Penguin2Apple

Dark Paladin writes: "What happens when a Linux lover takes the plunge into a Mac for the first time in his life? Turns out he falls in love, to the point of abandoning Linux and taking up OS X full time. Read about the conversion in Penguin2Apple. And pray for mercy on his soul."

Comments

Read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer"

[rlglende]

It was common for Germans in the 1920s to switch between the Communist and National Socialist parties.

There is a personality type that needs causes.

Lew

Re:Read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is funny how *BSD attracts those personality types. When you look back over the history of *BSD you see a continual list of "enemies" - ATT, USL, Novell, Microsoft, Linux, SCO, etc. etc. Some folks can't be happy unless they are hating something. Apple fanatics are like this too. I saw a recent interview with an MS rep who attended the Linux World Expo. He said that he there was some good natured ribbing from the Linux users. He said it was totally differnet from the mean spirted karma of the Apple shows, where there is venom and open hostility directed toward him, bordering on violence. Apple users, it would seem, are by and large kooks.

hey

[the_2nd_coming]

OS X is better.......you get to use all your favorite CLI tools, all your favorite web and dev tools, all your favorite GUI tools, get to use MS Office (for those who like it) and get a realy smooth, out of the way GUI.

whats the problem....if you used Linux as just an alternative to MS or because you like Unix, and not becaue it was free as in speech.

Re:hey

[Matthew Weigel]

Unfortunately, you get one smooth GUI, and if you don't like it, you're stuck. Such are the joys of closed systems.

The alternative in a free system being, you get lots of crap GUIs, crap hardware support, crap APIs....

Hey, I like Freenix and I have been a pretty happy camper using OpenBSD as my desktop system. But I didn't even hope to do things with it that I expect to simply work under OS X.

Also, I don't know about you, but a lot of my friends who rag OS X about being proprietary absolutely insist on using qmail. My apologies if you actually eat your own dog food.

The window management and (lack of) keyboard shortcuts were, to me, impossibly clunky.

I'm curious what your problem was? Cmd-H (hide), Cmd-~ (switch window within app), and Cmd-Tab (switch app) seem to do well enough. Of course I prefer Windows-style app-switching, but Apple decided a while back (OS8?) that they didn't.

While preferences in keyboard vary, I found that the keyboard hurt my hands much more than my ThinkPad 600 or various Dell laptops

Well, Thinkpads have the best keyboards bar none; I don't much care for Dell keyboards, but I did find that the iBook has a better keyboard than the TiBook - I'm not sure why Apple let that happen, but I've seen a lot of people agree with me on that.

Linux versus Mac OS X is not a valid comparison.

[Lethyos]

First of all, "Linux" in this case is vastly a misnomer, but bear with it for the moment. Linux is an operating system that is trying to fill many niches in many markets. Developers work hard to give it a wide range of hardware support and a wide range of functionality (everything in the range of a variety of desktops to a variety of servers configurations). However, the overall Linux experience is the result of a tremendous amount of contributions from many directions in a community.

Mac OS X, exclusive to the Macintosh and suitable for limited roles, on the other hand, is different but same. Beneath that stunning, pretty Aqua interface, you have a set of powerful core API's that essentially make up widget sets and abstraction layers. Beneath that however, is a traditional unix architecture (Darwin). When you look at Linux, BSD, Solaris, or whatever versus Darwin, you see pretty much the same thing.

So what's my beef with the comparison? Mac OS X is more appropriately pitted against KDE, GNOME, or [insert favorite desktop environment here]. Apple is focused on offering a user experience which is much different from offering an operating system and a million and one tools to make it useful. Linux offers an operating system and a huge suite of software for doing a lot of things. OS X from the perspective of comparison, is a very well polished UI.

I am certain that if all OSS developers turned their attention to making a Quartz for Linux, it could be done. But, that's not the case because we're dealing with two different offerings altogether. So, it's stupid to run out and say "Mac OS X is going to beat down Linux" or just that "it's better" and people should "move over to it". No. No. NO. NO!

Two completely different animals with their own uses, strengths, and weaknesses. This whole "Penguin2Apple" thing is just stupid. You're moving from an operating system to a machine with a different processor. Pfft.

It all depends on your reason ...

[ssklar]

... for using Linux. If you are using Linux because of an irrational devotion to the "open source - free speech and free beer" ideology, then moving to Mac OS X would be a violation of your principles.

If you are using Linux because you have evaluated the alternatives, and it provides the best bang/buck ratio for the application(s) that you are using or deploying, then using Mac OS X would also be wrong.

But if your goal is to have the power and flexibility of a Unix-like operating system and the device support, smooth, consistent GUI, and application support of a commercial mass-market operating system, then it would be illogical to just discount Mac OS X as a viable option.

Re:It all depends on your reason ...

[Chris Johnson]

Why would devotion to "the open source - free speech and free beer ideology" preclude OSX, either?

To me, being committed to Free Software has little to do with what you CONSUME. It's about what you produce. I write software, and that software is GPLed. I do it on MacOS, classic, with a non-free development environment because I'm NOT good enough to code straight C yet- though I did port one of my programs to C commandline and now use it in MPW. If I was on OSX, it would be running as a commandline program in a terminal window- and when I finally got my GPLed serious program ported to C, it'd be a lot closer to Linux ports and entirely free systems.

It's not about what systems _I_ choose to live in- it's about what I choose to put out there into the world. Which is better- coding on classic MacOS and adding ideas to the commons through GPL, or using entirely free systems and coding up DRM for them? Let's be clear on the concept.

Re:Free2TwoGrand

[mgkimsal2]

Does OS X cost $2000? I dunno, but I suspect not. Was his previous Linux box completely free of cost? Again, I suspect not.

I'm not pointing the finger at you necessarily, but the computer itself isn't free. People who routinely spend hundreds on speakers, sound cards, 3d whatzamajigger graphics boards, etc. bitch and moan about the cost of an OS. Yes, 'free' as in speech is good, and 'free' as in beer is good too, but don't bitch about the 'beer' one if you've got a system that costs more than a few hundred bucks, please.

I'm another convert

[scsiboy]

I've been in the sysadmin business for about 7 years now, which has brought me into contact with most free OS's (Linux, the BSD family) as well as some non-free (Solaris, BSDI) and of course, things like Windows and Macs (pre-OSX).

Over the years I've had many desktop systems with many OS's, several versions of Windows... most recently a Sparc Ultra10 running Solaris 8 and two different PC's running Redhat Linux. I recently switched to OSX after my Redhat box failed. It was a hardware failure, not a Linux issue. But the PC architecture itself has imploded on me enough times that I'd had it. My Ultra10 wouldn't boot up anymore either, which really torqued me off (that was my backup desktop which had been sitting in a closet).

Anyway, I went to Apple for two reasons: I've been told the hardware is very reliable, and not prone to bizarre crap like IRQ conflicts and such, and second because I've always liked the Mac UI, but until now couldn't really live inside it because the multitasking and memory management weren't good and there was no CLI available. Of course, the memory management, multitasking scheduler, and CLI availability issue are all "fixed" in OSX, and I'm in love. I spent nearly $2500 on the machine and it was worth every penny.

(For those who care this is on a 933MHz G4 tower).

I no longer spend hours every week just making the system happy - I just use it, and it doesn't require any fussing around. I have plenty to do making the systems I'm paid to admin work well; I don't need the added time drain of playing admin on my desktop (which should, IMO, act like an appliance and not a server).

Just my $0.02. My primary server environment is Solaris, and I stand behind it 100%. But on the desktop OSX is where it's at today, IMO.

Re:Here's the article

[mgkimsal2]

Even today with Windows 2000 and my development work, usually my day proceeds along "Work, work, crash. Reboot. Wait. Computer won't reboot. Shut down power. Work. Hang. Reboot. Boot into Linux for a few hours. Get some work done. Forced to reboot into Windows for some program. Crash."

Wow - what the hell are you doing on that computer? What kind of 'development' are you doing? I've had a system with W2k on it in use daily for a year with probably 20 reboots, mostly to swap to Linux for some reason. Less than 10 were due to hanging/crashing issues.

Honestly, what are you doing?

I've been in that boat, at a prior company, and I'm convinced it was because they gave me crappy hardware - especially network card. I would literally reboot twice between 9 and 10 am every day (NT4). NO ONE ELSE HAD THAT PROBLEM. But that's been my worst MS experience. Many other systems (95, 98, 2000, etc) have all worked pretty darn well. Not perfect, but Linux ain't perfect either.

Really, what are you doing? Have you tried to swap some hardware or troubleshoot this at all?

They'll never get me

[Permission Denied]

So I'm the hardcore unix type and I tried this (a full conversion to OS X). Of course, nobody wants to hear that OS X has some very real problems, but here goes...

The window management is so far inferior to anything you'll find in X, it's not funny. About a month ago, one slashdot poster was complaining about how it's difficult to run more than ten programs because it's hard to find the right one in the dock. Excuse me!? You're limiting yourself to two or three programs because you can't find the one you need immediately?

Consider this: OS X comes with an alt-tab action, but it cycles through all windows in a circular list, rather than using a stack like Windows or most X11 window managers. Why does it do this? Is the circular list "more intuitive" than a stack? No, it most certainly is not. There's a reason most window managers use a stack for the alt-tab list. When you use a stack, the most recently-used programs migrate toward the top of the stack. If you have seven programs running and you're continually switching between two of them, a switch takes two keystrokes with a stack, but seven kestrokes with a circular list. With the circular list, you have to actually look to see which program you're switching to. Result? it takes at least one second to switch between two programs on a moderately-loaded system. I am not going to remove my hands from the keyboard just to switch between two programs.

In addition, using the dock or alt-tab to switch applications only switches applications not windows. Look at IE or Terminal.app - these both have their own internal window management and it works differently in each. In Terminal.app, you hit cmd-1 or cmd-2 to switch between running windows, in IE it's something else.

I can hear you saying right now that this isn't a big deal. It is a HUGE deal. In my X system, I can run 15 different applications and (using workspaces and a proper alt-tab) I can get to any application in a few hundred milliseconds. I don't need to take my hands away from the keyboard just to go from typing into my browser to typing into a terminal.

What if I actually want to use OS X as a real unix system? For example, what if I need to add a user? Well, there are a number of ways to do this:

1. Physically go to the machine and use the little gui tool. Not an option when the server is inaccessible, as is usually the case with a regular unix server.
   
2. VNC into it. OS X doesn't use X, so the only way I can run these GUI tools from my FreeBSD laptop is to use VNC. Try this yourself - it does not work properly.
   
3. SSH into the box and use niutil, etc. You then have to walk through the netinfo tree to see exactly how a user environment is supposed to be set up. The first time you do this, it will take a half hour.
   
4. Download some perl script that works like "useradd."
   

The last two are the only real viable options. In any case, the first time I need to add a user, I have to waste a half hour for this most basic administration task.

So what does it have to make it more enticing than a real unix system? Well, it has all the pretty pictures. It has a decent web browser. It has those "office" applications.

I honestly don't care for the pretty gel pictures. I'll admit that the first time I used OS X, I wasted a good half hour just looking at it (it is quite impressive). However, this gets old quick.

Linux now has some decent browsers (konqueror, mozilla), although this wasn't the case a couple of years ago.

I don't use "office" applications. Word? LaTeX. Excel? Awk and perl. Outlook? Mutt. Powerpoint? You've got to be kidding me. Yes, LaTeX and perl may have a steep "learning curve" but dammit, I can learn. I didn't spend years mastering unix administration and development just to have someone hand-hold me through basic adminstration tasks.

Re:They'll never get me

[Anonymous Coward]

3. SSH into the box and use niutil, etc. You then have to walk through the netinfo tree to see exactly how a user environment is supposed to be set up. The first time you do this, it will take a half hour.
---
Yes, LaTeX and perl may have a steep "learning curve" but dammit, I can learn. I didn't spend years mastering unix administration and development just to have someone hand-hold me through basic adminstration tasks.

Eh? You spent years learning unix administration and you are upset that adding a user the first time under OS X took you 1/2 hr?

Sounds like you're willing to spend the time to learn unix but not to spend the same time learning OS X.

Re:They'll never get me

[Permission Denied]

If it takes you more than 2 minutes to figure out how to add a user under netinfo then you aren't a hardcore unix type.

Alright asshole, tell me this: where do you find out to even use niutil? Try typing "man passwd." What do you get? A manual page from FreeBSD. Nowhere in the man page does it mention that that command does absolutely nothing in OS X. Try typing "man vipw." What do you get? Another FreeBSD manpage, and again, it doesn't tell you that the command does absolutely nothing. You'll finally get somewhere after you type 'apropos netinfo.' How do you create a new group and change a user's default group? Like this:

niutil -create / /groups newgroup
niutil -appendprop / /groups/newgroup passwd '*'
niutil -appendprop / /groups/newgroup gid 7777
niutil -appendprop / /groups/newgroup users ''
niutil -destroyval / /users/username gid 70
niutil -insertval / /users/username gid 7777 0

Now, don't you wish 'vipw' actually worked? Or that maybe it was removed from the system along with its useless manpage? Or perhaps that the manpage was updated to put a pointer to niload in the SEE ALSO section?

Re:They'll never get me

[Sentry21]

I don't use "office" applications. Word? LaTeX. Excel? Awk and perl. Outlook? Mutt. Powerpoint? You've got to be kidding me. Yes, LaTeX and perl may have a steep "learning curve" but dammit, I can learn.

This strikes me as remarkably similar to someone complaining about how a Geo Metro is 'flawed' because it can't haul 60 cinder blocks around, can't haul a ton of gravel, etc. That's not what it's meant for.

Me, I'd rather use my computer than learn my computer. LaTeX? Sure, I could use it, but why would I want to waste my time marking something up in LaTeX when I can open Word, type it out, spend four seconds formatting it the way I need, and then save it to any of five dozen file formats (most importantly, Word).

As for Awk and Perl as replacements, you'd have to do a lot more work to do 90% of what I do in Excel in awk and perl. Takes me ten seconds to make a graph out of a set of data, I can move cells around drag 'n' drop, I can add styling and so on if I'm sharing my .xls file, I can put graphs and tables into Word or Powerpoint. Awk and Perl for this are cheap hacks. Sure, it can all be done, but it's still a cheap hack.

I didn't spend years mastering unix administration and development just to have someone hand-hold me through basic adminstration tasks.

Fine, then don't use OS X, and don't whine about it. It's not meant for every task under the sun, it's meant for people who want what it offers. If it doesn't offer you what you want, then use something else, and don't complain, but some of us are glad that we can point, click, and have new user accounts added everywhere it counts.

I had fun with Linux, but eventually I got tired of managing my computer, and wanted just to use it. OS X gives me this, but still gives me the power I need to run things like perl, vim, and so forth. If you don't want this, then don't use OS X, and we'll all get along fine.

--Dan

Re:how much cheaper?

[diverman]

This is an argument that has gone back and forth. I laugh when someone tells me they can get a comparable PC for $1000, compared to the top of the line Dual 1GHz G4.

Yes, I think you could get it for cheaper, but not by much IF you are getting hardware of the same quality. Quality is really the key. The last time I dealt with that $1000 PC argument, I told the guy to go through the cost of the components. The first thing I pointed out was the video card (GeForce4 Titanium). That took away a lot of that $1000 budget right there. After going through it all, and me keeping him in check on quality of the PC parts, the equiv PC came out to about $3000-3500 with no monitor. The top-line G4 runs for about $4300.

Oh... that $3000-3500 for the PC... it doesn't include the licensing for Windows XP, and other applications to bring usability up to par. Yes, you could get Linux, but then there's a loss in hardware compatibility and main-stream application support. The Mac price was with pretty much all the software a typical person would use/need and be quite happy with.

Hope that kinda answered your Q...

-Alex

Re:Linux versus Mac OS X is not a valid comparison

[boxless]

WRONG. You can't compare OSX to Gnome or KDE. With Mac, you get nthe whole deal. You get all or nothing (including the hardware). The fact that you split things up into these little architectural layers means that you'll

When I set up my new G4 Mac with OS X, I don't recall having to futz with X, or window managers, or desktops. I just got it.

Just try to explain to a reasonably intelligent person the difference between X-Windows, a Window Manager, and KDE/Gnome. It's ridiculous. You need all three things to make a decent desktop appear on the screen. No such bullshit with Mac (or Windows, for that matter).

I totally agree with your assertion that they are two totally different animals with different strengths. Mac is a desktop OS that can be used as a decent unix box now with OS X. Linux is a decent server OS, that SUCKS as a desktop. Will people give up with this linux desktop shit? It is over until someone comes out with a completely unified desktop/window manager package that can be installed with a wizard. It has to be that easy.

My analogy.

[saintlupus]

I use OS X at work and at home, and being in IT I work with a lot of Linux and Solaris devotees as well.

One of my interns, in particular, is a big Linux fan - like most undergrads, he has yet to realize that there are shades of grey, and that the "right tool for the job" is actually a workable principle much of the time.

Anyhow, he was haranguing me for not using Linux on my main box (although I have it, along with a lot of other *nix OSen, running on my home network). I told him that using OS X is a lot like using Linux/PPC, with the main difference being that all of my hardware is actually supported properly and the GUI is a bit more polished. The same Unix power is there if you need it, just as it would be under Linux or OpenBSD or Irix or Tru64 or whatever, and the OS is perfectly matched to the hardware. Ought to be, since they're from the same vendor.

--saint

another Linux user's experiences with OSX

[tom7ca]

I use Linux for most of my work, but recently bought a Mac running OSX (and, yes, I also have a Windows XP machine). I think, overall, Apple did a good job. But, in my view, Linux still compares quite well.

What's good about OSX?

• It installs and works easily. Part of that is that there is only one hardware vendor.
• It seems like a well-tested and a pretty stable platform to deliver code on.
• Device drivers really do install dynamically (with Linux, you usually end up having to recompile the kernel at some point).
• It has great Java support out of the box.
• Things like automatic network location selection work out of the box.
• There is a reasonable amount of polished, commercial software available for it.
• Both the hardware and the software looks very stylish and pretty.
• It comes with a complete set of BSD tools.
• It comes with standard networking tools and protocols like ssh, NFS, and lpr.
• You can download a complete development environment from Apple, including GUI designer.
• Applications like iTunes and iPhoto are really well designed. They do less than their KDE and Gnome equivalents and that is good. Apple has thought carefully about what you need and what you don't need.
• Standard GUI aplications are scriptable using OSA (although it's a bit messy).
• Mach allows user-level device drivers.
• You get X11, as well as the Debian package tools and packages (fink.sourceforge.net).
• Apple is somewhat less nagging about "download this" and "sign up for that" than Microsoft.

What's not so good about OSX?

• Driver availability: there are very few drivers available (some of the ones that are are ports of Linux drivers); this will presumably get fixed over the next 6-12 months.
• The UI is enormously resource intensive and slow. The kernel is no speed daemon either on things like disk I/O. On a 600MHz G3 iMac running OSX 10.1.2, applications are annoyingly sluggish. It's mostly the GUI; X11 applications running on the same screen and hardware are much faster.
• It isn't quite as stable as Linux.
• There are some usability bloopers in the UI (as there are in previous versions of MacOS); I guess if you have a 15 year history, you need to accomodate some historical idiosyncracies.
• Software installation is a mess. Some applications come with installers, some come as archives that you need to drag somewhere, some come as loopback mountable disk images. Linux is much better in this area, and even Windows XP seems a little better.
• There are almost no books available (BN doesn't even have a Mac section anymore, while their Linux and open source section is quite large).
• Cocoa/Objective-C are nice, but somewhat aging technology. It's not clear to me what Apple's future vision is.
• Device access is inconsistent. For example, audio and video have no device nodes; the APIs for accessing are messy.
• Keyboard access and editing keys are pretty primitive.
• No "strace" (the kernel isn't compiled for it).

If OSX were a Linux distribution, people would probably debate endlessly whether it was really ready for the desktop. I think overall OSX is neither better nor worse than Gnome or KDE on Linux. What it lacks in performance and consistency, it makes up in commercial support and simplicity.

The biggest advantages of OSX are that it's supported by a big brand-name. You can get MS Office for it. If a piece of hardware doesn't work, you take it back to the store and say "I plugged it in and it doesn't work; sorry--it says it's MacOS compatible". Presumably, there will be books around for it, and they will all document the one, standard version. And APIs and functionality change less rapidly than on Linux (which can be good or bad).

OSX is an operating system that a UNIX user can live with. I think it's good on a laptop, for PowerPoint presentations, as an iTunes jukebox, or to recommend to one's parents or manager. But it's no Linux killer.

OSX is just so much better than Windows XP. The OSX software architecture is much cleaner and the toolset you get with it is so much better. And the OSX UI is incomparably more consistent and easy to use than what Windows XP has.

Apple needs to address their performance issues (or release dual 2GHz iMacs :-), and they need to communicate a more coherent software strategy.

What the Linux community should do is study Apple's approach carefully and copy the good parts of it. KISS not only saves programming effort, it results in better software as well. A GUI with the simplicity of OSX but without the performance problems and OS9 compatibility would be great, and it would be less work to develop than the feature-laden KDE or Gnome desktops.

So, where I would grudgingly use Windows right now, I will probably now gladly use Macintosh. While OSX is no substitute for Linux, it brings a good, usable version of a UNIX-derivative into the mainstream, and that's good.

Re:I did this...

[RevAaron]

I would still be partial to Linux. I could not bring myself to run an OS full time on my machine that costs money.

Huh? Macs come with OS X, pre-installed even. Or do you mean that you couldn't run software that is sold for money? People sell Linux too, perhaps you should just run HURD- there aren't any for-money distros of that yet, are there? Or are you under the impression that you have to insert a dollar into the computer every time you boot OS X? Or does the "that costs money" part refer to the fact that computer hardware isn't cost-free?

Re:Linux versus Mac OS X is not a valid comparison

[RevAaron]

Uhh... I run OS X on a 300 MHz B&W G3, and it runs great. A 3 year old machine. Incidentally, GNOME and KDE runs OK on it (under Linux), but they're even less worth running when OS X is an option. OS X loves RAM- with 256MB of RAM, it runs like a champ.

Linux runs on a number of platforms, but it's far from practical. Sure, you can run it on a Palm, but it's not usable for anything other than the occasional embedded control (e.g. in a robot project).

Re:Linux versus Mac OS X is not a valid comparison

[Spencerian]

Your information is a bit off on the "OS X runs well" part.

Mac OS X runs well on machinery as old as January 1999. I know--I'm writing this post from my Power Mac G4 Blue-and-White, where OS X is fine. I've also run it on older hardware with fair (but not suitable) results back in its beta days.

OS X, like any other OS, needs RAM. About 128MB is OK if you are NOT running any Classic apps. If you plan on doing Classic, add another 64MB minimum. OS X prefers a decent video card (the RAGE 128 16MB card built-in works fine) which is what causes slowdowns on older G3 hardware such as the Beige G3 desktop/tower and earlier iMacs which haven't great video at all.

The differences between a G3 and G4 chip are subtle. What makes the speed is the same as on a PC motherboard--RAM, video, bus, and processor. Sure, OS X screams on G4 iron, but you don't -have- to go there.

Re:What is GIMP missing?

[PurpleBob]

GIMP is missing the nice interface.

I realize you can do anything (except CMYK, which people make too much of a big deal out of) in the GIMP that you can do in Photoshop, but generally you can do it quicker and more smoothly in Photoshop because its interface works so well.

One example of this is the layer effects: in Photoshop, you can give a layer a drop shadow, and that shadow will update as you add to the layer. In GIMP you have to run a separate plugin that creates a drop shadow, and if you change the layer you have to delete the shadow and create it again.

How LCD make an OS "better"

[ellem]

Lowest
Common
Denominator

Simply put let me say that Dark Porkrind is a power user. He's a guru to the uniformed masses that actually USE computers. They don't compile kernals, they don't script anything, they dont ever configure, make, install. They'll be damned if AIM isn't available. Dark Raman is _their_ guy. There are a lot of Dark Paradigms in the world. Some of them are benevolent and some "know enough to be dangerous."

I give Dark Andstormynight the benifit of the doubt. I think he's a good guy. (Although he did go from Apple striaght to DOS without any AMIGA.. but I digress.) For the unwashed heathens who don't know what a regex is or how to setup mulitple IPs on their NIC card, he's who they listen to.

Now, why don't they listen to you? You know everything it is true. You really do. You can give them a million reasons to use Blah-Blah Linux over OS X. You won't though. You'll read /. and config this and tweak that. You'll say rude things like RTFM, man this, grep that.

They don't care about any of that. They just want to chat with their friends and get their mail and open funny .ppt file their friends make. They never ever want to upgrade anything, ever. They simply expect their computer to work. They want to reboot when it doesn't. They never ever want to su root, or God forbid sudo.

So while Dork Hardon writes an article about how he broke free from the MS "monopoly" you sat here on /. and pissed and moaned about what an idiot he is.

We, you, /., are the minority. Mr & Mrs AOL in Middle America are the Majority. Mr & Mrs Church Newsletter have waaay more disposable cash than you and all your CS majors combined, right now. You should be furthering your cause, not fragmenting even further.

OS X is never going to fragment. It may change entirely but it won't fragment. No one has to worry about Larry, or Miguel, or Linus, or anyone but Steve. OS X makes sense for a lot of poeple.

It's pretty.

It's fast enough.

It has advertising.

It has Office.

If Linux was OS X in 1996 we'd all be giggling about XP and OS X right now. But it wasn't/isn't.

Dark Paladin is right. He's hitting Linux with his +5 Mace Of OS Smiting and there isn't a damn thing you or your /. can do about it.

Is there?

Re:Free2TwoGrand

[3dr]

There's always a cost. Part of the "cost" of Linux is having to do things yourself, and frankly, it is getting old. As much as I've used Linux (since 0.9.4, dammit), it simply does NOT have good tools for audio and DV editing that I've been doing for about two years now.

I used to be a Mac user, even running A/UX on my 68030 mac (and even ran MacBSD on it circa 1994), but had to give it up.

However, my eyes have been open towards Apple since then for whenever OS X or another decent OS was released, and after playing with OS X, it does everything I need it to. And it's still UNIX.

I'm never giving up Linux. It will remain on my main server (and in use at work), but for my personal stuff *nothing* touches OS X.

Cost means nothing. Functionality is everything.

Re:Here's the article

[jasontheking]

Haven't you been paying attention these last few years?, the hood is welded shut. That's the whole point. We can't fix it without M$ telling us how it works, and they don't want to tell us.