #4 hardware compatibility I have to concede that chances are if you go down to your local comp USA or what ever your probably going to have better luck finding peripherals that say Mac compatible on them that say linux compatible. But keep in mind that there are going to be a hell of a lot more that are only for windows. If your going to base your decision on what computer to buy because of what peripherals you can get for it as much as it saddens me to say it but your probably going to end up with a win32 system. Linux will eventually catch and pass os9 here because not only is there a small army of linux programmers out there writing drivers but more and more manufactures are starting to support linux as. Not to mention the fact that if you buy a piece of hardware and it doesn't work under linux if you have a win boot you can still use it there until linux support is available if you buy a piece of hardware for a Mac and it don't work your probably out of luck #5 internet support there are so many things wrong with this one I don't even know where to start like os9 supports more web browser choices aren't there about 20 different browser's for linux. And this quote (Just wait for 0s X coming out this summer, and you'll have a Mac OS with Unix. Why wait why not just use linux and get it now. But the part that I really loved that part that finally answered the are these guys smoking crack question was the part where he talked about the Mac being the perfect internet machine because. it was (less prone to viruses then either Linux or Windows, partly because most malicious code is written for Unix. For example, the recent Love Bug virus did not affect the Mac) ok every one that was affected buy the love bug on Linux pleas raise your hand.

Pointless Advocacy ?

[MrDalliard]

I find these OS comparisons quite frankly, to be annoying. I don't actually see the point in comparing Operating Systems together.

To quote an interesting article I read somewhere else:

"Just because I am happy with my operating system choice, doesn't mean that I should flame you or talk you out of what you use."

Ultimately a computer, with whatever operating system you have on it is merely a tool. Use it, enjoy it, get on with your work and shut up. We should be grateful that we have choice. The world would be a very dull place if every computer user was stuck with the same generic OS. Choice is what keeps the market alive.

It's strange how computing advocacy works and is rarely found in any other industry. For example - just because I drive Model A of a particular car doesn't give sufficient reason as to why I should flame you for driving Model B. In fact, you'd think I was a bit mad if I kept trying....

M.

Re:Pointless Advocacy ?

[PigleT]

There's a fair bit of merit in what you say, that much is agreed.
OTOH there is a large degree to which 'suitability for purpose' is apposite. In particular, there are stereotypes: Mac for graphics, Unix for servers, Windoze for desktops; and I have a suspicion that stereotypes come from /somewhere/, after all.

What you learn by advocacy is not that 'linux r00lz' but rather that the person advocating it for roll-out across a 1000-strong company as a desktop OS is an idiot.

OTOH there are also one or two OS-independent factors; I don't know of anything where reliability isn't key, I know security is generally favourable, and ease of *use*[0] is also probably a good thing.

[0] I said use, not installation. I'm more than prepared to spend 2 days installing a Debian GNU/Linux system if it makes my life easier for the next 6 months...
~Tim
--
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

Re:Pointless Advocacy ?

[IO ERROR]

What you learn by advocacy is not that 'linux r00lz' but rather that the person advocating it for roll-out across a 1000-strong company as a desktop OS is an idiot.

That's funny. I once did a short analysis of some of the factors involved in converting everyone in a 7,000 person company from NT to Linux. A few of the major points were:

• Heavy usage of Office with no drop-in replacement for Linux available
• Business critical apps deployed on Lotus Notes; migration to another platform expensive and time consuming; Notes client not available for Linux
• One really bizarre business critical app from some vendor I've never heard of that is sure to never port to Linux

Obviously some of those are internal to the company, and some of those are gaps that the open source community is hard at work filling in.

It's interesting to note that everyone I spoke to who had ever heard of Linux was very interested in it, and in the last year or so, I think nearly all of them have, and many have switched over on a regular basis. A few have dumped Windows altogether. Those who hadn't heard of Linux took longer to convert, though...
---

Re:Pointless Advocacy ?

[PigleT]

Yup, I don't think I disagreed, did I? :)

What's really crucial here is *training*; I'm all for mixed-OS environments where instead of people producing "good LaTeX documents" per se they know their tools and principles well enough to write in something that can be read everywhere. And that requires people being told to use whatever the heck they like, as long as it works, but also is a slight shift in goals.
~Tim
--
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

The Best By far...

[sokoban]

is definitely Next. Not only was it powerful, it was also pretty. Frankly, most OSes right now aren't too easy on the eyes. If you're going to be staring at a screen for 10+ hours a day, it helps to make it interesting. Someone needs to make an OS with lots of little elves that do everything for you. I can see it now System 7 dwarves

Re:The Best By far...

[cpt kangarooski]

Well System 7 _did_ have Blue Meanies if that helps any.

That is not the real Steve Woston !!!!!

[cvillopillil]

I can't believe that this troll has damaged Steve's reputation so badly. That is certainly not the real Steve Woston, and there is no "J J J J J ulius" Game company. The real Steve Woston's web site is here

Re:Eazel, KDE

[NaughtyEddie]

I'm not predicting anything. Nor have I previously. What was it with that post?

Re:Eazel, KDE

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, oh why, must this point always be brought up? It's not about bundling. Why?

Simple. If it were about bundling, overnight we'd see people complaining about every type of 'integrated solution' on the planet. Your average Linux distro would be illegal. Office suites, gone. Game Bundles, poof.

So what is it about? MS used bundling as a monopoly tactic. They used their market share to push a product everywhere, destroying the competition. 'Bundling' was just a means.

-Tarnar, not logged in cuz of work.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[Moofie]

Let me take your points out of order. A Linux user is complaining about the difficulty of the MacOS installation procedure? If you have trouble even with the (marginally more complicated) custom install of MacOS, I don't think you should be allowed to eat without a cork on your fork. It is literally a no-brainer.

What does it mean for the OS to have a "concept of additional buttons"? Is your operating system somehow AWARE of its peripherals? Does it say "Gee, even though that mouse is sending the same electrical signal as a key combination, I'm going to do something weird and different just to give my user something to talk about!"? Mine (a venerable PowerMac 6100) just sorta responds to the input from the peripherals I've hooked to it. The mouse (four button Kensington turbo mouse you can have when I'm cold and dead) is infinitely configurable, on an app by app basis, with different commands for each button, for each button and any permutation of modifier keys, and chorded button presses.

Your garden variety user is CONFUSED by multi-button mice. I talk to people every day who don't understand the diff between left and right click. Nevertheless, in any discussion about Macs, this ridiculous one-button mouse issue gets trotted out.

The Macintosh was designed to be operated with your left hand on the kb, and your right hand on the mouse. All the apps that subscribe to Apple's HI guidelines have keyboard shortcuts that can be operated with the right hand. Proceeding from that logical bit of design work, it makes sense to give users the option (no pun) of using modifier keys with the mouse, rather than having the confusion (which, for clever people like you and me, does not exist) of having a multi-button mouse.

Note: Multi button mice are no more or less complicated or difficult to master than my preferred method of keyboard shortcuts. However, Apple's design provides a shallower learning curve, making it easier to learn. It's good engineering (when they actually follow it, which is not always) and I applaud them for it.

Now, the hockey puck iMac mouse, I don't know WHAT they were smoking. That mouse is a real hunk of crap.

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[Ryano]

If you read the introduction to the article, you'll notice that they were testing these two as consumer OS choices.

Consumers are the people who shut down their machines every night. Days of uptime are of no relevance to them.

Of course, a consumer still needs an OS that isn't going to crash and burn while saving their Word doc. The Mac OS is still known to do this once in a while, but this has been much rarer since about OS 8.5. What's more important to a consumer is how efficiently they can get things done while the machine is up, rather than how many months the thing remains stable before falling over. I would suggest that most consumers would not be put out by as much as one crash a week. If anybody's Mac is crashing more often than that, I suggest they get it looked at.

As a professional user, I am infuriated whenever my Mac crashes, but I am more than willing to put up with it because it really is such a treat to use when it's up and running. That's the Macintosh secret!

Corel Linux seems to be a step in the right direction, and we're all looking forward to Mac OS X. What's clear is that the "perfect OS" (a rock-solid system which makes it as easy as possible to get things done), if it ever arrives, will not be made by Microsoft. Let's have more comparisons between Linux and the Mac OS: it's clear that they can learn from each other. Anything that could be learned from Windows has already been learned.

Re:Eazel, KDE

[KjetilK]

Personally, I don't think it is such a big deal, but coming to think about integrating the browser in the operating system: It was certainly not M$' idea. Tim Berners-Lee talked about that a long time ago, think it was in 1995.

Re:Poor advocates

[Golias]

BTW, calling MacOS 9, 'OS9' is rather confusing, as there is a real-time OS by that name from a company called Microware, and it has been around since before the Mac existed (like I knew people using it on Motorola 6809 processors back in the 1980 or 1981).

Trememdously good point, although that sort of thing is hard to avoid. The early Mac OS was called "System 6", which might sound to a *nix user like a new upgrade to SVR4. :)

IDE is a daughtercard standard or a programming environment, depending on what you are discussing.

Just goes to show that you gotta pay close attention to context.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[GeZ117]

KFM is KDE1's file manager and browser. Konqueror is a major rewrite faster and enhanced for KDE2. AFAIK, Amaya (see w3.org for info on that. Opera is available for Linux, or will be soon. 'Never heard of iCab and WebThing. This only prove that the C¦Net article, saying "Corel Linux has Netscape, whereas MacOS 9 has both Netscape and IE" was too much restrictive and approximative.

I hadn't said Mac weren't secure, I just said the argument "because each virtuel desktop is protected by a password" is surprising. If I understand it correctly, that means that the multi user things is made by virtual desktops, whereas on Linux you can have multiple users with each multiple v-desk. That doesn't make Linux less secure, since switching user (with su or such) does requires password. On the technical security side (getting root, exploiting, etc) I don't know MacOS enough to have an opinion. I just think, though, getting root don't require to use a CLI, particularly on a system without CLI. Maybe some kind of BackOrifice tools for Mac are possible, though I never heard of one.

Re:Poor advocates

[SoftwareJanitor]

Well, there are always sweetheart deals out there, but they really can't be used for general comparisons, as they can't be reliably found. In general, I think it is fairly safe to say that Macs usually hold their value better than PC's (which is a good thing if you are a Mac owner that wants to sell, and a bad thing if you are in the market for one) and that really cheap deals on PCs are easier to find, if for no other reason than there are so many 'obsolete' PCs out there.

I've not run into very many problems using large EIDE drives even in relatively old x86 machines. I have a 486-DX4/100 machine at home with an 8.4G drive in it. Its BIOS autodetect wouldn't automagically find the correct settings, but I had no problem entering the cyl/hd/sec values in.

Re:The most ignorant post on slashdot?!

[neko the frog]

well i must admit, it'd be kindof hard to find inaccurate facts in a post comprised entirely of opinion.

prediction

[ChristTrekker]

I predict lots of Linux zealotry to follow this post. What the heck was c|net thinking? Thanks for stoking the fires, emmett.

Anyone with sense knows that Linux and MacOS have vastly different user bases. Comparing the two head to head just isn't going to work. Give it a year, though. With a BSD-based MacOS X, and a little more time for Linux application development, 2001 will probably be a great year for everybody concerned: the average end-user (Mac guy) is going to have excellent stability, and the uber-geek (Linux dude) will have kick-butt productivity apps. Best of both worlds!

Re:prediction

[seebs]

You make a very good point about the user bases. Is MacOS 9 a good platform for Unix development? No. Is Corel Linux a good platform for photoshop? No.

Systems tend not to be be-all/end-all projects. If you have a number of widely different needs, you may need to run more than one OS.

Next on C|Net: "Screwdrivers vs. Hammers: A tool deathmatch."

Re:prediction

[binner]

Although I agree that comparing Mac to Linux is like comparing apples to oranges, you have to admit the article was worth reading for the pure humour value!

ie) 'And if you want to get technical, the Mac OS is inherently better protected from hacker and virus attacks than either Linux or Windows, partly because most malicious code is written for Unix...'

That had me rolling on the ground...thanks Becky!

-binner

Re:prediction

[journey-]

> it is weird (nice?) to have a shell running in a pretty window with glowing gel buttons on the title bar, tho. :)
I don't understand this statement, you can have the EXACT same window look in linux. You can have the glowing gel buttons, inface there are even enlightenment themes that do this. Same for sawfish i beleive.

Re:prediction

[klyX]

Hearty agreement! I am running OS X DR 4 on a G3 300, and although the load time for apps seems to be a little sticky, the interface has me hooked.

It is weird (nice?) to have a shell running in a pretty window with glowing gel buttons on the title bar, tho. :)

I was psyched when the first thing OS X setup asked me for was a new root password ...



---
How long have you been listening to the world's famous?
'Bout six weeks.
Six weeks!

Re:"We've had that forEVERRRRRRR!"

[godawful]

ha that's funny, i was playing with DP4 tonight and felt all geeked out when i ran top :)

Re:Sorry, but as someone who tried...

[JatTDB]

It's all about your frame of reference...you've worked with macs a lot, you've worked with windows a lot. You know the general design concepts. You know how the OS "thinks". The Unix world is very different.

If you had had the sort of luck I had early on, landing a random summer job setting up SCO Unix boxes as a teenager, you might not feel that the Unix way is all that bad. The installer would make more sense because the terminology and general moethods would already be there. Setting various things up would use concepts that you had already been exposed to.

To put it in perspective, this past weekend I put 2 more FreeBSD boxes on my home network. Installed both of them over the network from another FreeBSD box in about 1 hour. Installed the applications I wanted off the FreeBSD ports collection (and packages from the cd on some of the ones that take too long to download) and got them set up how i like then in another 2 hours. Boom...3 hours, 2 boxes.

And when I decide I want to go to the latest stable release of FreeBSD, I just kick off a cvsup job on each one before going to bed. In the morning, I cd /usr/src; make world and go to work...by the time I get home the boxes are ready for me to compile a new kernel and reboot.

On the mechanic quote...if I was a professional mechanic, I would probably fix it myself. I'm not, though...I'm a systems administrator. My car goes to the mechanic, but I fix my boxes myself.

Was this just weird or what?

[X]

This had all the elements of tabloid journalism. They were comparing two things which are so fundamentally different, refering to future incarnations of either (what has OS9 has better Internet security because it doesn't have a Unix foundation, and OS X has better Internet support because it is built on a Unix base... so MacOS is really the best of both world's right? ;-), and doing it all in paragraph long analysis pieces.

Obvious pieces of insanity: Yes the MacOS comes preinstalled, but if you are upgrading to MacOS9 from MacOS8 you still need to go through an installation process. Corel Linux can be had preinstalled on several systems. Password protection of files and "seperate storage space" is not an interface feature, but either way, the Mac has nothing new in this area that wasn't available for Linux. Similarly, the Mac Find doesn't read PC and Mac disks, the OS does. That being said, I *thought* Corel Linux could do the same, certainly other Linux's can. Associations between documents and applications are handled on Linux using MIME types, and it's about as easy to set up. Of course, on Linux you don't crash the system if the setup is wrong. ;-) Unique profiles is a sophisticated Mac feature!?!! PLEASE! This has been around on most other platforms for decades. While Apple does have integrated voice recognition support, I've yet to hear of anyone who has successfully used it. Almost everyone I know turns it off. The Mac's application support is impressive, but it's a crumbling base. Comparing the choice of Internet applications is very relevant and the Mac's are just pathetic. Who said Linux's best database was Paradox anyway? I'll take Oracle, DB/2, Informix, Sybase or Postgres over Filemaker any day. With the exception of FireWire, Linux supports basically every device that is supported on the Mac (the exception would be printers, where Linux still leads because it supports a wide variety of printers instead of QuickDraw, Postscript, and certain HP PCL printers). Indeed, I've always used the "Mac compatibility" test as a good guideline for whether something will work with Linux. What is the problem with a multifunction fax/printer/scanner? I thought those worked fine with Linux.

But finally, the craziest has to be the Internet support issue. Linux actually has more browsers than the Mac. Linux also supports QuickTime (limited to certain codecs for sure), RealPlayer, and MP3 no problem. Evidence that the Love Bug virus didn't effect the Mac is not proof of it's security, as it also didn't affect Linux. Lotus Notes is not an Internet product, and to the extent that it is (as a browser, NNTP and SMTP server), Linux has far more choices. The MacOS's lack of proper memory protection means that any plug-in or whatever that you install could potentially be sending all your passwords to some remote location. I could go on forever on the Internet thing. This was just laughable.

Re:the best of both worlds

[craw]

We my friend, are a distinct minority. Right now I'm in the MacOS realm on my dual-boot PowerBook because I'm multi-processing. Reading /. and trying to revise a MS Word Doc that someone sent me. Other times, I'm on the LinuxPPC end of things. In this case, reading /. and trying to write some code.

As a LinuxPPC user one really appreciates having the source code rather than the binaries. One also appreciates clean code, and good makefiles (or imakefiles).

When I'm work I use X86 Linux.

Am I the only one who wondered...

[dufke]

Am I the only one who wondered why there wasn't a 'Stability' round? I mean, that's pretty important, to me at least.

-

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[mr3038]

stability is almost impossible to test

in general yes, but how about making a simple program that first allocates as much memory as possible and after that tries to write (intentionally) into illegal addresses. If system doesn't go down - fine.

Test like this is important from programmer's view. And of course it does matter to end user also - raise your hand if you haven't seen program that isn't prefect. When I'm programming in Linux I don't have to be afraid to test my program even if there is some problem with pointers - even when my box is running on low memory resourses (and if my program crashes I get a core dump that can be used for debugging). I cannot test this with MacOS 9 (I don't have one) but according to my experiences to MacOS 8 I wouldn't expect too much.

if (corporate_bullshit) s/program/solution/g;
_________________________

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[Mawbid]

While a "OS stability test" program can't say for certain that an OS is stable, it can say for certain that it's unstable and it can give some indication of how unstable it is. Write a MacOS version of the Linux "crashme" utility and run it and I think you'll find ample evidence for MacOS's instability.

Crashme allocates some memory, fills it with junk, and jump to it.

Crashme emits this stern notice:

*** WARNING ***
The use of crashme could result in lose of data! crashme is not a joke. It really can crash your system, and result in the irrevocable loss of data, or make your computer explode, or any number of other things.

but it hasn't done those things to my machine on the few occasions when I've run it and I feel safe running it. I don't feel that safe just running Macromedia Director with unstable Xtras on MacOS (although my experience with MacOS has been with 8.5, not 9). For some weeks, an Xtra that we developed was in such a state that I began keeping a log of Director crashes and MacOS crashes to show my boss when he came around asking why development had ground to a halt. I was getting about 40 director crashes and 15 MacOS crashes PER DAY.

I hate MacOS. Not because I'm a UNIX bigot or a PC bigot or because I'm otherwise prejudiced, but because MacOS has earned my contempt my being unstable as hell.
--

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[Noer]

Well, stability is almost impossible to test (unless you have a misconfigured system that keeps crashing) in a lab environment. You either have to rely on anecdotal evidence, but then it's hard to separate out the ranting (i.e. the idiots who spell Mac 'MAC' and say that they crash all the time, but haven't used one since 1994, or the morons who think Linux doesn't hav a GUI), or you have to try running purposefully misbehaving apps (i.e. a program that walks all over memory or somethign) but that's not a real-world test.

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[jerobins]

And just how would you test "stability"? What applications running? Using what tools to stress them? Would it be fair for both OSs? How long would the test need to be run for meaningful results? Looking at only 'uptime' or something more?

Reality is that the only way to test stability is to replace boxes in a production setting and let them run for a lengthy period of time. That is generally far more resource intensive (not to mention disaster prone for a production system) than most can handle.

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[tps12]

Which begs the question...how many times was each machines revi^H^Hbooted during the "death"match?

There were no machines. It was an interview with two expert users.

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[Wah]

There were no machines. It was an interview with two expert users

That makes it easy. We could just ask them how many times their favorite OS has crashed. If the Mac one can even remember within a factor of 10 how many times that OS has crashed, they should win.

Just a bit about a deathmatch ignoring the strongest facet (for me) of the Linux experience...stability (and they ignored the Free thing too, but that's obviously not important to everyone :(.

--

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[AaronCiesar]

I was getting about 40 director crashes and 15 MacOS crashes PER DAY.

I hate MacOS. Not because I'm a UNIX bigot or a PC bigot or because I'm otherwise prejudiced, but because MacOS has earned my contempt my being unstable as hell.

As a user of both MacOS and LinuxPPC, I can easily tell you that you had a hardware problem, probably some bad RAM in that Mac. The MacOS is not as unstable as you believe.

Any OS is capable of double digit daily crashes when there is a hardware failure.

- - - - -

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[Mawbid]

I don't really believe whatever hardware you suppose was broken just fixed itself one day. The machine hasn't changed, but it's not behaving like that now that most of the bugs are out of the Xtra.
--

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[mr]

>The other thing to consider, of course, is the castly different user bases. Unix boxes will often get used by geeks who like being able to bost aout an uptime in months,

Hrmmmm, the 20K users on the e-mail box can't *ALL* be geeks.

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[GregWebb]

Picky :P

_Domestic_ Unix boxes tend to get _owned_ by geeks - and no, I don't mean 0wn3d by 31337 hax0rs...

OK? ;)

Re:Am I the only one who wondered...

[Wah]

No kidding, most of the Deathmatches I've seen (or participated in) ended when one of the combatants couldn't take any more, fell over, and died. Which begs the question...how many times was each machines revi^H^Hbooted during the "death"match?

--

unexplained crash fixer

[dbrutus]

Most mac service calls that I've done in my 13 years of mac experience were resolved by:

1. clean up the desktop (command+option on startup)
2. Boot with CD and run disk repair
3. zap PRAM (command+option+P+R)
4. Boot without extensions (shift) and then use extension manager to figure out which of your extensions has gone corrupt or is conflicting (many reboots follow). Then you reinstall if it is corrupt or if it is a load order problem, you change the spelling of one of the extensions (they load alphabetically) so that they load in the proper order.

DB

Re:unexplained crash fixer

[dbrutus]

I've had windows computers fail to respond to the 'three fingered salute' plenty of times. I've even had a few so screwed up that they lost track of their power switches (which, like the iMac, were not simple hardware switches).

You may want to look up and see if the iMacs have the latest firmware. I believe that there was a stability helping fix published try
http://asu.info.apple.com/
and click on the search for the imac updates link

internet services are a *good* thing?

[Zoop]

Since your local MSCE changed the root password to "password" and didn't apply any security patches and didn't close unneeded ports. I mean, please, if Corel wants a Linux for Jane Secretary to use, you have to set it up so a moron can install it and be reasonably secure. What is your average accountant or sales rep going to do with an FTP server?

As for SSH and Telnet from your desktop, for free, I have about five different alternatives to do that from the Mac, and yes, they're free-as-in-beer, which is all this article cared about when it came to freedom.

This underscores the stupidity of this shootout. It's only Corel's attempt to claim that their distribution is going to knock out Windoze on the desktop (yeah, right, even Steve Jobs isn't that insane). Servers? Sure, I'll buy it. Workstations? Some competition from OS X, but yeah, I can buy it, given the hardware availability. But desktop?

Desktops are a whole 'nuther way of thinking, one that Microsoft has barely got to work and the Mac invented and, while far from perfect, is still the best out there. Period. BUT ONLY FOR DESKTOPS, which require a different way of thinking (let's see, if the stupid user does X, will it erase the file system?).

pointless

[Dice]

IMNSHO, Linux is first and foremost a server operating system. What else could it possibly be with the number of services that are enabled by default in most distros? Certainly it's interesting to run it on a desktop, I dual boot Linux/W98 on my desktop at home... but I run straight Slackware 7 (no X) on my servers and LRP on my router. Any "death matches" that focus mainly on "useability" are therefore pointless. What self-respecting admin is going to bog a server down with a GUI and pansy menus that fade in and out when you click on them? Oh, wait...

Re:pointless

[divec]

Linux is first and foremost a server operating system. What else could it possibly be with the number of services that are enabled by default in most distros?

I think you could say "Today's Linux distros are server OSes". That's the distros, though, and not Linux itself. One day someone (maybe Corel) will create a distro which is truly desktop-oriented. Probably port 22 will be enabled, to allow secure remote administration, but nothing else much. (If you want an application server then this'd be the wrong distro).

Re:Oh please, it's alphabetical.

[gentle_giant]

I hadn't thought of that. Damn mac-biased slashdot! Damn you!

OS or Desktop Death Match...

[BadlandZ]

Comparing Apples(tm) and Oranges.... Never more true has a statement been.

But, it's should be noted that this was not a true "OS" death match, but a "GUI" deathmatch, comparing a tweaked KDE to a Apple.

Might have been a little more fun if they threw in some networking info (samba or apache anyone?) for people who are looking at using a non Windows computer in a Windows work/networked environment. Even still, it would have been a interesting "how hard was it to really set up your own personal http server and share your files on a local network" comparison. Apple might have done better there (for easy use, not preformance) that people would expect (given all the Apache/Samba is the killer Linux app. press).

(insert obligatory opinion here)I'll stick with BlackBox on FreeBSD btw, screw em both

Death match?

[Signal 11]

hmm, Linus vs. Jobs. I'm thinking that if we added alittle bit of Gladiator to it, it would certainly be a nice mpeg download... =)

Re:Oh please, it's alphabetical.

[dbrutus]

Then why is it that the Apple icon wasn't used?

DB

macos wins internet????

[lubricated]

I can't believe they gave macos the internet support category. It took me months to find ssh for the mac. ssh is definetly an internet necessity. Also outlook sucks and crashed many times on my mac eudora doesn't come with an imac or macos. You can download the free version but then you get an advertisement filling your screen. With linux I can do what I want on the net. proxies, servers, clients. Not so with macos, does apache run on a mac.

Re:macos wins internet????

[chrischow]

It took me months to find ssh for the mac.

isn't it about 1-2 clicks away from the homepage of openSSH? a download of niftytelnet that is

eudora doesn't come with an imac or macos. You can download the free version but then you get an advertisement filling your screen.

do u have an ultra small screen or what? the ad is about 100x100, put it at the bottom right and u don't even notice it! anyway the free version has no ads, the version w/ ads is the sponsored version

Re:macos wins internet????

[ChristTrekker]

It took me months to find ssh for the mac.

My telnet app of choice is BetterTelnet, which is very common. It has an ssh option. It doesn't work on my freebie copy, and I so seldom need ssh that I haven't bothered to register it and get a full version.

Not so with macos, does apache run on a mac[?]

MacOS X should be able to run Apache, since Darwin can. (Note the feather.)

Re:macos wins internet????

[SoupIsGood Food]

Believe it. ssh isn't a common neccessity for 99.9% of desktop users, so no big loss there (and there -are- ssh clients available, anyway.)

The Mac's ability to switch between sets of network configurations with a mere mouseclick trumps most Linux configuration tools I've seen, and tools like transmit (nagware) and green (freeware) rule my universe. Transmit is a ftp client that groks the mac UI: drag and drop files to and from multiple remote servers easier than meta-moderating. Sweet program. Green is a free-ware mail client that is at once stable, capable and -free-. (As in beer. Open source really hasn't hit the Mac scene yet, but we're working on it.)

SoupIsGood Food

Re:macos wins internet????

[um... Lucas]

The mac has AOL, Netscape and Internet Explorer available as browsers... And there are huge amounts more of pluggins available for the Mac version of Netscape in comparrison to the Linux version of the same program...

SSH was quite easy for me to find (there was a link to one program right from the openssh.org website, as a matter of fact)...

Outlook, I think, is the best email client in the world. Not only does it not crash my Mac, it offers many features that seem to be forgotten about by Netscape/Mozilla (namely, the ability to check multiple POP mailboxes and send email from different accounts without quitting the application...)

Even though the Mac OS doesn't include Eudora, it's quite easy to get... Yes, the free version has an ad, but so far (i've only been playing with it since it was recommended to me a few days ago on here) it still seems to beat out Netscape Messenger and Pine.

There are proxy servers available fro the mac. There's also routing software. Server software (no Apache for another 9 months or so, but if you absoulutely must use it, you can buy webten and have your apache, afterall). As for clients, there are clients for just about any service you could reasonably want available for the Mac.

I think overall the reveiew was geared towards home users who want to be able to buy a computer, do some work and surf the net... Face it... Though (some) people around here are either bright enough or dilegent enought to do it, Linux really isn't ready for wholesale consumption... There are just too many sharp corners left on it.

Re:macos wins internet????

[B-B]

So...How many consumers want to run ssh or apache? How many want to run proxies or servers?

Now...How many want to run Lookout and Exploiter. Also, Eudora ships with MacOS 9.

Tom

Re:macos wins internet????

[jvj24601]

It took me months to find ssh for the mac.

Huh?

http://www.google.com/search?q=ssh+Macintosh
http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&q=ssh+ Macintosh

Re:macos wins internet????

[sarhjinian]

Also, if you don't want the ads, Eudora Light versions are still available(no 4.x versions though)

Actually, you can run Eudora 4.3 in Light mode, but you lose some of the advanced filtering features as well as multiple account support. You may lose IMAP and LDAP support as well -- I'm not sure.

There's the Paid Mode (full functionality, no ads) and the so called Sponsored Mode which displays ads in a small portion of the screen but still gives you all the capabilities of the full version of Eudora. Its a nice approach on Qualcomm's part.

Re:macos wins internet????

[Ma'at]

Hmm. You seem a little confused.
It took me months to find ssh for the mac. ssh is definetly an internet necessity.
It took me one search with Google to find ssh for Mac in the form of NiftyTelnet SSH. And SSH is only a necessity if you want to telnet to a machine that only allows SSH connections, which for Joe Average is something that will probably never come up.

Also outlook sucks and crashed many times on my mac eudora doesn't come with an imac or macos.
Outlook is stable on my girlfriend's iMac, I can't argue with the suck. Eudora isn't included, but is a fairly small download away. Besides, all Real Men(tm) use Hotmail.

With linux I can do what I want on the net. proxies, servers, clients. Not so with macos, does apache run on a mac.
Aside from the fact that only one of those statements is actually a sentence, Macs are lovely clients, good servers for fairly static content, and there is indeed a port of Apache for the Mac.

-Ma'at

Re:internet services are a *bad* thing?

[randombit]

A "typical" desktop user doesn't even know what the heck telnet is, let alone find it a useful tool.

Most of them aren't that bad. I live with 3 people, majoring in History/History of Art, Economics, and IR. All of them at least know what telnet is (hell, one uses pine to check her email). DNS is another story. :)

Though I don't think Corel Linux, a distro seeminly designed for and marketed to, recent Windows users, is a good place to have stuff like that running by default.

Re:Dogs Versus Cats

[Inoshiro]

Who's to say that a cat couldn't be an NT admin? Although I hear that cats sometimes have problems understanding TCP/IP..
---

Re:Apache Runs on Mac!

[t0upsie]

You are correct, Sir! MachTen was one of the first versions of Unix I ran on the Mac. It might be the first Unix port for the Mac outside of Apple's AIX project. But today there are several ports of Unix running on Mac. I am even running BSD on a 1989 Mac SE/30 that has net access via an Ethernet Card. It runs daily, lets see a 286 do that!

Re:Current user interfaces are pitiful !

[alannon]

I just had to point out, as a regular Mac user/owner:
1) PPP is in a control panel called either PPP, or Remote Access, depending on if you're running MacOS9.
Alternatively, there might be a Remote Access icon in your control strip in addition to a Control Panel, looking like a computer next to a telephone pole.
2) To save as a postscript document, select the Laserwriter driver from the chooser, hit print, and change the "Destination" drop-down menu from "Printer" to "File".

I'll give you this, though: The Chooser is a poor piece of UI. Even Apple admits so. It's GONE in MacOSX.
I spend a good chunk of time working with Windows, MacOS and Linux, as my profession requires of me and despite the internal deficiencies of the MacOS, it still allows me to get my work done a fair bit faster and with FAR less aggrivation than Linux or Windows.

While I'm on the soapbox, I might as well say it, MacOSX IS going to be the OS that people will have a hard time complaining about. The kernel is Mach, which is BSD compatible. The kernel is also open-source, and thus, hackable (See Darwin). Is has:
1) MacOS interface.
2) UNIX reliability.
3) UNIX compatability (command line programs should compile without complaint as they would on FreeBSD, X Window server is availible as an option)
4) A great selection of business applications.
5) Runs on fast, pretty hardware.
I could even go on to speculate that it should be possible to write support for PPCLinux executables into the kernel, the same way that X86 Linux executables will run on FreeBSD.

Now if only Apple will fix that stupid dock feature, and move the widgets on the window scroll bars back where they belong...

Re:internet services are a *bad* thing?

[Inoshiro]

"since when is being able to set a computer up to display applications running on another computer by default a bad thing? "

"Gee, boss, I don't know why that dialog with porn popped up in front of our CEO. Must've been some nasty vandals or something.."

There's a reason why things should be secure by default. OpenBSD is the only distribution of a free OS that I've seen that takes this into account (3 years without a remote root hole in the default setup, 2 years without a local root hole in the default setup, and audited applications all around!).
---

I couldn't finish this poor excuse for a compariso

[BitMan]

Guys, I'm sorry. I have never seen a more poorly written article on a comparison that should have never been made -- just exactly who was this written for?!?!?! I don't know what c|Net was thinking ... maybe "Hey, let's compare the two non-Windows OSes that we think are easiest," but they even failed that.

I mean, the very first comparison, "installation," that was just rediculous!!! Could they at least find a PC vendor that pre-installs Corel? If not, then it is NOT a good comparison!!! Duh!

And who "wins" a category? Com'mon, you didn't even define how you choose. I mean, how did you weight hardware compatibility? If MacOS was written for Mac hardware (which means just about everything is supported), how did Corel win if it doesn't support all Intel hardware? What do you mean it's "less expensive"? Now you are jumping criteria! Please define them beforehand! So many laws of comparison were broken here.

And that's what this eventually boiled down to. Too many variables against extremely different platforms. Geez, just use the system that runs your apps.

I'm still trying to figure out who this article is written for?!?!?!

-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

Re:Poor advocates

[SoftwareJanitor]

Ah, but MacOS version 8.x will

Actually, I am pretty sure that the most recent MacOS that will work on a 68020 or 68030 based Mac is 7.6.x. I believe that you need at least a 68040 to run MacOS 8.x, although I've heard that with some limitations software hack called Pseudo040 and Wish-I-Were which can kind of kludge MacOS 8.x onto some 030 machines. I'd be surprised if it worked on an 020, especially one without a 68881 MMU, as most Mac II's didn't ship with the real MMU. At any rate, the articles I've seen describing how to do it make it sound like it is a fairly big hassle in that you have to boot 7.6.x and then restart into a different partition/drive with 8.x.

Compared to the MICROS~1 world, both Linux and Mac OS provide astonishing life-spans for the hardware they run on.

That is true.

Swansong

[Steampunk]

Steampunk 's vision of the future:

Apple heats up. As desktop publishing and AV hit new highs because of advances in networking, larger memory devices (CD, DVD, cheaper memory), and faster processors, these new markets buoy Apple from it's mid-90's slump. This keeps Apple in the running on false legs into the mid to late aughties (2000-2010).

Enter Linux. Apple was a failure at the attempt to license hardware to 3rd parties. While Apple has a fiercely loyal following, so does the "new kid on the block" -- Linux. But Linux is able to take advantage of the huge IBM clone market. Neat OS, fanatic followers, and the added bonus of MUCH cheaper hardware. I won't say software, because as Linux mainstreams, software vendors will start to up prices. The fate of any capitalistic society -- but not a bad thing!

Linux ascendent as Apple fades to Amiga land. As we now see, Linux is great for server applications (Apache, clustering, et cetera) and is claiming much of the market share for what used to be high-end UNIX boxes. As web publishing ties more closely to desktop publishing, Apple will lose serious market share to Linux boxes that are more bang for the buck. Soon all the Macromedia and Adobe software will be on the Linux boxes, also CAD/CAM programs will be ported over, i.e. AutoCAD, Pro-E. Just look at how some movies today are using Linux-produced graphics -- not Apple, not Sun, not Cray (remember TRON?). Plus, the database powerhouses will soon rush to use this new, powerful tool. Oracle and others running on top of Linux will soon be the standard for most businesses and government offices.

Linux mainstream and growing. By 2010 to 2015, Linux on desktops will be fairly common. It will rule the web-file-print-server/cluster/workstation market for most small to mid-sized businesses. Linux will be another radio button at Dell, Micron, Gateway, Apple(?!?) -- just like any other option for a custom system, such as 9x or NT today.

Just my $.02 -- but I think this article backs it up. While OS 9 (and later X) seem to beat Linux in a few categories (and overall), the argument was always prefaced with wait and see. What good is an OS if those looking to the future don't see great stuff for it?

Re:Mac user's point of view.

[Simm75]

Actually, he made the point that something new (for Linux) was that Corel Linux had USB support (although this is not unique to Corel Linux.) She used a warping of (il)logic to turn this into "gee, Linux had USB first!"

That's not what he said.

If I were he, I'd be duking it out with the editor for allowing that bit of moronic drivel to ever be published. She should be fired. From a cannon.

Re:Subliminal bias

[Ryano]

One thing that was pretty clear from the article was that neither "expert" had much knowledge about the other platform. Each of them made inaccurate or misleading statements that should have been edited out.

It just goes to show how far apart the Linux and Mac camps are. I think this has got to (and is going to) change. I'd rather read a face-off written by one person who has used both OSes extensively.

Re:who the fuck wants to win over mac users, anywa

[SoftwareJanitor]

Apple is preparing to move Mac users to what... MacOS X. Which is based on ... BSD. So what then, will all the 'SMART' people go to?

Personally, I don't really believe that all Mac users are complete morons. I don't even believe that all Windows users are morons. I don't understand the idea that the Linux community can't coexist with non-techies, or that if the techies must all flee from Linux just because some non-techies might be able to grok it.

Look, no matter how they wrap Linux or BSD or whatever with GUIs, they can't take away from us techies the command line tools we know and love. Even if they take them out of the distros, they can't keep us from putting them back in ourselves.

Listen, there is room enough for a wide variety of people in the Linux world. If you can't deal with diversity, maybe you should go to something else, albiet I bear FreeBSD (and the other *BSDs) no ill will, so I can't say I would wish a lot of negativity on them.

Re:Honesty

[chrischow]

linux advocates are often equally clueless about the Mac anyway as some postings in this thread illustrate

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[t0upsie]

Work directly with my $99 Wacom Graphire USB Tablet...

Slashdot biased!?

[gentle_giant]

I just wanted to say that Slashdot is a little biased on this one. I say that because the icon used to represent this article was the linux icon, not the Apple icon. I'm not saying that that is such a bad thing; this isn't flamebait. I just think it's interesting, especially cosidering the fact that there is a specific icon for Corel (isn't there?). I myself use a mac and get really excited whenever a big blue apple appears on slashdot,. but the penguin sitting on its butt is there all the time. --gentle_giant

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[chrischow]

web designers DO use photoshop, imageready and fireworks is good for optimisation and maybe animation but nothing can beat photoshop yet, maybe never

Re:Eazel, KDE

[NaughtyEddie]

Define "standalone". Are you saying that a Linux utility will run off a boot sector? Obviously not. Are you saying a Linux utility uses no operating system services? Obviously not. Indeed, a Linux utility requires many things in order to run. You choose to call this "standalone" but it is an utterly arbitrary distinction.

In fact, it is possible to engineer COM objects so that they are *far* more standalone than even Hello World. COM objects do not intrinsically link to anything, unless they need those services. I could make a COM object right now which was *truly* standalone, and could be invoked just as well from Linux as from Windows. It couldn't do I/O, but it could run.

So, fool, why don't you find out a bit about both Linux utilities and COM before you go off half-cocked calling me a fuckwit. And anyway, I'm talking about the principle of a browser, which is exactly the same as the principle of the shell. If you're too stupid to see the distinction, stay out of the fucking conversation.

The comparison is meaningless.

[Chandon Seldon]

They might as well compare QNX to BeOS...

And *Corel* Linux? What are they smoking. They just had to choose the most useless Linux distro avalible.

(FAQ: What is Corel Linux? A: Debian linux with apt broken.)

Their catigories are somewhat meaningless. They knew before they started that "Installation" for MacOS is a null point.

Their "Linux Expert" didn't know his `cat` from his `fortune`. He just spouted the standard "Corel Linux vs. Slackware 3.0 and Windows 95" lines.

They should try "Red Hat 6.2 vs Mac OS 9" with the following catigories:

• User Interface (Remember how many choices you get.)
• Ease of Use
• Flexibility
• Application Support (How many apps are listed on freshmeat.net again?)
• Hardware Compatibility (How does OS9 run on Intel, Alpha, Mk6800, etc?)
• Internet Support (And the linux guy should *think* before speaking this time)
• Compatibility

And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[toupsie]

This makes absolute sense to me. While Linux is a superior OS for serving files, if you want to get something done in the real world like graphics, word processing, e-mail, web, etc., MacOS beats Linux hands down for the Joe Average User. But then again, Mac has the advantage of 16 years worth of applications behind it and a dedicated and well paid group of programmers that ensure its ease of use.

I have tried all the Linux applications that mirror what I use on my Mac and frankly they are piss poor in comparision. GIMP is no Photoshop. AbiWord is no Microsoft Word. Netscape Linux blows compared to Netscape Mac. I have yet to find a comparable Linux application better than a Mac equivalent so far (suggestions would be appreciated). So I have settled on using Linux as my ServerOS of choice and MacOS as my ApplicationOS of choice.

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[rakslice]

GIMP is no Photoshop? What does Photoshop do that GIMP doesn't (besides devour cash)?

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[Master Bait]

CMYK.

Re:And the Winner Is...OS 9!

[divec]

CMYK

Tell me that Joe Average-end-user uses CMYK more heavily than is supported by Gimp. Alternatively, if you're talking about for a minority of power users who really need advanced features, then LaTeX beats Word hands down.

Re:Poor advocates

[IO ERROR]

You can still run Linux on a 386 from 1987, though unless you're putting together an embedded system based on a 386, you probably shouldn't.

Mac OS 9 isn't going to run on the Macintosh II which had just come out in 1987... Mac OS X sure as hell isn't (though I suppose Darwin could be ported!).
---

Re:What about star office?

[itachi]

It would certainly be fair to say that 'most of the internet is powered by web servers running Apache', however, as Apache and its variants account for over 60% of the publicly visible web. Of course Apache is also popular on the *BSDs and commercial UNIXes.

Not to mention Apache running under OS X Server and (apparently) under the final release of OS X.

itachi

Please

[Colin Winters]

How can anyone consider Mac OS to be an "alternative" to Windows. I know I switched to linux because I got sick of it. Can someone sit at their computer and say "I'm sick of crashing. I'll just install MacOS." No. They have to go out and fork over a grand to get a Mac. MacOS cannot be considered an alternative until it supports multiple platforms. A better competition would be Linux vs. BSD, or BeOS, or OS/2, or anything else that can be installed on x86. This is like saying you want to install Windows 98 on a Sun SPARC...it just can't be done.

Colin Winters

Re:Please

[gwernol]

How can anyone consider Mac OS to be an "alternative" to Windows. I know I switched to linux because I got sick of it. Can someone sit at their computer and say "I'm sick of crashing. I'll just install MacOS." No. They have to go out and fork over a grand to get a Mac. MacOS cannot be considered an alternative until it supports multiple platforms. A better competition would be Linux vs. BSD, or BeOS, or OS/2, or anything else that can be installed on x86. This is like saying you want to install Windows 98 on a Sun SPARC...it just can't be done.

And yet around a third of people buying iMacs are ex-Windows users, so clearly there are a lot of people who do think the Mac experience is a real alternative to Windows.

Re:Please

[Xenu]

The Mac OS is a legitimate alternative to Windows. For most people, at some point in time, an Intel PC is so old, slow, flakey and incompatible with current software and hardware that it needs to be replaced, not upgraded. At that point, replacing the Intel PC with a Mac is a reasonable course of action.

You can get an iMac for $999 (iMac/350) to $1299 (iMac DV). PC hardware can be cheaper, but beware of price comparisons that ignore the differences in features between the two. The iMac includes 100Base-T Ethernet, 56K modem, a nice CRT, sound and microphone, speakers, USB, and Firewire and DVD on DV models.

The really nice thing about the iMac is that everything is integrated into a single, simple package. You take the main unit out of the box, plug in the AC cord, keyboard, mouse, and telephone and/or Ethernet cable. Installation complete.

I have several Intel boxes for running Windows, Linux and FreeBSD. I also have an iMac. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. The iMac is nice when you just want to use the computer as an appliance, for email, web browsing, word processing, etc. It is easy to use and consistent. The problem is stability, it freezes too often, just like Windows 9X. My Linux box has never crashed but the GUI really sucks in comparison to Windows or Mac OS.

Re:Please

[Xenu]

What kind of junk are you going to get for $300?

As an experiment, I looked for a low-end consumer PC from a known company. Something that could be found at a local store, included some software and that had a warranty and some semblance of support. I found this, a Hewlett-Packard Pavilion 6635, for $619. No monitor or Ethernet card included. Add $249 for the HP 15" monitor and $70 for a 3COM 3C905B-TX 100Base-T Ethernet card. That ups the price to $938. Rebates cut the price by $100, to $838.

So for fairly comparable systems, the iMac is $999 (MSRP of iMac/350) and the PC is $838. The PC is $161 cheaper, but the user has to install and configure the Ethernet card.

Re:Corel will be a good platform for CorelDraw

[Noer]

Bitmaps, bitmaps, bitmaps... until Linux has some good res-independent (vector) tools, publishing is an industry that won't touch it. Whenever someone mentions that the Mac is better for graphics, someone tries to mention the GIMP... but the GIMP doesn't do what Quark, Illustrator, InDesign, Freehand, etc. do. And unfortunately for Linux, Mac OS X's graphics capability (PDF everywhere) is going to be yet something else to catch up with.

Re:Eazel, KDE

[NaughtyEddie]

Of course it's a Good Thing (tm) ... when done right. One day the "browser" will be the only application you need, and everything else will plug in to it. That's my theory, anyway ... you're welcome to disagree (of course ;)

That's the funny thing; on the surface it seems eminently reasonable to combine file & HTML browsing. It seems to me like a logical progression. Microsoft did it wrong, of course, and in the process deliberately tried to force Netscape out of the "market" ... but really, should there even *be* a browser market? Despite all the technical improvements and new features added to HTTP/HTML I can't help feeling that users have been short-changed in this stupid browser war. When Mosaic was the only browser, everything worked properly ;)

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[MrBogus]

Oops - the Windows delay is actually in the sub menus (like in Start), not the context menu.

Re:Eazel, KDE

[proj_2501]

So you're saying you predict an evolution towards document oriented computing. AGAIN.
--
The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.

Great to have such a comparison

[craw]

Does anybody else have this opinion on this face-off. This was comparison between what is considered to be a very user friendly OS (MacOS 9), and is reported to be an extremely difficult, hacker only OS (Linux). To me this is a clear indication of how Linux has progressed. A few years ago, even trying to make such a comparison between the MacOS and Linux would have been absolutely ludicrous.

What I really want to see is a media reported faceoff between which company uses the most anti-competive techniques to further their cause. Let's have a death match: MS, AOL, Apple, Adobe, Sun, IBM, AT&T, Oracle, SGI, HP, Dell, Cisco, etc... I can just see it. And there goes Ellison thrown into the Sun with an Apple shoved up his butt. Oooo, he landed on his ballmer, that's got to hurt.

Mac user's point of view.

[gavinhall]

Posted by Nr9:

Although i am a passionate mac advocate, i think Becky's a fuckin liar.

mac os DOES NOT have built in virtual desktop although you can download shareware and install.

also, mac didn't have usb support before windows.

however, i feel that cnet's review of hardware compatibility fails to recognize that the number of devices support be xfree86 is less than that of total windows supported devices. Linux drivers are less than perfect.

Re:Mac user's point of view.

[doce]

also, mac didn't have usb support before windows.

eh. USB works as early as Mac OS 8.1 with 3rd party PCI cards that date to 1997 or so. I'm fairly certain that I updated my PC at home to Win98 specifically because Win95 either didn't support USB or didn't support any devices that I could actually find.

Oh well

[Gorthaur]

We all could keep replying and whining about this subject to the extent that loading this page would crash every browser on any OS.

How about we organize a debate on a chat system amongst ourselves, know-it-betters, and actually apply rational thought to this one in stead of of wailing os-cratic panegyrics?

Yes, or a 'hacking your kernel' round

[Salsaman]

;-)

Oh please, it's alphabetical.

[Cardinal]

Sure there's a bias. This is Slashdot, after all.

However, your icon theory is a bit alarmist. Maybe it went in the Linux category because 'Corel' and 'Linux' both come before 'Mac'? Or maybe it went with the Linux icon because C-Net listed it first?

But lastly, who cares? Sheesh. What next, will you suggest CNet has a Mac bias because the Macintosh logo on their icon occupies more space than the Tux face?

Re:Ripoffs...

[zeck]

Of course they didn't invent the word processor. They just improved it.

Staroffice is not in any way better than Microsoft Word. The only reason anyone would use it is necessity; it runs under Linux. But people had to waste time reprogramming things that work fine in Word so as to create a similar word processor for Linux deviants. If those same people had been instead writing enhancements for Word or working on some other original project, imagine what could have been accomplished! But instead they were lured into programming for an OS that's essentially made of rehashes of things written for other OSes.

we're soo ambitious :)

[Pflipp]

Linux is compared to Mac, and we're all surprised that it looses, but we say "hey, there is a lesson to learn. Let's make it even better".

Heh. Who could've dreamed that when this all started Linux would be compared to Mac *at all* (not Linus :-). And that it now looses on some small bonus points *only* - I mean, it is not at all like "mud compared to gold"; they started the comparision because they really thought there was something to compare!

OK, so I only see it from the bright side. But well, "we" open-source people always think in terms of "use what's there, and make what is not already there", in other words, we are satisfied with what we get, no matter how little that is.

In previous times there *was* little. But people set up their computers and servers with Linux nevertheless. And everything only got better since then. So I see Linux being compared to Mac only as another milestone in the history of GNU.

World domination... Muhahaha! :-)

It's... It's...

Apple created Local Area Networking?

[Machina]

Or so she claims? I know that long ago, they had their little AppleTalk, which, plainly sucked, but they couldn't possibly of created Local Area Networking? Right? Can someone clarify this?

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[dublin]

It's true that Apple's Macintosh was the first *PC* to include networking support - however - it was support for the incredibly proprietary AppleTalk, which was limited to troublesome daisy chain topologies only and a maximum speed of 230 kbps.

Although they finally gave in a couple of years ago, Apple resisted Ethernet like hell: in the early 90s they did everything they could to make Ethernet expensive and hard to use on the Mac. In fact, IMO, it was this insistence on running up the cost of Ethernet for Macs that was chiefly responsible for them getting drummed out of most corporate networks in the mid-90s, as Mac adapters were always a minimum of about 4x the cost of their ISA counterparts.

Remember, Apple went so far as to establish thier own completely incompatible tranciever interface, AAUI, which had no benefit over the tried and true AUI except that it used a (slightly!) smaller connector, and forced customers wanting Ethernet to buy from Apple for a year until the third parties got geared up.

And then there were the heinous atrocities that AppleTalk and AppleShare inflicted on the rest of your network if you through some means ever put those protocols on your Ethernet.

Apple was no friend of networking other than the proprietary kind until they realized they had to interoperate or die. They came to the Internet party even later than Microsoft, so I have lttle respect for them as a network innovator. Keep in mind that AppleShare (file sharing) was a very expensive extra until a few years ago.

Apple doesn't "get" cost, and until recently has always assumed that it didn't matter, and even intentionally drove it up. It was this attitude that led Intel-based hardware to become cheap and commoditized and that in turn drove the creation of Linux. Apple has made its bed, and now must sleep in it.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[Moofie]

I don't normally get this vehement on Slashdot, but this is utter crap.

NetBEUI can munch the peanuts out of my shite. Chattier than local talk, and it STILL doesn't freakin' work. Let's not get into having to reboot the computer to give it a different name. You wouldn't believe the number of times I pick up the phone each week to hear some poor luser crying because their NetBEUI LAN has eaten itself. Reboot all the machines, and it'll prolly come back, says I. I'm sometimes even right.

LocalTalk (and its faster cooler big brother EtherTalk) may be slower than some other protocols, but it FRIGGIN' WORKS. No if's, and's, or but's...two phone net connectors, and you're transferring files. I love the (perhaps apocryphal) story of the intrepid Mac Jedi who ran a Local Talk network (which requires only one pair of wires) over the hot and cold water pipes between two skyscrapers. (A perfunctory Google search didn't bring any references, but it's still a fun idea)

Want high performance? TCP/IP's not bad. Want DEAD STUPID EASY configurability with respectable speed? Apple networking all the way.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[mikpos]

IIRC, office LANs started taking over the world (well, according to the commercials) as soon as Xerox released their coax Ethernet. Actually LANs probably started cropping up long before that, but it seems like they were pretty prevelant in the 70's, and Macs didn't appear until the early 80's IIRC.

Note that I'm too young to actually have experienced any of this, so a lot of it could be wrong.

FWIW, I thought both proponents did a horrible job. The Mac lady touts Mac's allowing you to change the colours on the GUI?! The Mac has a great UI and I'm sure any sane person could have picked much better points (i.e. ones that KDE doesn't do better).

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[G27 Radio]

Yeah, I agree with you on that. I think Apple was first to make it standard on all their machines though. I'm not a Mac guy, but wasn't Appletalk standard equipment like 15 years back?

numb

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[FyreGryffon]

Apple did not create Local Area Networking.

The Datapoint corporation developed ARCNet (2-Mbit max, star-physical-topology, token-ring-operation, max 255 nodes on a network) and was using it before Apple ever dribbled a packet onto a wire.

The fact that Datapoint no longer exists in any useful capacity is, of course, beside the point.

Datapoint might not have been first, but they beat Apple. QED.

Re:Apple created Local Area Networking?

[Espen]

In the context of personal computers, and actual practice, I think this is reasonably fair statement.

Re:Feh

[geekopus]

Ahh,

OK. I have not installed any one of those distributions in quite some time, so I'm out of that loop. Thanks for the info.

My previous point still stands though, that I personally, personally mind you!, think that Caldera would have been a better choice. It's installation is almost as easy as Corel, and it has flexibility, unlike the Corel installation. Once it's installed though, you get a real Linux desktop system, without all the candy coating that the Corel distribution has. I don't know about you, but when I tried the Corel distribution... Did you ever see the movie It's A Wonderful Life? Remember when George Bailey was offered the job at Mr. Potter's bank, and he shook Potter's hand? That's kind of the way I felt using the Corel distribution. It's a laudable goal (ease of use) but it comes at a price, namely the system is somewhat dumbed down and is trying very hard to be like Windows. Hey, if you want to run Windows, run Windows.

My $0.02

Peace

Apache Runs on Mac!

[toupsie]

Look before you leap! Check this out for Apache for Mac.

In fact, I can run about every net service that a Linux box can on MacOS 9. I have even written a Telnet server for mac that makes the machine appear to Un*x-like when a user connects.

P.S. If you can't find Mac Software, just head over to Download Dot Com and search. It shouldn't take long to find what you want.

How about a cats vs. dogs article?

[Glowing Fish]

I think this article is fairly ridiculous. Not that it wasn't well written and fair enough (although it was a bit brief), but I wouldn't say that either one of these OSes is better then the other. If the article was going to talk about some kind of technical points that could be quantified, that would be one thing. But what we have here is some vague generalizaions about what "most people" would want.

THe choice of OS is mostly a matter of personal preference. There are no 'average' users, and if there were, they would be using Windows anyway.

Re:How about a cats vs. dogs article?

[SoftwareJanitor]

There are two possible motivations for writing this kind of article:

First, about a billion comparisons between Linux and Windows and MacOS and Windows have already been done, so there isn't much fodder there for more articles for a while.

Secondly, if they are really Microsoft-partisan, then it could be a 'divide and conquer' strategy, to get Mac and Linux advocates going at each other instead of teaming up against Microsoft...

Yea, the second one kinda sounds like a conspiracy theory... :-)

Re:How about a cats vs. dogs article?

[Tomun]

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare two OSs that actually run on the same hardware

Absolutely, and mention that you can have Mac on Linux too. Why wait for OS/X ?

Unfortunately CNET articles are always this bad.

Re:How about a cats vs. dogs article?

[tahini]

The only reason they seem to have for comparing the two OSes is that they're both not Microsoft spawn. What the hey? They begin by saying they're aimed at completely distinct markets, and end saying the same thing.

Then in the 'hardware compatibility' section they start mixing compatibility issues with issues about actual hardware. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare two OSs that actually run on the same hardware, anyway? LinuxPPC, anyone?

Re:How about a cats vs. dogs article?

[MaksO]

Quite true on the presonal preference statement. I will give an example:I personally dislike the interface of MacOS because it doesn't offer a command line. I find it very useful under Linux - wildcard based cp and mv can very powerful. Many people, on other hand, are happy to use GUI all the time.

DeathMatch? I think they mean "DeathWatch"

[Zico]

Anyone know how many more months before Corel, touted here many times as the Linux distribution juggernaut to destroy Microsoft on the desktop, has until they either go bankrupt or have to start selling off pieces of their business? Less than 90 days now, isn't it?

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

Earth Shattering Revelations from CNet

[nanouk]

Wow, this is news - MacOS 9 has plug-and-play, a smooth UI and lots of apps. Linux is powerful and supports lots of PC hardware. Say it ain't so! CNet is so 31337.

Bah. Such comparisons are worse than useless. Best tool for the job at hand and all that.

Re:Of course, there were some glaring errors

[itachi]

In order:
1 - floppies
Well, having used a trusty 8600/200 to recover dead floppies (PC and Mac), I can assure you that the Mac support for FAT floppies works fine, as does the PC compatablilty. In fact, I've used Macs to recover text that was deemed lost for good by PC utilities. It's be nice if they added other file systems, but then you really don't see that many filesystems on desktop machines, do you? I think most of the world's desktop machines are using FAT, HFS, NTFS, EXT2 or a variant of one of those. And since NT uses FAT for floppies, NTFS hardly counts, does it? So that leaves 2 for 3 of the most common desktop filesystems. Sure, not great, but not exactly un-useable.
2 - telnet
Umm, BetterTelnet or Nifty Telnet are both fabulous, infinitely configurable telnetnet clients with SSH support. They work great, emulate whatever terminal you can think of, and BetterTelnet is open source (last time I got a copy, anyway).
3 - emulating a mac on a linux box
Yah? Can you emulate a playstation on that linux box? VGS will run on that OS9 machine or a 98 machine, but I don't think it cares what glibc you've got.

The point is, we're still stuck at the same thing, which is the best tool for the job. Neither of the two is the uber-OS, neither of them does everything that the other does, etc etc. So if you want a machine that your brain-damaged dog can operate and maintain, use a Mac. If you want to build a firewall out of a ti-85, a bag of paperclips, and some chewing gum, use linux.

itachi, who really didn't mean to sound so cranky

"We've had that forEVERRRRRRR!"

[jimhill]

You know, I see this argument a lot and I just don't get it. Why do so many people when comparing product A and product B look at feature C and conclude some sort of superiority based on which product implemented it first?

The glaring example from this piece is CD automounting. Yes, Mac OS had it before Linux did. In what way does that make Mac OS superior to Linux? Do they not both have automounting? It cuts both ways, of course -- when Mac OS X comes out there will be an army of Linux fans sniggering at the Mac people who are geeked about being able to run 'top' or some such utility.

Jim's thought for the day: having a feature the other guy lacks is something to brag about. Bragging about having that feature longer is Just Plain Stupid.

Re:Both suck...

[EEEthan]

I don't think so.

It takes a lot longer than 2 years for an OS to get to the point they're talking about. Maybe linux will be ready to take on Win and Mac in 2 years, and some of the BSD's will be where linux is, but I find it really hard to believe that those or any OS's that are off the map now will be competitive in 2 years. Think about the amount of development going on for linux, windows, and mac and compare it to those 2. Maybe they have some sort of capital and media interest wand, but if they don't they should watch out for BS/2.

Retarded article.

[louissypher]

Netscape 6 (AOL, too, if you consider AOL a browser). It also wins hands down on browser plug-ins, with support for
QuickTime, RealPlayer Plus, Shockwave, and Windows Media Technologies, plus many popular MP3 tools. It's hard to imagine the Web experience without this basic software--all of which Linux lacks.

Both of the people is this little c/net OS slam need a clue. This is probably the most retarded article I've read in 2000. Shame on slashdot for reposting this piece of crap.

Re:Poor advocates

[Golias]

You are correct. The reason for my confusion was that my old Duo 230 was stolen last year, and replaced with a 280 from a pawn shop. I have 8.1 running on the 280, but still think of it as an 030 machine (it is actually an LC040). My mistake.

Still, 7.5.3 does almost everything 8.1 does, and on older hardware it often does it better, so I think my point is still valid.

Re:Poor advocates

[SoftwareJanitor]

Still, 7.5.3 does almost everything 8.1 does, and on older hardware it often does it better, so I think my point is still valid.

However, we've now slid all the way back to MacOS 7.5.3 from MacOS 9. If you want to talk about old and/or spartan hardware, Slackware 3.x will run pretty smoothly on a 386... This whole tangent has strayed an awful distance from the original article.

Re:Poor advocates

[Golias]

Good luck running Navigator or Gimp in an X environment on an old 386 though.

People can, and do, run Photoshop and web browsers on old '030 and '020 Macs.

Like I was saying, the differences from 7.5.3 up to 9.0 ammount to mostly incremental upgrades. Specifically, a slightly spiffier-looking desktop, PowerPC-specific code, and support for new hardware like USB.

Doesn't suprise me.

[gmac63]

When I read the headline and description on Slashdot, I immediately knew MacOS 9 would win. It is easier to install, configure and has more user friendly Internet access. Hands down. Apples to, well, Unices.

But lets put things in perspective. Linux is not for the commmon man -- yet!

As being one who has worked on Macs since 1988, I have seen the changes -- bad and good. The Mac is NOT the most stable platform. Corel/Linux beats most OSs hands down. MacOS cannot outpace Linux, even on single processor. It can't run all the services without costly additions(money and system resources). And it doesn't have the flexibility of user interfaces -- commandline and GUI for you purists ;-)

The MacOS was designed to be about as user friendly as any OS could be. We didn't need no stinkin' Internet back then. And that was Apple's oversight.

Oh well. The comparison was fair. That is to bring Linux down to Apples level, but you can't bring Apple up to Linux's level.

-Wes Yates

Corel will be a good platform for CorelDraw

[Cardinal]

Corel doesn't want to be a good Photoshop platform, silly. They'll make it a good CorelDraw platform, which they're already working on porting, and a good platform for all their other toys, which you can bet will be ported also, now that they have their own Linux distro.

Painter, Bryce, Kai's Power Tools, Photo-Paint...

This is Corel's dream. They can stand on the shoulders of Linux and have a pre-proven OS with their name on it to peddle all their apps on.

Re:Ripoffs...

[Midnight Thunder]

They didn't invent the word-processor or any of the other tools they sell. What the did do is make the tools include every possible feature that people might or might not want.

How predictable, MSOffice support is key for c|net

[Cy Guy]

When I started reading this article, looking at the first page, it looks like they may pick CLOS as their choice, I was thinking that's pretty impressive since the distro is only version 1.1 running on an underlying kernel that is only version 2.2.x.

However, peeking ahead at the conclusion page I read the headline and saw they picked MacOS because of its support for 'applications'. Without reading anymore I predicted that when c|net says applications, what they really mean is MS Office. Low and behold, when you read the detailed reason for the decision they specifically cite failure to support MS Office as one of the key reasons behind picking MacOS over CLOS.

Why someone that is trying to select an alternative to Windows, would set MS Office support as a selection factor is totally beyond me. MSOffice IS Windows. Just ask Bill Gates, in his TIME editorial he explained how inextricably linked the two products are. At anytime, MS could shutdown support for a MacOS version of Office, in fact they practically did in the past but eventually conceded to continue the line only with Jobs' promise to bundle MSIE (and therefore even more Windows code) with MacOS.

If you want a Windows free machine, you must also have an MSIE and MSOffice free machine.

I also got the strong impression that the MacOS advocate (Becky) didn't even look at WordPerfect Office. She seems to think that Excel (and aparently every other component of MS Office) is better than Quatro (and every component of WPO2K-L). If she can identify a feature, or usability issue, that Excel has and Quatro doesn't, I would like to know what it is. I expect the only difference is that she is more familiar with Excel.

As someone who is using both this very minute..

[Otter]

This seems like two zealots largely ignorant of the other platform talking past each other. Here's my take:

Installation: Nothing is easier than the MacOS install. The only thing that comes close is installing Linux on Mac hardware. I've never tried Corel Linux so I'll assume that the installation is as easy as Rex says it is, when it works. But let's see it on the "486 'o' mystery" in my office. As CNet notes, if you're installing on a PC, Corel wins.

Interface: Becky hardly does the Mac justice here. I like KDE but the Mac blows it away. (Yes, you can buy a two, three or four button mouse. No, the flexibility of Mac cut n paste more than makes up for having to go to a menu or Cmd-C).

Applications: Well, do you want Quicken or vi? Word or LyX?

Hardware: I'm not sure what the editor's point is. Macs support most standard interfaces so you can get most any PC hardware to work. The only problem is when there's no driver. You can bet the Linux people will write one themselves before the Mac gets one.

Internet: They can't find anything to disagree about.

It seems to me this completely neglects Linux's strengths - vastly better performance and a CLI.

Emmett writes: It's really easy to say, 'Yeah, well, wait for Eazel,'

Well, easy but silly. You may as well say, "Wait for OS X." I guarantee the Mac will have friendly Unix before Linux becomes easy. And instead of vaporware, why not point to KDE betas available today?

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[zeck]

Can I use gnucash and staroffice ?

gnucash and staroffice are just ripoffs of Quicken and MS Word. They don't offer anything new or innovative, and are only reprogrammings of existing programs. Talented people wasted their time rehashing old features so that "rebels" could use them on their deviant OSes. I spit on gnucash and staroffice.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[bentwookie]

Where did you come up with this one?! Multibutton mouse support is alive and well in MacOS X thank you very much. Cocoa has supported this for a long time and there are new events in Carbon. And if the rumors on yesterday's MacOSRumors site are to be trusted, Apple's new mice will support guestures well beyond 'right' clicking and context menus.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[Tomun]

No, the flexibility of Mac cut n paste more than makes up for having to go to a menu or Cmd-C).
Personally I'll just select with the mouse then click my middle button somewhere.

Well, do you want Quicken or vi? Word or LyX?
Can I use gnucash and staroffice ?

It seems to me this completely neglects Linux's strengths - vastly better performance and a CLI.
I'd say it neglects macOS's strengths too, whatever they are.
I know a mac zealot or two but I switch off when they start talking.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[seebs]

You can buy a multi-button mouse, but the only way to use it is to bind the buttons to things like modifier-clicks, because the OS still has no concept of additional buttons.

They actually yanked all the 2-button support from NextStep to make OS X. Go figure.

Also, while the mac install may be "easy", if it doesn't want to do the right thing, you're screwed... so, it has two settings, "easy" and "impossible". No middle ground.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[SoftwareJanitor]

Applications: Well, do you want Quicken or vi? Word or LyX?

How about GNU Cash as a better comparison to Quicken than vi? How about Word Perfect or StarWriter (from StarOffice) as a better comparison to Word than LyX? Personally, I like Word Perfect 8 a lot more than Microsoft Word. Not only does Linux have a lot more applications than this article would suggest, it is gaining new applications far faster than any other platform, including MacOS.

Interface: Becky hardly does the Mac justice here. I like KDE but the Mac blows it away. (Yes, you can buy a two, three or four button mouse. No, the flexibility of Mac cut n paste more than makes up for having to go to a menu or Cmd-C).

Personally, the convenience of middle button paste in X is something I really miss if I have to use something else.

Hardware: I'm not sure what the editor's point is. Macs support most standard interfaces so you can get most any PC hardware to work. The only problem is when there's no driver. You can bet the Linux people will write one themselves before the Mac gets one.

Macs don't really support PC-style parallel ports or ISA cards very readily.

Internet: They can't find anything to disagree about.

I can't believe the guy who was supposedly representing Linux didn't mention things like Plugger (multimedia plugins for Linux). Not to mention that Linux has a wide variety of GUI based mail clients, news clients, FTP clients, etc. Linux isn't nearly as bad off as they make it out to be. Perhaps Corel doesn't offer quite as full a selection of those things as other distros do, but then again, many of those tools have to be downloaded and installed on MacOS as well.

Re:As someone who is using both this very minute..

[Otter]

You can buy a multi-button mouse, but the only way to use it is to bind the buttons to things like modifier-clicks, because the OS still has no concept of additional buttons.

It's funny -- you're right, of course, but until now it's never occurred to me that that's a weakness. It's a tribute to the power of UI consistency. As long as all apps use Ctrl+click the same way, the illusion of supporting two buttons is seamless. If you implemented multi-buttons that way in X, it would be worthless.

They actually yanked all the 2-button support from NextStep to make OS X. Go figure.

Did they? I still have 11 hours left on my download of DP4 from, ummm, Apple Developer Services ;-) so I'll have to wait for tomorrow to see how it works...

Re:Eazel, KDE

[Tomun]

Actually most browsers support file:// access to local filesystems and no-one really complained about that.
It started with win95 OSR2 and most of the complaining was from people who hated IE and wanted to use something else.
"why do I have to have this installed ?" they asked, "I used win95 release 1 with no problem without that crappy IE thing on my system".

Before this time win95 had no internet connectivity without the user installing it themselves.
The users started losing control over their environment at that point, had no idea what was on their systems or how it worked, and then all of a sudden a huge outbreak of email worms, nice.

Re:I believe he was going for the "funny" moderati

[zeck]

Bravo.

One Size Fits All? No.

[Silver A]

C|Net's fundamental error was to try to say "This OS is better", not "This OS is better for this type of user". Granted, at the end, they make a money issue, saying that OS 9 wins, unless you're a cheapskate, but the whole article is flawed by the approach.

A much more useful article would have been "What users should get Linux, MacOS, or Windows". For my wife, Windows is still the best choice (we don't have the money to buy Macs), and I couldn't do my job at work with Linux (and the company would rather not spend the money on Macs), though it's on my home machine.

Re:Poor advocates

[SoftwareJanitor]

When I got it (used) it had 24mb of RAM and a 700mb hd.

That is better than average for what you usually find on the used market. I was looking out on eBay, and most of the PowerMacs I saw equipped like that were selling for more than $200.

As for expandability, the 7100 could take up to 4 32MB sticks (128MB) and had 8MB on the mother board IIRC. The 486 that I have can only use single sided SIMMs and I didn't feel like searching for higher density SIMMs for that, so I'm currently stuck at 16mb on that machine.

One bad thing about x86 machines is the complete anarchy of hardware compatibility. I've got dozens (literally) of 486's, and their rules for memory expansion vary quite a bit. I've got several that have 4 72-pin sockets and can easily expand to 128M, and like I said, one really crapola Packrat Bill which can only go to 20M due to the 4M soldered, and 4 30-pin sockets.

I'm not complaining (too much) as it was free,

Yea, free is awfully hard to argue with. Although I'd have never bought a machine like the aforementioned PB, for free I have plenty of storage space in my basement.

but my point was that I put MacOS9 on a 7100 as it sat in my bedroom, while I have had to upgrade and limit the functionality of Linux on the "free" 486 I have.

In all fairness though, if you didn't already have a well equipped 7100, it would cost less to put a 10G drive and 32M of RAM (should run about $175 for both) in a free 486 than it would to buy a used 7100. For that matter, you could probably find a used low end Pentium machine (75-133) for similar money to a 7100.

That's OK, I have fun w/it. Both machines serve purposes in my house and I do think the whole concept of the article was silly (along the lines of: what is more masculine, a pinapple or a schoolbus?) and was argued by advocates that were woefully inadeqately knowlegable about their opponent's OS (and in some cases their own).
You'll not get any argument from me on that one. The article certainly would have been more interesting and accurate if they had found a little more knowledgeable people (both on their own platform and on the other's) to advocate for each platform.

Meaningless yeah, to us...

[xrayspx]

Of course this is meaningless to us. If I'm going to do image processing, I'm using a...PC with NT Wkstn, Photoshop, QuarkXpress, 3DSMax...I can't believe they had Linux losing at Internet connectivity issues. These people are total crack monkeys. And did anyone else feel that the Rex Rebuttals were a tad weak? Hardware for instance, the Arguement for OS9 claims as advantages over Linux the ability to use Ethernet and RAID. Ahem. And in GUI, the Mac has seperate user profiles so that different folks get different desktops. Huh, haven't seen that anywhere in the last 12 years. Honestly, the ONLY MS software I use in my home network anymore is Win98, and that is ONLY to run Half-Life CounterStrike. I'm perfectly happy with the Linux apps available to me. But the MAC has always been DTP/Graphics/Multimedia, and it's already lost that market to the MS/PC Juggernaut, who (should soon) lose that market to either Be or, more hopefully, Linux.

Puh-leaze

[J4]

I got the impression the Mac person was ignorant WRT PC hardware.
I noticed a lot of qualifiers too, ie:
"more _popular_GUI_ apps" and some plain falsehoods
ie Mac has had USB since day 1
Funny, my old IIcx didn't have it
(I know they must have meant since day one of USB)
Also, if the Mac GUI os they epitome of usabilty
Why are they shitcanning it for OSX?

My experience has been if you think Linux doesn't do something, you didn't investigate it thoroughly.
Admittedly this is false sometimes, but somebody is usually working on it.

Articles like this are just plain silly.

Re:Puh-leaze

[gwernol]

Also, if the Mac GUI os they epitome of usabilty Why are they shitcanning it for OSX?

Ummm... they're not. Probably the major attraction of OS X is its the stability and power of Unix with the Mac OS GUI on top of it. Okay, so Apple have take the opportunity to polish the look a little, but when you use a Mac OS X machine, it is quite noticeably a Macintosh. Its the same UI experience, just better.

Re:Poor advocates

[Golias]

Linux can run just fine on 486's from 1991 which you can get for free.

Linux, yes. But I'm sure you would not want to run X on that old beast... and without something like KDE or Gnome, the entire comparison breaks down.

My point was that their comparison insisted that Linux could run on cheap hardware (true), while OS9 could not (totally false).

The truth of the matter is that a couple hundred bucks could get you a fully-functional Gnome box or a fully functional OS9 system. It really just comes down to what you want.

Of course, if this debate even matters to you, my reccomendation would be to buy the old Mac 6100, drop in a huge HD, and dual-boot with LinuxPPC! :)

[avdi]

Coming next week: "Apples vs. Oranges", the definitive C|net comparison review.

Re:Honesty

[SoftwareJanitor]

True enough, but that is true in general that many people don't know much about any platform other than their own. The exception is that a large number of Linux users are ex-Windows users (or begrudging co-Windows users). The same thing is true of a lesser extent of Mac user's knowledge of Windows, as many are forced to use Windows at work/school or whatever. Cross knowledge between Linux and MacOS isn't as common. I've got some MacOS experience, but it isn't recent, or at least it isn't with recent hardware/software (I've got a couple of old IIfx's which are running MacOS 7.1 or 7.6.x). I try to limit my commentary on MacOS to what I know for sure to be true, and I certainly don't try to portray myself as being any kind of Mac expert.

Re:Poor advocates

[Golias]

Mac OS 9 isn't going to run on the Macintosh II which had just come out in 1987

Ah, but MacOS version 8.x will, and the move from 8 to 9 was really a very incremental upgrade. (Check out lowendmac.com for tips on how to squeeze life out of old macs. They even have links for Mac ports of Linux and NetBSD)

Even using Mac OS 7.5.3 on really old systems, I have been able to run most modern apps. It's kind of fun browsing the web at DSL speeds using an old Powerbook Duo.

Compared to the MICROS~1 world, both Linux and Mac OS provide astonishing life-spans for the hardware they run on.

internet services are a *bad* thing?

[matticus]

in the article, becky complains that linux has a whole bunch of internet services that have to be blocked by a firewall, and the mac is better because it doesn't have those services. *ahem* since when is an FTP server a bad thing? since when is being able to ssh (or telnet) into your desktop from any computer on the network a bad thing? since when is being able to set a computer up to display applications running on another computer by default a bad thing? there's a reason why linux has them-because they serve a *purpose*.

Re:Lame vs. Perfection

[xtremex]

Corel? I've been a Linux user since 1995...and while I was impressed with Corel, Corel seems a little too "closed" for me...the biggest friggin thing about Corel was the mouse! If you had a serial mouse, you had to manually edit the config files, after you installed HALF the OS because the keyboard couldn't selevt all the options on the GUI installer...was there a patch? No..I found the solution thru dejanews..If this was RedHat or Mandrake (or any of the other 50 distros) this wouldve been fixed the next day...so in December, i couldn't recommend Corel to any newbie

Re:Poor advocates

[SoftwareJanitor]

my reccomendation would be to buy the old Mac 6100, drop in a huge HD, and dual-boot with LinuxPPC! :)

For the price that I've seen 6100's going for ($100-$125), plus the price of a decent sized SCSI drive (I found 4G SCSI drives on pricewatch for about $120 -- of course the same $120 will buy a 13G or larger EIDE drive) and a decent amount of RAM (figuring you need at least 32M, and figuring about $40), you could probably get a reasonably equipped midrange Pentium-class x86 box. Not to mention that you either need to buy a monitor converter cable or a Mac-style monitor for the Mac which is an extra cost compared to an x86 box.

Come to think of it, for what a decently equipped first generation (6100, 7100, 8100) PowerMac costs on the used market you can just about buy a brand new low-end prebuilt x86 Linux box (I found a bunch of them for about $330 or so on Pricewatch).

How much does MacOS 9 cost anyway? That has to figure into this equation somewhere too, as used old PowerMacs are probably going to come with MacOS 8.x most of the time I would guess.

BTW, calling MacOS 9, 'OS9' is rather confusing, as there is a real-time OS by that name from a company called Microware, and it has been around since before the Mac existed (like I knew people using it on Motorola 6809 processors back in the 1980 or 1981).

Re:Feh

[SoftwareJanitor]

Personally, I thought the same thing. I'd consider Mandrake to be a better choice for this kind of shootout than Corel Linux. For that matter, just picking one Linux distro is eliminating one of Linux's advantages, the fact that I can pick and choose the best distro for what I want to do. With MacOS (and Windows too, for that matter) I have a lot less flexibility.

MacOS v Linux - Can we say "red herring"?

[kartis]

Interesting approach to divide and conquer -- get the Mac folks and the Linux folks arguing, when they ought to be natural allies. Why did't they compare MacOS9 with Win98? Because CNET won't bite the hand that feeds it. MacOS has a superior user interface to Windows, and in my experience, is more stable and productive than Windows of all flavours. If it had been a comparison with Windows, then the Mac would have won -- and we can't have that. I am a consultant, and have to deal with business issues; I see staff and professional people struggling with productivity constraints caused by the OS they are using. Before any Windows fanatics flame me, please keep in mind that I use Windows on a daily basis (and have a Windows machine, too).

I don't feel that comparing MacOS9 with Linux is valid: MacOS9 is the last edition of an OS that has its origins in the 80's like Windows - but, M$ won't give it up, while Apple has recognized this and moved to a modern OS. A valid comparison would, as others have commented, been MacOS X and Linux, both as server and as workstation.

I am a Mac user who is very enthusiastic about Linux; I am an OS pragmatist -- I like what gets the job done best and easiest. For instance, I am running a Linux based router to share my cable connection and playing around with older Mac's running Debian Linux to make them useful again (I'm also checking out MacBSD). I have experimented with a number of Linux distributions, and I think Linux is fantastic, not only for the future it holds, but the way that older hardware can be given a new life, with stability that exceeds M$ products, all at a great price. Do I want Linux as my main OS -- not yet. Am I interested -- of course. MacOS X will never run on some of my hardware. I undoubtedly will buy a new Mac in the next year, running OS X, and probably be thrilled with it, but I will still be playing with uses of Linux that I probably haven't imagined yet.

Re:Lame vs. Perfection

[toupsie]

The worthless UI of a Mac is a 1/2 ass clone of the early Windows interface, as everyone knows.

Did your mother smoke crack while she was pregnant with you? Everyone knows that Microsoft came up with the idea of the Windows interface after getting a demo of the MacOS from an early Lisa -- the grandmother of the Macintosh. And, of course, Steve Jobs got the idea after Xerox invested in Apple and gave Jobs a tour of Palo Alto labs.

Re:Of course, there were some glaring errors

[greydmiyu]

The last time I tried NiftyTelnet (just shy of over a year ago) it still didn't do color, didn't have decent support for basic terminal types. It was about on par with Windows' Telnet. Considering I go out and download Tera Term Pro at the first chance to get a real telnet client on Windows that should indicate how bad it was. If it has improved since then, I would be greatly surprised.

CorelLinux to beat MS on the desktop? Yeah, right

[Cardinal]

People actually said that? Geez, that's scary. CorelLinux is pretty disappointing, imho. Sure, it's got a good desktop. But they've done some really nasty stuff. Where to begin? It's based on a years-old Debian distro, and closely tied to a monolithic in-house packaging of KDE (Has anybody actually looked at it? Corel's KDE environment is -one- huge package) It's also a security nightmare. My suggestion: never, under any circumstances, use CorelLinux in a multiuser environment if you care about user security.

Of course, none of these matter when you're trying to be a desktop OS. But they still bother me. Saying CorelLinux represents Linux in general is a misnomer, as far as I care. Saying it CorelLinux uses Linux may be more appropriate.

No, this is not a distro to fear, whether your Microsoft, or anybody else. At best, it'll be a base for Corel to port their apps to, and perhaps support installation on other distros while they're at it.

What about star office?

[MrBlack]

I'm no linux zealot (perhaps I should coin a new acrony, IANALZ), but I can't believe they gave the Applications section to the Mac on the strenght of "there's no MS-Office support for linux". What about star office? Also it's fairly ironic that, while most of the internet is powered by web servers running linux, OS 9 is given the nod in terms of internet connectivity.

Re:What about star office?

[SoftwareJanitor]

This is true. Right now (according to Netcraft) the market share of Linux web servers is only about a third (compared to Windows' approximate 20%), and is growing at a much faster rate than anything else (Microsoft's share has been holding steady or actually dropping for the past year or so). A third isn't most, but it would certainly be fair to say that Linux has moved into position as the market leader on the Internet.

It would certainly be fair to say that 'most of the internet is powered by web servers running Apache', however, as Apache and its variants account for over 60% of the publicly visible web. Of course Apache is also popular on the *BSDs and commercial UNIXes.

Re:What about star office?

[penguinboy]

while most of the internet is powered by web servers running linux

Most of the internet powered by Linux? Let me point out that "most" means more than 50%. Significantly more. Somehow, I doubt that's true just yet. It's not that I don't support Linux, I'm just more concerned about maintaining truth.

Re:Indepth Analysis

[AaronCiesar]

i was very pleased when my linux installation asked for this: it allowed me to keep my /home partition and install the rest of the system without backup. i'm not familiar with mac, but can you do that with macos installation ?

On the Mac you would perform a "Clean Install". The clean install creates a new system folder, while keeping the old system folder, apps, and files intact.

- - - - -

Re:Poor advocates

[ka-klick]

That is better than average for what you usually find on the used market. I was looking out on eBay, and most of the PowerMacs I saw equipped like that were selling for more than $200.

And mine also came w/a monitor! For $200 even. If you know where to look and keep your eyes sharp there are bargains on anything.

In all fairness though, if you didn't already have a well equipped 7100, it would cost less to put a 10G drive and 32M of RAM (should run about $175 for both) in a free 486 than it would to buy a used 7100. For that matter, you could probably find a used low end Pentium machine (75-133) for similar money to a 7100.

Well, in all fairness a P75-133 is a more apt comparison to a 7100/80 anyway. Also There are a lot of pitfalls to trying to put large drives into older PCs (which usually have BIOS limitations) There are workarounds, but they're usually evil(tm).

The most ignorant post on slashdot?!

[VValdo]

Holy cow. I guess I'm just getting hooked by the troll, but how many inaccuracies can you count in that rant?!

W
-------------------

But CorelLinux is unsafe to use as a server

[Cardinal]

I have to stress this, because it's critical people realize it. CorelLinux is not safe to use as a server. Because of the credentials system that Corel came up with, allowing remote logins is actually a security vulnerability. It's not safe. Don't do it. :)

The best OS

[hackerhue]

Using CNET's criteria, the best OS is: pencil and paper.

Installation: Everything is ready out of the box. No installation is required, and its design ensures that you will never need to re-install.

Interface: Uses the most intuitive interface. Novices can quickly learn to perform most tasks without any training.

Applications: What can I say? The applications are virtually unlimited.

Hardware Compatability: Virtually anything ever manufactured works with it (as a paperweight ;-) ). Backward compatible with all previous versions, and a huge flexibility in price/performance, plus availability of a large variety of add-ons. Basic models go for under $10.

Internet Support: In the words of Becky (with appropriate substitutions), "And if you want to get technical, the [pencil-and-paper] OS is inherently better protected from hacker and virus attacks than either Linux or Windows (or Mac), partly because most malicious code is written for Unix, and partly because the [pencil-and-paper] doesn't allow many network services (such as FTP), which have to be blocked by a firewall or turned off in other OSs. For example, the recent Love Bug virus did not affect the [pencil-and-paper]."

Verdict: CNET's comparison doesn't work. (But you knew that already.)

Experts?

[Gen-GNU]

What I kept asking myself as I read the article was, what makes the two main commenters experts?

Oh, my mistake. They are called 'true believers', not experts. This entire article is basically comments by two people arguing against another OS they obviously have little or no knowledge of.

The OS9 zealot keeps talking about how Linux doesn't support hardware, and is so difficult to use. These arguments were valid two years ago, maybe even one year ago. But with the barrage of new configuration GUI's available, and with new hardware being supported on a daily basis, this is simply not true.

If messages saying these things were posted here, they would instantly be marked as flame, troll, etc. and almost no-one would read them...

The comments by the Linux zealot are just as bad...but in the oposite direction. This was not a head to head of the OSes. This was a head to head of the flame spit back and forth between the two OSes. With some conclusion paragraph at the end by someone who supposedly knows the strength and weaknesses of both.

I am not complaining because Linux lost. I don't care. I am complaining because people reading the article will get the wrong impression of both OSes. Next time, maybe the moderator should just write up the whole article, and leave the flame to forums like /.

Re:Experts?

[Master Bait]

What I kept asking myself as I read the article was, what makes the two main commenters experts?

Nothing. Somebody at the office (idg-zdnet) knew them or somebody that knew them. They needed words, not necessarily experts. ZD is a funny business. They are always of the journalist bent, rather than the computer-expert-who=writes-well bent. That's why everybody hates ZDnet.

Ziff-Davis has managed to always make lots of money. Their magazines are always tier two when it comes to design, paper quality, etc. but they are mostly tier-one when it comes to circulation and ad sales. Go figure!

Of course, there were some glaring errors

[greydmiyu]

Loved how in one section the tired old "Mac can read mac and PC floppies" argument was trotted out. Who is this Rex guy and why didn't he just trample over that one? "Linux can read PC (FAT) Win95/98 (VFAT) floppies. Mac floppies. EXT2 floppies. And, if such things existed, NTFS floppies, Solaris Floppies, BSD floppies, OS/2 HPFS floppies, etc, etc, etc!" Mac advocates have been trotting out that argument for years now and against any competent computer person it falls flat on its face. Also the automatic conversion by Macs /never/ worked when I tried it.

Then we get to internet applications. Am I the only one who thinks that the lack of a decent Telnet client leaves Macs out in the cold? Maybe it has changed in OS 9 but somehow I doubt it. If it can't do the basics down I don't care what other "standards" it has. Telnet, basic, simple remote access and diagnostic tool. I use it every day, I use streaming video maybe once every two weeks.

Finally, where was the killer one of them all.
"Hey, look, a mac emulator on my Linux box. How did that happen? Wow, imagine that."

Re:Of course, there were some glaring errors

[Zico]

Yeah, but how easy does CorelLinux make it for a user to read floppies with other filesystems? Does it do it on the fly, like the Mac, or is he expected to bust out the mount command? If the latter, then for the target audience of the article, I'd definitely give the nod to Mac.

However, I thought that Apple was been telling us since the debut of the iMac that nobody uses floppies anymore. Does the machine they reviewed MacOS on even have a floppy drive? It's a bit odd to hype up its floppy-reading abilities if it doesn't even have a drive.

As far as a telnet client goes, most users don't even use them, especially not the ones that would be targetted in any MacOS vs. CorelLinux review. For most internet users, having Internet Explorer trumps every single internet app available for Linux.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

I am not worthy

[fishlet]

speaking of OS's, I quote the great 'deep thought'... who in all his (linux kernal based) magnificense uttered this prophecy "I speak not of me, but instead of the one who is to come after me... who's operational parameters I am unworthy to compute!- and yet... I shall build it for you."

Well, somebody had to say it...

[Andy_R]

barking each times someone pass thru the street

Of course, our dogs would be more stable if you converted them to eunchs.

Can you imagine a woofwoof cluster of... oh forget it. - Andy R.

Poor advocates

[Golias]

What astonished me, even more that the silly, "rah-rah for our side" tone of the whole affair, was that each cheerleader seemed to be ignorant of the other system's features.

The Linux guy, talking about available games, actually bragged about Myth II (which comes from Bungee, one of the few "mac first" game developers - it was only recently that they started releasing simultanious Windows "ports"), while the Mac gal was beaming with pride over OS9's multiple user log-ins! How can anybody with a clue manage to avoid howling with laughter at how lost these "experts" are?

Another point that stuck in my craw a little bit was how the "judges" keeped insisting that Mac tech was superior, but far more expensive.

They not only ignored tasks that Linux is better suited for (servers, firwall services, multiple terminal/user hosting, etc.), but they also turned a blind eye to the fact that OS9 can run just fine on first-generation power macs from 1994, which you can easilly find for under $200.

The bottom line is that they will get a lot of web hits from the "religious nuts" of both operating systems, but the article offers very little useful information to a first-time computer buyer, and is even less useful to a user of one platform that wants to learn about the other.

Re:Poor advocates

[SoftwareJanitor]

but they also turned a blind eye to the fact that OS9 can run just fine on first-generation power macs from 1994, which you can easilly find for under $200.

Just like Linux can run just fine on 486's from 1991 which you can get for free. It really depends on what your definition of 'just fine' is. In either case, you are probably looking at upgrading memory and hard disk with either platform, and that still leaves the Linux side as much cheaper.

Re:NO: Unix is SUPPOSED to be integrated

[GeZ117]

Well, that's a long reply. And rather interesting, it's a shame I can't moderate yet. Hum.

Basically, the only thing I have to reply is that I still find Explorer/IE integration badly done. When I use KFM to browse, it keeps my local file system tree, and I can make drag'n'drop to download directly file where I want them to be, in only one window. This is not possible with E/IE, because there's an application switching: look: menu changes, toolbar changes, even ergonomy can change. So, it's not a true integration.

Oh, and please, capitalize properly acronyms: KDE, OS/2, etc. GNOME maybe an exception because "gnome" is an actual word, so the Gnome graphy don't hurt the eyes.

Current user interfaces are pitiful !

[Submarine]

I have been programming for the last 10 years. I am pursuing a PhD in computer science. I have installed Linux networks, and even have coded some Linux device drivers. I can thus be called fairly familiar with computers.

Yet I think that systems are inadequate for the user:

• Linux is not yet ready for the desktop. Installing fonts is a pain; printer support is pitiful (I have yet to see how to get colors right for the Deskjet 690C); decent desktop applications are not yet there (Gnumeric is still fairly weak and still has quite a few bugs etc...)
• Windows automates everything and tries to think instead of the user. I do not appreciate it when a computer tells me what to do, even less when it does something stupid. Furthermore, the desire to make things simpler for the casual user had them not to include any diagnostic tool. The icing on the cake is the absence of protection, which favors the spread of a myriad of viruses.
• The Macintosh is even worse. You just can't order it to do something if it is not proposed in the standard choices. Some system options, for instance in PPP, are hidden in some obscure dialog boxes and no documentation is available. I have just spent some time trying to get a Mac to export a drawing into PostScript: impossible, or there is yet another obscure choice to make.

It is a pity that with the power of current computers, nobody is able to make a system that is truly user-friendly; that is, that does what the user wants instead of getting him to do stuff in obscure command lines described in even more obscure documentation (Linux) or pissing him off with silly restrictions and railroaded choices (Windows).

I have seen the Eazel presentation at Guadec. I have hopes that it will be a bit more like what I'd like. Yet I am a bit afraid that it is going to be the next step of evolution of the current interfaces: more eye candy and gizmos, but little actual change.

Re:Current user interfaces are pitiful !

[Submarine]

Ok, let me give you a few precisions. The PPP setting I was alluding to was a bit tricky. The PPP server I was using did not handle LCP (some feature of PPP) well. The Mac would complain and disconnect after 5 seconds of connection. Of course, the dialog box that was displayed did not display how to turn the non-working feature off. I browsed carefully through the PPP settings, and I found something where the acronym LCP did not appear, but I felt it sounded like some kind of periodic line check. Ok. Now tell me a normal user would find it...

A silly answer is "answers to such questions can be found on the 'Net". Come on, if I was trying to set up PPP, then maybe it meant I could only get 'Net access until after setting it up! "Documentation is on the 'Net" is not a proper answer: not everybody has a fast enough 'Net connection to be able to look for such information in a timely manner.

As for the printer problem, I had only one minute to help somebody. The program he used did not offer "Save to file" in its print dialogs. I tried to find a system setup to create a fake printer saving to file, I did not find it. I do not claim it was absent. I just think the system was not very helpful in helping me find it. Maybe it's possible to find it after spending half an hour looking in menus and dialogs; this is I think inadequate for a platform whose selling argument is that it caters for the needs of the most computer-challenged people.

Re:Current user interfaces are pitiful !

[mojombo]

Well if you need a postscript file ...

just set up a new desktop printer with the printer utility and set it to print to postscript. When you print to this printer it prompts you to save it as a postscript file.

Re:Current user interfaces are pitiful !

[Stu Charlton]

Obscurity is relative based on the amount of experience you have in that environment. At least with the Mac it doesn't take very long to figure out that PPP settings are Control Panels->Remote Access and Control Panels->TCP/IP. From there it's fairly intuitive.

Windows isn't much better, with the added bonus of knowing that you need a "Dial up adaptor".

Thankfully both Windows and the Mac have "internet setup assistants" that help newbies tremendously.

I think in general that Windows tends to have less consistency than the Mac but overall both OS's have similar levels of being able to tweak & fiddle with stuff. The major difference is that there's less users & hence less info out on the more esoteric points on the mac.

Neglecting Linux's Strengths on the Desktop?

[Cardinal]

Well, that's sort of inevitable. The fact that Linux has a better CLI is completely irrelevant to a discussion of a "desktop" OS. Nobody in the Windows or Mac world thinks CLI when they think desktop. And probably rightly so.

If a desktop-level Linux distro does emerge (Corel doesn't thrill me, so I'll wait for somebody else to make one that I'll call a desktop-level distro), it won't focus on daemons, console features, or even window manager selection. It'll provide exactly one window manager, exactly one desktop, etc. It won't bother with any useful network tools like nmap or tcpdump, because the user will never have any need for them.

Re:Neglecting Linux's Strengths on the Desktop?

[Stiletto]

It'll provide exactly one window manager, exactly one desktop, etc. It won't bother with any useful network tools...

There already exists an O/S dumbed down to the extent that you described. It's called "Windows" and is available in almost all computer stores.

Re:Neglecting Linux's Strengths on the Desktop?

[Cardinal]

That's fine, but I promise you Linux distros will emerge to cater to the same "dumbned down" market, regardless of if Windows is in all the computer stores. Sort of ironic, isn't it. Users will have a choice which non-choice-providing desktop they will use.

Re:Mac floppies

[Submarine]

Of course, I was thinking of ZIP disks. I have actually read TIFF files from a Mac disks using the HFS driver in Linux. As far as I remember, it associates to each Mac file its data and resource fork as two different files (but I was only interested in data forks, so I did not pay attention to the rest). Read the Linux kernel documentation for details.

Indepth Analysis

[Vagary]

I found myself feeling like neither "expert" did a good job of defending their OS. So as someone who uses Linux lots but Macs not if I can help it...

• Installation: If the MacOS can't be installed then how can you comment on its installation? This is meaningless!
• Interface: The bad part here was Rex's Rebuttal:
  1. Linux can open more than just Mac and PC formats.
  2. Rather than profiles we have accounts, need I go into their inherint superiority?
  3. Can Sherlock do regular expressions?
• Applications: Mac - the best that Microsoft has to offer; Linux - the best that the rest of the world has to offer.
• Hardware Compatibility: The only meaningful comparison here would be to compare USB and support for other platform independent devices (PDAs, printers, etc.).
• Internet Support: The only category that really makes sense: Mac - dumbed-down, easy to use; Linux - supreme power over time and space.

What really doesn't make sense is the criteria for the final decision. Linux is a rising star on the desktop, Macs are for niche markets and zealots.

A much better CNet article: Find Your Perfect OS.

Re:Indepth Analysis

[198348726583297634]

installation - the macos can be installed, and it doesn't act you a god damn thing about your / and /usr and swap partitions.

interface - linux can open all manner of unix filesystems, pc filesystems, amiga and other misc. filesystems, but how? through obscure mount commands? the mac makes it easy by automounting.

applications - mac: consistent, intuitive, useful. linux: customizable (often with source).

hardware: god bless apple's near monopoly on hardware!

internet: well, netscape crashes equally quickly on either platform.

and another thing! why is it when people say "i have the following apps for my new X," when X is a PC they list games and useful apps like photoshorp, and when X is a linux comp they list apache ??

Subliminal bias

[paRcat]

OK, what's the deal with putting the linux review first in each section? By the time you read about MacOS, you forget about what the Corel guy said.

Also, did anyone else pick up on the HUGE problems with her Internet statements? The majority of malicious code is written for Unix? huh? And last time I checked, that file called rp7install is the install for RealPlayer7, which she claims isn't available. Oh, and I'm listening to mp3's that I ripped on my Linux box. But from what she said, I couldn't have done or be doing this.

grr.

Can't really argue with that

[Zico]

I was pretty disappointed myself when I finally tried it out (I've even got a shrinkwrap version with the little foam penguin). It's as if they couldn't decide what they wanted it to be. It's obviously aimed at the desktop user, so why do they have so many daemons turned on by default? It's not like your average business user needs (or even expects) to have web and ftp servers running right out of the box. That's just asking for security problems -- just as bad was for them to release a distribution in this day and age without shadow passwords.

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com,/p>

Mac floppies

[Submarine]

No, as far as I know PC Linux cannot read Mac
floppies since Mac floppies are written with
a low-level format that is peculiar to the
Mac. However, Linux can read, on any platform,
Mac ZIPs.

Rex's Rebuttals

[David Nordlund]

I think it would have been nice if Rex were a little more thorough in his rebuttals. While Becky said/implied various unflattering unfacts about linux systems, such as being incompatable with digital cameras, not immune to ILOVEYOU ("because most malicious code is written for Unix" ...say what?), to list a few, he just let them fly by with no argument.

Mind you, having tried CorelLinux (1.0), it has gtk 1.0, not 1.2, so I don't know if you could get gphoto working on it or not, so maybe that camera argument is valid there.

I'm not so fond of the Corel distribution myself. I managed to fubar the whole setup just trying to upgrade some packages to something half-way up to date. CL may look nice, but it doesn't play nice if you stray from the software Corel provides. Well, at least it didn't in my case. I imagine CorelLinux 1.1 is somewhat better though.

Maybe I'll switch to MacOS 9 ;)

Terrible article

[cbuskirk]

Let me preface with the fact that I am an advanced Mac and Windows user. I hate Windows with a passion. I am a novice *nix user which will hopefully change once I get over my fear of compilers :) Neither of these two trolls had anything inteligent to say. Focusing a little on the internet section, I belive that both were off base. Both set up very easy out of the box for web browsing. Both set up very will for personal web sharing. Both as web servers can run circles around NT with Apache. I will first to admit that Apple is stupid in the fact that it does not include a telnet client(or FTP, etc....) at all. I can't explain Apple won't try to. But long before the open source movement, the mac has always had a very strong Shareware/Freeware community. I am never without some time of networking software I need. Had the internet in it's present form been around when the mac was introduced, we would probably only have Mac and *nix.

Re:Feh

[geekopus]

The Caldera distribution is the best that I have personally seen. I installed without even having to reboot! (No not once!) I was duly impressed. Also, it's quite easy to configure and obviously supports any app that the Corel distro supports. Oh well, C|Net has to go to the lowest common denominator for all the idiots out there, I guess. Personally, I'll stick with FreeBSD.

Any relation to...

[lambda]

J-J-J-Julius Games?

Dogs Versus Cats

[albamuth]

Installation: It's easier to install cats when you're living in a city, as dogs require more acclimation to the space constraints of an apartment. Across all platforms, Cats tend to be just "Plug-N-Chug" while Dogs seem to take some tweaking (*smack*).

Interface:While some users prefer the limited functionality of the Cat, the variety of commands available with Dogs is more suitable for the "hacker".

Applications:Most cats will retrieve all sorts of dead animals for you; Dogs can be used as NT Admins for your home network.

Internet:Though Fetch (for MacOS) and Lycos figure prominently on the Internet scene, neither of those compare to the fame of Persian Kitty (that's not an endorsement).

As for myself, I'm tired of living with animals.

Re:DeathMatch? I think they mean "DeathWatch"-Not

[frank249]

Corel is doing just fine thank you. The lack of cash story was made up by trashy Canadian newspaper and has been debunked. Corel Photopaint for Linux is due out in a couple weeks, CD9 for Linux is due out in July and CD10(win) is in Beta now.

Ten icons for every file BUT...

[SuperKendall]

My favorite part of Blazemonger System/2 is:

---
An unbelievable, multi-dimensional GUI!! Windows with cracked glass, dripping blood, and UGLY HAGS peering out at you! A mouse pointer shaped like a LASER DEATH RAY! Magic SCROLL BARS covered with RUNES! And every file has TEN ICONS... but nine of them are DEADLY TRAPS!!
---

I also liked the inclusion of Emacs in the section of various operating systems. I had forgotten all about Blazemonger, thanks for posting!

I wonder how long it will be before we see a Blazemonger port for the PS2? Given that they wrote Blazemonger by directly manipulating magnetic particles on the HD, I'd think the porting effort would be large.

CLOS has only been out for 6 months!

[frank249]

Pretty amazing to have made such an impression in just 6 months.

Yes, Internet Services on a -desktop- are bad.

[Cardinal]

We're not comparing a Linux box like you or I would use with MacOS, we're comparing a CorelLinux -desktop- oriented distro with MacOS.

This means, quite simply, that every daemon running that doesn't serve a desktop user's needs is one more target for a DoS or other attack. Yes, enabling them by default -is- -bad-. Especially on CorelLinux, where the very notion of logging on remotely while a console is logged in can be considered a security vulnerability.

About the only service a CorelLinux box needs to run is samba maybe, for handy file sharing with Windows boxes. Other than that, I can't imagine a daemon that CorelLinux should be running by default. Quite simply, it's not supposed to be a server, that's why they call it a desktop. :)

Pickup truck or Honda Civic?

[jetson123]

Which is better? Depends on what you want to do with them, what your preferences are, what kind of style you prefer, etc.

Comparing operating systems in this way is largely pointless. It presupposes that there is an optimal choice that everybody should agree on, and that's probably the biggest problem in the computer industry. Systems like Windows and MacOS wouldn't be such a nuisance if they weren't trying to take over the world. At 20-30% market share each, they'd be fine. At 90% market share, any operating system inhibits innovation and deprives many people of finding the optimal tool for their specific needs.

Actually, I was going by Corel's own words

[Zico]

Specifically, Corel's April 19 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. They write:

If the proposed merger with Inprise Corporation does not occur, other sources of financing are not secured and/or Corel's operating results do not improve, a cash deficiency may occur within the next three months. Corel is currently examining its cost structure and exploring other sources of financing, but it is not clear whether changes to the cost structure or obtaining other sources of financing are feasible or would be sufficient to avoid the cash deficiency.

Corrections welcome, but I'm taking this straight from the horse's mouth, not from any newspapers. (Note that they say they may go bankrupt, not that they definitely will.)

Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

this is easy to refute..

[Blue Lang]

uh.. they pick COREL linux as their fave of the herd.. i mean.. come on.. corel? it absolutely sucks raw baby mice.

not that any other linux distro would have done better in a 'desktop OS' deathmatch, but that's another story.. the least they could have done was pick a good distro.

Re:Eazel, KDE

[Tomun]

Just like Linux, Windows 95 comes with a TCP/IP
Its on the CD yeah, but you have to manually install TCP/IP (netbuei was default) after your network card / DUN, and then ping.exe and ftp.exe got installed. So you pretty much knew what was installed and what it did.
IMHO, that's why the FTP client and TCP/IP stack are all that come with some OSes, so you can download and install your own web browser
Thats true, I remember many stories about ISP support staff talking people through command line ftp to get a web browser. Theyre always on the CD nowadays though.

Re:Honesty

[SoftwareJanitor]

I don't know if I would guess that she was intentionally lying. Exaggerating, probably. However, I think the sad thing is she just plain doesn't know diddly squat about Linux and what she thinks she knows is based largely on outdated hearsay. Her comments about things like lack of Plug-in support for multimedia in Linux (which Plugger handles pretty well) and digital camera support (gPhoto, amongst several others) are examples that would certainly indicate to me she is basically just ignorant. The sad thing is that the guy who was supposedly representing Linux didn't do a very good job of rebutting such obvious inaccuracies.

Web browsers

[_Bean_]

The MacOS advocate should have brought out Internet Explorer for the Mac. Sorry to say but that thing kicks but compared to Netscape on Linux(yes I know there is Mozilla but it is alpha and I doubt it comes with Corel). What I find odd is that IE on a Mac is much nicer than IE on windows, at least thats what they tell me.

Rex is an idiot.

[Kwikymart]

I hate to say it but that Rex guy (the Corel Linux guy) is a complete moron. Just go and read the whole article. His rebutles to the 0S9 points were total crap. I hate to be a troll, but, Rex is a fucking idiot.

Mac because of MS?!?

[Roger_Wilco]

Real Mac users don't use Microsloth products either. They use QuarkXPress, Pagemaker, Photoshop, Illustrator, BBEdit. These are the big programs, not some crap from Microsloth.

Re:who the fuck wants to win over mac users, anywa

[SoftwareJanitor]

Ummm... I am probably feeding the trolls here... But:

There are several million Mac users.

As noted, Macs are fairly expensive. This means that Mac users have money, and aren't afraid to spend it.

Now, doesn't that sound like a group of people you'd like as customers? You can bet that if Linux doesn't think so, Microsoft does.

Re:Eazel, KDE

[homer_ca]

The difference is KDE can be easily removed from Linux, or rather, Linux can be easily installed without KDE. In fact, Redhat is very pushy about installing Gnome, but you can still easily install Linux without Gnome if you want. It's all about choice.