Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Switching Stories

Posted by michael on from the pick-one-and-stick-with-it-already dept.

serendigital writes "Unix guru Simon Cozens wrote about his "conversion" story in the UK Unix User Group Newsletter. He touts: OroborosX and XDarwin. This gives you a rootless X server and Aqua-like window manager. He also seems to like the libraries: the NeXT approach of separating libraries off into their own subdirectories and separating out library versions makes for a much tidier filesystem arrangement than simply bundling everything in /usr/lib. One of the more controversial "differences" in OSX." And on the other side of the switch, there's Wil Wheaton does Mandrake.

6 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. Re:the underlying OS is irrelevant by khuber · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    And so Apple has made a system then for all users.

    Hardly!

    1) it's a commercial OS.
    2) it runs on overpriced slow hardware
    3) it has a sluggish eyecandy GUI

    -Kevin

  2. That doesn't solve my problem by vanguard · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Apple needs to move to two butons. The idea that one button is "easier" is stupid. (Ok, I know yu didn't say it was. I'm just on my soapbox.) Have you ever seen little kid working a playstation control? If a five year old can do it so can my mother.

    As for moving to a USB mouse, I have an iBook. Connecting it to a mouse doesn't work for me because I normally use it from my couch. If Steve can swallow his pride and take money from msft then he can admit he was wrong about the one button mouse.

    Vanguard

    --
    That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
  3. Switch a Conspiracy? by Mathetes · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Switch?

    I think the whole "Switch" thing is a brilliant ploy! Microsoft knows that Linux is not an OS that it can stop using its old methods. Linux is hitting Microsoft hard in the Server market. Now, with technologies like Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, Microsoft sees the possibility of seeing the same thing happen on the desktop. How do they stop it?

    Enter Microsoft's token desktop competitor, Apple! Apple has been useful to Microsoft in the past to show the world that they aren't a monopoly, they have competition. In fact, when Apple was in danger of dying completely, Microsoft pumps $150 million into Apple to save it. Also, they continue to port applications to the Mac, even though on the surface, why would you want to port software to your "competitors" platform? Simple, the Mac has always had less that 15% of the desktop market, and, since its closed hardware, that isn't going to change.

    So how does this relate to Linux? Perhaps Microsoft saw a useful purpose in the technologies of Apple and NeXT. Help Apple build a new Mac OS that is based on UNIX with a GUI that would attract the best and brightest of the Open Source/Linux community away from improved the Linux desktop! So far, it seems to be working, as the "switch" articles keep coming. Sure, Microsoft loses a small number of Windows users as well to this platform, but, Microsoft knows it can easily take out Apple using its tried and true methods.

  4. Just out of curiosity by autopr0n · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    How much is apple paying you guys?

    I mean, story after story about positive reactions to an advertising campaign.

    WTF?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  5. Re:the underlying OS is irrelevant by foobar104 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I don't see how preferring free software makes me an idiot.

    It makes you an idiot for the same reason that preferring cars whose names start with vowels. Your decision criteria for making your choice is completely irrelevant.

    Free software is not always good. Commercial software is not always bad. Generally, commercial software that's really bad disappears, because of market forces. Also generally, the very best commercial software is better than the very best free software, because of the competitive nature of the market. So if software quality goes from zero (bad) to 10 (perfect), free software will range from zero to seven, while commercial software will range from two to nine-point-nine. So saying "I prefer free software" is tantamount to saying "I reject the best software and choose instead to search for good software among the worst stuff out there."

    Ergo, idiot.

    In fact, I'm certain that I am not an idiot.

    I'm pretty sure than only an idiot would ever be sure that he's not an idiot.

  6. Re:the underlying OS is irrelevant by foobar104 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I don't know what your deal is, but you've got deeper issues here than peoples' software preferences.

    My deal is that your preferences are based on dumb criteria. Demonstrably dumb. But hey, it's your life. Doesn't bother me if you wanna be an idiot.