Slashdot Mirror
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.
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!
Constitutionally Correct
Am I the only one who wondered why there wasn't a 'Stability' round? I mean, that's pretty important, to me at least.
-
__
Comment submitted. There will be a delay before you understand what you posted.
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...
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.
Sailing over the event horizon
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
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?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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*.
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.
[pink beam of light]