Slashdot Mirror
Has Linux Lapped Apple As Competition For Redmond?
Stephen Beale of MacWeek writes: "Some key Linux developers, encouraged by the emergence of GNOME as the standard desktop environment for Linux and Unix, believe that Linux is poised to overtake the Macintosh as the primary challenger to Microsoft Windows. One, open source advocate Eric S. Raymond told MacWEEK that the Mac platform is 'a noble but doomed cause.' MacWEEK reporter David Read also spoke with Andy Hertzfeld of Eazel, a member of the original Mac development team, who agrees with Raymond that Linux is having a more profound influence on the industry than Apple. But he's more sanguine about Apple's prospects and told MacWEEK that his G4 Cube has just arrived. Mac users may not appreciate what amounts to anti-Mac 'trash talk' from a leading Linux advocate, but Raymond and Hertzfeld raise interesting issues about the competitive relationship between two alternatives to Microsoft Windows."
This distinction seems thinner to me than this article makes it out to be, but it's interesting to note the possibility of machines running Linux outnumbering Apples running Mac OS, and what that could mean for everyone behind the keyboards. With more and more ease-of-install- and UI-obsessed folks like Hertzfeld jumping into the Free software world, it probably means happier users at least. Place yer bets now on relative percentages for 2001, 2003 and 2007 ...
I was a professional programmer when the original 128K Mac was rolled out. I remember the crowds ten deep around the Mac display at the Harvard COOP, gawking at MacPaint. Nobody had ever seen any computer program that did anything so sophisticated that any numbskull could just sit down in front and use.
Macs had a reputation as being hard to program, but this was undeserved. It required a change in mindset to user centered, event driven programming that was hard for a lot of folks to make. In point of fact, to make a Mac application was incredibly easy when you considered how sophisticated the results were. The Mac Toolbox was a thing of beauty.
As a result, the Mac platform attracted tremendous developer creativity. Back in the mid eighties to early nineties, developers kept turning out incredible software for the Mac the likes of whcih simply had never been seen before -- such as MacSpin, Talking Moose, In Control, and MapGrafix.
By comparison, on the DOS end of things, creativity was comparatively stagnant.
So, what happened?
Well, first of all PCs were cheaper -- way cheaper. I was an MIS director at the time, and I could equip two PC users for every Mac user. Since this was the dawn of corporate computing, we were marching from nil towards the goal of one user per computer. This kind of exponential growth meant that a 2 for 1 price differential was a fatal handicap in the procurement race. This gave MS a lockdown on the strategic office automation software market. This was when, if ever, Apple needed to license clone makers: when exponetial growth could make up for loss of hardware revenues.
The longrunning train wreck of mid-nineties Apple had many causes -- arrogance towards customers, high product costs, stability problems, inefficient business practices (such as large inventories), and market-share chickens coming home to roost.
But, most of all, Apple's gross maltreatment of developers is responsible for the loss of their mojo. If you were a good solider and went in the directions Apple set for you for you to do (develop in Pascal, port to OpenDoc, etc.etc.etc.) you were a goner. Except for a few die hard true believers, developers who lived through that period are never going to trust Apple again. The flight of creativity from Mac development is a severe blow, because a single new idea, such as desktop publishing, can be the foundation for a business, and a beachead for moving into new businesses (e.g. content developent). It's safe to say that the next big thing is not going to come out of the Apple camp.
This is the reason that innovative new products like the iBook notwithstanding, the glory days are never coming back.
Where has all the creativity gone?
It's not hard to find. It's all gravitated to open source platforms, which are cheaper (for those poor but smart college students), and allow you to control your own destiny.
It's the creative ferment that makes Linux and other open source projects as the viable counterweight to total MS hegemony over IT.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
i still think that macosX will give linux a big challenge on the desktop for a lot of reasons, microsoft right now is more concerned about the server market when it comes to linux
comparing apple, microsoft, linux, and the guis is difficult because you are trying to compare an OS/hardware company, an OS/software uber-titan, and a global open source OS that doesn't have one sole company driving it but instead has lots of contributors - we can talk all we want about interface, but we all know there are a lot of reasons we have the ones we currently do
at least microsoft is worried about something - how's that lawsuit?
MacOS and linux compete in two totally seperate markets. Of all the people I know who own computers, I personally do not know anybody using linux as a desktop machine.Although, I know about the same number of mac users and people using linux as a server operating system. Actually, every linux user I know owns more than one computer and runs other OSes. Not a typical consumer. I know of no one using a mac as a server. I am running MacOS, Windows NT, and Slackware on three different machines.
There is nothing compelling about GNOME for consumers. If fact, there is much to be wary of. Try simulating this new computer user error:
On a windows machine: Move the Program Files directory into another directory on the hard drive. Reboot.
On a Gnome machine: Move /usr into another directory on the hard drive. Reboot.
On a Macintosh: Move the Applications folder into another folder on the hard drive. Reboot.
Which OS do you think will still be able to run Microsoft Word after the reboot? ;)
I actually think that the strength of the linux market strengthens the mac market. As I understand it, most of the killer apps in the linux market (apache, samba, etc...) will be able to run under the new OSX with little modification.
Look at Apple's Public Source site. The intention is to have the actual files which Apple engineers are working on available via CVS to the outside world.
Russell Ahrens
Absolutely. I love Linux and am amazed by the progress that's been made over the last few years. But it's still far from being a competitive desktop platform. Inside the Slashdot echo chamber ("AbiWord is better than M$ Word!" "I would die if I had to cut and paste with the keyboard!" "Winblows crashes every five minutes!") people lose track of what reality is.
Besides, let's say Linux quadruples MacOS's market share. Which market would you rather have - 10%, that buys your high-margin hardware and lots of software or the 40% that considers a point of honor to never spend a dime on software.
-----------
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I to don't think Gnome is the desktop standard. If you take a look at most distrobutions out there the install Gnome and KDE together. Yet most distrobutions default to KDE. Gnome is unstabel to me and very clunky , and what hurts it even more it the lack of development on it. KDE has surpassed Gnome as the better desktop enviroment. KDE is very stabel even in it's beta versions!! Form my expirience KDE is much easier to customize than Gnome. The KDE support base also is growing exponentially when compared to Gnomes support base. Hey who cares about support, as long as it works. :)
P.S.Oh and KDE loads much faster too
Sincerely
Ariel V. Rosa
Err Mac OS X *IS* shipping already.
The server edition was being sold over a year ago.
And web-objects REQUIRES Mac OS server (or NT)
Web Objects
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Er, the use of 'lapped' in the article title is kind of misleading. In auto racing, if you've lapped someone, it means you have a lead on them equal to the entire racecourse, and you've passed them again. It's important on oval-type tracks because when a yellow light comes on (from an accident or whatever), all the cars on the same lap bunch back up together again-- but the lapped cars are still a lap behind. A full lap is a Significant Lead and is not easy to overcome. To say that Linux has lapped Apple is thus an entirely different statement than saying that Linux has passed Apple.
Now, arguably, you could say that Microsoft had lapped the entire field in terms of the desktop market, and that perhaps now Linux is threatening to get on the lead lap with Microsoft.
---
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
i think that the job that you're working on should determine the platform you use. at work, i use NT because everyone else does, and i find that working with sybase and ultradev is better when you have less headaches. at home, the house server runs openbsd because it's nice and secure, and apache screams on it. for the graphics courses the house takes, we use a mac.
there is room for everybody.
Don't be so defensive.
Intelligent self-criticism is not mudslinging.
Good line. I may make that my new .sig...
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
People keep saying that Apple and MacOS are doomed since Windows took off, if not even before.
Apple managed to survive despite Windows who has a 90+% market share, why would it die in front of Linux?
Linux has a long way to go to have all the features that appeal to the Mac market (plug & play, very consistent GUI, ease of installing new apps, color management, etc.) Not to mention that with MacOS X around the corner the MacOS will gain the features it was missing from the unix world.
Also... I don't understand why people want Linux to overtake all markets. It seems to me the Mac and Linux market are opposite. Personally I don't think you can have a one-size fit-all OS that will make everyone happy.
I guess people will argue that they are talking of the linux kernel and there will be various distros for various people needs... I wonder how widely different distro will be compatible at that point.
Anyway... time will tell.
Janus
Linux is not the answer to life, the universe, and everything. 42 is.
:), but I dont want to run Linux on everything that anyone ever made that was electronic.
I really, really hate to see this kind of thing happen--and its happening a helluvalot more lately.
Linux zealots (and I'll call them zealots, because I know there are far more sane people in the Linux world) are always "Linux can do this, Linux can do that. I want Linux to run my toaster and my supercomputer".
I love Linux, I think it makes a great workstation OS, and low-end server OS (I'm also a BSD guy
Mac OS does a lot of things really well, graphically, as well as in the UI (the UI has good ideas, you decide about the implementation). Mac OS 9 basically sucks, yes. Mac OS X kicks outright ass, albeit thats probably the NeXT in it.
Point is, we, the Linux community, alienate ourselves from other communities by simple acts of stupidity such as this: claiming the Mac a dead platform and saying we will overtake you. Its different when its a drunk guy in an IRC channel, and a promenent open source figure on slashdot. Yes, Linux is a great platform, but I think the community needs to pinch itself and check out the real world again.
M$ is more likely to see Linux (and BSD) as a threat to its market because of architecture. Windoze started on, and will probably always be on ix86 architecture. Linux runs on ix86, PPC, and pretty much everything else there is for that matter. MacOS runs on 1 propriatary hardware platform... Let's face it, Macs are expensive, ix86 is hillariously cheap. That's what it usually boils down to. Buy a Mac for $1600, or buy an Athalon for $700. Hmmph. Seems pretty straight forward... And, have you ever tried to shop for Mac upgrades, periphials, etc? Add that to guerilla tactics, and you can see why M$ is popular. So, to really be a threat to M$, you have to play on their field. I still use MacOS every day, but only out of necessity. I am a graphic designer. I used to be an avid Mac supporter, not anymore. Whenever I can, I use my Linux box or SGI, depending on the application. I can't stand the limitations of the Mac environment. Add that to the terrible instability, and you can see where it is going. Hopefully, OsX will be stable.
Yes That's the way the boys at MS are seeing this PC stuff:
Lieutenant: "OK, the drop will be a O2:00. You kill, FUD or buy anything that run a PC and accept the Any key as default input. You Got That !?!"
The rest: "WE GOT YOU SIR!!!"
You see, Windows can't possibily have a monopoly:
it's primary competitor targets are:
The real threat (but WE Control it):
- DOS
- Windows 3.1
- Windows 3.11
- Windows 95
- Windows 95 OSR1
- Windows 95 OSR2
- Windows 98 SPE 1
- Windows 98 OSR1
- Windows 98 OSr2
- Windows NT 3.51
- Windows NT 4.0 SP1
- Windows NT 4.0 SP2
- Windows NT 4.0 SP3
- Windows NT 4.0 SP4
- Windows NT 4.0 SP5
- Windows NT 4.0 SP6
- Windows 2000
- Windows 2000 SP1
- Windows ME
- Whisler
the not so real threat (but WE can BUY those):
- BeOS
- Apple
- Solaris
- The UNIX formelly known As SCO.
the ((DINOSOR)US) Killer apps:
- Linux Server
- Linux Desktop
- Linux PDA
- Linux Mainframe
- Linux wrist watch
- Linux Cluster
Yeah, Bring on those CLUSTER of Web SERVER developped on DESKTOP, served by MAINFRAME so i can browse on PDA while consuling my WRIST WATCH. all in LINUX. That's world domination BABY!!
MLK: "I Had A Dream. A Dream full of wonderfull things. I Dreamnt of a Sea of Penguins, Serving us, the people in Harmony. So We can Leave in Peace."
MX: "By Any Linux Means Necessary."
SWC: "We Shall fight with Linux. Linux on hearth, On water, in the air.... And if we shall fall, not that i can concieve it, Our oversea Linux Kindom shall take the fight and drove the Evil Empire out of our land."
I Know, I am a bad historical writer and I quote like a dog..
Regards.
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
So ESR says Apple is doomed. Well take a number, now serving #4,345,234. I give this article a (Score: -1, Flamebait)
I wonder not so much about Apple's hardware versus their software. They make some great pieces of hardware and bring it to the masses before a lot of other companies. Look at Apple's 22" Cinema display or Airport networking.
I've been using LinuxPPC for a while now on my PowerBook 2000. I can dual-boot with the MacOS (9) if I want to or even better use MacOnLinux. Why should I load MacOSX? I have a great, well supported, stable version of Linux and can still run my MacOS applications (ok, there are some exceptions, Diablo2 won't run because of copy protection). OSX still isn't here and developers are only slowly announcing support.
I'll continue to buy Apple hardware because they make good things, but will I continue to run Apple's OS (and therefore support MacOS software vendors)? Only time will tell.
Apple should have split up their hardware and software divisions long ago. Even if one goes out of business the other has a better chance of surviving.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Well, I am rather sick of the Mac bashing coming from those who think they know computers. All these geeks out there talking about how dumb iMacs and Cubes are because it can't do x y and z.
How about some bashing from a former Mac zealot? Steve Jobs really needs to lay off of the acid. The trippy colors and goofy cases REALLY annoy me. Overnight Apple decides to dump compatibility with "old" hardware. No serial, No SCSI, No Comm Slots, and No ADB, just USB, and fire wire. What about those of us who have several thousand dollars invested in our old peripherals that still work great? They tell us "You can get a USB to X adapter..." Fuck you! I bought all of this stuff to work with my mac. So, in order to upgrade I'll have to spend 2 grand minimum to get a decent machine AND you want me to spend MORE money? No thanks. I suffered through the hard times with Apples. When I was 15 I remember going to an electronics boutique and seeing 4 mac titles while there were hundreds of dos/win titles.
I'm seriously considering selling off all of my Mac hardware(4 Machines and lotsa goodies) and going to x86-Linux/*BSD as my main OS. I'm tired of being fucked over by Apple.
Linux isn't a "my mom could use it" OS yet, not by a long shot.
What OS is? Mac OS? Hardly. I sell macs for a living and you wouldn't believe some of the morons who come in to buy them. People who can't understand that you don't have to double click on links and buttons in Netscape... I've got another customer, who is a pretty decent guy, who can't understand why hiding an application doesn't free up the memory that it's using.
I personally am offended by the recent influx of clueless morons who want to own a computer now because "everyone else has one". 17 years ago when I started to use and program computers, we were "nerds", now all of the "cool" people ask us for advice.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Well, here's a benchmark done in TeX:
G4/400MHz Yikes! YDL CS 1.1, vmlinux 2.2.10
real 7.669s
user 6.220s
sys 0.300s
Intel-kompatible PCs:
- Intel 486, 66 MHz, kein L2-Cache (Ulrich) 130.8
- Intel 486, 66 MHz, 256K L2-Cache, Redhat-Linux (pcs) 93.4
- Pentium 100, 512kB L2-Cache, OS/2 V4, emTeX (Sarras) 33.9
- Pentium 133, Debian-1.3.1, 256K L2-Cache (Anton) 27.1
- Pentium 133, Redhat-5.0, 256K L2-Cache (Anton) 26.4
- Pentium 133, teTeX von S.u.S.E. Linux 5.1 (Yanikos) 26.2
- Pentium MMX 233, Red Hat 6.0, L2-Cach off (gupu neu) 15.4
- Cyrix 6x86MX 166 (PR200), 512K L2-Cache 15.3
- AMD K6 166, S.u.S.E. Linux, 512K L2-Cache (Franz) 14.5
- Pentium MMX 200, Redhat-5.1 (garbo.ifs) 14.3
- Pentium MMX 233, Red Hat 6.0, L2-Cach on (gupu neu) 12.3
- AMD K6-2 266, 1M L2-Cach (Anton) 9.5
- Pentium II (Klamath), 262 MHz, Redhat-5.2 (scholl.ifs) 9.3
- AMD K6-2 300, 1M Cach, 100MHz-Bus PC100, redhat-5.1 (Anton) 7.8
- Celeron 333, RedHat 5.2 (calis, Herbert) 7.6
- Celeron 450 (overclocked Celeron-300A), 100MHz, PC100 SDRAM 5.5
- AMD K6-3 450, 512K L3-Cach, 100MHz-Bus, Redhat 6.1 (expi) 4.7
Macs:
- PowerMac 7600, 132 MHz PPC 604, 256K L2-Cache,
System 8.1, OzTeX 3.1 (Alex) (real time) 40.5
- Powerbook 3400, 200 Mhz, 32 MB RAM,
MacOS 7.6, OzTeX 3.1 (Brockhaus) (real time) 35.8
- PowerMac, Linux, 200MHz PPC 604e (samhain) 23.7
- Powerbook G3/292Mhz (real time) 18.7
- PowerMac PPC750, 308 Mhz, 1MB 308Mhz Cache, 44MHz System Bus 14.2
- PowerMac 7500 mit G3-Upgrade (308MHz PPC 750, 1MB
Cache, moeglicherweise nicht aktiviert)), Linux 12.3
William
--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
The highly paid and respected industry analysts Forrester Research predicted three or four years ago that Apple would decline in market share to about 1% right around now, and would probably go chapter 11. So much for the brain trusts at these and other similar consulting firms. Raymond's problem (like Forrester's) is that they *fundamentally* do not understand why Apple's products are popular, why people continue to support them. Why buy a Volkswagen bug when you can get a Geo Metro for cheaper? Hint: the GUI sucks, usability sucks, lack of consumer applications, arcane file system, need I go on? These are obviously not issues for Raymond, but they are for the rest of us.
Apple hasn't been competition to Microsoft for years, we apple fans just thought that was the case. But the reality is that that Mac's are too far removed from PC's to be considered real competition. In order for a Windows user to become a Mac user, they need to go buy a whole new computer at a cost of $800 on up. In order for a Windows user to become a Linux user, they just need to install Linux at a cost of free to $50.
That's the reason that MSFT has no issues developing a compeletly seperate strain of Outlook, Internet Explorer, and even Office for the Mac, because with the Mac running on it's own hardware platform, it doesn't challenge redmond at all.
Lots of companies won't buy anything unless it's available from multiple sources. x86 computers are. Mac's aren't.
Let's have a look at this comment.
First, you used someone's Opinion as your primary basis of support for your comment.
"One, open-source advocate Eric S. Raymond, told MacWEEK that the Mac platform is 'a noble but doomed cause.' "
So what? That's proof that Linux is challenging MS and hurting Apple? If you used Everyone's opinion at MacWEEK as your support, you'd find 99% of them say Apple's the future. It's MacWEEK. Eric S. Raymond is not only open-source, but openly biased.
Next:
"MacWEEK reporter David Read also spoke with Andy Hertzfeld of Eazel, a member of the original Mac development team, who agrees with Raymond that Linux is having a more profound influence on the industry than Apple."
Your second basis of support is also an opinion, and also from a Linux-supporter, and also from the same news source.
However... Let's look at the "industry." The computer industry is stagnant. Aside from Apple, NO computer company is innovating. Granted, Apple's innovations tend to be set on the design-side, but even that is changing with the upcoming Mac OS X -- which, as a DP4 user, I must say is a VERY impressive product.
Through all of this, we have Linux. Certainly the best server OS out there, and much more robust and more promising than Windows NT. But a consumer OS? Hardly. Sure Eazel will help a little, but even Eazel is a horrible eye soar compared to the Mac OS.
Want to know what Linux's REAL influence on the "industry" is? It's scaring the sh*t out of Microsoft. But overall, it has no influence on the computer industry aside from servers and workstations. It's seeping into the consumer market, but very few are excited about it. I've never seen a consumer go, "Hey check out this new Linux-loaded box!" However, I do see people marveling at the beauty of G4s at CompUSA's and buying a couple million iMacs (and if they like, they can still install Linux).
"Raymond and Hertzfeld raise interesting issues about the competitive relationship between two alternatives to Microsoft Windows."
I absolutely agree. But we're all missing the big picture. Aside from new Linux consumer entries, PRIMARILY, Linux is a server/workstation OS and threatens Microsoft's high-margin NT platforms.
PRIMARILY, Apple is a consumer/graphics OS and threatens Microsoft's consumer platforms.
Should Linux scare MS? Absolutely. Linux is SO much better in the server area.
Should Linux scare Apple? Not really. I doubt Apple has lost many customers to Linux competition. It simply isn't the base Apple holds. And as far as graphic design and publishing (which is the industry I work in) Linux is INCREDIBLY far behind -- which is the same market Apple has a 75% or higher share in.
Has Linux Lapped Apple As Competition For Redmond?
Linux and Apple BOTH scare Redmond. Linux is threatening its server market, and Apple is threatening the opposite end of that. Imagine a horizontal bar being melted towards the middle from both ends. MS is in the middle and has no place to go unless it truly starts to innovate and beat Linux/Apple on its own.
Will the computer market change in 2001, 2003, 2007... It'd better! But that doesn't mean Apple's going out of business or it's just a "noble cause." Nobility doesn't sell billions on top of billions of dollars of computer hardware. Nobility doesn't propell a stock up over 1000%. Nobility doesn't grow market share, scare Microsoft, gain customers, or media support. Now, if you don't like Apple and don't want to give it credit for what it's done and doing, fine by me. But this ISN'T about their "Death by Linux." This is about Microsoft having TWO strong competitors in different fields.
Just my two cents, ok?
Thanks for reading.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Got a link for this?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Hmmm all those professional art/special effects studios must be wrong. Where are some gimp vs. photoshop benchmarks? Last time I checked gimp lacked several major features that prevent it from being used professionally.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Can you help me... I have tried to install KDE beta4 (I tried SuSE, then Caldera version both to
no luck). Did you compile from scratch, or use some other distribution? KDE seems to stall on
the splash screen. I have loaded all the latest qt library, from the betas.
Since when is Gnome the standard? I normally use Gnome, but yesterday I gave the latest KDE2 beta a try, and whoa! It's great! Gnome has their work cut out for them.
"The Linux community, on the other hand, has gone from nowhere to a desktop market share comparable to the Mac's in three years flat." I think he should watch his language in many respects. Desktop market share usually implies a market group in which a desktop operating system is used. An example of this being Windows, Mac OS, BeOS, Linux WITH Gnome/KDE. Linux has a tiny desktop market share, and a proportionally very large server market share. Most Linux computers are not running in a desktop environment, rather in a server or development environment. To try and compare the two is like comparing Apples with Coca Cola, it makes no sense. Of similar note is this quite concerning obsession with Linux. Considering that OSX is based on the Mach kernel with an optional BSD layer I wonder why he sees that a UNIX operating system such as MacOSX cant success but a Linux one can. Remember my friend: Linux is not the only UNIX-style operating system out there. Naden www.it-guys.com
Funtage Factor: Purple
It is caught up in being 1337-- then you get out in the Real World, and find your skills don't get you respect. In fact, the whole attitude and posturing almost assures that you'll be thought of as a ego inflated loser.
*gel
my reaction was somewhat automatic, but i always think about things before i say them.
your post is very pretentious and annoying.. your phrasing gives me nausea.
i know exactly what he was saying and exactly what i said in response. there is a difference between exploring all the possibilities (which i agree, everyone should do), and going with alternatives just because that is what they are. ignoring mainstream simply because it is popular.
a lot of popular things are that way because they appeal to the lowest-common-denominator (jerry springer, celine dion, britney spears, nsync, et cetera..)
but there are things which are popular within their fields (red hat) which many people just dismiss because of that property. granted there are flaws and there are good reasons for going with other distros, but there are also good reasons for using red hat if that is what you want to do.
anyway i hope you got my point by now.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
get drunk
Why is everyone so concerned with Linux and Apple competing with each other? Frankly I would like if both could win. If Linux, Apple and Microsoft each had a 25% market share, with (insert your OS here) having the remaining quarter, I would be happy. They'd have to work interechangably, and competition would spark innovation (sorry Bill). Free Software is about Freedom, not destroying Microsoft or having your OS crush the competition. I greatly respect Apple, and as long as they make a profit off of their computers, they're going to innovate, and they're going to be a competing force in the industry.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Microsoft owns Apple (at least 10% of if, I heard). Microsoft is barely keeping Apple alive (releasing Word for Mac late, etc) so that they can claim Windows is not a monopoly, since Apple has a 10% market share.
If Linux never existed, Apple would hover at 10% of the Windows share forever, enough for MS to credibly claim that Windows is not a monopoly, yet not enough to be dangerous.
Now, with Linux out there, it's a whole new ballgame. I wonder what this year's Halloween memo will say.
was that supposed to be an attempt at satirizing me? it didn't work.
regardless, i was a bit harsh but my post was correct. i'm not analyzing trynig to figure out what their process was for thinking and doing what they do, they admit it was/is because everybody else does A, they do B... so there's no guesswork on my part.
i'm like flypaper for morons, i think.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
The important difference is that GNU/Linux *wants* to become the everyman's OS, whereas Mac OS users don't want that to happen. I should know: I'm a Mac user that jumps ship when Mac OS can't handle what I want to do. If Mac OS were in the position of Windows, I probably wouldn't use it. Talk to any Mac users and you'll notice right away that they have no interest in making everyone in the world us Mac OS, just the people who care enough about their experience to use Mac OS. In the past, this was the way with Linux, but now there are commercial interest trying to displace Windows, so we can bet the distro wars will flame up. I might keep using Debian or Slackware, whether they are the best or not, just becase everyone else on my street runs Red Hat or SuSE.
-- Gordon Worley
I may be reading this thread incorrectly, but I'm guessing that the "Intelligent self-criticism is not mudslinging" comment was directed at including Miguel amongst the mud-slingers. His criticisms of unix were directed at his platform-of-choice, not over the fence at a neighbor.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Ironically, Photoshop was first developed for use in the post-production of Cameron's "The Abyss." (IIRC it was used to help do the 'splash' effect when the water tentacle falls down)
I find it difficult to believe that people do not use Photoshop or similar image manipulation tools, along with a number of other tools, when working on movies. In the end, movies are just a large collection of stills.
(at the very least, I'd imagine that it's handy for cleaning up mattes)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm totally surprised by this article. Rather than predicting that Linux will destroy Apple's marketshare, I think that there is a reasonable argument the other way around.
I challenge you to look at Aqua and then look at GNOME or KDE. There is absolutely no comparison. Aqua is by far the most advanced GUI out there. Windows is lagging by at least 2 years and KDE and GNOME are, at minimum, 3 years behind. Obviously, Mac takes honors in this arena.
Then, look at the Kernel. I'm not well versed in the differences between BSD and Linux, but I do know that BSD is a popular and solid choice. Darwin, by all accounts, has inhereted all of the qualities that make BSD great.
Integration? Simplicity? Hmmm. Those things don't come to mind with any Linux flavour right now. Ugly RPM dependencies and installs and half-baked software. Don't get me wrong: I run Helix-Code and I love their update utility. But when's Linux going to have a solid e-mail client? Or a top-notch browser? Or even a decent Word processor? For geekier types (like me) Linux works just fine. But "just fine" doesn't cut it for the desktop market. Microsoft still has an edge in variety of software, but the new Apple platform could begin to woo developers. Where Apple has succeeded is in merging a rock solid kernel with an amazing interface. Wow!
So you've got an advanced desktop, a solid kernel, and seamless integration between the two. Sounds like a real challenge to both Linux and MSFT. Don't predict the death of Mac quite yet.
Invidia fortunum ovit.
Well of course it'll die. So will Linux and Windows someday.
I'm a big Mac user, and when I can get my hands on something better (e.g. non-homicidal desktop HAL 9000) I'll switch to it.
But yeah, there's been no reason so far to believe that Linux will take over the niche that the Mac occupies. Nor do I expect the Mac (or Windows or Linux) to die anytime soon.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The NeXT UI is far superior to both the traditional Mac UI and Aqua. But that's a matter of opinion. What I really fear is that Cocoa and Objective C won't get the attention they deserve. If they can create a strong and vibrant Cocoa developer base (a good possibility if they can hold the previous Mac OS developer community in tow) then GNUstep can thrive. MOSX success is important!
Here's why it matters what other people are using: support. A very good reason to not use something popular is that it makes you free from being asked to support it. "Gosh, I don't know anything about windows because I use linux" -- it may be an outright lie, but it's a damned good way to dismiss people who keep wanting to ask you "Hey, I've got this wierd problem with Outlook..."
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
..of people at work here.
most males like to stroke their own egos whenever they get the chance and brag about how long they've been using linux,.. but it's an entirely separate characteristic to be an asshole about it... so,..
i encourage my friends to give it a try, i know most of them would be happier spending most of their time on a linux partition for their web browsing, even a lot of their game playing,..etc.
the people who want to keep linux out of the mainstream are, i think, in the minority. they are just a very vocal minority.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Apple's operating system has a consistent, single, rational user interface; Linux does not have a consistent user interface (Gnome, KDE, etc.)
MacOS may have a single, rational user interface... but what it does not have is a particularly fast or flexible user interface.
Among my collection of computers, I have several Macs. I find the MacOS to be highly slow to use... not based on the speed of the computer, but based on how much mouse travel I need to do before the computer does what I want.
Key features missing from the MacOS GUI:
Context menus: A very nice thing. Something M$ got right. C'mon, Apple... 2 and 3 button mice have been around for years.
Menubars incorporated in windows: makes more sense than a single bar at the top where half the time you can't tell which application is currently in focus, due to ambiguities.
Those two features make an interface very fast to use... the MacOS has neither, and it's annoying. Apple may be innovative... but a key difference between Apple's products and other products is this: When Apple innovates, others copy. When others innovate, Apple stubbornly refuses to copy. That's why Apple is falling behind.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
"The windows UI is the most extensible UI. You can change it, hook onto it, write plugins for it, and even write scripts for it with DHTML/Javascript. On windows, apps like ICQ and winzip can add to context menus for example - something no other GUI shell has done anywhere near as well."
Mac OS also has the applity for apps Context (Control-Click) Menus to the desktop, as of Mac OS 8.0. Stuffit Deluxe, for example does that. Via. the template feature in KDE 1 you can also add apps own context menus (although this is limited). KDE 2 has even better support for this.
Mac OS since System 5.0, has supported extensions, which can replace any part of System code or ROM loaded into memory with your own version. This is possible to a lesser extent under Linux with kernel modules. Not to mention that higher levels of Linux are totally modular, you can replace bits and parts of them at almost any level (assuming you have permission).
Mac OS uses extensions instead of plugins, see above. They are far more powerful (and potentially dangerous). KDE 2 supports many forms of plugins, including kicker plugins, kwin plugins, filters, and the list goes on...
Linux nor Mac OS can not run scripts in DHTML/Javascript except using a browser. This is a good security pratice, in my experience. Plus they have their own scripting languages, for Linux it's perl (using perl bindings) or bash (using stuff like kwmcom or dcop command line app for GUI stuff), in Mac OS it's AppleScript (which can also do gui stuff).
Is that a fear of being pigeonholed or a dislike of communicating with Linux users? I don't understand choosing not to use something based on the behavior of others. For example, I think most people who have cellphones are pretty disrespectful of others -- have their ringer too loud, talk too loud, don't know when to turn the damn thing off -- but that didn't keep me from getting one for myself -- and using it how I feel is appropriate.
Still a lot of legacy uses for all of them. A lot of apps out there for the Mac that don't have commercial support on Linux. I use 'em both and have my preference depending on what I'm doing...Anyway...
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
Thanks for the Link. I heard about "rolling you own" before, but never went out of my way to give it a glance. I just might have to give this a shot.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
a *very* large collection of stills. using photoshop would be tedious. effects artists have a lot more powerful tools at their disposal for working on film/animation than photoshop.
maybe some still do, but i doubt it..
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Is this article really about Linux/MAC, or just another Gnome/KDE flamewar article?
...encouraged by the emergence of GNOME as the standard desktop environment for Linux and Unix
:-)
Hello, please check your facts? I thought KDE had some share too (not that I can support that with facts, but I guess *someone* must be using it, right?
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Just out of curiosity, what would you qualify as "colour perfect work"?
From my experience once you set up the appropriate ICC profiles for your various devices you are good to go. This can take some time and effort initially(you get out of it what you put into it).
As for ESRs comments, I don't think he was ever implying that GNU/Linux is more advanced than mac as far as UI goes, but rather that linux is potentially more of a threat to MS/windows.
- Toby
"GNOME as the standard desktop environment for Linux and Unix"
Huh? Whatever...
hate to burst your bubble there.
a lot of big name movies have been using linux for rendering...(Lord of the Rings was recently on
photoshop may run slightly better on macos than windows, maybe, i'm not sure, i wouldn't really be surprised, windows sucks,.. and i've heard differing opinions on whether the gimp is a good replacement for photoshop,.. but in any case, i don't care, because i don't use either. most people don't use either.
if macos really is that much better for that, fine go ahead, i doubt it is noticeable. it really comes down to personal preferrence. be a man and admit it. it's slower for everything else.. and unstable.
OS X will be an improvement... that brings me to a good point i haven't seen anywhere before, will Photoshop be available for OS X? if so, wouldn't that mean that photoshop has been/will be ported to BSD? how far away is a linux port then? does it exist?
i don't use photoshop, as i've said. so i don't know these things.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I tried very hard to replace the Mac OS with a PPC Linux, but encountered some huge stumbling blocks, to wit:
.pdf placed properly on a lett-sized sheet, couldn't get it to fit-to-page either---is Adobe Acrobat ever going to have a .ppc Linux binary?
- generic SCSI - doesn't work on G4s, so no Scanner
- smbfs - hard to find as a pre-compiled module, so no access to the NT Server directly
- no Appletalk client protocol AFAICT - so no accessing NT Appletask shares, or the other Macs directly
- Mac emulation limited - Mac on linux, www.maconlinux.org is still too slow for my purposes, while Executor www.ardi.com isn't out of beta yet for the PowerPC version.
- vector drawing quite primitive - Killustrator core dumped in just a few minutes of experimentation, while Sketch was a huge problem to install and once working had a not very efficient/elegant drawing UI (in comparison to, say FreeHand/Virtuoso, where with the pen tool selected, one can draw, move points (even as they're being placed), edit, etc. just by different modifier keys)
- pdf handling was kind of primitive, especially for printing, couldn't get the top part of a legal-sized
In the positive vein:
- it was nice to have a free TeX implementation
- LyX is awesome www.lyx.org
William
--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
http://members.aol.com/willadams
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
That is, in my humble and not-so-learned opinion, a trough of hog-wash.
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
In "The Good Ol' Days", it wasn't a two horse race. There was the PC, usually a clone running some form of DOS, and the much cheaper and powerful (in terms of stuff you could do with them) 68000 machines. The first and foremost of these was the Macintosh, which solidified and progressed the UI behind the Lisa. There was also the Amiga and the Atari ST. This was the golden age of computing, IMO, where technology leapt forward at a breakneck pace, feuled by competition and a desire to break existing boundaries.
After both Commodore and Atari went belly up (because of bad management rather than a loss of popularity or an inability to compete with Apple or Wintel), the industry =stagnated=.
For most of the nineties, we've been running in place. The last technical revolutions we've had were the Web and PDAs, and that's pretty sad considering both really made it to the bigtime in '95 or so. With Apple on the ropes and unable to actually market its innovative ideas, and Microsoft simply "embracing and extending" and potential competition to an early grave, the computer scene in the past ten years has been dull as dishwater. Open Source sprung into being as a direct response the the homogonization of the the digital age.
Linux is neither innovative nor progressive. It's "user surly" at best, it incorporates not one technology that others haven't invented or implemented better elsewhere, and it encourages the same sort of keyboard cowboys that kept DOS in the top slot despite the incredibly capable competition.
Linux, however, serves a purpose, and a valuable one. It is the Omega. Once Linux has a capability, there is no real point in charging for it. This means that software comapnies will have to keep pushing their technology forward...or they will be swallowed and destroyed by Linux and Open Source. This is a Good Thing, IMO, and something the industry has sorely, sorely needed for a long time. Linux is the predator,it thins the weak and the sick from the herd.
The Mac is a different sort of platform, used for different sorts of things. Linux is a server OS that's popular with hobbyists, and likely to remain that way because of the culture around it. However, as "competition to Redmond", Linux wins hands down. Apple, with its history of breaking new ground, really has nothing to fear from Linux, but Microsoft, the previous "Nifty Idea, let's steal it!" champs are facing more than their match with Linux.
SoupIsGood Food
rendering is sheer processor work, there is not much in the way of image manipulation, only math
thank you captain obvious!
hmm i can post at 2 if i want to,.. who's the troll here, again?
i am not 'attacking', i am discussing rather energetically... you have yet to see me attack
now exactly what in my post implied that rendering was anything
nothing. you just can't read between the lines, i didn't say it explicitly, so you assumed i meant otherwise.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
And by what authority was GNOME declared "the standard desktop environment for Linux and Unix" anyway? Their own press releases?
---------
As someone who has used Macs, UNIX and Windows machines (only played with Linux for about 10 minutes) I am frustrated with all platforms. If OSX does not come out soon I will puke. Mac power users need protected memory. I wish Apple had updated this first then worked on the GUI with OSX.
.dll hell.
Windows stinks for working with graphics files and has a crappy GUI (IMHO). On the plus side Win NT has protected Memory and plenty of software availability. It is still
Linux is pretty darned cool, but there are certain apps not available that I want to run (Photoshop, Adobe Imagestyler, selection of browsers, iMovie).
The Mac has a great GUI, most of the apps one would need and is a killer digital video editing package.
Now if someone can combine the best parts in a damned system I will be a loyal customer. To date with all of the technology we are not quite there yet.
Lastly, if OS X goes off schedule anymore then next year's purchase will be a dual boot Windows NT (or 2000) and Linux machine. Protected memory all around, an evolving Linux OS, plenty of apps and maybe a few headaches compared to the easy to work with Mac system folder.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Rendering with linux is just used for pure grunt work, theres no guy sitting at the screen using gimp to render millions of frames. Its probably being done using software developed in-house like titanic did.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I enjoy using Linux, but have to laugh at this. As a regular Linux user, I can state for a fact that Linux is not even HALF as useable as a Mac. Linux is going to need YEARS of development before it catches up to the mainstream OSes of Mac and Windows in terms of productivity and useability.
This is a simple fact that anyone can see if they put a newbie in front of 3 different OSes and ask them to name which ones are their favorite.
This distinction seems thinner to me than this article makes it out to be, but it's interesting to note the possibility of machines running Linux outnumbering Apples running Mac OS
Yes, just about everyone has a Linux machine running somewhere on their network... acting as a server or ip masq box, but as a desktop? Mac kicks Linux's ass in that department... and let's be honest - so does Windows.
My message to ESR: Stop acting as if you speak for the entire Linux community... you're just embarrassing us.
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
"If you have a Mac or Windows and you want a new desktop you need a new OS or a new computer. "
that depends what you mean by "desktop"
litestep and others provide alternate shells.
oh come on, you have to know better lines than that by now...
'Was?! Ich kannst nicht English gesprecht!' (language of your choice, preferrably with proper grammar
'i would help you with that problem, but you see, i'm busy working on my site... www.hotchickswithmonkeys.com, maybe you'v seen it?'
'i'm sorry, i swore an oath and if i touch a windows machine i have to hold my hands into a flame for three hours to cleanse my flesh of the evil.'
while funny that argument is not valid!
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
There is no such thing like Office 98 for Windows. Office 98 (and 2001) is Mac-only.
Windows has Office 97 and 2000 (and I bet they were first for Windows...).
"... Enlightenment window manager has ...",
I use enlightenment, eterm nicely shows the desktop but completely ignores anything that sits between your terminal window and the desktop. So, nice rip off but not fully implemented yet.
"It may not occur now or even in 6 more months"
Make that 6 years. I've heard that 'it's coming, the new and improved version is just around the corner' a bit too often. It will probably come but currently there are significant issues: there is no GUI standard to which you can develop applications, there are two mostly incompatible candidates for this standard that are currently engaging in mud fighting.
Jilles
care to elaborate? which post are you replying to,.. mine? the one(s) that were moderated down?
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
thanks
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
You have translucent plastic furniture in your living room? Sorry, I couldn't resist :)
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
First of all people use Macs because it's easier. I've used GNOME and (shudder)KDE. GNOME is nice. Nice for a Linux GUI. It plain blows for the average Joe and Sally.
Linux will never be the desktop OS for everyone. The Linux community has always said that that was the inevitable result. But the only thing keeping that reality from happining is the Linux community itself. I've seen cases in geek meetings where a newbie would ask a question about Linux and get pounced on as a lamer. Hardly conducive to encourage someone to use Linux.
Now some of you will say "But those were just a few bad apples." I say that it is, unfortunatly, a majority of Linux folks.
As for the numbers that there will be more Linux users than Mac users, I ask "What kinda of users?". With Linux generally being free or at least fairly cheap. Most of those users are people who are just trying the OS out. They will dig around a bit and come to one of two conclusions. One, theres not Microsquish apps here. We'll go back. Or two, this is clumsy better go back to Winblows or MacOS.
These are the people that is currently and temporarily driving this number that is being ballyhooed by the Linux community.
I use Linux, MacOS, Solaris and unfortunaly Win 95/98/NT. With the exception of the last I like them all. I have never been a fan of blind OS zealotry and I don't need to hear more from the Linux camp.
-- What's this '-r *' file doing here? -- Oh well, a simple 'rm' should do the trick.
I think you are falling prey to the "everyone is like me" assumption, which when it comes to computers just isn't true. Not everyone has the intelligence, persistence, or curiosity to care about the intricacies of their computer hardware or software - they just want to use it like they use their microwave or dishwasher. Computers are just now passing between the "hobbyist" and "appliance" stage, as demonstrated by the current round of idiot boxes that rhyme with "hijack."
/. members talk about Linux vs. Mac is a little like listening to a group of auto freaks make fun of the losers who buy those silly pre-built cars.
True, many kids will grow up with a far deeper connection to the computer and the logical thinking that understanding such devices demands, but there will always be the non-power users who simply don't care to learn. It's kind of like cars today - personally, but I don't give a tinker's damn about my car or how it runs. Let someone else take care of changing the oil, tires, and fluids - I'm not interested. Listening to
Don't forget that the voice of the typical Mac home user is way underrepresented on these boards - they're just not interested in this stuff like we are. So a lot of this boils down to a one-sided discussion where the mechanics all decide they must be right since nobody seems to be disagreeing.
Was that out loud?
I agree that the "popular == bad" mentality is elitist and stupid (although not always wrong). However, that's not what the OP was saying. Quote: "In the past, this was the way with Linux, but now there are commercial interest trying to displace Windows, so we can bet the distro wars will flame up."
He's not saying that "Linux was cool until it 'sold out', man". He's saying "People starting to use Linux because it's right for them is good, people starting to use Linux because a marketing beast told them to is wrong." I agree with this statement.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I use Linux machines everyday at work, and some of them are replacing NT servers, and that is all well and good. We also have a Linux box which we use to install and look at all the beta stuff, last week we downloaded the offering from Eazel, and I have to say that, that is total crap, Oh look you can make the icons bigger, and have different icons, so what, seen it all before. As for Linux being a desktop solution, you people must be joking, just look at the linux GUI it really is poor, everything looks so basic and crap, just take a look at a popup menu, what the hell is that, was that drawn by a child or what. Yeah Linux is free, it's open source, it might bring down M$, and that is all well and good, but you people have to clear the red mist from your eyes and actually look at what is on your screens, it is very basic and shite. As for Linux taking more market share than Mac OS well, hello, it's free, so why wouldn't you try it out, everyone likes to get something for nothing these days, look at the success of Napster. Linux as a back room server solution is excellent, but as for putting it on 1000's of end users desks, stop dreaming!!
the Parent link is a wonderful thing
*gives self a DopeSlap(tm)*
silly rabbi, kicks are for trids!
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Anyway, there's more here, though I rather liked Captain Scarlet better. OTOH, if you want a really cheesy cartoon theme song, try Gigantor. ;)
SIG
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Amen.
.. at least for the next month.
anyway, back to the topic at hand,..
none of his points are interesting, i addressed his post very well. a point of note, which is useful, especially when reading my posts in particular: lots of swearing != temper tantrum,.. some of us just talk like sailors sometimes.
i didn't 'talk about nirvana', there's a thing called an analogy wihch you might want to look up,..
yes, it is too bad. oh well... i still have 4 good CDs to listen to!
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Linux is not a desktop operating system, or at least not in the foreseable future. A good desktop requires a commercial-grade operation like the kind Microsoft or Apple can provide. Open source encourages bug-fixing and feature-adding, but not interface polishing and consistency checking. You think I'm lying? Try and get a band of OS coders to invent the successor to (not just a clone of) Quartz and Aqua. It'll never happen.
Linux (like most UNIX variations and clones) is however, good for serving and nerding. So if Linux is going to spread anywhere, it will be to the back offices of corporations, and onto the desktops of the tech staff. And this is precisely where it will benefit Mac OS.
How?
1. Platform independence. You don't have Windows servers anymore, so why should you limit yourself to Windows clients? There'll be no more reasons to force the graphics dept to switch platforms.
2. Platform independence, the circular theory. If a company is using a non-mainstream solution in one area, they are more likely to consider a non-mainstream solution in another.
3. Mac OS X is built upon a UNIX variant. This might not turn out to be a significant advantage, rit might turn out to be a godsend for UNIX-served environments.
Hmmm
--
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
This assumes that to use a desktop computer, you have to be an idiot. I don't consider myself an idiot, therefore Linux makes perfect sense to be on my desktop. As far as I'm concerned, the idiots can rot with their MS software. (So, I'm an elitist. Can you name many Linux users who aren't?)
The claim that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" is completely unfounded. Some people aren't ready for Linux, but there's lots of proof that Linux is a great desktop OS. (Try talking to the people who really do use linux. No, not the dual-booting "I use Linux 'cause Windoze sux, but I still need it to play games and read Word documents and run Visual Basic..." The people who actually use and like it on their desktops.)
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Ok, if your goal is to take over Microsoft, why is the Linux camp fighting with the Mac camp?
:)
Kind of pathetic, really.
Although the Mac does kind of suck.
Solution to X problem. Distributions can make easier to use tools to fix this. XF86Setup is ok but could be better. XConfigurator is pretty decent too. Well it is true that on the install of Mandrake and Red Hat that you get the choice to Configure X. I do agree that gettting X up on my Slack box was a pain with the particulars of Video card and monitor specs. Maybe some better autodection and support of Generic Cards/Monitors would do the trick for that.
Just a Thought
-The good humor man can be pushed only so far
Let's face it; the Apple platform is "a noble but doomed cause." Apple doomed itself when it refused to open its hardware so that so-called Apple clones could enter the marketplace. By trying to keep a solid lock on both the hardware and software side of the machines, Apple signed its own death certificate. Other companies have tried this is the past, i.e. IBM and OS2/WARP, and they have failed miserably. Even IBM, as set in their ways as they are, was smart enough to realize that trying to monopolize both the hardware and operating system of a computer is a futile take. Not to mention that Microsoft, as evil as they are, never attempted to do this.
..to call people morons
i can be harsh but, the stupidity displayed by many people is very grating so, i'm just giving what i get
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
::Linux, on the other hand, hasn't really changed a thing. It has given us an alternative, and a good one at that.
:so why is the phrase "open source software" one of the most popular buzzwords nowadays?
You are putting the Apple cart in front of the horse, and expecting to have the horse pull the cart.
"Open Source software" has existed for YEARS before Linus T. took minix and re-worked it as Linux. Before a 'marketing label' was applied to it, "Open Source" was BSD licenced, BSD licenced with an AT&T source licence, GPLed, or posted to comp.sources with a copywrite notice and not much else.
Open Source is the big event. Linux happens to be the most visable part of Open Source. But without all the BSD, GPL, X11, Artistic licenced, (blah blah blah) parts that are glued together in the Linux distro of the week, Linux is just a kernel that sits there and does very little useful stuff.
If you have some kind of timeline showing no GPL, no BSD, no X11, no artistic licence existing before the Linux kernel sprung forth from the forehead of Linus, I'd love to see this.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
You know you obviously don't have any patience, money, time, or idea of what sells to the consumer. Showmanship and radical new ideas are very catchy, and have been instrumental in netting Apple's 8th profitable quarter. Also they don't give a crap about you. If I were you I wouldn't complain a bit. I bought a Blue and White G3... no SCSI (so I bought the LVD 9GB BTO option... solved and cheap). I also added the $49 SCSI-2 card for low speed periphs...(get this I didn't even have a bunch of legacy periphs...my first mac), but it's still cheap. USB to serial... no problem, and it works better than serial by itself since there are no annoying serial lock-ups and 63 devices possible per port.. same with firewire... (SCSI isn't hot-pluggable). With users like you we would be using parallel ports well into 2020. Floppy? Crap! by a SuperDisk and plug it in... still cheap, but now you can use SuperDisks (these even work nicely with VirtualPC). You certainly can't boot MacOS off a floppy anymore, so they are useless... (Zips are far more ubiquitous in the Mac World... and still totally supported)
I'm seriously considering selling off all of my Mac hardware(4 Machines and lotsa goodies) and going to x86-Linux/*BSD as my main OS. I'm tired of being fucked over by Apple.
Good for you, maybe someone will make a nicer home for your hardware unless you haven't bought a new mac since the 68k days. BTW I have a dual Pro running BSD and Win2K Prof... it's nice... but I never use it. OS X is my OS of choice, and 9.0.4 when I need to burn CD's or scan. With computers you get what you pay for, spend some money or live with your hardware. I personally prefer my nice brand-new cruft-free mac to nursing along a constantly upgraded PC or mac.
rendering is most definitely not image manipulation! and nobody uses image manipulation in movies and such,.. photoshop is fine for magazine ads, any kinds of stills basically... look i know a
you misunderstood my last line,.. i do not know about the things i was asking questions about,.. the details of photoshop.
anyway, try reading a little more carefully.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Cite? I keep hearing this, but I haven't seen any real numbers. Sure, there are rc5 blocks/sec and SETI rates, but that's not why I buy computers. So who has task-specific numbers comparing LinuxPPC and x86? Like kernel rebuilds, X benchmarks, TPC, etc.
What I'd really like is a price/performance chart for both platforms, but I'll settle for even a few data points.
Lapping is what happens when one racer is one full lap ahead of another on a circuit. I don't know how many laps there are in the race of personal computer OS usage, but I'm pretty sure that simply managing to catch up to Apple's 5% market share or their somewhat higher share in the installed base doesn't qualify.
Since this isn't a linear race to a finish line, but a nonlinear race to achieve 100% control, I think it's reasonable to describe a lap as doubling the adoption of a competitor. By this figure of merit, MacOS and Linux are about even, WinNT is around one lap ahead, Win95 and Win98 are on the order of three laps ahead, and everyone else is just struggling off the starting line. If the race ever ends, it will probably be when one product is more than 6 laps (64x adoption) ahead of its closest competitor.
Linux isn't going to steal many desktops from the Mac until it is backwards-compatible with the very, very expensive* software base that the real Mac user base has already bought, and the Mac isn't going to steal any rack space from Linux boxes, even with OS X. Three little words: "orthogonal problem spaces."
*Even free software won't change the cost-of -compatibility issue. You already know this if you've ever tried to train a designer. Sure, you can save $1000 or more for Quark + Photoshop licenses, but you will spend a lot of time training, and you will lose $50 - $200 (or more) in billable hours for every hour a designer or Photoshop guy spends not doing production on top of the considerable cost of the training itself.
PrimalChrome
Absurd example if you know how Windows does this (you are in a maze of twisty little CLSIDs).
But then, this was a troll.
..is called 'clarification',.. it's required for twinkies like you who like to nitpick.
yes i am done with this because you are boring me with your silliness.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
5%? On behalf of Microsoft, I would like to thank you for continuing to spread FUD about Apple. Our propaganda must be working. What is your source for that number?
If linux has such a better share than that, then how come classroom computer labs across the country have what seems like a good supply of macs? There are entire mac labs on campus here. I can't say that there are any Linux labs. At least macs are being USED by people. I'd say that the large portion of linux boxes that are "threatening" microsoft's market share are doing the same thing that my linux box is doing, sitting in the basement serving web pages, not sitting on my desk.
I have no biases--I've got NT5, Linux, and an Mac g4 sitting side by side on the desk. Linux and NT5 are an order of magnitude more stable than the Mac, and much easier to develop software for--one mistake doesn't bring down the whole OS.
I think Linux will kill the Mac, not Microsoft! -- ib
--- Speaking only for myself,
Kinda biased don't ya think?
One guy a devoted open source Linux myrmidon and the other an ex-Apple employee saying Apple is irrelevant???? The next time I want to know which airline is best I'll just ask one of them to critique someone else. Honestly does anyone think Mac is a serious contender to overtake anyone? For the past what, 10 years Apple has tried to hold its own with the claim that they are not somebody else. Along comes a bunch of poorly funded attempts like BeOS that say - "we're like Apple only, not, or better, or something...!" Apple is great for people who like Apple and use it.
OK, first off, I use Mac OS-9, Mac OS-X DP4 and Linux. I also use NT4 SP5 at work. Just to state my personal bias out front, I prefer to use the Mac OS for daily use.
What ESR does not egt is that Apple is NOT a competitor to Windows in the same way that Linux is. The normal rules of competition do not apply. The reason is simply that Apple is a Hardware company.
Windows has always had competition. They have all (so far) failed. Forgive in advance my simplificatin below...but it does have a point:
Late 80s Microsoft faced DR-DOS and Mac OS. Guess which is still here. Mid 90's Windows faced Mac OS and OS/2. Guess which is still here. Late 90s Windows faced BeOS and Mac OS. Guess which is still here. Late 90s and early 2ks, Windows is facing Linux and Mac OS.
I am not predicting doom...but that Linux is another x86 OS may not necessarily make it easier to face Redmond.
Cheers,
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Most businesses don't survive when they believe their customers are morons.
Do you work in retail? If you did you'd know that MANY people out there are. I'd say that it's a minority of all customers, but they're still out there.
Why should you have to click some things twice and other things once?
One click in the finder to select an icon. Sometimes you want to open an app or a document, sometimes you just want to select them to move them or to get info. In a web browser why would you want to click more than once?
If the MacOS was modern, the user's wouldn't have to worry about application memory when they hid the app, it would swap to disk and essentially be completely gone the way he wanted.
It should only be swapped to disk if that memory was needed by another program, not just because it's hidden.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"But he saved the best for last. In a ground breaking decision, Jobs announced an alliance with Microsoft. In exchange for $150 million in Apple Stock, Microsoft and Apple would have a 5-year patent cross-license and, more importantly, a final settlement in the ongoing GUI argument. Microsoft agreed to pay an unreleased sum of additional funds to quiet the allegations that it had stolen Apple's intellectual property in designing its Windows OS. Microsoft also announced that Office '98, its popular office package, would be available for the Mac by years end."
So in other words... M$ gave out a bag of dough and other stuff to Apple in return for stock that was basically worthless- not to "keep Apple afloat", but rather to save their own thieving arses from getting sued by the People's Champ. :)
D
The MIX takes care of the duties of rackmount effects modules, the mixing deck, while the hard drive takes care of storage. In the past, if you added a reverb, compressor or other rackmount to the audio chain, a bit of analogue hiss and hum got into the mix. ProTools is awesome because it's digital all the way.
Most of the time, the end result is burned onto a CD-R. That means once the audio goes out of the mic pre-amp, it gets converted to digital and *stays* digital.
And you're right, the NT version sucks badly. I don't know why Digidesign put their name on it.
--
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
i was countering their mac photoshop vs. the gimp point, turdburglar!
wake uP! hello!
yes your karma is very low and you seemed quite proud of it in your sig so i assume you must have trolled in the past and you seem to be doing so now.. you're not even really reading the thread, you're just blathering.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Really? I hope so (on the point of users understanding computers better in the next generation), but I really see this population dwindling more and more every day. Computers are being stressed upon every day to be bigger, badder, cuter idiot boxes. People want to learn less and less about how to use them. There will always be the tinkerers (both clued and non-clued), but now that the computer market virtually includes sea slugs, I don't see the sea slugs miraculously becoming dolphins (not for many generations at least)...re. Darwin :-) The Mac, and then misc' WAP devices, etc. will hang around for a long time.
Actually, I'm not sure if the point was clearly expressed by Bongo.
If everyone is conformist, then the first threat to attack the conforming trait wipes out nearly everyone. It doesn't matter if it's genes, fads, appearance, behavior, etc. If *everyone* eats rice, a rice crop failure significantly affects *everyone*. Diversity is a benefit then in reducing risks (which is an old meme in the stocks/bonds game)
So people like redbird(even though I agree his *reasoning* is stupid) isn't all that useless. They may not be able to understand their choices, so they make dumb reasons without making dumb choices. Logic fails them (gosh, I sound patronizing. Gomen!) where intuition doesn't. Without redbird and crew, there would not be the small core of anti-fashionable people to take up the arms when the fashionable people all bite it. Say everyone uses NT, but redbird uses Linux cuz it's different. Ooh, outlook virus wipes out half the PCs in the world, but redbird gets to stay alive cuz he was different. Or somethine like that ^^
So blast him for his logic, I agree with that, but not for trying to be different. It's a survival technique that works, even if it isn't nearly as efficient as flocking/schooling/conforming.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
I read the story last week, but the group which annoited Gnome the default hasn't actually done any work on it. I'd rather see what, if anything comes of that. I'm surprised to see so many Linux spokesmen jumping to conclusions. It's no where near time to start planning the wake, guys.
-----------------------------
1,2,3,4 Moderation has to Go!
If I ever acquired a G4 cube, I would re-enact the end of Duke Nukem 3D. I would set up the cube on a tee, and punt it between the uprights.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Funny, and I thought the Linux movement was all about choice.
Yes, Linux is currently more competition than Apple is. That does not warrant the "Apple is doomed" sentiment. Is there no room for more than one OS? If so, see ya *BSDs...
Remember that everyone complains about MS because they have a monopoly. There are other ways of doing OS's. Multiple OS's will be able to survive if MS is kicked out off their throne.
I think that Apple is good for the Linux/*BSD movement. We have an example of one possible easy to use system.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
... ESR manages to step on a few toes but he makes some good points. Watch out ESR, those mac zealots are more rabid than the linux ones! ;) If Macs were going to take over the computing world they would have done it by now.
One quote that had me saying "huh?@?" was:
"Stone agreed with Hertzfeld that the Mac is a niche, but neither has given up on the platform. "We (Mac users) are Unix too, we are open too, and we have a good GUI already. I can only say, buy Apple stock now," he said."
"we are open too"? does anyone care to enlighten me as to what he was referring to?
- Toby
that diversity is bad. it is a good thing... i think i said that somewhere in this thread.
his thought process is *all* i was blasting him for
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
How different are the two anyways?
Funny and I thought Perl == Paid employment recently located
you are reading a good message out of a bad post... i don't think that was his point at all, i stand by my original post.
i agree with what you say, but i don't think that is what he was saying.
wow that's pretty obtuse but there it is.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
:1/ Mac OS X Server is not Mac OS X.
Given you have 2/ wrong (at least according to the offical Apple PDF) I'm betting you have this wrong also.
Go look at the PDF. it shows 2 platforms.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Apple will sell OSX machines because of the following, in order of importance:
- Their loyal fanbase
- The GUI
- The nice cases
Why waste resources developing stuff not on that list?
They could buy stock x86 PC's, put them in pretty-coloured cases and load them up with Linux + their nice window-manager ported onto Linux.
Apple no longer has to design and manufacture PCs from scratch, nor do they have to get their hands dirty writing a full-on OS (although it's a bit late for that). In fact, they get SGI actively working to improve *their* kernel!
Their fanbase will only care that what they're getting looks, feels and smells like an Apple machine and is considerably cheaper than normal.
Linux gets yet another major company invested in improving Linux.
This is exactly what every non-zealot has been saying for the last year. Linux has quickly turned into a FUD machine as bad (if not worse) than Microsoft.
Another thing missing from FreeBSD, SMP performance. This is coming from a guy with PIII 866x2 and an Abit BP6 with 466x2. When 5.0 STABLE comes out then I will switch. :^) But this whole thread is offtopic!
You started out with some good points, but you have degenerated into a TROLL!!
/.
If you are BORED with computers, and simply just want to look at pr0n and play games (as you say), then quit harping on other peoples good time.
Joe
--
I have a thick skin, so feel free to debunk and tear down
everything I said -- Rumble on
To me (a Mac user since 1984), both Linux and MacOS are valid options depending on purpose. Whereas MacOS is not technically superior, the user interface design is - much more so than Gnome or KDE, which suffer deeply for trying to be look-and-feel-compatible with that disaster of user interface design, Windows.
So what if the Mac is slow and unstable, as long as its design makes me faster and more productive? When I need a GUI, I want something that's good at it, not something that tries very hard and fails.
Linux will be a serious contender to the Macintosh when the KDE and Gnome people learn something about user interface design. It might happen. Then again, it might not.
I never feel that I need a command line interface when I'm on a Mac, as I do when I'm on Windows or Linux (OK, Linux is for those cases when I want the power of command line interfaces, when stability and sheer speed matter, etc).
For gaining control of a Mac there's a lot of stuff one needs to know. Getting under the hood is now problem if one knows how.
-- Rolf Lindgren, cand.psychol
and it is most definitely not me vs. everyone else, there's about 3 people who have attacked me, you being one of them.
i was ridiculous in that last post and have been in the last few because you guys have run out of things to say so, i was hoping to get the argument to drop...
anyway, i don't care, you all agree with me you just don't realize it.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I agree. Seriously, Photoshop filter times are VERY important. I work in the publishing industry and we've DRAMATICALLY improved our efficiency by using G4 processors. When I'm using a 2.5 GIGAbyte file in Photoshop and it takes 15 minutes normally to apply a particular filter, but only takes 2 minutes on my G4, BELEIVE ME, I fall in love with the Mac more every time. So it is very serious.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Agreed, but can I jump over to it as a desktop system? I know there are people that have. For my needs will it run photoshop, iMovie and other apps in its current state? I ask in all honesty because I considered this at one point, but could not compile the necessary info.
I wish this is what Apple did for their desktop right off the bat instead of only the server.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Although I still use Microsoft products, I much prefer Unix. Yes, I am not the average user, however, as the GUI and installation improves, users will migrate (although) slowly toward lower cost (free) software. Mass movement will only come as software vendors move their products over. We see more and more of this happening every day. The rollercoaster has just started going down the first drop!
There are just as good tools out there, and in fact some of them even blow ProTools away...
Examples:
Ensoniq Paris
SEK'd Samplitude
MOTU 2408-based system
All it would take is for Motu to port it's AudioWire drivers to Linux (not unfathomable) or at the very least, MacOSX, and a system as comparable as ProTools would be within the reach of any Linux user.
Even Ensoniq could do it for Paris - their hardware design would make it very easy to do this...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
In my opinion, Linux is definitely a bigger driving force in the industry than Macintosh is right now, however, this does not speak for the most important factor: useability. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and I have it installed on 2 machines at home, but the average user does not care about performance, stability, scalability, or even security (beyond an install of McAfee with 6-month old virus definitions).
That being said, Macintosh is still an easier to use system out of the box than any Linux distro. Maybe someday soon GNOME will make Linux easy enough to use for the average person, but for now Mac will continue to keep it's head above the water...barely...
are you some alternate personality of mine? no i didn't think so. then you cannot know if i don't do as i said.
i
the nausea is because you are very pretentious and your phrasing is a stupid person's attempt at sounding intelligent. it makes my stomach churn.
you challenging my thought processes is like a butterfly trying to stop a 777 from taking off.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
On the Mac you can't see the full filename, you can't increase the size of the dialog, you cant re-sort the files by size/date/name, you can't create directories or delete files etc.
I really hate to feed trolls, but this particular statement some people still believe.
FYI, all of the above and a great deal more comes with using Navigation Services, which has been around since 8.0 and is no longer optional under Carbon.
Granted several common applications still don't use it, but that's their fault for not adopting a technology shipped with the System for over two years now. And unless they want to ship Classic-only apps for OS X, they'll have to get a clue soon.
With the advent of Mac OSX, isn't this now a challenge between Linux and BSD? Both will use window managers to hide most of the low level portions (I can say for a fact most users won't use it), so it will be interesting to see what will come out of all this.
Unfortunately (disclaimer, I use FreeBSD and Linux), I don't see FreeBSD ever surpassing Linux.
I see a lot of people move from Windows to Linux, they want a more powerful operating system, they want to learn UNIX, they have slower hardware, they want fewer crashes. There is a lot of books, web pages and user groups available to help them do this.
There aren't as many resources available for move a user from Windows to FreeBSD. You almost need to be an experience Linux/UNIX user to get to FreeBSD.
There aren't many advantages to move from Linux to FreeBSD, and several disadvantages. The only advantages I can think of are greater TCP/Ip performance, and the ports selection. Unless you're running yahoo, you probably wouldn't notice the greater performance FreeBSD would give you.
Disadvantages include fewer resources, and less software, though FreeBSD will run most Linux binaries.
In a nutshell, there are lots of reason to move from Windows to Linux, but few to move from Linux to FreeBSD.
Everyone wants to look like xerox mac was just the first to rip them off.
-Compenguin
either it's good or it's not. either it does what you want or it doesn't.
Actually, if the author knew what he was talking about, this would read "either it's good for the purpose it's serving or it's not."
Different operating systems serve different purposes. I wouldn't want to serve up web pages on the Macintosh, nor would I want to give Linux to my mother--two different operating systems with two different sets of strengths and weaknesses which make them ideal in two different circumstances.
"Maybe it's just us, but that sounds like a deliriously naïve oversimplification to us-- and we love oversimplifications. The fact that Linux appeared in a market vacuum of hardcore geeks just waiting for a product that satisfied their noblest nerdy instincts hardly signals a death knell for a platform that holds elegance, attention to detail, and ease of use above all other concerns. Whether or not you consider it a good thing, we strongly suspect that non-geeks will outnumber the geeks for many more years to come-- and meanwhile, Mac OS X is barreling down on the future like a freight train. Or at least like a freight train moving really slowly. It's still going to arrive before the geek shall inherit the earth, though.
Hey, we have nothing against Linux. We like Linux. Some of our best friends use Linux. But we've used Linux, too, not all that long ago, and frankly, it's still got a ways to go before our parents are going to feel comfortable running out and buying a consumer computer running Red Hat. We don't relish the idea of explaining the syntax of chmod and major and minor device numbers in device files to an audience that, on the whole, can't even figure out how to get their VCRs to stop blinking '12:00' without covering the display readout with electrical tape. The average shmoe is still going to reach for Windows; the average shmoe who does his homework is going to reach for a Mac. As for Linux, call us when our moms can use it."
Burn Hollywood Burn
I've tried a number of different window managers on it (windowmaker, afterstep, fvwm2, blackbox, etc.), and the best thing i've found so far is Enlightenment 0.16.4 w/ the Aqua theme (it has no window borders, which makes screen refreshes a lot quicker. It also looks pretty spiffy.). Enlightenment, with all the special effects turned off and without sound (i compiled it without EsounD) is really fast. I can use licq/wordperfect eight/etc. at reasonable speeds. I tried to load Gnome once... i think i saw blood start to flow from the vents of my machine and it started to scream at me to stop the pain...
Now, there is something about Enlightenment/Windowmaker/Afterstep that i really like (and is the reason i run litestep on my windows box). Personally, i find the desktop concept becomes really cluttered and ugly. I like it a lot better having all kinds of menus of programs, and having the desktop just for my programs and a nice background, and not all kinds of icons. Additionally, the flexability of E (and X in general), being able to easily customize the interface to my exact desire (with customizable themes, menus, window behaviour, virtual desktops, and so on) makes using something less flexable almost painful. Again, my personal taste.
Now, time for a statement on the topic... hmph, well, I've played with the MacOS X developers releases. Personally, i'd rather run Linux + X + aqua theme, but for people who use a computer as a means and not an end, I think MacOS X is seriously a Good Thing. It has the sweet goodness of being based on BSD (proper working multitasking, for one thing), while delivering the easyness of being a Mac. Personally, i hate MacOS 9.x and below and would rather run Windows (and i am typing this on an iBook in MacOS 9.0.4), but MacOS X seems to be far better then either for the home user market. If they made it for the x86 platform, i'm sure it would seriouly challange windows. On the other hand, perhaps it will cause a surge in sales of Apple hardware (which seems to be pretty good from my experimentation with LinuxPPC and Yellowdog)
anyways, enough out of me. if you made it this far, thanks for reading. ;^)
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
these are the words of a moron :
The important difference is that GNU/Linux *wants* to become the everyman's OS, whereas Mac OS users don't
want that to happen. I should know: I'm a Mac user that jumps ship when Mac OS can't handle what I want to do.
If Mac OS were in the position of Windows, I probably wouldn't use it. Talk to any Mac users and you'll notice
right away that they have no interest in making everyone in the world us Mac OS, just the people who care enough
about their experience to use Mac OS. In the past, this was the way with Linux, but now there are commercial
interest trying to displace Windows, so we can bet the distro wars will flame up. I might keep using Debian or
Slackware, whether they are the best or not, just becase everyone else on my street runs Red Hat or SuSE.
'i do it because everyone else doesn't!'
are you, by any chance, 12 years old? what the fuck does it matter what everyone else does? do you think somehow that makes you unique? no, it does not. you aren't *doing* anything new, you're merely attempting (feebly) to be different.
this is the philosophy of morons. like when nirvana became popular and suddenly a lot of 'fans' abandoned them. 'well now EVERYBODY likes them! i only liked them 'coz nobody else knew about them!' that's pure stupidity!
either it's good or it's not. either it does what you want or it doesn't.
fads and anti-fads are things for imbeciles to worry about.
i can say bye-bye to my karma but i think this needed to be said, and i do NOT think it is flamebait.
i've always used linux because it runs faster than windoze, and more stably as well. i do not use macos because it is restrictive, ugly and slow. (though i'm sure many mac zealots will disagree.)
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Great,
it's bad enough that Linux wishes it was a real operating system. But now, Linux advocates need to put down other platforms as a way to boost their own platform up.
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
The only way Linux will be a great operating system is for it to SHIP something stable that all will use without pause. Linux 2.2 and 2.4 were both very late.
And we're all tired of the "it's in the new version of Linux that might ship soon" when making feature comparisons to other platforms. This smacks of someone saying "the check is in the mail".
I've been using Linux for many years, and I think it's a great solution to many computing problems, but Linux isn't better because we put down other systems. Indeed, stories like this make Linux users look like a bunch of dorks.
The irony is that both Mac and Linux could learn lots from each other. Macintosh has alway has the easiest system for new users to get their heads around and Linux has the zeitgeist.
I credit Macs with learning that they should probably be unix under the hood and I applaud them for making the move. It's been a long road and they finally made the right call.
Linux has been slower to respond to obvious issues of usability. Still labled a "geek OS" by the masses, it can't pass the Granda test.
After Mac OS X, you'll have a reliable, unix based OS with first in class usability. Took them over 15 years, but hey... Linux has time to catuch up.
You know you obviously don't have any patience, money, time, or idea of what sells to the consumer.
So a shiny turd is more marketable than a dull diamond in your mind?
Also they don't give a crap about you.
I've noticed. That's why they'll get no more of my money.
If I were you I wouldn't complain a bit.
They love people like you in jail. Anal rape again? No problem, you'll find the silver lining.
With users like you we would be using parallel ports well into 2020.
What reason is there not to? Parallel is good for many things. Fine, you'll get no arguement that USB is better, as long as there is a segment of the user base who wants/needs it, it's fucked up to cut them off.
You certainly can't boot MacOS off a floppy anymore, so they are useless.
Is booting the only thing that floppys are good for? I just transported my research paper to and from school multiple times per week on a 1.44 meg floppy. I got a B in that class, so I guess the floppy isn't all that useless after all.
I personally prefer my nice brand-new cruft-free mac to nursing along a constantly upgraded PC or mac.
That says a lot more about you than it does about the hardware.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
> he even bothered to take part in a discussion around here?
Don't hold your breath: Advogato: Personal info for esr
I did start out life as a die-hard Mac user, though... maybe I'm biased on MacOS X.
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
I think a lot of you are confused... it all depends on how you are compairing the two different OS competitors. If you are compairing on a strict OS basis... Linux has a long way to go still. It needs more support from third party companies. Having Id make a game for the Linux platform is a step in the right direction, but it isn't the battle that caused a turning point in the war. What cracks me up is that all Linux users always forget that Linux isn't going to change the industry that much due to who makes up the majority of the OS-user industry. It isn't name brand comanies like MS or IBM... it is mom and dad and all the little people. The ones who don't know what the hell an IP address is. All they know is that if they click this pretty little button somthing happens. Granted Linux has a decent GUI it has a long way to go before you can even compair it to MAC OS or Windows OS! Linus is made for computer nerds and geeks alike... not the standard user who makes web pages by cut-and-paste not using perl scripts or XML language. All Linux praisers need to know this fact. Besides... when it comes to MAC's versus PC's... Mac kicks PC's off the damn playing field. Way Off! Where else are you gonna find a super computer for 1700 bucks! Not in the PC Market... not yet! ~BHM
"Join me on the nail side of the thumb!"
I heard much of the speed difference is the x86 series compiler is more optimized than the PPC one.
Hopefully Apple (using gcc for os X) is adding optimizations and they'll be rolled back into linux ppc.
Wow, it's bigger than Apple? I'm sure Microsoft was really shaking in its boots about Apple lately. While we're at it, can we say things like Linux is more powerful than the Commodore 64? Has it surpassed the TRS 80's?
Rader
Linux, despite being as widely adored as it is, is just not cut out to compete as a desktop OS. It's more difficult to install than either Win95 or MacOS 9, it has fewer software options than either, and its OS and software are overall less intuitive. A desktop OS really needs to be "idiot-friendly"; Linux still isn't.
My point? That Linux's main competitor in Redmond is Windows NT/2000 (the server OS), while Mac's main competitor is Windows 95/98/ME (the consumer OS). Microsoft blends the compatibility of those two OSes, but make no mistake that they're targetted at two completely different audiences. This being the case, I don't think Linux can be said to be "overtaking" the MacOS in the vs-Microsoft wars at all -- they're not actually fighting the same enemy.
Thank you for a well reasoned article.
Frankly, I believe that the Macintosh OS and Linux, as operating systems, have completely different strengths and weaknesses which allow each to co-exist. That is, there is no reason why we shouldn't have two operating systems "overtaking Microsoft" instead of one, with one (the Macintosh) used in markets such as desktop publishing, where ease of use is paramount, and the other (Linux) used for serving up web pages and other server-related and compute-bound related areas--where reliability and stability is important.
So I would say that, even if Linux "overtakes" the Mac as the main "opponent" of Microsoft, it's not really a sign of the Mac's demise.
You have to keep in mind that everyone and their dog has predicted the Macintosh's demise "within 6 months to a year at most" almost since the first day the Macintosh was released in 1984. I still remember my college roommates showing me articles about how the Mac was doomed to die in 1986. I can recall the critical articles indicating Apple's virtually immediate death in 1989-1990, and of course we all remember when everyone predicted Apple's death just before Steve Jobs came back to Apple.
I think this has to do with the fact that you either love Apple (and/or want to play catchup), or hate Apple (and complain bitterly about the "dumbing down" of computers). Because everyone has an opinion, everyone has an opinion about when (not if) Apple will die.\
I wonder how people will think Apple will die in 5 years?
As usual, I can't quite seem to grasp what is so wonderous about Apple. What is so "noble" about a company struggling to take their 5% market niche up to 6% or 7%?
I suppose if Linux would come out in flavors rather than distributions than open source could be innovative too. Maybe, just maybe somebody else out there can take $600 retail worth of hardware, stick it inside a plexiglass fish bowl, sell it for $1299 and they too can be marked as innovating design. Or sued for using plexiglass.
What I really want to know is why Tandy didn't try suing Apple for stealing their TRS-80 Model III design. Heck, even that old box at least came with a floppy drive.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Windows, Linux, and MacOS are tools to do a job. The thing about linux (in theory) it is easier to create a new layer to it.
You can so the same for Windows and Mac but it cost money and time. For linux it cost only time.
This is why linux will be a leader on the desktop in the next few years first as a corpoate desktop.
Next on the consumor desktop. I say give it 5 years linux will run most every major software out there.
Linux will never be a better desktop machine than Mac or Windows... until the desktop changes.
I love Linux but it drives me up a wall a lot of the times. It's not it's fault. I am to blame. I keep desperately trying to make it something it just is NOT... a desktop. But I try and try maybe because I refuse to run a Windows machine in my house or maybe it's because it reminds me of the early days of my Mac. Mac users have suffered long and hard with market share, software and constent abuse (and this was long before the internet offered up so many resources).
No, the truth is the Mac is and always has been the best desktop machine in the world and market share doesn't mean shit. If it did, Britney Spears would be considered the best musician on the planet. No, Mac is best and Linux is my favorite server in the world. I do love it so.
Oh and by the way, what I meant about the desktop changing is we'll all be on web pads in a few years anyway and Linux is sure to be an interesting choice for the operating system of choice but until then, buy a Mac and serve it on Linux.
Having been a Mac aficionado back in the early 90s (with a pair of PowerBooks), I still don't see why Apple is considered such the "nice guy" in these debates. Does anyone remember the look and feel lawsuits they brought against Microsoft, and anyone else who dared to use a WIMP interface? This was in the same vein as Lotus's successful look and feel lawsuits against competitors producing spreadsheets.
And one of Steve Jobs's first actions upon his return to Apple was to get rid of the all the new Mac clones from Power Computing and others. Apple is a tyranny no less offensive than Microsoft. I like the designs of the newest Macs (onboard and wireless Ethernet being chief among them), but the thought of seeing Apple rebuilt into their former image makes me ill.
Go to google.com/mac
Type in something like "emacs PPC" or "xemacs," then hit RETURN or ENTER.
Click on the links that pop up. Some of them will take you to magical lands where there is an emacs (and an xemacs that's better) for MacOS.
Or go to jmac.org and click on some of those links. Same deal.
Jeez. This is not difficult.
Other common UNIXalike shell utils can be found by substituting "Filter Top" for "emacs" in the above instructions.
Jeez.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
Absurd example if you know how Windows does this (you are in a maze of twisty little CLSIDs).
They're implented as COM objects. And they're not twsity or obsurd.
And judging by how many people take advantage of the public interfaces explorer exports, its not hard either.
I can see this happening. But, Raymond's remarks are made a little too hastily. To wit:
As a platform, we have LinuxPPC, which totally blows away the x86 platform in terms of performance.
The GIMP is good, but, until we get some *decent* and *quality* (and, I mean production and prepress film quality) plug ins, and functionality, it will not replace photoshop. As I have yet to meet a Windows box that can do color perfect work, with correct Gamma, Mac is gonna be around for a long long time to come.
Hell, unless we see a comparable suite of tools, along the lines of Adobe products, Linux cannot take the desktop market.
Filemaker is a very widely used solution. I have yet to see any Filemaker apache solution present itself.
Whether you believe it or not, there are some things I dont use Linux for. Especially in the server area. There are much more secure and easier to use DNS Servers for MacOS. BIND and named are fine, but, ease of use is not something that springs to mind when you think of them.
Gnome and GTK are cool, but, in all actuality, they have a mucho long way to go before they can even come close to what the Mac UI has attained. Eazel is cool, but, same rule applies.
In short, I think ESR's comments were a bit premature. And, I think he needs to take a good strong look at the actual situation.
Remember also, Napolean lost by trying to fight two fronts.
Im an Open Source fan as much as the next guy, but, for myself, and indeed, for my client's bottom line, I will always choose the tool that is most stable, and most dependable at that paticular time, for that paticular job.
And, thats one of things that really needs to be kept in the front of our minds.
Supernaut
". I wish Apple had updated this first then worked on the GUI with OSX. "
... Its called Mac OS X Server :)
They did
---
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
What I'm saying is that lots of people choose an O/S that they configure...just for the heck of it. Lots of us change our own oil, fix our own toasters, etc. etc. So what's wrong with the simple pleasure of tweaking the O/S? My first O/S experience was Windows 3.1, then Unix. I mean, even in 3.1 you still got the chance to mess with DOS files just to get the thing working! (Ooh! And jumpers, too). Many users/administrators not only like but demand having that control.
The Win95/98/2000/OS9/OSX Mentality seems to be "shut up...we know what's good for you." Which, in most cases, is true. But some of us weirdos like saying: "wow...I'll bet I can compile my own version [application x] that will work better."
Sorry, sometimes personal preferences can't be forgotten! Tweak your O/S! Use the command line! Reconfigure your toaster!
What the hell is wrong with my Windows Box now?!?
--- There is a man in a smiling bag.
MacOS X Server only runs MacOS applications in the so-called Blue Box, that is, under emulation. Therefore, they run relatively slowly, and they don't get the benefits of preemptive multitasking, protected memory, etc.
One of the components that has delayed MacOS X for so long is the "Carbon" module, which will allow slightly modified and recompiled MacOS software to run as first-class citizens, if you will, able to take advantage of the modern features of OS X and not running under emulation.
I hope this explains what you wanted to know.
--
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
He's so annoying that whenever he says anything I agree with, I seriously consider changing my opinion just so I'm not in the same boat with him
I felt the same way the entire time I used OS/2 (which was up until about 3 months ago). The worst part of OS/2 was always the other users one had to invariably put up with in order to get support for anything to work...
In a way, YES. Apple has forced other companies to start thinking of commputers as appliances, comsumer devices, whatever you wan to call them. Like it or not, the industry is changing and Apple has a lot to do with it.
They're not abandoning MacOS. They're coming up with a new micro-kernel (Mach 2.5 based) which has libs for MacOS classic back-end (Classic), a NeXT like back end (Cocoa) and the new whiz-bang Aqua UI on modified NetBSD/FreeBSD back end (Carbon).
SLightly off topic, but will Apple be the first user of a Microkernel with multiple "environments" like this? I know NT had in theory POSIX and OS/2 (character based) environments, but those were never realistic, just checkbox marketing.
Excellent post. GNU/Linux is still tens of years behind Macintosh and Windows because the development community continues to ignore the most important aspect of computer design: human interface.
I've written up a brief web site on this particular topic, including not only my own thoughts but links to related articles. Interested readers can go to http://members.tripod.com/~syrinx2000 to see what I have to say and to discuss the topic with me.
I'm very interested in helping motivate a movement within the GNU/Linux community to focus on design from the outside-in, starting with a detailed specification for a GUI and human interface guidelines, and then working backward to technical implementation.
This approach is the opposite of projects like GNOME and KDE, which are starting out by arguing about open-source licenses and choosing which technologies to use, and then trying to sum it all up to produce something user-friendly. The end result of that approach has been slow, fragmented development and poor imitations of existing commercial interfaces; it's time we did better.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
Mac users: In spite of what you may think, the desktop software market is such an insignificantly small portion of the global software market it isn't even funny. You wouldn't use Linux for day-to-day use? Fine. I wouldn't use a Mac to run an SAP R/3 system. Well, okay, I'd never run an SAP R/3 system, but you know what I mean. :-)
Linux users: Some people don't want to notice their operating system. Some people just want to send the occasional email, or write the occasional letter. Some (in fact, I'd wager most) people want a computer that acts like an appliance. You wouldn't buy a Mac for personal use? Fine. I wouldn't expect my grandmother (Eris bless her soul) to run Linux.
Both of you, go read ``In the beginning was the Command Line''. Then, implement some standards (preferably the same ones, I find that works best), put Macs on the desktop, connect them to Linux servers, and play nice.
Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
Reminds me of something my roomie's brother said once. "They used to call us nerds, now they call us boss." hehe.
You know what happens when you assume.../br> This artice makes a few assumptions, 1: that Gnome is the "Standard" Desktop, and 2: that Linux is in competition with the Macintosh, and finally 3: that the Mac platform is on its way out. First off, there is no such thing as a "standard" desktop for linux, We are lucky if there is a standard anything for linux, but I know there is no standard desktop. If anything the open source nature dictates that there will never be a standard desktop, let alone a standard distribution. Secondly, Linux and Macintosh are not in competition. They both have their place, but right now, they cannot replace or compete with each other. Mac is the choice for Imaging, Video editing, and the Artistic group. While linux is the choice for power users, or people who want/need better performance and stability. Finally, the Mac platform is not on the way our. It has been slowly gaining marketshare for the past several years and shows no real sign of weakening. The atitiude that the mac is on the way out has been around for 6-7 years and is just a carry-over of the old PC-Mac conflict from the late 90's. If anything the emergence of Linux into the main stream is going to help the mac platform by showing users that there is a choice in platforms.
___________________
___________________
He who laughs last... Thinks slowest
Fast forward to 2007: 6 or 7 years ago the Mac OS was munged into a neat user experience sitting on top of BSD.
If Linux, or some other form of Unix, is still going strong in 7 years, Apple have the perfect opportunity to sell the bit that 90% of people really care about as a layer on top.
If Linux doesn't take over the world, Apple loses nothing: they don't have to take over the world themselves to be successful.
-dair
1. the fact that Linux competes strongly against Windows, which ESR himself describes with the words "shit on ice", doesn't automatically mean that Linux is better than the Mac OS. . after all, the "shit on ice" OS ate Apple's lunch because it had a huge market channel, complements of Microsoft's early ally IBM.
Linux also has a huge market channel. . the whole point of open source is to eliminate barriers between code and the people who want to use it. . by those standards, it's hardly surprising that Linux has picked up a good share of the market.
the fact that Linux is cutting into the Windows market share faster than the Mac OS doesn't necessarily imply that Linux is better than the Mac OS, it just says that Linux is less of a "shit on ice" OS than Windows. when Linux starts eating *Apple's* market share, comparisons between the two products will be valid.
2. competing Linux desktop standards aren't automatically a good thing.
portability has always been one of the great strengths of unix-based operating systems. . a piece of code written for one platform can move effortlessly to a wide range of other platforms. . Metcalfe's law says that the value of the network increases with the square of its size, and easy porting makes it easy to expand the unix network.
to the best of my knowledge, the Linux desktop systems aren't so portable. . Gnome needs Gnome apps, KDE needs KDE apps, and so on. . what this does is fragment the unix network, and run Metcalfe's Law in reverse.
3. a single Linux desktop standard isn't automatically a good thing.
GUI programming is hard work. . creating a whole environment of mutually compatible GUI apps is even more work. . learning the APIs that support the GUI and make programs compatible with the general environment is a long, slow process, and the older those APIs get, the longer and slower it is.
meanwhile, one of the reasons that Linux is every programmer's friend is that it's easy to code. . the command line is a *much* friendlier programming environment, because you can just whack out some code and go. . whenever an OS reaches the point that you have to spend three weeks reading manuals just to get "hello, world." to run as a standalone application, that effort curve drives programmers back to some other CLI environment. . Windows programmers used the DOS shell, for instance, instead of climbing onto the Windows treadmill.
a single desktop standard for Linux could, at least potentially, turn into nothing more than an Open Source version of that same treadmill.
myself, i'm not sure whether the Linux development (and community) model can handle the problems of GUI development at all. . i'm not trying to slam anyone. . i just think there are some serious issues that need to be addressed, and the anything-goes nature of the Linux model seems to offer as many new problems as it does solutions.
Actually, Apple didn't really rip Xerox off; they bought the original prototypes, etc., from Xerox, because Xerox wasn't interested in marketing them. So yes, the original concept came from Xerox, but Apple didn't rip anyone off.
(In fact, Apple did a great deal of work on the original Xerox concept to come up with the actual Macintosh concept and OS, so...)
GORDOOM
"...the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do."
This point system confuses doesn't make much sence...
-RakeYohn
http://www.rakeyohn.com
This shows just how unaware or selectively aware these linux developers are. Example: Before the iMac, everything is beige. After the iMac, everything is fruity colored. And I do mean everything, even appliances. How is that for changing an industry?
Linux, on the other hand, hasn't really changed a thing. It has given us an alternative, and a good one at that. However, for the vast majority of users, it is not a viable platform and will not be for several years.
--Jeff
You were calling people morons, lame, etc.
I wasn't sure that you clearly saw the distinction between the people and the logic they use. Most people aren't very good at separating what they think vs what they do. Your initial reaction was good, but your response *was* a bit harsh.
I'm enjoying this thread between you, Bongo, and everyone else though. I hope you aren't getting frustrated and all ^^
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Linux and the Apple fill different niche markets. Most of the people that I know that still heavily use macintoshes for work are people who do video editing or other graphics and msuic or sound related work. The other people I know that use macintoshes just want a computer that will work and know that a macintosh is easy to use and install and that it will not have signifigant issues out of box like many windows machines do. For these people, a mac is perfect and I believe they will continue to use them rather than having to learn another system that is more difficult to setup.
Linux on the other hand does not fill either of these niche markets. Currently, doing video editing is not as easy or as inexpensive on linux as it is on a macintosh and while linux is much more stable than win98, it is much more difficult to configure than a mac and is also more intimidating in general. The niche that linux fills is people that were not happy with the power or stability that their previous system gave them and wanted something better. This niche is not directly competing with Apple's primary market.
Because of these factors, I believe that the mac will be with us for a while still. Whether or not the macintosh computer will eventually die out I do not know, but I know that linux will not be the os to kill it and that right now they are alive and well.
Aaron Bryden
Aaron Bryden
abrydenREMOVETHIS@gmail.com
I'm a Linux user, but my desktop looks like a Mac. Gnome and KDE seem to take up a lot of memory, and they are too "windowsie looking". I guess if I was just starting out with computers and Linux I would like them, but now I rather use a light window manager like Enlightenment or WindowMaker.
It is good that people use Macs, as long as they don't use Windows. If there was no Macs we would only have 2 choices (ok, not 2), now we have 3.
This space intentionally left blank.
MacOS as we know it is certainly a doomed cause; Apple has said as much (though Steve only ever admitted that bit grudgingly). However, OSX makes things more interesting. All but one of Linux's strengths (the missing one being that Linux is totally open, where only the core of OSX its), and only one of Linux's weaknesses (that being the Unix base, which necessarily degrades ease of use significantly). I've got OSX DP4 myself (legitimetely, I might add). Still rough around the edges, and definitely not ready for release, but with all the makings of a viable contender. Linux won't be displacing MacOS anytime soon. Rather, I believe the two will continue to erode M$ marketshare (yes, MacOS marketshare is growing too) until we have three operating systems competing - and I mean really competing; not the usual "you're alize because Billy wants you to" crap that MacOS deriders insist is happenning. Interesting question: once Windows has to actually compete on its merits, rather than relying on its monopoly, how long do you think it'll last?
----------
So everyone goes on about how Apple is a niche player, and will never be competition for Microsoft. Now the rant is that Linux will surpass Apple as competition for Microsoft. So which is it? Is Apple competition for Microsoft or not? Or is it just that everyone loves to beat Apple like a red-headed step child? Yeah, Apple appeals to a smaller audience, but that audience isn't going to disappear because Linux starts to take a significant chunk of market share away from Microsoft. You know, more power to them if they do it. Linux is a much better OS than Windows. But to the general Apple user, Linux is still in the same OS camp as Windows. They're obviously not the same, but they are more like each other than either is like the Macintosh. And Mac users like the MacOS. Sure, it's not perfect, but it is quite different from Linux and Windows. Mac people are attracted to that difference. And Linux isn't going to suddenly change focus and adopt a Mac-style way of operating. So the Mac will continue with it's little "niche" crowd. But you know, that little "niche" crowd has made Apple a considerable amount of money. So what's the problem? It would be great if Linux took a chunk out of Microsoft--I'd love to see it happen. But that won't reduce the Mac's appeal to a certain type of user.
Actually, if the author knew what he was talking about, this would read "either it's good for the purpose it's serving or it's not."
that is essentially what i said, i phrased it different,... don't nitpick, twinkie. i like my phrasing better, anyway.
what is up with morons mis-reading my posts and trying to tell me i didn't say what i said? it's very annoying and happening a lot today..
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
that linux is easier to use that mac os. for a newbie or a person with a lazy brain who can't deal with an xterm, go with mac os... have a party..
as for me,... i
anyway,... it's a matter of personal preferrence, but i know a
you can make enlightenment look however you want, it needn't be ugly, and saying that it is is just ignorant.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
So you've been using computers 17 years and still work retail?
Yes. I started using computers in grade school.
I have to pay tuition somehow.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's going to be very, very hard to wrench the Mac away from the culture of designers who are committed to it -- and I certainly don't see anything about Gnome or Linux that will make them move.
Graphic designers, Photoshop jocks, HTML developers, and so forth -- these are the people who have kept Apple alive through some of its worst periods. I work with a company full of them, and I can't see how a herd of wild horses or stampeding elephants could drag them away from their Macs.
As much as Linux, and Gnome in particular, have been progressing on the desktop, the Linux user interfaces are far and away too technical and unintuitive to get this crowd to switch. If they find themselves having to drop to a shell and command line just once, they'll run away screaming. User interfaces and high-quality graphics, not technical arcana, are what's essential to designers' daily work and user experience, and I think MacOS will have Linux beat in those fields for a long time to come.
This niche market may not be enough to keep the Mac's market share ahead of Linux, but it will continue to be enough to keep Apple from going under altogether.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
i can't even begin to go through all the reasons you are totally off-base here.
you don't even understand what the hell you're talking about! you got moderated down because you're blowing smoke out your ass.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Most posts I have so far read in this discussion somewhere include "I use Linux as a server...". Well, I don't know if everyone knew but there are a lot of people who don't run a server on their computers.
IMHO, Linux will never overtake another OS as a desktop operating system. You can point me to all the new stuff happening with Linux, and all the fgures for it's growth, but none of this is in the consumer market. When you see articles about Linux catching up with Microsoft, they are talking about NT, not 95, 98, etc.
I know geeks who use linux cant imagine such people, but you dont understand what normal people are like. They cant click the correct mouse button even if you are shouting directions. If you say "Goto File/Print" they wont even know you're talking about menus. In my office I'm sometimes called over to people's desks because they're in the wrong directory and they dont know what's going on. And you expect these people to use an OS where you often have to compile something to install it?
Mock if you like, but in respect of Windows and Mac OS, I am an experienced/power user. I program, etc, blah blah. I installed linux myself, and whenever I try to install a program my computer falls over and catches fire. I just dont have time to spend fixing everything that was wrong with it right from the install (mouse drivers, graphics card drivers).
But I've gone off into a ramble. The point is, linux is not simple enough for consumers. Yes, yes, I have used GUIs for it, etc. They're crap. They look like they're held on with sticky tape. Okay, stop ranting and finisht the post.
--- Apparently I have an old
You know I don't normally respond to
stuff like this, but hey
I'm an a foul mood.
If you clueless newbies would actually
do some research and got back to the
news stories and press releases about this
you would see it clearly mentioned that these
are non-voting shares.
Secondly, jackass I don't use Mac. I make
my living developing for windows and I
run an open source project (GLIMS, see my
.sig) that is corss platform. This
has nothing to do with spreading FUD mr. troll
Now get back to what you were doing, you're late
for class.
Myddrin
BULLSHIT! I chose the best platform for the work I do. That's my point. I was responding to a post that the guy blantantly said he chose the best platform because he wanted to be non-conformist. I use windows because I program strictly for a living and 98% of the jobs where I live are for Windoze programming skills. Period.
I think that of these two alternatives:
1: Use a tool because everyone else is using it, without any logic or research.
2: Use a tool used by a small minority of the population because you want to be non-conformist (also without any research -- remember, that was the contention)
I think (2) is far stupider. At least with (1), you can say "well, it may not be the best, but at least there is a lot of support for using that tool."
Now, remember that my post was saying you should do neither 1 or 2, you should evaluate and use the best tool. If I got back into graphics these days, I would still use a Mac. If I got into helping design a high-availability, heavy backend, super high-traffic website, I would definitely look into *nixes (probably hiring help, as I'm sure I could do that cheaper/faster than getting up to speed myself.)
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
I don't consider ESR to be a very intelligent or objective person--he is highly over-rated. The fact that he was actually chastising a group of people who were taking the right approach (focusing on how to make computers as usable as possible by normal people) simply demonstrates how out of touch he is with reality.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
I loved it. For the next 5 years I was a Mac zealot and had to endure PC users give me the excuses about how GUIs are for WIMPs (Windows Icons Mouse PulldownMenus). They said there's nothing more productive than being able to keep your hands on the keyboard and blast away at your work and that having a stupid GUI get between you and your work was a horrible waste of computing resources.
Now it's 2000 and I'm a UNIX zealot and I now hear from PC bigots about how UNIX boxen are hard to use cause you have to memorize commands, how much better a GUI is to use, how X sucks cause the widgets are not as refined as in Windows, etc, etc...
Whatever....
You can pick any UI apart if you focus on one of its more obvious flaws.
But the trick totally backfires when you have your facts all wrong.
1. Open/Save dialog boxes: Look for information on 'Navigation Services'. In my opinion it is superior than most others (no sideways scrolling, Finder style hierarchy arrows, etc).
2. Contextual menus: The only thing haphazard about it is that Mac mice only have one mouse button. The contextual menu API is quite clear, and any 3rd party mouse I know of can use it.
3. Context switching: Command-tab works like your alt-tab, and the toolbar argument is clearly a subjective argument. In my opinion, there's nothing user friendly about seeing the first 3 characters of each open window. It's a poor use of screen real estate.
For the record, you CAN turn the Application pallette into a taskbar-like bar at the bottom of the screen, but it's not terribly useful IMHO. And while it's not fair to bring up 3rd party apps, GoMac pretty much replicates the taskbar if it's such a big deal.
...
If you want to get in a full-on debate over true user interface issues, let me know. The examples you cite are poor (and largely untrue), but I hate to think of how many thousands of hours of combined human productivity have been lost due to how Windows handles menus. It's enough to give a guy Fitts.
The Mac doesn't have a perfect UI. Far from it. But you've got to be kidding if you think Windows is better.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Personally as a "power user" I've been recommending to anyone who asks me that they should get a Mac.
A few years ago I was recommending a particular PC configuration -- until a relative came back and asked what she should do because she had filled up the first partition on her Win95 system and wondered if she could just move the "Program Files" folder to the D: drive. Uh-oh, I don't have a simple answer for that one. But on the Mac it's no problem. If she had a Mac, I could tell her, "just move the folders wherever you want to, Mrs. Johnson."
And I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to explain to her how to use Linux. Let's be honest, it's just not up to her level yet.
I think for the average user, the Mac seems like a good and simple solution. For the power user, who cares? Maybe the power user is going to run Linux on it (like I do) but there are a lot more average consumers out there buying computers than there are power users.
So as a power user, go for it, run Linux, use GNOME or KDE or whatever. But if you hate Microsoft, then tell your relatives, friends, company, school to buy a Macintosh!
> Don't ask me what else you need...
Competent product designers?
Sticking a translucent coloured plate on the front of a beige box just makes a beige box look tacky, as opposed to dull.
The cube, on the other hand, could have a 4MHz z80 inside, and it'd still be sex on a stick.
If you accept there being even a little truth to the gross generalizations that MacOS is the desktop OS of choice for the consumer world, and that Linux is the desktop OS of choice for the nerd world, it's apparent that both Mac and Linux platforms can each potentially gorge themselves on Wintel marketshare for ages to come without ever needing to even rub elbows, much less waste themselves in a new jihad of OS flamewars. Wintel will ultimately win if it is able to divide and conquer Linux and Apple, or Linux and Apple will win if they are able to divide and conquer Wintel. Raymond's acne-d ignorance of what is going on in the Mac community, is at the same time a reflection of how clueless the MacOS community is to even the very existence of Linux, let alone what it's about. As a Mac friend put it, "Why would you want to know that?"
Can you imagine all (no offense intended) Mac users with their really easy to use system trying to get X to run? X is a nightmare to configure and setup especially compared to the ease of using Macs. I personally am not a huge fan of the Macintosh, but I don't think that Linux has a chance in hell to capture Mac users as the article states, unless aforementioned Mac users are the few who are predisposed to hacking. Perhaps Linux has "lapped" the Mac in numbers (or in press coverage more likely), but probably not in loyalty of the Mac users to their boxes! Anyways, as I am a firm believer in, people should use what suits their tasks. Some people like and use Macs, others Windows, others Linux. Unless Linux comes pre-installed and with no need to tinker, Mac users will remain Mac users IMO.
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
Gnome was not declared to be the standard. It was declared to be a standard desktop and development environment for Unix and Linux. The Gnome Foundation is trying to set up Gnome as a standard. This does not mean that they are declaring KDE dead or saying it will not play a role. By declaring Gnome as a standard and getting companies like Sun, HP, IBM, OMG, Helix Code, Eazel, etc. involved, they are increasing the scope of the project.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
While I would tend to agree that Linux could well become more popular than MacOS if MacOS stuck with their usual approach (sans OS9). However, Apple haven't stuck to their usual plan. OSX comes with a complete BSD layer - there is absolutely no reason why BSD apps shouldn't run on MacOS with a pure recompile. OSX is POSIX compatible (I beleive). That puts a whole new view on the situation. In fact, Apple predicts that most of the Linux/BSD users will start using OSX. I think Apple has seen this market and will push hard to win it over. Who did you think the cube was marketed at? It's purely designed to look cool and grab the attention of geeks. Then wonder what MicroSoft is likely to come out with to counter this movement. What will .NET do to the face of computing?
Interesting times ahead, stay tuned...
Learning a little linux has shown me that an OS is really a whole bunch of stuff, ranging from the "surface" gui theme, to the sub-surface APIs, to the core OS systems of memory management etc... down to drivers and so on. This everybody here knows.
MacOS (pre X) is just one big 'lump' as far as average users are concerned. And comparing linux to preX-macOS is a 'lump' comparison, and not a very useful one. MacOS X is layered, like Linux -- the kernel, GNU utils, X, Gnome or KDE desktop etc. Heck, MacOS X even adds a microkernel layer (whatever advantage that may have), and so is aquiring the evolutionary diversity and strength that *nix has --- If one part is not working, or failing, it can be replaced with something better.
If developers flock to Gnome or KDE over Carbon, then MacOS X may (ok, a BIG 'may') adopt those desktops. If Apple is about to die because there are no developers, then why not adopt the new leading 'standard'). Even as it is, Carbon is supposed to be the second choice API. New stuff should be done in Cocoa. So when comparing Apple and Linux we can make the comparison more complex and fluid.
In the immortal words of Thunderbirds (which I never saw as a kid... but it's coming back) "Anything could happen..." (that was Thunderbirds...right? Or was it Stingray? )
Sorry, I do not understand what the hoots are all about.
Is there any use to compare Apple with Linux ?
I mean, there are similarities between Linux and Apple OS, and there are differences as well. Linux with the new Gnome (especially with the contribution from Easel) may look as slick as the Applie GUI, but Apple is MORE than an OS.
Apple is a combination of hardware and software. I am no brown nose, but still, I admire Steve Jobs for his vision.
The "cubes" from NExT and Apple wouldn't have been existed if not for Steve Jobs. The computer world would have been much less funner without Jobs.
Only if there is such person in the Linux camp.
I mean, Linux right now is like an old black-and-white movie. It takes a guy with great visions such as Steve Jobs to put colors in it.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
rename a file on a fat drive (first example that comes to mind). Try doing this with GMC, no can do.
Jilles
Linux, Free Software, and Open Source, are about *software*.
Apple is about hardware.
Where is the conflict?
...
Yes, they do make software, but they've proven quite thoroughly that it is not at all core to their business, since they are abandoning MacOS and switching to a highly modified BSD.
Linux dude: OK, today I'm gonna teach you how to read mail.
Newbie: Cool!!
Linux dude: It's pronounced "K3wl"
Newbie: Sorry.
Linux dude: Now, some people use pine, mutt, elm, or even mail to
check mail, but I can tell you want to be 3l33t, so I'll teach you about readmail.
Newbie: Wow thanks, you're all right. I never heard of that one.
Linux dude: No, all the cool sysadmins know all about readmail
now you know that UNIX folks don't like to type, right?
Newbie: Yeah, I heard that.
Linux dude: So readmail is usually abbreviated rm.
Newbie: Yeah, I saw rm in a book someplace.
Linux dude: So to read your mail, you type rm. But don't do that yet.
Newbie: Ohh, OK. Whoops, I did it, what's this 'unlink' mean?
Linux dude: Don't worry about that, readmail temporarily unlinks you from your mail while
reading it, so you're sorta reading a copy.
Newbie: Ohh, OK. Thanks so much for teaching me. I must seem so stupid.
Linux dude: Don't worry about that. Us Linux boys always do this to newbies.
We even have a technical name for y'all, ID10T's.
When a Linux boy calls you that, it means you're special.
Newbie: Wow, cool...
Linux dude: Us Linux boys are really keen on taking someone under our wing,
just wait til you get owned, pronounced o\/\/n3d
Newbie: Wow cool.
Linux dude: Yeah, you won't forget that
So in UNIX, we have what are called flags to commands.
readmail, or rm has some special flags. The coolest ones are the -rf flags,
they stand for really fast. You should see, it really changes the way rm works.
But don't use it yet.
Newbie: Ohh, OK. I won't.
Linux dude: See, in UNIX, you have these things called accounts.
Remember when you installed, and you got a root account?
Newbie: Yeah.
Linux dude: Well he gets a lot of mail, and you need to check it to see how your system is running.
Newbie: That makes sense.
Linux dude: So I need you to type the su command to become root. Then type that password.
Newbie: OK, done.
Linux dude: Now, to read mail for root, you have to tell rm where the mail files are.
For root, it's in the root directory.
Newbie: That sounds logical.
Linux dude: OK, so to read mail, really fast, for root, it's rm -rf /
Newbie: OK. Typing it.
Linux dude: OK bye...
Newbie: Wait, what do I do next...?
Linux dude: Just sit back and relax. Realize how much better your system is without
all those pesky files and devices lying around...
Newbie: Wow, thanks!!
Apple was far from going bankrupt. Sliding into irrelevance? possibly, Bankrupt? Not even close, I don't call a multi-billion dollar net worth "about to go bankrupt" if you do, then I'd like to meet your fund manager.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
I got a chance to heft the G4 Cube during Macworld. It's no flyweight box. Imagine take a G4. Nix the three PCI slots, the power supply (which is in a separate module and squeeze most of the rest down to an 8x8x8 size. You get something that even the average cat would have problems knocking over. :)
:)
Perhaps some golfer out there would suggest the proper iron for such cases.
To put it bluntly... when it comes to complete system technology Apple has the whole market beat. That is why nearly all computer based movies are done on G4's and the joke of a processor Pentium III's. Granted Apple's OS does have a few things to it that many aren't used to who are so dependant on a command prompt that the thought of touching their mouse makes them cry. For you individuals, I feel no pity for you. Macintosh has a great OS... one reason I hear all this bashing is due to the simple fact that hardly anyone here in this forum has even touched the MAC OS. They read somthing and OH MY GOD! Their opinion is centered on MAC OS sucks. I tell ya... after messing aorund with every OS around... MAC's is the most configurable period. No comparison... no competition! But when push comes to shove... I would rather run a Windows 2000 server then even look at Linux. Granted yes, Windows takes a load of RAM but when your Kernel is written better and the services offered are more configurable and always operating in a server environment, your RAM would be sucked away too! Then of course there is the third party software thing which is a total joke. All the software I have found for Linux are friggin' pieces of shit! I mean talk about lack of interest in an OS. When it comes down it... yes Microsoft has had a few bad years but when they still own as much of the OS market as they do... I am sure a small dent in the market share doesn't have Bill sweating too much. Oh well... the proud remain blind... not that I am trying to change opinions I am merely stating the truth that Linux frankly isn't going to do the damage that all ambid Linux users think it is going to do. Not to MAC and not to WIndows. ~BHM
"Join me on the nail side of the thumb!"
You do know that Apple invented pull-down menus, right?
Another idea stolen from others - at Xerox Parc. Along with the mouse, and the GUI.
Apple has made some real innovations of its own, but mostly they, like Microsoft, like linux, like other Unices, use ideas taken from elsewhere.
Wow! I've never seen a Linux zealot come right out and say it so bluntly! You mean, it's not about using the best tool? It's non-conformity? Hmmmm.
and you still haven't, that guy isn't a linux zealot, he's a mac zealot. and a zealot of any kind (and you seem to be a 'i'm so objective i use windoze' zealot) is stupid.
Listen, I used a Mac for years, but only because it was the best tool for what I did. (Graphic Design). As soon as I started doing other things (like programming business apps), I bought a Windows machine -- which, like it or not, is the platform choice for the business world.
uhh, ok great for you. what the hell does this have to do with what was being discussed?
no one is arguing that the business world is currently orbiting around m$.. that's a well known, widly accepted fact. it is also a generally accepted fact that this is not a good thing. (whether you hate m$ or just think there should be more diversity.)
There may come a time when I will use Linux or SunOS or whatever, because I feel like learning a new platform and that is the best tool for the job
it hink the bold portion is key because they already are the best platforms for various jobs, the question is not 'do you need to learn this?' because m$ has done a terrific job in making sure it is *possible* to do everything on windoze, because they want to own and control your experience with computers (and they have for the last several years been branching out from just that realm, as we all well know.)
you never
I can learn and be objective.
it would appear not.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Odd, the writing style doesn't fit that of the real Joe Barr at all.
Could it be that you made up the whole thing?
Pardon me if I don't see the humor in an AC slandering a great American.
-Mick
Can I bum a
You think PPC's are really that bad... If you are a UNIX/Linux fan I find that hard to believe. Even on the low end it's more of a Plymouth Neon vs. Yugo comparison.
They love people like you in jail. Anal rape again? No problem, you'll find the silver lining.
Hmm personal insults (Moderators tell me why my comment which had far more depth even if it was a bit charged up stayed at 1 and this insult page made it to 2)
What reason is there not to? Parallel is good for many things. Fine, you'll get no arguement that USB is better, as long as there is a segment of the user base who wants/needs it, it's fucked up to cut them off.
So we should continue to manufacture 386's today just because they do enough to let some people work.
That says a lot more about you than it does about the hardware.It says absolutely nothing about me other than the fact that I've had to support cruft for 15 years, and I'm tired of it. I've been running 600+ user servers on several UNIX flavors over the years. OS X promises to make the job a bit easier (OS X Server already does).
Fireball XL-5???
Mac is hardware. Linux is software. Linux running on a G4 is getting the best of both. Dual boot with MacOS let you do all the things that Mac is famous for and run all the OSS *nix s/ware too.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
you're still a user, for which, you get no credit,.. and switching platforms/distros/whatever just to 'stand out' or 'be different' is lame.
do it 'coz you like it best, because it does what you need.. not because everyone else doesn't know about it.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
This is the oxy moron of the day. Spoken like Windows/Linux user trying to justify the complexity of their OS.
For one, Macs still have by far the easiest and most transparent GUI (though this could change for the worse with OS X -- though I'm keeping my mind open on that). No GUI currently comes close to the elegance of the Mac GUI in terms of how you can use it. For one thing, the Mac Clipboard, for example, works far more powerfully than any other comparable "clipboard" on any other OS that I have seen, given its ability to convert data on-the-fly, depending on what program you copied from and are pasting to (or, even better, are dragging and dropping from or to). ----------------------------------- For you, perhaps. I tried using Mac couple times and its GUI drove me crazy. Are you gonna try to convince me that I am wrong ?
These days I am doing most of my work on Mac OS X Server (eagerly awaiting the public beta of Mac OS X!). The one overwhelming reason for this: OpenStep (subsequently dubbed "YellowBox" and now "Cocoa" [*cringe*] by Apple) is hands-down the most productive and intelligently engineered OO application development platform that I have yet had the privilege of working with. I have a great deal of admiration for the work that was done by NeXT's software engineers, based on the foresight and clear thinking that is evident in the OpenStep frameworks and tools (most notably InterfaceBuilder). And, I love working in Objective-C.
If the Mac was to vanish, my greatest worry would be that it might take OpenStep/Cocoa into the dark night with it. For years, this magnificent development framework remained the exclusive domain of Fortune 500 custom apps development (discounting NeXT's initial inept foray into upper academia), because that was the narrow target market NeXT chose after it abandoned the hardware end of its business. By far the most exciting thing about Mac OS X to me (since I can already get the UNIX part by just running Linux), is that it will make the power of OpenStep available to mainstream developers for the first time.
If the Mac vanished off the map tomorrow, GNUstep would be the one remaining hope for OpenStep. However, a great deal of work remains to be done to complete GNUstep, and I think this endeavor stands to benefit from Mac OS X's success. (As more developers discover what they can do with Cocoa, I expect there will be increasing demand for the ability to run Cocoa apps on other platforms. Also, Apple's continued development of Mac OS X and Cocoa, particularly in the realm of user-interaction improvements, could help provide impetus and direction for continuing to evolve GNUstep beyond the base OpenStep vision.)
In this sense, I think it would be a real loss to the development community (and thus to the end user) if Mr. Raymond turned out to be right about the Mac's eventual demise.
> No GUI currently comes close to the elegance of the Mac GUI in terms of how you can use it.
You haven't tried BeOS yet, have you?
BeOS just blows MacOS completely right out of the water.
>>No, I don't. I do however think that Apple royally screwed a lot of their loyal base with the hardware changes of the iMac and G3/4. And if they don't make the changes? You're stuck with ADB, and the mini DIN serial ports, when USB offers you a ton more products, non-hardware specific? And this saves the customer money, no? The ability to NOT have to see four Mac products on the shelf? same with firewire? I have five Macs, from an SE30 to a G3 400 PB, and i've been more impressed with a Mac's viability than the changes (some welcome, some not) made to the platform. >>No, but since the PII/3/Athlon still use the x86 ISA there is no reson to worry. When Apple made the transition from m68k to PPC, they at least had the decency to write a 68k emulator into the OS. You were kid in third grade that was upset when those one or two kids up front caught on faster and pushed the class along, weren't you? >>If you don't mind taking it in the pooper from Apple, all the better for you. They're not going to get any more of MY money. To each his (or her) own.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
Look, the main point is not that Linux is overtaking MacOS, it's that Linux is breaking up the MS hegemony in the OS market. MacOS does not provide a dramatically enough better product to overcome platform network effects and lock in. In the server market, Linux does provide a dramatically better product than Windows, so the network and lock in effects are broken.
.bat files), however the interface is simply not crafted. The lack of a strong central authority and the distributed, geek-centric development model make this unlikely to change.
What effect does this have? Firstly, the people who administer those machines are clearly going to run Linux on their desktops (Linux's own network effect). This means that the sysadmins know how to use Linux as a desktop OS. This makes it viable for engineers to run Linux on their desktop, so now their machine doesn't crash as much (better product + network effects). (It's viable because there's organisational precedent for desktop Linux, that matters in larger companies.) These effects cause Linux's market share on the desktop to grow.
There are other effects, though, that are more interesting. Since most people in the world run Windows, the sysadmins have to install Samba on their Linux servers (thus weakening Windows lock-in). Well, hell, if you're doing that, why not install netatalk? It's easy. Suddenly, Mac users have a vaible fire sharing system with the server. (Other solutions, such as Dave or WinNT-based AppleTalk, frankly are not good. Netatalk is.) Furthemore, the organisation is now more open to the idea of multiple OS's. Thus, those people who want to run MacOS, can run MacOS. Net result, MacOS market share grows.
If Linux and MacOS competed, then Linux's growth would be detrimental to MacOS. However, Linux and MacOS occupy the ends of a spectrum, with Windows in the midde. MacOS has a wonderfully well-crafted interface. Thought has been put into the details. However, it is inflexable, and quite unstable. The Windows interface is tolerable (YMMV), as are its stability and flexability (again, YMMV). Linux is a triumph of stability and flexability (possibly not the best, but far better than Windows, compare bash scripting with
One poster claimed that Linux was fighting a war on two fronts - against MacOS and Windows. In fact, it is Windows that is being squeezed, and every advance by any non-Windoes OS makes the fight easier for all the others.
You might find this interesting...
EEG machines show that a thought begins some 0.5 seconds before it enters our awareness. So although it feels like "I am thinking and choosing my thoughts/opinions", rather, the thought ocurrs independently of our free will.
So when ebbv attacked redbird, for "doing it because everyone else doesn't", I tried to point out that ebbv was no more 'free from reactionary effects' than redbird could be. Indeed, ebbv's own attack was an "unconsciouly generated reactionary effect".
It feels like 'i am thinking', but the EEG measurement shows that the thinking comes prior to the thinker.
It was silly of me to try and make such an esoteric point on /. and I got moderated down.
Yawn.. if I hear one more mac geek refer to the UI of their operating system I'm gunna scream. MacOS is just as much a peice of shit as windoze. They both rejected the majority of operating systems literature and thought they could do better on their own. At least now OS X appears to be catching up on the last thirty years:
This next-generation operating system is a synthesis of technologies, some new and
some standard in the computer industry. It is firmly fixed on the solid foundation
of a modern core operating system, bringing benefits such as protected memory and
preemptive multitasking to Macintosh computing.
"Modern" pfft.. wake up.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I bought my imac a year ago just because it was pink, with all the intentions of putting linux on the box and tossing MacOS. I, however became lazy and kept macos on the system and used it soley as an internet terminal, and didnt install linux.
Over the course of time i came to realize that macos is a very well designed gui, almost everything is intuitive. Take for example drag and drop.
You highlight a clip of text and then drag it onto anything and it puts it where you expect it. Like if you put it on the desktop, it will give you a text clipping. DND for graphics also work well.
You grab a graphic and your cursor turns into a transparent version ofthe graphic and you can then drop it anywhere, like the text.
Another thing is is what some people call a limitation, it's the one mouse button, but i think its a feature. You never have to worry about which mouse button to press. For example in gnome (i am using helix gnome 1.2) i occaisonaly have too go through all three buttons to get to the menu i want, that is not intuituve. When i use macos the menus are either the menus in the menubar or available through holding down the button for a context submenu (or ctrl-click).
Another important feature is font smoothing, that makes reading anything a pleasure. The fonts are rendered perfectly on my imac and my powerbook. And i believe the font smoothing is better than the smoothing in windows.
this is just my minimal comparison of gnome 1.2 and macos 9. some features may be in other window managers or operating systems, these are just the ones i use on a daily basis.
cristiana
Apple is setting the standard and always has. Did anybody notice how important 'transparency' has become since apple demoed Mac OS X?
It's just one example of how apple is leading the way and Gnome and KDE are desperately trying to catch up. Duplicating all cool features on the way but forgetting about the most important one: consistency.
I don't own an apple, I use the other rip off (windows), mainly because of the hardware prices. But even compared to windows, Gnome is very weak. I have it installed on my linux machine, it sucks and doesn't even come close to providing the kind of functionality typically found in operating systems like windows and mac os. Both went to years of polishing and it shows. On linux I have to commandline because there is no alternative when you want to get things done.
Jilles
You think PPC's are really that bad.
No, I don't. I do however think that Apple royally screwed a lot of their loyal base with the hardware changes of the iMac and G3/4.
So we should continue to manufacture 386's today just because they do enough to let some people work.
No, but since the PII/3/Athlon still use the x86 ISA there is no reson to worry. When Apple made the transition from m68k to PPC, they at least had the decency to write a 68k emulator into the OS.
If you don't mind taking it in the pooper from Apple, all the better for you. They're not going to get any more of MY money.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
What no one seems to realize is that computers are tools. If you are a first time user, the iMac is a perfect tool for you. It was never designed for a power user, and neither was the cube. So if you are a power user, do not complain about it.
You don't see racecar drivers whining about the 0-60 time on the new Gas/Electric hybrids right? Because that isn't the focus of the car. If you are a power user, get a powerful computer. Get a G4 tower. If Linux is so great, just throw it on there too.
Basically, many Linux users need to step back and take a deep breath. Linux is great, I run it on my machine. Linux has a lot of potential, but it isn't there yet. When any group of people are so focused on their one OS they seem to inflate it to more than it is. I've seen this before in the Mac camp too. But I see it a lot now with Linux.
Well, I guess you can say I'm just sick of the Linux zealots. Linux isn't a "my mom could use it" OS yet, not by a long shot. No matter what you think about Mac OS, or the Macintosh hardware (there is a difference) you should look at Mac OS X for an example of an elegant way to cover up the complicated internals of an OS for consumers.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies.h tml
---Lane
What's the point of moderating?!
Uh, Office 98 came out on the Mac first. I guess this would be a reasonably good troll, given that you have said so much that is so easily refuted with hard data, but as information it's not what you would call useful. Are you trolling, or just repeating what you heard in a chat room?
Well into the 90's, MS made more money off of each Mac sold than they did off of windows machines (according to Bill Gates, anyway). Microsoft wasn't so much into killing Macs as much as IT managers were, according to some accounts.
It is possible, even likely, that MS agreed to the stock buying deal (at least in part) to get the monopoly pressure off of them, but at this point they would be losing a lot of money in the short term to quit selling stuff for the Mac. They have already invested in developing those products as Mac products from the ground up (rather than some kludgey port--that was part of the stock buy deal), and they would have to be willing to just delete the book value of that code, which doesn't seem likely.
I would speculate that MS wants to keep themselves as deep in the Mac business as possible in case they really do lose the OS war in a big way. That way they can keep right on selling to (nearly) eveyone that buys a computer. And if you think they don't have a plan for putting their stuff on Linux, well, you haven't been paying attention.
Sure, they don't want to lose the OS war, but you can bet that they have a backup strategy in case they do.
--
Liberty uber alles.
Personally, I use none of the linux distributions... check out the link provided if you are really interested in some fun... http://www.linuxfromscratch.org Beau Bellamy (beau@bellamynetworks.com) -------------- Why? Because I can...
While I agree that Linux is a great platform, it still has a ways to go before it's accepted as a home user solution. Or even a high school / middle school solution. And that's always been Apple's huge strong point. Linux is great fun for all the geeks here on Slashdot, but I'd rather teach my grandfather to use a Mac than to use Linux. Plus with the Open Source nature of Linux, there's going to be even more UI's and companies wanting to put their own spin on the Linux distro they include with their systems. Just because you can use one type of Linux system may not mean you can use them all. You're a whiz installing RPMs but then you get to a system that doesn't support that... Once again, no prob for techies, but it might confuse my mom. (who loves her strawberry iMac)
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
I'll be happy to look at Aqua if and when it actually ships. Until then, it's vaporware. It's not fair to compare something that's currently in use by real users to something that might eventually ship one of these days but so far is only a promising demo. (The might-ship-soon versions of Eazel and Enlightenment look pretty snazzy when shown by skilled operators in prescripted demos at LinuxWorld Expo, but it wouldn't be fair to compare them to the current MacOS and declare Mac dead on that basis alone.)
I play Nerd-Folk!
I can well believe that Linux is poised to overtake MacOS in pure numbers of users - it runs on a _lot_ more hardware for a start.
However, this in no way condemns MacOS - there is room for both for different sorts of tasks. I use Linux at work and MacOS at home, and those are the environements that are best for me at each place.
Linux is great because it's main focus is power and configurability. However these very things detract from how easy it is to use. Great for hackers, servers, and command line stuff.
MacOS has the best interface I've ever used (I never used a NeXT box), and that is because this is the primary goal of its designers. Great for all that GUI stuff - graphics, writing, and getting not too complex things done as simply as possible (and I really like using an IDE for small to medium programming projects). There is a group of users that MacOS is not going to lose in a hurry.
I think the OSes currently have different audiences for the most part, such as people with different preferences about command-line/GUI.
Of course, I have great hopes for MacOS X combining the best of both worlds (I already run Darwin for tasks I can't use MacOS for), but it will invariably make some compromises because I don't think it is yet possible to combine the best possible power _and_ usability.
It would be really neat if Eazel does well, but that is a bit further down the track, and I don't think they have the resources to do the sort of things being done with MacOS X.
I really like a bit of diversity and choice is OSes - this helps make them all better.
believe it or not you aren't the smartest person in the world
this is what i used to do all the time when i had lots of free time (and interest) to spend hacking away on my computer.
i am bored out of my mind with computers now, and want to spend as little time on trivial things as possible (and as much time looking at pr0n and playing games as possible)..
so i let redhat auto-detect my hardware and i use the silly RPMs.. it has always worked for me so far, so i see no reason to complain. i'm well aware how much more efficient and secure my machine could be, but i also know i have no reason to worry about someone hacking in.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Most graphic artists / Desktop publishing types I know still say Mac is the best for what they do.
I run both Mac OS and Linux for the PowerPC on another machine (Yellow Dog). I spend all my time developing in Linux (Mac has neither emacs nor any of the million other useful utilities and shell tools). My wife, however, does all the front end web stuff and design, and she swears by the Mac. I think there are many people who will continue to want and use the Mac.
- "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything" -Mark Twain
- "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything" -Mark Twain
Apple hasn't been a threat to Microsoft on the desktop for a long time...
and while i'm here, i'd just like to complain about the mindless comments of ESR.
"The problem the Mac community has is this: While the Windows interface stinks on ice, it is just good enough from the point of view of the casual user to rob the Mac of its mass market and its future,"
What the hell?
Yeah, us poor stupid windows users have no idea how crappy the windows UI.
Has ESR ever used Windows at ALL?
The windows UI is the most extensible UI. You can change it, hook onto it, write plugins for it, and even write scripts for it with DHTML/Javascript.
On windows, apps like ICQ and winzip can add to context menus for example - something no other GUI shell has done anywhere near as well.
BTW, having the source code does not mean something is extensible. It's an extremely poor excuse for bad coding practise.
And yes, I am bitter.
First we have Miguel proclaiming that Unix Sucks and has been built incorrectly from the ground up, after that came the latest KDE vs. GNOME war, and now we have ESR (does *anyone* remember the last time he even bothered to take part in a discussion around here?) claiming that the Mac is doomed?
Excuse me for picking nits here, but ever time someone says Mozilla is "too little too late" they're creamed with the ClueHammer(tm). What about OS X? I've never bought a Mac in my life, but everything that Apple seems to have accomplished looks really exciting to me. Even if I wasn't impressed by their merging of a slick GUI on top of a BSD base, I wouldn't go around shitting on their heads. Can somebody point ot me where it says that Apple's chief purpose is to attack Microsoft? I thought they were about creating great computer systems. Hell, I used to think that Linux was about the same thing. What happened?
I won't attempt to guess at anyone's motives in all this, but it seems that too much pride is beginning to overtake the "heads" of our little community. Enough of the pot-shots at Windows (it's too easy), enough attacking Unix (we still have a lot of ground to cover before we're on the same level as all of the other 'nixes), and let the Apple guys do their own thing.
This article is nothing but verbal wanking.
--Cycon
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
Gnome is horrible when it comes to pre p II PCs. Linux much touted ability to run on obsolete hardware is irrelevant if someone wants to use Gnome. KDE is much better and even better and faster is Window Maker.
Apple has known this for a while now, else they wouldn't be focusing on the BSD-like MacOS-X. Let's make it known that I never liked Macs, I've used (rather, _touched_) them twice in my life, and I've never experience a computer as frustrating as the Mac. No right-clicking, no console, not even an illusion of control to apease my mind. And I remember my short-lived days of ISP tech support, and the agony that resounded when my turn in the queue was met by a Mac user. Then I realized that even the Mac power users, those who knew the OS incredibly well, were still powerless and unable to solve their stupid dialup troubles. It's a sad thing indeed, and I'll be happy the day the "Classic" Mac OS dies.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
A fully featured, User (newbie) friendly system. With QuickTime, a few thousand apps from ye olde MacOS. And without too much delay it will be able to pick up the major [Ff]ree software too. The porting effort is already well underway and that's only with Developer's Previews and Darwin floating around. Perhaps penatration of a hundred or so people who can do porting and thousands of users. When it goes prime time it will be a major force.
Start Running Better Polls
Hear, hear: "Live and let live" I've just been reading John Locke, _A Letter on Toleration_ (1689). He basically argues that torture and persecution is fundamentally inconsistent with Christianity. Likewise, isn't FUD fundamentally inconsistent with the open-source movement's philosophy? This thread reconvinces me that religious toleration in the twenty-first century will be as difficult for us enlightened nerds as for the Middle East. Them: Temple Mount vs. Dome of the Rock. Us: Open source vs. proprietary. Read Locke and learn.
We can reduce ideas to bits and people to genes, but "can" does not imply "should".
> Key features missing from the MacOS GUI:
... context menus have been on Mac OS for years, and apps add their own features to the context menus with plug-ins.
... it doesn't need to be long.
> Context menus: A very nice thing. Something M$
> got right.
It's not missing
> C'mon, Apple... 2 and 3 button mice have
> been around for years
You can use ANY USB mouse with a Mac, regardless of the number of buttons, scrollers, whatever. USB Overdrive is a generic USB driver on the Mac that handles any joystick or mouse, without the need to even install the supplied driver (if there is one).
If you've ever navigated an OS with a pen, you surely can appreciate how cool it is that the OS only requires one point and one click (tap with a pen) to get things done. One button on a notebook palmrest is also a lot easier than two, especially for lefties (the two buttons on many PC notebooks are different sizes, so the right one is a sad candidate as a main button).
Adding more standard buttons to Macs now doesn't make sense, when computers are moving out of the box-with-a-mouse-and-keyboard-attached thing and into new form factors. Only a small (but fairly vocal) minority adds a two-button mouse to their Mac, and it costs them $20 and they get to pick their favorite mouse. I added one to my first Mac after being a Windows user, and then later realized I just didn't need the second button in Mac OS. I also found that one button took away any distraction that the mouse could provide. I mean, I scroll with the cursor keys.
> Menubars incorporated in windows: makes more
> sense than a single bar at the top
This is a feature, not a bug. The File menu is in the same place on every app I use, and you can't overshoot the menubar. This makes it very, very fast once you log an hour or two on a Mac. Muscle memory kicks in and you use the menus without thinking about "using menus". No choosing, no aiming. You can't access menus on background apps on Windows, so why look at them all the time?
Also, if you're using a drawing tablet (like a huge number of Mac users) which corresponds 1:1 to the display, you get a "virtual menubar" across the top of your tablet, so you can draw and then access menus quite easily from your tablet, without needing to pick up a mouse or go to the keyboard. I used to mark where the File menu is on my tablet, but I stopped needing to (muscle memory again). Very, very fast. The slowest part of the computer is the user, and if you can get them doing something intuitively, or from muscle memory, you've sped them up considerably. Especially when many people seem to actually lose IQ points when they are in front of a computer.
> where half the time you can't tell which application
> is currently in focus, due to ambiguities.
It's true that knowing which app you're in at any particular time is a weak point of the current Mac OS (at least for beginners), but in Mac OS X, the app's icon moves to the left, next to the File menu, and can optionally be displayed as the app's name. This makes it much clearer who owns the menubar at any one time. Also, Mac OS X has a new window stacking model, where you simply change to another window without worrying what app owns it, and the menus and tools that you need just show up. This means, for example, that you can easily place a Photoshop document next to a Dreamweaver document (in stacking order), while other Photoshop and Dreamweaver documents hang out in the background until you specifically call for them (they don't just follow the rest of the documents from their app). In other words, it's document-centric, not app-centric. The menubar makes even more sense with this model (inherited from NeXTSTEP).
Apple put a lot of research into their GUI. Things that seem strange at first turn out to be excellent features that you soon find yourself not being able to do without. A Slashdot reader criticized the new Apple mouse recently because he couldn't believe how short the cable was, but the mouse port on Macs is on the keyboard
The one-button mouse and the one menubar are a big part of the reason why people describe using a Mac as being "transparent" or "it doesn't get in my way".
If Linux is to replace anything, it won't be because it is Linux, it will be because of businesses applying Linux solutions - and, as businesses, they are subject to all the laws of corporations and money-making greed as is every other business. Which means, they will need to differentiate themselves. The more successful they become, the more they will tend to try to become old IBM or today's Microsoft - complete with proprietary extensions and the next decade's version of the connector conspiracy / secret APIs. It is inevitable.
Careful what you wish for!
"For one, Macs still have by far the easiest and most transparent GUI"
I don't know about the "easiest" front but I beleive the Berlin GUI is much more transparent.
;-)
- Apple's operating system has a consistent, single, rational user interface; Linux does not have a consistent user interface (Gnome, KDE, etc.)
So that's the current reality. Let's look to the future, with MacOS X, a BSD variant:MacOS does not require the purchase of several +$50 "How-To" books to be installed, maintained, and repaired; lots of luck with Linux if something goes wrong and you don't know what to do or where to turn
MacOS focuses on the user, with server tasks being secondary; Linux's primary "market share" has always been the server crowd
More to the point, MacOS focuses on specific niche markets that are sexy, creative and highly profitable, such as graphic artists, video editors, etc.; Linux has no core drive outside of the server market, which -- despite what Raymond and the rest of you will claim -- is a real and substantial weakness that will spell Linux's downfall. Too many unpaid cooks doing too many different, incompatible things will kill widespread dispersion of your OS
When can we look forward to real MS Office-compatible tools on Linux? Linux has no relationship with Microsoft, which hurts it as a desktop replacement for the MacOS
Linux is a security nightmare. Make sure you're running the latest of everything!
- It will better take advantage of the strengths of the RISC PPC chipset and leave open the possibility of work on other chipsets.
Despite the boosterist leadership, Linux does not have a rosy future in desktop OS.The MacOS X Server component will allow power users to do all the server tasks that Linux is capable of, while doing things in a coherent, directed, rational manner. XML configuration and GUI interfaces for services come to mind. With server software on the Mac, it has always been about getting up and running as quickly and safely as possible.
To grossly overgeneralize, the main advantage of a Mac is it's GUI, while the main advantage of GNU/Linux is it's extensibility and stability. Mac's have been about making computers easy to use by making pretty widgets for people to click on, rather than making them remember dozens of commands. It almost seems as if Mac's *started* with the GUI, then built the OS around it. GNU/Linux started with the kernel, then the shell, and *now* is adding a consistent GUI on top of it. Entirely different approaches. However, don't forget that "Redmond" is trying to be a desktop OS, server OS, and underwear OS at the same time. It competes with GNU/Linux on the server level, and competes with Macs on the desktop level (not to even mention the game system or IA level). "Competition for Redmond" is more complicated than it seems.
---
"Okay, who taught the cat how to type ctrl alt delete?"
One of the main reasons for the "success" of the MacOS is the adherence to the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines. If you have never taken a look at it, you really should... you can get for free from Apple's Developer Connection web site. Of course, there are numerous examples of applications that do not strictly follow the guidelines, but I'd say that 90% (or more) of the most successful MacOS applications follow them to the letter. Bryce is an exception to the rule, or course, it's popular in spite of it's freaky interface.
How successful do you think a similar Style Guide would be for Gnode/KDE/CDE/ etc? Right now, it seems that the biggest driving force behind the development of a standard GUI for Linux is to "look like Windows" or "look like the Macintosh".
The problem with the Mac is that by trying to remain as simple as possible, it appeals mostly to people who are not really computer litterate (I know I know there are exceptions... ). This is the market that they target and it is fine. Where it becomes a problem is that the next generation will learn to use computers really young, understand them more than any of us can because they will litterally be raised in an environment filled with computers.
I am just wondering what will be the appeal of the Mac for such a generation and what part of the market it will be able to hold on through the next 30 years of so...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
For one, Macs still have by far the easiest and most transparent GUI (though this could change for the worse with OS X -- though I'm keeping my mind open on that). No GUI currently comes close to the elegance of the Mac GUI in terms of how you can use it. For one thing, the Mac Clipboard, for example, works far more powerfully than any other comparable "clipboard" on any other OS that I have seen, given its ability to convert data on-the-fly, depending on what program you copied from and are pasting to (or, even better, are dragging and dropping from or to).
Another point is that, yes, the original Mac team in the form of Eazel is working on the GNOME desktop -- but they have a *long* way to go before it even comes close to the Mac GUI and desktop. There are many areas that have nothing to do with GNOME that also have to be improved -- colorspace models (and the ability to quickly and easily calibrate and configure them), fonts and font administration (installing fonts is still a pain on Windows and Linux, and previewing them on Linux is a *major* pain), transparent media format support (video, audio, pixel formats) and so on. In other words, much of what is tied to the Mac's old strengths -- desktop publishing, video and graphic design. Most of these weaknesses are tied more to XFree86 than they are to anything else.
Yet another major weakness of Linux is still the lack of desktop apps that match or exceed the quality of those on Mac OS and Windows. This is changing, of course, but you have to remember that that Mac OS community (and the Windows community) are moving targets. The lack of hardcore standards on the Linux platform also tends to hurt application development -- what libraries do I support? What desktop version? What kernel version? -- and I see no plausible solution for all that.
In the longer term -- some years down the road -- it would also be interesting to see if Linux continues its rapid upward climb. At the moment, this is taken as gospel, but remember that Linux is done mostly voluntarily -- it may be that someday the "coolness factor" wears off, and Linux withers into a twilight existence. I doubt that Linux will ever "die" -- in fact it's almost impossible, unless we have some titanic global catastrophe -- but OTOH it's not hard for me to imagine some scenario where the developers working on Linux simply lose interest someday, or a major fork happening (the GNOME vs. KDE war has the ability to cause that), enough to damage Linux's continued growth and development. I don't suggest that this *will* happen, but that it is a real possibility.
I use Linux, and do so quite happily. I use it mainly as a server OS, but sometimes also for gaming and website development. I also actively support Linux's development by working for various Linux companies (Loki, theKompany.com, LinuxPPC), mainly by doing website design, packaging, press releases and other promotional work.
And Linux has many, many strengths, and may indeed surpass Mac OS in many areas. It already has in stability and efficiency -- technical areas, in other words. The fact that Linux is a free OS (as in speech) also has a very strong appeal to me, though its weaknesses keep me from going to Linux entirely. The question is, will Linux -- given its divided approach -- ever have the singleness of vision that drove the Mac's development? For all the Mac's technical faults, that singleminded hardcore approach for the _overall_ vision of the OS is what makes it good at what it does (graphics, GUI, media).
So I would say that, even if Linux "overtakes" the Mac as the main "opponent" of Microsoft, it's not really a sign of the Mac's demise. True, anti-MS sentiment is a lot of what keeps many Mac fans true to their Macs -- but that's hardly the only reason they use their Macs so faithfully. Nor is it proven that Linux will indeed kill off MS _or_ Apple. I'm far more inclined the believe that all these OSes will continue to coexist -- indeed, I believe that they days of one-OS-fits-all (if they ever existed, in spite of what MS tries to claim) are over.
Sorry for the rambling, but that's a lotta stuff I had to say... ;-)
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
You're stuck with ADB, and the mini DIN serial ports, when USB offers you a ton more products, non-hardware specific?
There was nothing wrong with ADB or standard serial. Why do I need 1.5mbps to use a 56k modem?
Why does USB make more sense than SCSI for external storage?
And this saves the customer money, no? The ability to NOT have to see four Mac products on the shelf? same with firewire? I have five Macs, from an SE30 to a G3 400 PB, and i've been more impressed with a Mac's viability than the changes (some welcome, some not) made to the platform.
Saves the customer money? What kind of ass backwards thinking can produce such an answer? If I want USB I'll buy a PCI card for my PCI powermac. Problem solved. Firewire, same deal. By making the computers easier to make peripherals for only allows garbage products to hit the market. Like the winstation USB superdrive.(wretch!) Or the cheap ass scanner du jour.
You were kid in third grade that was upset when those one or two kids up front caught on faster and pushed the class along, weren't you?
Actually I was the kid in the back of the class who had to find a way to occupy myself during that period of time after I'd learned the material and I had to wait for the three kids who had to have the same old information dressed up in spiffy new clothes.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"There is a special place in Hell for Tow Truck Drivers and Steve Jobs".
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Here in New Zealand (way down south) I belong to a very helpful LUG. I've never heard them say "back in the day", "rtfm", "rtfht" (read the how-to), or anything rude or arrogant. Someone asks a question to the local mailing list, and others say "have you tried this ..." or "I once solved that by ...". I've asked real dumb questions and received really helpful answers. Are NZers just different or have I struck it lucky with this bunch of people?
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
I have an iMac, dual-booting to OS 9 and Linux PPC. It's a decent piece of hardware, but I could have gotten better. However, I am not going to complain, because it was a present to me. I think you need to figure out what you're ranting about before you write.
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
Then if Apple hardware is truly superior, people will buy it to run Linux. Loyal Mac users would be especially likely to do this. Likewise, as long as Apple software has some kind of bottom-line advantage it's going to be used by a certain number of people. These two things taken together mean to me that Apple is likely to hang on to its market share.
Perhaps if Window's market share starts to shrink dramatically Apple will actually see its share grow, though obviously Linux will be leading the way. It's tough to compete with free.
--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
PrimalChrome
Grow up. Someone posted his reasons for choosing a platform, and you just flamed him without cause.
/flame/ him, i just told him he's being stupid. and so was the other guy. their posts weren't saying 'i am using windows, because A, B and C.' they were saying 'i do A because everyone else does B' and that deserves some opposition, that kind of attitude is not good.
/. is no fun anymore.. (you misunderstand everything, because you are dumb.)
He uses the common tool for the work he does. For now, it happens to be Windows. Your zealotry was unnecessary in this post and another one I just read up above.
uhh, yeah... whatever. i guess i'm a 'logic zealot'. read his post.
i really don't know how i can explain it to you and make it more obvious than it already was. you are a very stupid person and should shut up.
i didn't really
your attitude is not good either, who exactly appointed you Supreme Grand Ruler Who Gets To Tell Everyone Else When They Should Post and What They Should Type? grow up? hmm i'm not the one flaming people because i don't understand the thread. i didn't even flame anyone at all, i merely gave them a slap on the wrist.
people like you are the reason
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
They have to have the cheesiest theme song of all the cartoons that have ever existed.
Appetiser cheese and Dessert cheese.
Isn't this a Linux article more than an Apple one?
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.