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

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."

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.

-

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?

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.