Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.3 vs. Linux
M.Broil writes "This is a nice and fairly complete 'first look' at Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther), but author Chris Gulker, who I happen to know was an Apple PR guy years ago, spends a lot of time comparing the Mac 'Panther' release to Linux, which he seems to use most of the time these days. He obviously likes a lot about Panther, but he doesn't think many Linux users will switch to it, and that a lot of 'Classic' Mac OS users may not want to move to it, either."
you failed it too.
clearly the title of first poassst goes to meeeee.
A quick ssh from my Linux machine revealed that only the GUI had frozen
Let the flaming commence !
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
This was back when the monitors didn't come separately from the rest of the machine (i.e. before that Mac clone fiasco).
I always loved the Mac interface because of its easy of use and very solid color support. I found that it was easy to make rainbows for my group's posters using the PageMaker software, much easier than anything on an IBM PC.
I eventually grew out of my 'rainbow' phase and am back using Windows and sometimes even Linux (Yellow Dog, for when I'm feeling a little 'crazy'!), but the experience just isn't the same. We Mac users are a happy community, and sometimes I just want to give old Steve Jobs a hand.
It's a good thing to see someone with geek knowledge reviewing OSX for what it is. Some good and some bad. I've been saying for years now that there's still many areas where OSX has yet to catch up to Linux. In the tightly configured server market, as a desktop, and in sheer number of apps it's getting better, but is still a little behind Linux IMHO.
OSX pushing forward can only help push its competitors forward also, something that's a good good thing
I don't see why a Classic Mac user wouldn't switch, the pre-X versions were total garbage
I came across this article a while ago
its not up to date but its a pretty good comparison
We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
is definetly getting quicker, and is already very easy to use. But I'll give you a (slightly altered) quote to sum up the situation: 'Linux makes the easy things difficult, but it makes the hard things easier and the impossible things possible.'
Wheras MacOS makes the easy things easy, the hard things hard and the impossible things not possible.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
"MacOS X 10.3 vs. Linux" would make me think of an article detailing pro's and con's of the two OS.
The article is interesting for me: I don't know almost anything about the panther thing...
But it isn't a real comparison between Linux and MacOs X.
The author only says there isn't any compelling reason for switching fron linux to panther.
- "Having a clean conscience is sign of bad memory"
Is that MacOS X has several high-quality specialised desktop applications to its name, and Linux hasn't got any.
What I want to know is if DAV over https is supported yet.
There is NO reason to run Classic anymore, except if you run classic hardware, in which you don't have the choice.
Dirk P
I know lots of nasty linux bugs, few mac bugs
For example a relatively modern virgin install of full redhat linux with gnome could be make to soft-hang byt copyung a directory into its decendent further down the hierarchy... infinte recursion.
HAH! no version of any mac os allowed that idiotic bug and used checks to prevent it.
There are plenty more lazy shortcuts riddled through linux. The most glaring are the counltess places where no error detection allows bugs to become more dramatic. Fro example in some linux kernels there was assumption that certain writes to the boot device never fail to write, but had no feedback.
I do not care.
I use classic mac, and windows and sometimes osx, and think trying to comapre linux vs freebsd based mac is pointless. The mac will always have 8 times the market share and countless shrinkwrapped commercial apps.
Libux was predicted to overtake mac 55 years ago and it never happened then and will also not ever happen in another 5 years, if ever.
FreeBSD mac OSX won the race. and most of the source code is open.
apple just released the source to darwin 7.0 (full source to most of the parts of mac os that count) and did it coinciding with the release of the mac.
News Forge appears to be getting the /. treatment, so here's the article:
An early eval of Apple's Mac OS X 10.3
By: Chris Gulker
Apple's BSD-based Mac OS X 10.3 Panther offers 64-bit processor support and new features wrapped in the latest version of a GUI that has its roots in the NeXT desktop. While Panther sets a new standard for ease of use and interface look and feel, it still lacks features that Linux users have long enjoyed.
Panther, billed as "the evolution of the species" and built on the open source Darwin project's version of BSD 5, really is an evolutionary step -- not a revolutionary new operating system. Panther does offer admirable user-interface consistency and ease-of-use, but its new Finder is bound to draw complaints from died-in-the-wool Mac users,
particularly the large base of users who still cling to Mac OS 9 "Classic."
*NIX users will find this one of the most polished GUIs ever bolted onto a UNIX-like OS and probably won't have issues with the file browser. Mac developers groaned audibly when Steve Jobs presented an OS X Finder based on the NeXT columnar file browser at the ADC conference in 1998, and Mac OS Classic users continue to resist it in favor of traditional Mac windows, icons, and folders. In Panther, columnar view is the default window behavior.
Apple has taken the sleek, brushed chrome interface featured on apps like iTunes and Safari and applied it to the new version of Finder, the always-on application that provides the Mac desktop and handles chores like connecting to servers and other shared resources. Gone are many of the shiny, translucent Aqua interface widgets and light gray pin stripes that debuted barely three years ago.
Finder windows offer a new pane, called a Sidebar, that weds the NeXT-like columnar file hierarchy view with a Windows XP-like list of storage devices and common sub-directories in the user's home folder. Buttons on the customizable window allow users to select iconic, list or column views and turn the Sidebar on and off.
While this will be handy for people who are at home with hierarchical file systems, it has potential to confuse others because it can mask parts of the hierarchy, particularly when the list or icon views are selected. At first glance, files appear to live at the top of whatever directory is selected in the Sidebar -- intervening folders and subfolders are not shown. Sidebar does not have an option for the tree view common to Linux and Windows desktop windows.
ExposZ allows for one-click tiling of all open windows.
A new feature called ExposZ allows one-button (or one-click) tiling of all the open windows as thumbnails, and is a very handy way to find a specific window on a crowded desktop with many apps running.
Panther continues Apple's commitment to making it easy to use Macs in heterogenous network environments. Mac OS X 10.3 offers easy one-click access to network servers in the underlying BSD 5 subsystem. A click-to-start list in the Systems Preferences Sharing panel turns on ASIP (AppleShare over IP), SMB, Apache, FTP, and printer sharing via LPD/LPR and CUPS. NFS, surprisingly can only be turned on using the command line or a GUI config app like Marcel Bresink's NFS Manager.
Panther also discovers and connects to virtually any Windows or *NIX server, although, in practice, the process didn't always work smoothly, and occasionally not at all. Panther generated username/password errors and refused to connect to a Red Hat Linux 9 box running NFS on a local subnet. For its part, the Red Hat box could see the Mac in its UNIX network browser, but returned an error when attempting to open a directory. For some reason, SuSE 8.2 worked fine, in both directions, and the Mac happily connected via ASIP to the netatalk server on the RH 9 box.
Panther also features Rendezvous, Apple's version of zeroconf, that does a good job of discovering
He obviously likes a lot about Panther, but he doesn't think many Linux users will switch to it..
:p
Well he can put me down as a Linux user who jumped onto OSX.
I really like Linux, but I just never got on with it as a desktop OS - lots of little things used to irk me, and the frustration of trying to get Linux working with much more modern hardware (like my NForce2 board) just made me get fed up with the whole idea.
Using OSX is like having the ultimate Linux distro.. you have THE best GUI available today, there are loads of Window XP beating applications shipped with OSX as standard, and hardware integration is obviously perfect - stuff just works. Plus you can quite easily get into the underlying UNIX core, and tamper with things - having such a functional GUI, and being able to fire up a terminal and use things like openssh, pico, etc right out of the box just totally sold me.
I still use Linux on my servers though.. you just can't beat that reliability and flexibility.. though I haven't tried out OSX Server yet....
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Well, I went from Linux over to OS X for my 'daytime' OS just a month ago....and upgraded to Panther as it came out too. Just thought I'd add a couple of reflections;
I'm certainly not a linux newbie, started off with a slackware 0.99pl13 and been using various disties since, and it'll still run on my servers for the forseeable future, but I have to say that as a desktop OS OSX is hard to beat.
The bundled applications in the iLife suite are really something - plugging in a video camera and spooling a tape onto disk, editing it and burning to an indexed DVD took about 2 hours. Of course, there's plenty of stuff you can't do, but the OS basically makes the easy things trivial. Most of the things iLife offer can be done via Linux, but the beauty of OS X, for me at least, is that it all works _well_enuf_ out of the box - Linux is always a few hours tinkering to get the configuration you need. It's a shame that OpenOffice isn't better integrated into the system, but that's down to all of us getting our collective fingers out and doing something about it!
With the benefit of 'fink' theres plenty of GPL software out there, so in theory at least there shouldn't be much that you can do with Linux that's not possible on OS X (OK, OK, let's not get started about Aqua), but OTOH, linux gives you a sharp set of tools for doing the more sophisticated things that are difficult to do anywhere else.
Apple PowerBook quality, in my experience, hasn't been so great - my first machine went back because it had a duff DVD drive, current one has colour deformations on the screen, but that'll get sorted over time.
In short - OS X is a great OS for those people who want to do straightforward computer things (including content manipulation) but not for the dyed-in-the-wool linux hacker. Personally, I can't see myself going back to Linux for my desktop OS...
ever since I switch to Jaguar (My Panther box is somewhere between Cork (IE) and
What I could do on Linux and still can do on OSX:
What I still cannot do (I used to be able to do it under Linux)
So my point is not to troll (only people who disagree but won't argue might say so) but just to express the following : Linux is cool, nice, may even be optimized but my current powerbook is way faster than the P3/600 Linux laptop I had before switching (I don't care about existing models). I also benefit from many quality software and from a very cool development environement.
Finally, I won't step back because I just enjoy typing this on the sexiest computer I ever owned (I also own an Acorn RiscPC, a NeXTstation, a Bebox, a P4 PC, a Zaurus and a Sinclair ZX81).
Trolling using another account since 2005.
This is not to troll, but this is what I've been saying to my Linux pals a couple of time when Linux vs OS X has come up.... That Linux want to become Mac OS X.
Major applications ported to it. (no WINE)
Lots of games. (not Tuxracer!)
And it's cool... (not trying to copy existing GUI's)
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
As someone who runs Debian Gnu/Linux on thier G5, i can give my view. I can't RTFA because its slashdotted. Keep in mind that "Linux" to the end user often means KDE/GNOME.
.net and Plastik. The gnome styles are also quite simple, with Cleanice and Smokey being the simplest. Not to mention that KDE 3.2 and Gnome 2.4 have cleaned up their act, you will never have to touch a text file again. Also the hardware dectection has become top notch excellent. Forget having to edit textfiles, forget about cdroms that don't eject, forget about modprobing, its all automagic now!
First of all, The Aqua GUI can get in the way after a while, and there isn't really a good option to turn it off. KDE lets you terraform the GUI quite a bit. You can emulate the Aqua look with the "Liquid" style, but most KDE distributions use "Keramik" by default. Kermamik uses rounded, gradiented buttons, along with the "Crystal" icon set by deafult, but it can be turned off and switch to more flatter and simpler styles like
Also there are THOUSANDS more apps for linux, in Debian there are 13000(!) different packages, offering a ploethera of software, The new GIMP with a easy GUI and CMYK support, the Fast OpenOffice 1.1, the sleek totem movie player, plus much much more. Not to mention you can run more with Wine, or MacOnLinux if you use a Gx processor.
Mac OS X on the other hand has broken binary compatibillity, fries Firewird disks, Costs $129 per point release, where linux is just a simple click of the "dist upgrade" button.
I am a apple zealot, but I don't like their OS, their OS has gone down hill ever since Mac OS 8. I have ran Linux on them ever since, and after trying MacOS Jaguar and Panther, I'm glad to use Linux.
Screenshot of My G5 desktop!
Apparently old mac users don't like the new Finder. However, this is one of the reasons I have never bought a mac before OSX, as a lot of the old UI components were bloody stupid. I expect that once these users get used to the new Finder, they will see how much more sensible it is.
You cannot compare MacOS X with Linux, despite the fact that these operating systems are similar technologically - they are based on *NIX-like architecture.
The reason for that is the simple fact that Linux is CLI (Command Line Interface) first, GUI second. And in MacOS X is the other way round - the interface is the most important part of the OS.
Of course, you can compare the Linux kernel with MacOS kernel, Linux CLI with MacOS CLI, Linux filesystems with MacOS filesystems, and GNOME (or KDE) with MacOS X GUI, you can even compare a disto of your choice (be it RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian or Slackware) - with MacOS X, but not LINUX as a generic OS, for Christ sake!
You can defy gravity... for a short time
linux doesn`t erase external disks (without any announcement whatsoever), does it?
"If you loved me, you`d all kill yourselves today"
Spider Jerusalem
I'm surprised that he reckons that vast swaths of Classic users are cling gin on. Even people who were held back by Quark not upgrading quickly enough are moving now. What's more OS X can provide a very classic like user experience if you want it to.
;learnt any *nix stuff or run any X11 programmes without OS X. OpenOffice 1.0.3 is now my Office suite of choice, although the sooner they sort out the terrible human interface the better. And that's my major gripe with Linux and other *nix flavours, is the terrible human interface. Now Aqua is not perfect but one thing Apple has managed to do over the years is keep the interface consistent and persuade developers to make their interfaces consistent with the OS. What linux needs is an Open Human Interface Standard if it want's to succeed on the desktop.
I'm also wondering about his assessment of the speed of OS X on his G4. Now maybe 16 years of Mac use has blinded me to how slow Mac OS X really is, but I find it (on a 500Mhz G3) pretty snappy and nothing to complain about. Maybe I should see the light and install Linux.
I think not though, productivity would grind to a halt as I tried to get Linux to do the things I wanted it to.
One things is to be said, I would have never
If you're gonna support a side, give Mac your money; fsck longhorn. In those two years until its realease, we can advocate for the more intuitive and [partially] free OS that Mac is. And which the Linux desktop will eventually become
Smart, not only support a company that has a proprietary UI on a *nix with no intention of opening it, but also a company that has full control of its own hardware market as well.
Geesh... Even if you hate Microsoft, at least they support tons of hardware and don't force you to buy any brand. (And don't give me a Mice speech, Logitech mice work just a well as Microsoft mice on MS OSes.
Not going to defend Microsoft, but to play Apple as the god's gift ot the Open Source movement is the stupiest thing I have seen posted in a long time.
And please don't post Darwin Links to prove that Apple is all warm and fuzzy with open source.
The ASDL is NOT true open source, it is a disclosure out of public image and necessity due to the ripped off BSD and MACH technologies.
Well he does say
"I think nothing of leaving apps and files open for days or even weeks on the Linux machine.".
Now that is cool. Nice endorsment of Linux's stability. However I still think he should say that he does save once in a while as stable as Linux is it can't survive the power cord being pulled out the back or a child putting a pop tart in the CD-ROM drive
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I'd hate to see users of two fantastic operating systems like OS X and Linux turn into bickering opponents not unlike the factious Judean liberation groups in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
IMO, there's more than enough room for lots of operating systems out there. I hope some of you posting comments favoring one or the other can keep the comments purely at a technical, respectful and impersonal level.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
The kernel is irrelevent int this case, since MacOS X is limited to a subset of Apple Hardware, while Linux can run on a lot more. If it was Darwin vs Linux, then Linux would be the winner before the battle even started
So, we need to go higher up. For example lets verse these apps together from the two major "Linux" GUI's vs the "Darwin" GUI.
Finder vs Nautilus vs Konqueror
Safari vs Epiphany vs Konqueror
Itunes vs Rhythmbox vs JuK
Quicktime player vs Totem vs Kmplayer
Expose vs Virtual desktops
Aqua vs Curve vs Keramik
iChat vs Gaim vs Kopete
iphoto vs Gimp
I haven't tried OSX 10.3 yet, only Jaguar, so I'd like to know your opinions about them.
as has been said before ... WHORE!
... MacOS has a smoother user interface. If you like a crisp and clean desktop buy a mac. if you work in the design or music business buy a mac. also buy a mac if you have too much money left and want a piece of art.
on the other hand side, as to customizing mac os can not compete with linux. also, in my opinion linux has more programs that are freely available (i know that osX is a bsd derivative, but I don't know if you can compile a lot of open source code on a osX platform). I work a lot on linux and mac, and each system has its uses. if you put up a server use linux, of you want to do some design work switch to a mac.
".Sig Stealer" was here
Are people working on getting something similar into KDE and/or GNOME ?
That's not an example : /dev/ttyx becomes
obsolete with the 2.2.x series, replaced by /dev/cuax. Could this be your problem? :-)
IMO your problem with the installation CDs can have one of two causes
1. There is something in your already installed linux that prevents the install from running again. This should easily be solved by formating the partitions you are installing to during setup ( = create new filesystem on partition ).
2. Your CD set or CD drive is physically damaged. Do you have access to an other computer with CD? Can you look at your installation CDs there?
Oh, and as to your modem problem : Which kernel are you using? The
Hang on in there! I always say : Linux makes the easy things a tad more difficult, but it makes the hard things easier and the impossible things possible, at least once in a while
I fail to see how that isn't an example.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
An example of why your statement is false has to be non-linear video editing and DVD authoring. These are both complex tasks that up until a few years ago would have been thought impossible for the majority of people. iMovie changed the former, iDVD changed the latter. Anyone can now do these things.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
The depth to which your stupity sinks is immeasurable.
And you still haven't posted an example. Yes, you've posted a quote.
A witty saying proves nothing.
Steve jobs himself admitted most people use os9 and not osx.
he held up a graph in may press show that started in january 2003 and wnet to may 2003 he admitted that in January 2003 there were only 200,000 regualr osx users but by may 2003 it was 7 million using osx and 7 million using os9.
Google clicks show that requests from classic os users is still slightly more popular than the slower osx.
google zeitgeist and other click-counting sites show osx is NOT that popular, though 8 times more popular than linux surfers.
Steve jobs admitted himself osx was a failure in 2003... in JANUARY 2003, though its come around finally.
Can someone give me some pointers? Is there a good "on-the-fly" encrypted volume utility for Linux?
I've used Mac since 9, and upgraded to X at around 10.1. Before that I used 95, and attempted Linux (but my shitty old computer didn't want to play - damn CD-Rom drives of that time).
I love 10.1 (and hopefully 10.3 once I can find 70 to drop for the students edition) - I can do 'boring' stuff on it, like run Word or Powerpoint. I can do arty / photographic things on there (Photoshop), and also run Apache, MySQL, PHP/Perl to develop websites.
In addition thanks to Fink I can use debian style package management tools with ease. Damn good OS.
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
I got demoted as a troll for posting FACTUAL information, so i will post these facts again but request that no one bother commenting on it. Without comments, and without seeking comments on these informative facts i am BY DEFINITION not being a troll because a troll implies trolling for responses and i formally request NO RESPONSES to these facts.
I know lots of nasty linux bugs, few mac bugs
For example a relatively modern virgin install of full redhat linux with gnome could be make to soft-hang byt copyung a directory into its decendent further down the hierarchy... infinte recursion.
HAH! no version of any mac os allowed that idiotic bug and used checks to prevent it.
There are plenty more lazy shortcuts riddled through linux. The most glaring are the counltess places where no error detection allows bugs to become more dramatic. Fro example in some linux kernels there was assumption that certain writes to the boot device never fail to write, but had no feedback.
I do not care.
I use classic mac, and windows and sometimes osx, and think trying to comapre linux vs freebsd based mac is pointless. The mac will always have 8 times the market share and countless shrinkwrapped commercial apps.
Libux was predicted to overtake mac 5 years ago and it never happened then and will also not ever happen in another 5 years, if ever.
FreeBSD mac OSX won the race. and most of the source code is open.
Apple just released the source to darwin 7.0 (full source to most of the parts of mac os that count) and did it coinciding with the release of the mac.
again... this is not a troll, so quite marking it as such, because i request no replies to my comments and this is an informative post.
There is NOT ONE lie in it and if a Linuxfanboy wants to keep modding down FACTS then they merely are reinforcing why people are switching from linux to mac in droves.
Thanks.
Because you originally said.
Wheras MacOS makes the easy things easy, the hard things hard and the impossible things not possible
Yes, but you completely failed to mention what I said before that:
But I'll give you a (slightly altered) quote to sum up the situation
Way to quote me out of context.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
I boot into Mac OS 9.2.2 to run Connectix Virtual PC 5.04. Classic requires far less processing power and RAM, so VPC gets more. I have an iMac G4 800 with 512 MB RAM and I can give those virtual PC's 320 MB RAM. Runs Debian Linux just fine (installed from Knoppix 3.3 CD).
It feels like my laptops are just going to waste with stupid windows and linux on them.
Every time I hear a user say "My Mac has locked up - can I do something to save my work still?", I just have to laugh.
Explaining to people that you have to assign max memory allowed per application also gets painful.
Trouble with going to Mac OS X:
1) A pile of G4 400 MHz macs that really aren't fast enough and would require a lot more RAM too.
2) Explaining the differences to users could take ages
Are you sure you didn't mean "hand job?"
The club wasn't at all some fanboy club for Apple, as you seem to suggest. Rather, it was a pre-law club.
Our president (at the time)
Oddly this post was marked as a -1 troll even though its 100% on topic (#7356423), 100% truthful adn information packed. Please stop MOD ABUSE. I had to repost it.
e .h tml
Apple includes a full cd of developer goodies and timing analysis tools (CHUD) on the fourth cd in every box of the faster better Panther 10.3 OSX.
This Xcode compiler-IDE environment allows distributed CPU distributed Mac compiles. It also has lots of modern high tech link and compiler techniques and the cool stuff pioneered on NeXT Step in late 1990 that was partly implemented as proof of concept a few years later at Apple (DINKER - dynamic linker).
But the dynamic linker technologies in XCode allow changing and radically altering single routines while an ap is still running, without having to compile without most popular optimizations.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jun/23xcod
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xcode/
Linux installs rarely have GUI based debuggers and GDB has some really ugly hacks to make it work with mice, but rarely are there any great low level (driver debugging) gui based debuggers on Linux.
xcode makes programmers much more productive and this artcle refused to compare compiler tools.
Naturally, mac users can also use FINK if they want to and install most all other popular open source apps without RPM hell.
Also Mac now includes full "The X Windows System" x11 on the thhird installer cd and includes "The X Windows System" sdk on the developer cd now, to aid in porting high end scientific apps momentarily before being redressed as pleasing cocoa interfaced apps.
The main reason to use Macs is that they are cheaper than intel for cpu power, that is why the number 3 spot on www.top500.org list will be the VT University 1100 node mac cluster in november when the list is publicly posted.
intel, itanium, AMD cannot compete against the dual g5 in performance and price. Especially if you need 8 gigabyte of physical RAM (Mac) and PCI-X 133Mhz 64bit slots (Mac) and 64 bit integers (mac) etc etc etc.
record breaking 16 Gflop/s per mac (with FMADD) !!!:
A fused multiply-add (FMADD) is f0 = f1 * f2 + f3, which is two floating point operations in a single opcode. Each FPU on a G5 can execute an FMADD each cycle. So:
1 FMADD per cycle = 2 flop/cycle * 2 FPUs = 4 flop/cycle * 2 CPUs = 8 flop/cycle * 2 GHz = 16 Gflop/s per 2999 dollar list price mac with the fast DVD burner and pci-x slots and 8 gig ram limit and 4 S-ATA drive connectors, OPTICAL SPDIF in-out, usb 2, firewire 800, etc etc etc
Do not get me wrong.... LINUX is interesting, and almsot became popular, but most the people I know that supported linux that have jobs adn incomes all switched over to macs even before the dual g5 shipped and many more have switched to mac since. They run linux servers but use macs for enjoyment, and personal productivity.
Some also run macs as servers but not the ones taht have no need for science or no need of apples dirt cheap cheap Fibre channel 14 drive raid array. (xRAID).
Ah well... i wish this article was written from a DEVELOPERS point of view.
people fought the mouse from apple for years and fought icons and scrollable resizable windows.. the Mac won that war and now even pc users use MS Windows (a copy descended from the Mac GUI pioneered on apples September 1983 Lisa computer)
people fought mice and people fight osx but the osx will prevail
But freebsd, openbsd, netbsd all keep apple honest and on their toes.
Linux people never remember linux was a ripoff of MINUX source code originally, and a rippoff of GNU tools), True its come a long way in recent years, but a lot of those types of hobbyists ARE buying macs.
Xcode is one of the reasons.
I formally request that no one bother commenting on this post. Without comments, and without seeking comments on these informative facts i am BY DEFINITION not being a troll because a troll implies trolling for responses and i formally request NO RESPONSES to these facts.
thanks.
I'm a regular Linux user and have been since 1994 but for the first time I'm considering switching my fav os for something else, MacOS X. Why? BETTER apps. Not more, not freer, not more open source, but better, more thought through applications (and that includes the GUI).
I think Nautilus is swell and the whole GNOME desktop is a great accomplishment for the open source community, but it's nowhere near the refinement of the MacOS GUI. The diffrences are not obvious right away since most people will just try to use the GUI as they would use Windows or GNOME. This will yield a working GUI, but you need to understand the MacOS philosophy in much the same manner as you must understand the terminal in order to get any effective work done. When you do, there is no turning back.
Oh, another thing: cut-and-paste, drag-n-drop, hardware acceleration, plug-and-play, third party driver support... those are working concepts in MacOS X. I miss that in Linux.
I think this topic is so passe it's not even wort writing a decent reply too. Perhaps you should quit trolling forums and actually report some news. However, OS X is alot better as far as ease of use than any linux system will ever be. Every Linux distro I have used has always required an implied knowledge of *nix. OS X is like linux for dummies. However, it fails in the fact that it doesn't have alot of X11/GNU software and those bastards at apple don't want to use MIT shared memory in their mach kernel.
Here's another great review of Panther. Translation is available here.
> The ASDL is NOT true open source, it is a disclosure out of public image and necessity due to the ripped off BSD and MACH technologies
that's not really true at all you know...the BSD license pretty much lets you do what you want with the code, there's no requirement to open derivative works.
Advanced users are users too!
How many times do we have to say it, comparing KDE/Gnome etc.. to OSX isn't comparing Linux with OSX. You're comparing a desktop environment that just happens to run on Linux with OSX.
KDE, Gnome etc.. are available on other OSes like Solaris and the BSDs.
If you're going to compare OSX and Linux then you should be looking at the kernel performance.
How about supporting neither?:
1). Seems both companies wish to force users to upgrade as often as possible. Although 5 years of security fixes for 98 is better than the lastest Mac OS debacle.
2). Linux won't benefit from Mac OS. There is NO WAY Apple will open up the source to its GUI. Period. Do they really give back to the Open Source community? Maybe a few minor modifications to the *BSD code it's built on.
3). MacOS base is about as similar to Linux, as the Solaris base is. To the igorant, they are the same, Unix variants. But to others, so far apart, not even close - don't even go there.
4). Your argument to get people to improve Linux by supporting Apple is bogus. People can support Linux right now if they wanted. And people do. Apple is doing slightly more than zilch to help the progress of the GNU/Linux OS.
but my grandma can't use it.
She buys a digital camera, plugs it on a Mac, and iPhoto does everything for her.
If she plugs in the same camera on a linux machine, will it do the same thing?
Oh, and as to your modem problem : Which kernel are you using? The /dev/ttyx becomes obsolete with the 2.2.x series, replaced by /dev/cuax. Could this be your problem?
/dev/ttyS* is alive and well, /dev/cua* is dead (or dying).
This is horseshit.
I only use Linux. My desktop machine at works runs Linux, and my desktop machine at home runs Linux. No "dual boot" or anything like that.
Is Mac OS X good? Yeah. I'd say it's pretty darn compelling, and all Linux application developers should take a good long look at OS X in order to learn to see where it succeeds.
Running Linux on the Desktop does not make my day easier. Printing, clipboarding, decent-quality video drivers, fonts, app consistency - these are all still major issues that impact the further deployment of Linux on the desktop.
The amazing part of OS X is it's integration and consistency. Simply put, it's a cohesive environment, built as if one very talented person built almost all the applications. Every Linux distribution is years behind it in that category (although things are very slowly getting better!)
It's hard to force UI and feature standards upon desktop applications in the world of open source - the distributedness and the lack of centralization of open source makes it hard to achieve that level of clarity.
So the next question is - can it be done in Linux? Is it even possible to build guidelines and services that make it possible for an open source project to achieve what Apple has done for OS X?
If I ever buy a laptop, there is no doubt in my mind that it will be a Mac running OS X.
PS - every application should have a "print preview"! Damn it!
One thing that annoys me is people counting apps on X versus unix/windows. Windows has 10's of thousands of apps, but the vast majority are shit. How many MP3 players are there for windows? Millions. How many do you need? When you actually get down to the apps that aren't shit, OS X has a comparable number, esp. compared to linux where there is no pro apps (like Cubase/Reason/Logic etc). Having said that, When Linux does make a "pro" app like the Gimp, It doth rock severly. But BlastX, sequencing, audio production, visual production, etc are easy to get for X.
Linux and OSX are part of the same culture.
Apple doesn't really compete with linux or the rest of the current UNIX crowd. Maybe SUN but they are screwed anyway. We are not talking about a fork of Unix but rather Apple embraceing a current implimentation (BSD/Darwin) and giving it there own "spin" by, bascially, bolting on their own propriety GUI (quartz and what ever that new metal look is called) plus a bunch of lifestyle apps.
As long as a program conforms to the POSIX stardard then it should compile on OSX just fine. If you absolutely must have all your software "free" in the idealogical sense then I think you can find a open source implimentation of Cocoa and afterstep - a standard which Apple more or less follows. Apple can's own UNIX as much as SCO can since it is a open standard.
What we are talking about is a company talking the best of open source and making it more friendly for your average consumer. This is someting that most linux distros try, the best example being Mandrake. but don't quite get right mainly due to technical (XFree86, dependency hell) cultural (pointless flamefests over which is the best editor) and social problems (not having one standard GUI, installing a million text editors, lack of propriety apps etc). Some of these problems can be overcome, but some, like the idea that to make more people use linux you have to clone the windows GUI are going to take years to get over. I for one am glad that someone is attempting to lead the way and give people what they what - a decent alterative to windows that dosen't require a degree to write your resume on. Yet still has the power of UNIX if yon need it.
OSX is UNIX. That Apple should chose this direction should be taken as compliment to Linux.
Sorry to rant but I wish for once us geeks would stop getting into pointless pissing contests about things which, in the grand scheme of things, just aren't really important. For example who cares that OSX can't crtl alt f1 to the terminal? this is just nitpicking.
Anyone know if PAnther has support for YP/NIS services. It was a know issue with early OSX releases and it's fairly hard find out. Believe mew, I've tried... BG: Our cxampus is about to get a nice spanknig 50 seat G% lab with 50 or som machines. Our dept has an existing infrastructure underpinned by NIS for authentication, with some samba. We'd like to be able to get some of our existing users to use new facilities more easily and beinfg able to integrate with new servers installed specifically for that lab. We really don't want to go down an LDAP route if we can avoid it, which is why I'm asking about NIS
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
They realized that OS stability doesn't really matter once the user has crashed...
Apple's Panther has a serious bug that wipes out external FireWire drives during the upgrade procedure. Worse, many Mac users are backing up to external drives before upgrading. Some are losing everything.
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,212 5,61031,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
Next thing, Apple will finally drop entirely the Mac interface and adopt KDE or Gnome.
Hope they bring their UI expertise to Gnome, that would make it a killer desktop!!!!
I tend to feel sympathy for Apple just because it's not "the enemy" and in fact is competition for this "enemy" we know and can recognize very well. In fact I feel very tempted right now to go and buy one of the cheapest iBooks.
However Apple isn't playing fair enough with the Open Source community. It's based on BSD. That's ok - they every right to do so and in fact BSD gets some "brand recognition" out of it.
They release a Quicktime player for Windows and not for Linux/FreeBSD/etc . Not even a closed source one. My guess is it shouldn't be complicated to port it anyway. But they don't even try - they do release Darwin Darwin for x86. And as you said, you can use mplayer for Mac as well. That's the way this "yours is mine, mine is mine" strategy.
The same extends to iChat and iPhoto too. Don't release them even closed source for other systems unless they benefit out of it (usually windows software) - this is a purely practical and completely uncollaborative standpoint. And they can get Open Source alternatives as well (Gimp for instance, but just check how many O.S. packages have been ported) and they benefit of that greatly. Apple doesn't have competitive alternatives for several of those packages and the budget Mac user can afford now to own a Mac without breaking the bank to pay it's rather expensive software (warez is the shamelessly accepted option for windows).
The moral of the story is: Apple practices are the closest in the market. Cut the "Apple openness" bull. If Apple was in M$'s position it would probably be even worse, with their closed hardware policy. Apple has taken much, much more from the O.S. community than it has given. Your post shows that good old parasitism still works.
I think I'll still have the iBook, but cut the crap.
Love, muyuu
Linux has many high-quality desktop applications: WordPerfect OpenOffice Xess Applixware Gnomeeting Blender Maya Mozilla Nvu GIMP (ad infinitum sourceforge.net && freshmeat.net) Civilization Quake3 Return to Castle Wolfenstein Kohan FreeCraft FreeSpace Vendetta (ad infinitum happypenguin.org && linuxgames.com)
Absolutely not! That would be totally unprecedented!
Your funny statement notwithstanding, impossible things are by their very definition impossible on any OS in any situation.
Let's be realistic here. "Linux", these days, effectively means "Linux + XFree86 + KDE or Gnome". If you say Linux, that's what most people think of. Even a large proportion of Slashdot readers. And what most of these people would say, to refer to the kernel, would be "the Linux kernel".
That this is technically "wrong" is irrelevant. Consider the word "America" as an analogy. "Technically" it refers to a continent - but in practice, if I say "America", nearly everyone will think of the USA - even many Canadians! Likewise, if I say "England", most people outside Scotland and Wales will think of Great Britain. And likewise, if I say "Linux", most people who've heard of it will... okay, they'll think of a command line, but if I say "Linux" in the same breath as "OS X", they'll think of KDE or Gnome.
So... comparing KDE/Gnome, running on a Linux kernel, to OSX, is comparing Linux with OSX. Sorry, but that's the way the world sees it, and therefore that's the way it is.
or maybe part of the switch was to get away from broad minded linux zealots?
Another point to consider is that after someone drops a couple or three thousands dollars of dollars on their Apple rig, there is a strong psychological need to justify the expenditure. Very few folks want to reveal publically that their very expensive choice was a mistake. In other words, such a party would not be the most objective source for information.
...if you could install OS X on them.
pithy.
I played around with a Mac OS X computer (one of the cool looking 'lamp' ones) in PCworld the other day and was extremely impressed.
Personally I will stick to Linux because I like it but I think for a lot of novice computer uses currently using Windows because 'theres no other choice', I think should consider switching to Mac OS X.
I had always sort of them as being extremely expensive but the ones in the shop (which sells both Windows and Mac computers) were about the same price as the Windows ones.
The major problem is that as the sales guy explained to me, people don't realise a 800mhz G4 is far better than say a 1.5Ghz Pentium however when people see the 800mhz mac costing more than the 1.4 ghz PC they obviously go for the PC.
Kind of reminds me of the old saying that if it wasn't for Apple's pathetic marketing practises they would be the dominant software company of today (whether that is good or bad I don't know).
However, I think that for novice users who arn't quite ready to use Linux as a desktop (in its current form), then they should be recommended a Mac as they are atleast half way there and all competition is good for the computer industry, better than everyone dominated by one large monopoly anyway.
Yes, and just the other day, a quick SSH from my Powerbook to one of my remote desktop clients running Linux revealed that it was only the GUI that had frozen.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
that's not really true at all you know...the BSD license pretty much lets you do what you want with the code, there's no requirement to open derivative works.
The license can be debated for hours, but you are also forgetting the basic MACH license, that REQUESTS that all derivative works be returned - i.e. Open.
"FOR THE REST OF US, LINUX IS WHERE IT'S AT"? huh? you make it sound like Linux is the op system that has 90% market share. Please. :/ I'm REALLY GLAD you LUB LINUX SO MUCH, but lets not get carried away. Repeat after me please....it's just an operating system.....it's just an operating system.....maybe I can de-program you.
Yeah go ahead, mod this a troll. I dont care. It needed to be said.
For the average everyday user Mac OSx is far easier to use and maintain. Linux is wonderful but it is pretty high maintenance. I switched recently from a Red Hat 8 machine and a Windows XP pro to a very elegant new 15" powerbook now running "panther" OSx 10.3 (which albeit is a bit bug laden) is a wonderful system. I'm a very happy camper. I just needed to get stuff down without futzing around with the system.
gurgle it.
Blar.
What's in my classic apps folder?
Claris Home Page - yeah, yeah, yeah...
GPSY & DeLorme Street Atlas 6 - no decent replacements yet
Photoshop LE - Elements is at present too cumbersome for the $100
PageMaker 6.x - still does a yeoman's job balanced against the upgrade cost
Microsoft Works - for playing whack-a-mole with legacy docs
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
pretty much says it all. Going to the Apple Store today after work and buying a new mac. I'm tired of Microsoft's bullshit, I'm tired of worms and virii, and I'm tired of DRM windows style - it's gonna be intrusive and nasty when it hits full force, and there will be no OFF button. Time to switch and leave the windows machine for playing games, which is the only thing they are better at the mac anyways.
Unless it REQUIRES then there isn't much debate.
it's like comparing linux & windows.
:D
these are totally different items, if they
just want to compare gui-s like kde or gnome
then just call it that way (compared kde on linux with mac os X ) or smth like it.
i consider my machine running on linux althrough i hardly ever bring up any more applications than vim in an xterm
[??? when is this "comparing" going to end ???]
it's just a waste of time and money, as are the
news about it.
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
People who use OS X certainly is very different from people who use Linux. Few reasons:
1) Linux runs on cheap, commodity and easily available hardware.
2) Linux is written by the people for the people.
If you don't like anything about it, theoretically, your knowledge is the only thing that stops you from fixing it. OS X and the many apps which run on it are owned and controlled by their respective authors. Hence one is a knowledge driven culture, while the other is not.
While I am not against people who don't value these things, they should be mentioned.
Making the impossible possible has already been done with ZomboOS.
Another point to consider is that after someone spends a couple of weeks installing and hand-tuning Linux, there is a strong psychological need to justify such time expenditure. Very few folks want to reveal publically that their very time-consuming choice was a mistake. Etc.
I love Apple hardware and products. ANd believe me I am dying to get a new Powerbook or G5. But no matter what Mac product I get, I am going to end up installing Linux PPC on it.
The reason? Aqua. I *hate* the look of Aqua, and Apple decided "hey everyone will *LOVE* this so why have themeing?". Newsflash, everyone doesn't want bubbly garbage all over their screen.
If I coudl switch OSX themes I would be able to use it. Although I also hate the OSX dock... but I could work around that probably by using some 3rd party task manager.
If you're like me and want to do some development for fun, the new developer tools that come with Panther are absolutely amazing. I think it beats anything available for free (fix and continue, need I say more...) and also beats Visual Studio (which is, to be fair, a pretty good product even if it is made by the evil empire) which certainly does not come for free with every compy of WinXP.
It is my opinion that an OS that makes developers comfortable is going to be a successful OS, so full credits to Apple on this one. I would really never have considered buying a mac before OSX (come on, they didn't even have a command line!) but now I have, and it just let's me get on with doing what I love, writing software...
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
Linux High maintenance?
Only if you screw with it a lot.
The extent of my regular maintenance for the last few years is running apt-get to get security fixes.
Only occasionally a kernel upgrade.
I've found my linux machine needs much less work to keep it running smoothly then my windows machine, which starts acting weird every few months.
The majority of user-level processes are started by loginwindow or children of loginwindow, so killing it kills everything except the OS itself. This also returns you to the login window. In effect, this is the same as killing X11 when it locks up.
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
Well, I have to say, I boot into OS 9 a couple times a week because Finale by Coda is not available for OSX. This isn't a problem of Classic mode so much as it is of Coda in not providing software that is even mildly up to date. Finale just won't function under OSX Classic Mode and Coda doesn't care that their users are cryinng out for solutions. They are so far behind the times it's unbelievable. If any of the other music notation software starts to come close in functionality I'd switch, but until then, I'm stuck booting into 9.
OSX did give back the OS9 finder. Just hit the little oval button on the top right of the window, and you are back to the land of yesteryear.
Anyone find the naked Britney Spears Easter egg?
photosMy Photostream
I run Gimp on OS X. Good and successful Linux apps will always be ported to OS X.
Me too. I've been a Linux user for years. I took a job at a prepress company last year, and now have a TiBook running Jaguar on my desk. OS X is okay, but it needs virtual desktops, badly.
I have a dual head setup with an external monitor and the laptop's LCD screen. I frequently have both screens covered with windows, and can't find what I want. Maybe Panther will fix this with Expose, but it's not the same as virtual desktops.
Does anybody know of decent virtual desktop software for Mac OS X?
I've tried this but it's not really virtual desktops, it's more of a kludge that uses "Hide Application" to simulate them. (Or at least it was, it's been a few months since I tried it.) It also has that gigantic desktop switcher box that uses up my precious screen real-estate.
I sure would like to find one that works like the traditional X11 notion of virtual desktops.
Theres a big fscking ad in the middle of the got da/\/\n page and I can't read part of the article. I know its not slashdots fault but I'm pissed so fsck you too. Ads in the middle of the page are for homosexuals, you stupid sl00tz need to fix that sh1t now before I stop reading newsforge!
I have some serious doubts about xnu (the Mach-derived kernel, to which bits of FreeBSD have been tacked); in actual usage, I've experienced destructive crashes, whether they're its fault, or something higher up in the human-interface stack. Meanwhile, Apple continues to market the "power" and "stability" of UNIX, and I have to deal with Mac fans claiming I have to like it because "It's FreeBSD!"
So while harsh, this is my analogy for Darwin's true relation to FreeBSD, and Apple's marketing thereof:FreeBSD (and Linux, and any other open-source system) is stable because the kernel's withstood the test of many eyes, and evolved over many years. Tearing it apart, sticking it to Mach, and erecting hoops for the few hackers not groaning already seems an inefficient way to "harness the power of open source."
The fact that Mac OS X, a commercial high quality Desktop platform, is compared to Linux just impresses me. Only a year or two ago, they were just not comparable. Today a free hobbyist project is compared, although unfairly, with a professional commercial quality Desktop platform, that has a R&D department.
:-) Good job Free/Open Source, good job! The only stole our kernel today. Tommorrow they'll be stealing our UI innovations, only then, there'd be no reason to switch. When I see projects like GNOME, I have faith in open source's future. Once again, I'm impressed.
:-)
I give Linux 5 more years. The switches will be switched back.
P.S. Any user who has used the GNOME platform and its application lately, will tell you it is a more unified, flexible and simpler environment than Mac OS X is. Just it time.
classic' Mac OS users may not want to move
Yep.
I have a relative who has been using his Mac happily for about a decade, but when I queried him about whether he was running OS X he said no, that it was "too different".
Meanwhile, having lived in UNIX land myself for a long time, I'm intrigued about getting a laptop that can simultaneously serve as a native UNIX development platform (using command line, config files) as well as handling the ubiquitous .doc and .ppt files.
Up until Mac OS X, I was leery of Mac's because they seemed to wrap stuff up in GUI's to where you couldn't see the engine working.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or you have software, such as MacAuthorize, that requires the ability to dial the modem directly.
Since MacAuthorize is not being supported any more by the company which owns the rights to it (Veri$ign), upgrading to an OS X version isn't an option.
Since the only OS X-native credit-card authorization software I've seen costs upwards of $1000/seat, that isn't an immediate option for many small businesses.
There is no 'i' in team, but there is in fiasco...
http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-5099878.html?tag=n efd_top
"A problem is causing some of those who install the new version of Mac OS X to lose the data that's stored on their external hard drives. Apple Computer said the glitch is limited to external hard drives that use a high-speed FireWire connection and a particular chipset Oxford Semiconductor manufactures. The company encouraged those who have a drive that uses the chip to disconnect their drives from Macs that are being upgraded to Mac OS X version 10.3, or Panther."
I had previous installs of OSX on my G4 350 (10.1 and 10.2) both wer un-usable due to slowness..
10.3 is suddenly MUCH MUCH faster and actually usable..
MABASPLOOM!
OSX User: Tastes great!! Linux User: Less filling!!
Request don't mean shit. Require would mean something. If they didn't want to give anyone the source, they didn't have to.
Very interesting read. I love anything I can use as tools to migrate clients away from the Windows platform.
Michael Merry
Merryworks
In this article the reviewer notes that the real (and under reported) benefit of the new 'metal' interface is the ability to choose classic finder behavior, i.e. persistent windows etc. and the new file browser paradigm (which I happen to prefer, but I was weened on windows, not classic)
Cheers
Subtlety, though a rare trait among trolls, still exists. The homo/mac thing is not only a troll, but a thick-skulled one.
Boom Shanka
When you disagree, reply, don't moderate as troll... You gotta hate fanboy moderator nazis.
Happy Halloween ... I'll start of with a little humor...
Look at this cartoon at HomeStarRunner.com. When Steve Jobs introduced Jaguar he pronounced it "JagWire" - seems he needs to take a lesson from the HomeStar gang.
So, if I were CEO of Apple or if my job was in product development here's what I would be developing/releasing:
A bluetooth "one/two" button scroll mouse - I say "one/two" because the scroll button could be the 2nd button - this would satisfy Steve's simplicity rule (and his ongoing contract not to make fancy mice with Logitech) - this would also satisfy those that finally want two buttons. The scroll wheel should be like the scroller found on new Microsoft mice that can move from side to side as well as up & down a page. Scrolling is overdue on Apple mice. I really don't think Apple should innovate beyond this, but I am aware of a very interesting mouse that's in development that will combine a Griffin PowerMate and a mouse - sounds odd, but it will be interesting to see.
Along the same lines, Apple needs to put this same scroller on PowerBooks - an up & down and side to side scroller
Here's the big one - a TV tuner in everything except the iBook - all 15" & 17" PowerBooks, the high end 15" & 17" iMacs, the high end G5's, and the high end eMac should all have TV Tuners - a TV/FM/AM tuner would be awesome. Make the svideo port on the back an i/o rather than just output. This would make macs not just computers but entertainment centers as well. This is Steve's vision isn't it? Mac Users would go APES to have a Mac TV in their bedrooms - and it would be an immense value to the consumer as 17" LCD TVs are premium priced at $799 - a TV integration should cost no more than $30 in volume production. Sell a bluetooth remote, get a company like Griffin, Macally, XtremeMac in on the idea, ask them if they want to produce a premium remote. One that could say control an iPod OR the TV. Now get this - here's a side advantage - have a retractable antenna that can act as a 802.11g signal booster OR an over the air antenna!!! Apple could already have something similar to this if they'd just integrate a PCMCIA slot into iMacs & G5s. But still, I'd rather it be Apple's total solution, integrated and slick.
Next: The iSight needs a line in - this would cost pennies to integrate - the back should just screw off or a little popout svideo port would be cool - a $149 camera/firewire digitizer would SHAKE that entire market - the current firewire/analog converters are VERY expensive.
Next Up: The iPod - it needs to be this. Apple could have the iMovie store - what about Movies in Mp4 for $1.99 !! Burn once to DVD capable, authorized on 3 computers or the iPod. Think of it!!. Truthfully, I'd rather my car passengers have something like a video iPod than one of those integrated DVD/TVs that are popping up in minivans now. I saw an accident happen on the highway the other day because the driver behind a minivan with a TV was watching the TV and not the road/car in front of him. (The guy behind the minivan was actually watching the TV!!) Photo & video sharing, iPhoto integration, wow. Then, somebody with better design thinking than Belkin ("what the hell" was my reaction when I saw this) could make a media dock that could transfer photos to a Mac OR to the iPod. The media reader Belkin made was VERY short sighted. They should have made it firewire, then ALL Mac users might have been interested as well as some PC
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I think the author is missing one important point, which is market segments.
To explain, I work in a bank which for a long time has had a Microsoft Desktop focus and I have been using Linux on my PC for over 4 years now. Sometimes it has taken time to set up but I have always found the return on investment very justifiable.
When it came to choosing a home machine my criteria were different. As it will be used by my Wife and Children I wanted somthing that would play Dr Suuss games and integrate nicely with my Digital Camera and Video recorder. I also wanted something which would enable me to work from home from time to time and play with Unix.
My iMac with OS X has met my needs perfectly. It plays childrens games very well. It integrates perfectly with the video camera and stores and emails digital photographs perfectly. It connects to my corporate VPN (thanks Netlock) and I get a very good X client for free, so I can X back my PC apps. over broadband if neccecary. It has very good versions of PERL and OpenLDAP available from the command line (as an LDAP architect these things are important to me) and it looks good and nas NEVER crashed.
If I hadn't bought this machine, we would probably still have nothing but my office portble at home. AS it is it has formed a very important part of my family life, and I'm very happy with that. So we should always consider the possibility that Apple are opening up market segments that simply wouldn't buy a PC before.
One final comment, many years ago when I worked in PC support, Apples were the bane of my life and I would never have considered purchasing a machine based on OS9. OS X has completely changed my view of the company, and I know many other people who have bought new Apples for exactly the same reason.
The author of the article keeps talking about how OS X is derived from something called the NeXT Desktop. I have no idea what this is, and since "NeXT" is a common term, I couldn't find anything worth-while in my googling. Can anyone point me to some info about this? Or explain what it is?
SIGFAULT
I have a TiBook. I'm typing on it now. The NeXTStep interface was cleaner than the MacOS Classic interface. The only thing that "dirties" the MacOSX interface is the "classic" look of apps that insist on drawing windows with their own application-specific goofy widgets that are designed to look good taking up all of a blurry 14" CRT screen.
Also, more time in the "lickable" Aqua world, and you will be instantly conscious of the mood altering effects of being surrounded by soft edges and clean surfaces with rich (but understated) textures when you switch back to the cold-hard Classic. It's easy to say "it's all just flash !*blink* *blink*", but you haven't really tasted both samples.
I've used MSWindows 3.0,3.1,95,XP; NextStep; BeOS FVWM, OpenLook, CDE, WindowMaker, AfterStep, Enlightenment, KDE, Sawfish, Black Box; etc.. I prefer the OS-X (still using Jaguar) interface. Keys include a cohesive window-management scheme, and *working* VFS. Also there's transparent terminals that use QuartzExtreme so that I can put a window with documentation under a Terminal.app window and type what I want based on the slightly blurred text underneath. Cocoa's message-passing for loose-types makes for a somewhat bloat-y experience, but it isn't something that scales with hardware. It runs nearly as well on a Grape G3 iMac as it does on my TiBook at twice the clock speed plus AltiVec and 32MB GPU.
That said, MacOSX is a logical continuation of NeXTStep. It is a leap from MacOS Classic. Let me say one thing: it is much less of a leap from Classic to OSX than it is from Classic to MSWindowsXP.
You can continue to run your old Classic apps in MacOS Classic if you like. I invite you to try EBay for an old NeXT cube/slab with some software on it. OSX has definitely met Classic users halfway. If you are so reactionary that you can't bear to part with your good-ol' key combo shortcuts and learn a new style, then you don't deserve to run new software that demands it. That's great if you're a "my own little world" style user who just needs Adobe apps and doesn't need UTF-8 international character support...
The bottom line is that you can hold out and save your money for a compelling personal reason to switch, but if you really want your old OS, the old interface guidelines, etc. it ain't gonna happen. Translating your comments in light of that makes your position sound more like "There are those of us who will never upgrade. Long Live Classic!" Whatever...
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Another solution is to not have a 9-to-5 job :)
Yes, that seems to be the solution for most people, but it's not the only way to go.
Roblimo once said (on our LUG mailing list) that he knows 2 basic types of people. One set likes a more "usual" lifestyle with a regular job, family car, house (probably in the suburbs or city), etc. The other sort has the "beach bum" mentality: contract work when you need money, mess around with all sorts of stuff the rest of the time. I agree with him that there's nothing wrong with choosing either path, but you should always remember that both exist.
Right now, I have a "regular" job (7:30-4), plus 10 hours a week for freshmeat. Do I see this lasting forever? No; the other side of things sounds fun too, and honestly, I quite like tinkering.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
For $129, you would hope to get a well-debugged product.
Why? Microsoft has been selling even more poorly debugged products for even more money for years. In so doing, Microsoft has lowered the bar for everybody. Nobody tests their products adequately anymore, no matter how much they charge!
Sad to see that Apple is following right along.
a G4 eMac w/ LCD is $799 NEW.
and that's not a bargain basement closeout like the Dell you bought.
I like microcars
Oops, wait a minute, that second sentence almost seemed like a compromise. You might want to recant and return to the fundamentalist fold, there. Total freeness is the only possible doctrine. I'm not sure what line of heresy you're on by attempting to suggest forgiveness for companies coping with copyright law...
You just made the poster's point ever so well.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I use my computer to code. C/C++ and Java mostly. For me Linux is light years ahead of Mac in user interface and the reasons are simple. I have countless scripts and config files that I have tweaked to make my every day life easier. I wouldn't think I would need to say this on /. but I guess there are not that many coders on here any more. I want my GUI to grow with me, I change how I work at times, I need to change my scripts and pipe output to start gui's like debuggers and the like in different ways. This tweaking of scripts isn't a bad thing at all, it is a necessity. My co-workers have their own setups that are different then mine, is that wrong? No it's right for them. Macintosh is about doing things one way, and that way is the right way. But guess what, it's not the right way for me, and most of the people I work with. Maybe Macs just happen to be setup perfect for people who use photoshop right out of the box, I don't know I don't do that sort of thing, and if it is then that is great for them. But Mac's UI isn't perfect for me. To me Linux and Mac are on the oppisite end of the spectrum, I can't imagine why anyone would switch from Linux to Mac, if they do, then they weren't using the power of linux to start with, and maybe they didn't need it. In the end the endless configuration of linux is not a fault, it's a feature, one I can't live without.
More than one previous poster has pointed out that OSX and Linux users are natural allies, and that the two systems have more similarities than differences, but I would put an even finer point on it:
;) Sony will ship a slickified custom linux with their Vaios, geared toward the multi-media heavy tasks that their product is aimed at, other companies will ship machines with stripped down, extremely easy to use "big-button" interfaces for grandma to check email and look at pictures of the grandkids. If we can just break the MS lock on the market, there will be plenty of room for a rich ecosystem of OSes to survive. If they are all commited to open standards, there is no reason why a plethora of OSes (as opposed to just one or a few) cannot both survive in the market and be easily managed by IT pros.
OSX and Linux can help each other by breaking the monoculture. There have been a few stories recently about the Linux user base being set to overtake that of OSX in the next few years. These stories are invariably followed by choruses of "Apple is dying." but consider: An (corporate) IT environment which welcomes Linux on the desktop and in the server room is a) more likely to consider alternate platforms and b) an extremely friendly environment (from a protocol standpoint) in which to deploy OSX boxes.
Unlike MS OSes, which expend a great deal of their energies in locking out other platforms, both Linux and OSX are commited to open standards; they are playing by the same rules and will always play well together. A world with (let's say) 85% Windows 10% Linux and 5% OSX on the desktop is a world where more attention and emaphasis will be given to open standards, where OSX will have less resistance to grow its share in many different market spaces, and (perhaps most importantly) a world where the barrier to entry for some theoretical new-and-better OS is much lower.
To look at this another way: As PCs become more commoditized, and as they move more toward being plug-in-and-use appliances, the OS must fade further and further into the background; it must become transperant to the user. The day will come when end users neither know nor care what OS they are using (some would argue that's always been true
The future is not a world where Linux (or MacOSX) has replaced windows on the desktop, but rather one where we have a burgeoning number of choices, and can pick amongst many tools to get the job done right. (I hope....)
-alex
Why is it at every PERL and PHP developers conference I attend, I see more and more carrying iBooks and Powerbooks? There are a few running Linux on a DELL or other PC notebook, but there were many Linux users that abandoned Linux on their desktop for OSX. Most "switchers" I know were from Linux to Mac, not Win to Mac.
I am one of them. I was tired of Windows crashing, even with 2000 and now XP being much better in that regaurds, and it was consent problem of not having drivers for the hardware I already had and what to consider in the future.
OSX came out and I waited until 10.1 for Apple to get the major bugs out of the software and when it came time to buy a new laptop, I chose an iBook. Why? I still have MySQL, PERL and PHP along with BBEdit now to code in and test in a *iux platform on my laptop. Plus, I can still communicate with the rest of the business world with MS Office, plus programs like Photoshop, QuarkXpress, GoLive, Dreamweaver, Flash, Quicktime, iLife, etc..
Apple beat Linux in the desktop market hands down. Truefully, the smaller businesses I deal with don't have the resources or the need for a dedicated IT person on staff. That want products that have a 1-800 number they can call for support or if they do need to hire someone to come fix something, that they at least know what they hell the program is.
Now, several SMB's I have delt with in the past six months have switched from Windows to Mac, and most have been perfectly happy because their systems don't crash, its easy to use. Some use it as a Point-of-Sale system with a CC reader. USB barcode scanner and USB cash drawer without any problems. Others just need MS Office, email, and Quickbooks. The biggest complaint I have heard was one manger loved the productivy, easy of use, and stablity of their Macs, but complained that the Mac didn't have solitare.
Until we see commercial vendors, the Adobe's and Macromedia's of the world, produce native Linux products, the platform in the US won't be takening off in the business world.
Part of the reason has to do with the Dot communism mystique of the OSS community. While businesses know that the deployment costs of Linux on the desktop is a hell of a lot lower, TCO may or may not be. I have only had one client switch his office over to mostly Linux. Their accounting and shipping units still use PC's because of their software needs. There was nothing there in OSS land that would have proved cost effective to switch too, and their PR department (2 people) are using Macs for page layouts and the like. However, this was a medium sized company with 40 employees including 5 IT guys that had been running Linux on servers for close to three years and played with the system at home.
I will place my own predictions: Linux users will continue to switch to OSX. Maybe not in droves, but proably more than one would think.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I will, for the sake of argument, assume that MacOS X 10.3 is far and away, across the board, the best user environment ever created. Having never seen it, used it, or cared about it in any direction, I'll stipulate to that point.
I still wouldn't willingly spend any serious time with it. I would play with it, I would wow over it, and I would commend Apple for doing a fantastic job with it, but I wouldn't do anything that would make me depend on it.
I have been the victim of the same pattern over the years with proprietary operating systems, proprietary applications, and proprietary hardware. The [OS/application/hardware] is compelling, so I invest heavily (time, data, and money) in it. I have a great time using it, it is indeed the answer to my computng dreams. Then the vendor either:
1) Goes out of business. All my work is gone. Start over, with excrutiating pain, with a new product.
2) Discontinues the product. While not always painful, this is too unpredictable for my comfort. Sometimes the transition to the new product is seamless, and sometimes not. And sometimes no new product is forthcoming. I have experienced all of these eventualities, and I can't take it anymore.
3) Sells out to a competitor. This tends to lead to very similar conditions as number 2 above.
No matter how good a proprietary product is, it inevitably leads to a dependence on the sole supplier of that product. Having been victimized by the lack of control this requires, I decided to never go down that route again.
There are a great many cases where Free software does not compare favorably in feature count or usability with proprietary software. However, if the Free software gets the job done, even if it requires extra work on my part to get the job done, I will always prefer it over a proprietary counterpart.
The GIMP may or may not hold a candle to Photoshop, but it does the jobs I need it to do (both at home and at work). KDE's UI may or may not hold a candle to MacOS X, but it does the jobs I want it to do (and does them admirably). MacOS X hardware support may be better than Linux (given that all the Mac drivers are written by the Mac vendor, I would certainly hope the support is perfect), but all my hardware works.
But the single most important reason I will continue to base all my important work on Linux and Free software is that my work will not (and cannot, short of Congressional stupidity) be pulled out from under me. I don't care if I have to work a little harder per job (which, incidentally, I usually don't). The peace of mind I get by not having to worry about the goodwill of a vendor is an order of magnitude more important to me that having a flashier tool.
There are, though, times where a proprietary vendor is the only solution, such as accessing our [horribly pathetic] UniVerse database via ODBC within Linux. We had to buy middleware from a proprietary company as an immediate solution.
However, this illustrated serious problems with UniVerse which, among many other UniVerse and IBM non-support issues, is prompting us to run trials with PostgreSQL (which are going very well).
I'm digressing too much, though. The bottom line is that vendor abuses have driven me to use, like, and prefer Free environments over even the most featureful proprietary ones.
A feature I would love to see in Mac OS X is virtual desktops. My Red Hat/Gnome machine has become a productivity workhorse because I can have several projects -- with different apps, docs et al. -- open at the same time and switch between them as needs dictate. I think nothing of leaving apps and files open for days or even weeks on the Linux machine.
Leave things open, but not on the screen? I do this on my iBook all the time, through the use of the magical function HIDE. It's been in Apple OSs since...well, as long as I can remember, at least as far back as System 8. In fact, it's been in use so long that every program I use except Adobe Photoshop maps APPLE H and SHIFT APPLE H to hide this and hide others.
I used to use Litestep on my PC, and played with the virtual desktop function. I quickly came to the assertion that virtual desktops confuse the hell out of me, and there are only FOUR in that version of litestep. Things would always get wierd, open in other desktops, and I had to have a MAP to find shit. A freaking map, which highlighted what QUADRANT of my screen I was looking at. Pretty complex when all I really wanted was for some windows to go away so i could see my desktop. I figured it out...but it took a while, and I still didn't know quite how to manage it.
Hiding does the same thing -- removes a window from your desktop while maintaining its state -- without a lot of learning involved. You can pick up the concept of Hiding VERY quickly...even my MOM, who can't figure out how to make an email list after just making 4 of them, understands hiding.
See, Apple's interface is all about binary. It either is, or it isn't. One mouse button, etc. So if something is open, but you don't see it, it's hidden. Clicking on its representaion in the dock unhides it. Or, you can Apple-tab to it. Simple.
Why is it that some people think that ALL GUIs should be exactly the same? That OSX should have virtual desktops, Windows a Dock, etc? The whole POINT of having more than one type of GUI is that there are tons of possible GUI paradigms and none is inherently better or worse than the others. Apple tries to find a level of subtly between form and function, power and learning curve. They're more than willing to let you keep your files open for as long as you like (so's MS, by the way....next time you feel overwhelmed by windows, hit Windows-D or Windows-M and watch them ALL go away, minimized to the taskbar).
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I don't think that is either a fair or accurate portrayal of either GNU/Linux or OS X users. I say this as one who uses both.
Mac philosophy and Linux philosophy are on the extreme opposites, while Windows philosophy tries to balance them
Mac and Linux philosophies are different (hell, Mac and FreeBSD philosophies are different, despite OS X being built upon FreeBSD in no small part), that is true. However, they are hardly opposites, and the notion that windows somehow mediates between the two, or finds a middle of the road approach to the two, is laughable.
OS X and Linux are both "hacker" friendly (in the "tinkerer" sense of the word). Windows is not terribly "hacker" friendly (though of course it can be tweaked like anything else).
OS X and Linux are both "cracker" resistent
Customization is extreme under Linux, and quite doable under both Mac and Windows (though using vastly different approaches, I agree).
Machine lifecycle is one where you may have a point, but that is only one variable amongst a great number.
User friendliness OS X wins hands down. However, IMHO Linux takes the "middle" ground, while Windows loses on this in every respect except USER FAMILIARITY. My mother and my girlfriend are excellent examples of people who have dispaired with their windows machines. In my mother's case, she is a firm Linux convert, finding her KDE desktop more intuitive than her windows XP box at work, and finding Linux's consistent behavior (read: no random reboots, no strange inexplicable changes in behavior due to this or that clobbered dll, stealth malware install, or worm/virus de jour), in my girlfriend's case she is just as enthusiastic an OS X convert. In both cases it was I who showed them the way out of Windows hell.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Windows gives one the "worst" of all worlds, but in truth Windows has things that are worse than either worlds. Security on the Microsoft platform for example is orders of magnitude worse than on any other platform, GNU/Linux and OS X included. Stability, while vastly improved over previous versions of Windows, remains appalling when compared to either OS X or Linux, and the list goes on. I would say that Windows, rather than having "the worst of both worlds" has invented its own appalling badness, independent of either OS X or Linux. Indeed, one might argue that this is the only real Microsoft "innovation" the world has really seen.
I would be more generous. I would argue that the "innovation" we've seen from Microsoft consists more of:
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
And this is the one area where OSX is a step backwards. Apple has fallen for what we could call the Microsoft syndrome, fallen in love with flashy graphics at the expense of a clean UI, and it shows.
We don't have to be puritanical about this. A little eye candy is perfectly harmless, although if it goes too far over the top it is distracting.
However, the old Finder was a masterpiece of UI design, built to exacting HCI standards and a coherent, ergonomically driven vision. Apple has abandoned that kind of UI design, in favor of a one that is equally coherent, but driven more by artistic vision. It makes sense I guess if you look at how their businss has changed. It's not that ergonomics aren't important anymore, it's just that they are no longer paramount. Simply put, the idea that ergonomics will conquer the world has been discredited -- decisively so. People can get by with something less than perfect, and most people will if they can get something good enough for less money.
People will pay a premium for something with more than the usual panache -- that makes a statement. Style was always part of the Mac appeal, it's just that it turned out in the long term to be its strongest suit from a business standpoint. So styling is now paramount and HCI is taking a back seat (although it is still riding in the car I guess).
So if you look at Apple products, they are (1) good enough from an HCI standpoint in comparison to the competition, (2) loads more elegant than the competition, and (3) reasonably good values. They look like the result of a business lesson learned.
Long time Mac afficiandos internalized the concept of concept of exacting HCI standards, and these are the people who groan at the new interfaces. But the fact is that they are good enough, better than what is in widespread use, and have a kind of stylistic dash that sets Apple apart.
People who are HCI purists would do better to look to open source as a long term torch bearer of that standard, because HCI perfectionism (unfortunately) is not a workable business strategy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
When I saw that, I stopped reading. This has got to be possibly the lamest review I've read about Panther so far.
Yes, and I have nothing against Apple, actually, the struggling company. The hardware design has been cutting edge for years, beautiful to look at. And the dual G5 is an awesome thing. I hope iTunes wins.
What I am sick of, is Mac users who think they're technologists. I've met plenty of them here and in real life, where they're writers, graphic designers, etc., but think they're technology people.
What I am sick of, is people who think Apple is this fantastic company when in reality over the past 12 years they've made tremendous errors in business. It's a wonder they're still alive.
What I'm sick of, is people running around saying how Macs "blow away" intel PCs in speed and performance. I can only remember three times when this has been the case, and the situation was erased when the next round of PC architecture came around 2 months later (as opposed to Apple's next round, 4 years later). Face it people: Apple makes consumer-grade equipment, nothing more. For the first time, in the G5, have we seen an Apple product that might be used for a serious computational task.
What I am sick of, is Mac aficionados and users who think they're enlightened, when in reality only a few people in the Apple camp are enlightened.
What I am sick of, is Mac people who've turned end user computing into a battle of camps -- it wasn't until you got so high and mighty about your relatively mediocre Macintosh computer. As to being called a Linux Zealot, that's not exactly true. I'm a FreeBSD, Linux, Standards, correctness, and truth zealot. This is the stuff I'm crazy about -- zealotry -- I take it as a compliment.
What I am sick of, is hearing the continuing narrow view of you Mac lovers. Only a small percentage of you have the testicles to pick up Mac OSx, and learn something over and above "control panels".
Let's talk about the hardware for a second. Sure it's pretty cool to look at. But it's strictly one-off end-user stuff. Have you ever tried to do system administration of Macs? The hardware is an incredible pain in the ass to deal with. You can't stack it, it doesn't stack. It takes up twice the room that it should. Ever try to put a keyboard on top of a G4? I've never seen cables pick up as much dirt and much as those mouse and keyboard cables. Ever tried to open a G4 in tight desk space? Boy I wish the cover just slid off but NO, it has to fucking swing open. Is it my imagination or were G4s only just a little faster than G3s.
Mod something a "troll" if it was obviously meant to illicit negative commentary, and to detract from fruitful discussion of the topic -- but not if you happen to disagree with the view. Modders: read the instructions - it's not about whether or not you agree with the poster's POV.
I actually hope that with the G5 architecture Apple begins a new era of prosperity. But given their past track record, it could be just another brilliant peak in a long string of struggles.
Was it loginwindow that was hung, or was it Finder? How long did he wait before killing it? 5 seconds? 5 minutes? We'll never know because he apparently made zero attempt to diagnose the problem. He just thought "Aha! Now I have an excuse to slam OS X in my review!"
http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/ns1.jpg
http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/ns2.jpg
http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/ns3.jpg
http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/ns4.jpg
http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/ns5.jpg
http://www.blakespot.com/list/images/ns6.jpg
68040 @ 33MHz
128MB RAM
2GB HD
12x SCSI CD-ROM drive
NeXTSTEP Developer v3.3
It's definitely sexier than my G4 rig
Just grabbed an HP-9000 712/60 "Gecko" workstation for $25 from a flea market. 64MB/2GB - about to install NeXTSTEP on it. We'll see how it goes. Less sexy tho...
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
I think OS X is great, use it for all my creative work but Linux is the future of operating systems... and it all has to do with embedded systems and the versatility of linux.
PC sales have stopped growing, I hate PC's... the're big, clunky (Im talking about laptops here too) and they get hot. Throughout a regular day I check my email, check stuff on the web, browse files, listen to music... things that would be far more conveniant to do on a device that didn't cost more than $1000 or weigh more than 500g. Linux will rule the post-pc world of computing because of its versatility and its open-source model. It will drive all the new computing devices.
I think there is something prophetic about the typical slashdot joke "does it run linux?".... what is the significance of more than half a million alpha-geeks hacking away with linux to make their new digital camera stream mp3's to a stereo over a 802.11b network? The future of computing.
Nice to see they defined their target audience...
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Trucker Software.
So what your'e trying to tell me is, computer users who have previously spent their time using an OS that assumes you are, and treats you like an intelligent user, and thus requiring you to be one, are switching to an OS that treats you like a lobotomized primate??
My theory: They were all Macfanbots anyway when they were using Linux. I say let them go, maybe they will stop influencing Gnome development.
Request don't mean shit. Require would mean something. If they didn't want to give anyone the source, they didn't have to.
Since a license is a form of legalese and a binding agreement, then why don't you rethink the license from the perspective of legality?
If a party 'requests' certain assets or items, legally it becomes a condition for compliance within the agreement.
So no matter if they use the word request, or require, it is a legal document, and is therefore subject to standard legal terminology and compliance.
For example, "If my party requests that you pay them $100 to use their car. And you use their car, you have accepted the terms of their agreement by using their car. Therefore, you must then pay my party $100 as requested."
Do you now see that this is a binding agreement and it does not use the word REQUIRE?
God, I hope someone gets this.
Like I said before, this could be argued forever in a non-legal forum, but in basic legal terminology both the BSD and MACH licenses do NOT allow for a party to take the technology and modify it without complying to the agreement which is 'to return (i.e. make open)' all changes they have made to the technology and code.
Now Apple could take a hard line and just turn the code directly back over to the original license owners and not make it open to the public as the MACH license specifically allows; however, A) The original license owners would make the Apple modifications public anyway. B) It presents a better public image to the Open Source and *nix community to create the Darwin and APSL face for Apple.
This then suckers a lot of people in the Open Source world into a false lure that Apple is working with them. Great marketing and PR is just the extra benefit of using a technology they did not have to develop.
Of course there is also the side benefit that comes with the Darwin 'lure', Open Source people then devote time by helping Apple to fix and evolve their code, even though the Apple APSL license DOES NOT allow the people to EVER use it for themselves outside of the Apple arena or commercially.
Which strangely, is also a nice LEGAL way to effectively cap the future of the Apple modifications that are made by outside users that are not contingent upon the Apple BSD and MACH licenses and are now contingent only upon the APSL.
Has anyone actually read all of the APSL?
With that said I don't dislike Apple, in fact I champion a lot of what they have done for the computing world and continue to do so. I just don't agree with the fact that they are a better choice just because of the facade they put on for the Open Source, BSD, and Linux community.
Apple is a company for profit that has the same motives as Microsoft and has done just as many egregious acts as Microsoft; however, Apple has had the luxury of being protected from the public outcry of these practices due to the small market share they hold.
TheNetAvenger
Me
I'm not very fluent reading and writing music, but sometimes I have to ;). A good alternative (better according to most "real" musicians/composers I know) is Sibelius. They have an OS X version and they even have a special price when you upgrade from Finale.
There's also Lilypond, a very good free (as in speech) software that you can get through Fink and use with Apple's X11 implementation. Personally that's what I use, and it gives me very nice scores.
I hope this helps!
Isn't the new 'official' Mac browser based on Konqueror? Seems like we're really in the same boat.
Anyway, I don't really see much conflict between Mac and Linux users. I use Linux partly because I like fiddling with things and building machines from scratch. But I'd most certainly consider getting an Apple if I wanted a laptop (ANYTHING to avoid having to deal with another Windows machine).
To sum it up, it's not really a contest.
.95 or so. For a good portion of those ten years, my main workstation at work has been Linux, usually with a Windows box on the side, for administrative purposes.
Why?
OSX and Linux are two different beasts.
Linux is the swiss army chainsaw of operating systems... we can do pretty much anything with it, technically speaking. For the record, I've used linux for ten years, since
Along comes OS X. Now... here's the deal. OS X turned out to be my favorite workstation EVER. I have two OS X boxes on my desk.. a G4 tower, and an iBook 800. IT gives me all the unix flexibility I need in my primary workstation (admin scripts, ssh, sniffers, etc), and a user interface and desktop application set that is second to none. After getting my head around how Apple handles the gui, I realize that Windows is a poor, feeble attempt at good user interface.
OSX does not feel like windows + cygwin. It does not feel like some weird unix layer stuck in there.. it feels like a real desktop, running on unix... just the way I want it.
Now.. does that mean OSX is better than linux? Heck no. Linux boxes are all around me, for various tasks.. I would not advocate someone replace one with the other.. except maybe if it's for their primary workstation only. I have linux boxes, when I need to test linux applications.
Stuff like iTunes music sharing, so I don't have to copy music to my desktop (where my nice headphones and amp are hooked up).. is great. Sure, you could rig up streaming fairly easily with linux.. but with the mac, it just worked.
It's like this:
Windows - MS attempts to make a GUI that is easy to use, and does what you want. Unfortunately, they aren't that good at this. Even more unforunately, anything outside the scope of what MS thought you wanted to do becomes very tough to do.
Linux - In general, everything is possible, knowledge required. Light on the GUI stuff. KDE and Gnome don't quite cut it, though if configured perfectly, they can.
OS X - GUI that is easy to use, apps with default behaviors that just make sense. If not, you can still make it do whatever you want, it's unix.
If you are a guy at home, with one computer, and you run linux on it, maybe dual booting windows for games.. I'm not trying to sell you on OS X. It's more expensive, less flexible than what you already have. If you are a professional who has multiple computers, likes unix, and wants a cool new workstation, I recommend you give it a try, you might find you really like it.
It's not the mac of old, by any means.
Let's hope apple doesn't screw it up.
Although, first let me tell you that I stopped using Linux all together last year finally switching the last of our servers to FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Frankly I find the orgainzation of the *BSD software and communities much better and more organized. Linux has always seemed more hodgepodge. I once heard AOL described as "training wheels for the internet" and I feel the same way about Linux...its training wheels for many students and others into the world of Unix. Its what I learned on, but once I got the hang of it, I found many time saving admin features in BSD, especially the ports tree.
Most of the Linux users that switch to Mac OS were not macfanbots. Most, like myself, hated 'Classic" and still do. What apple did was give the world an affordable Unix, and I said UNIX because as many linux users are quick to point out - LINUX IS NOT UNIX ITS UNIX-LIKE, platform that is:
1) Easy to use for the average joe that want's something easy to use
2) If you are a power user, the tools are there and you can use them
3) Aka, best of the OSS support & those 'evil' close source people.
At leas with OS X I have the choice of easy to use interface and not having to worry about it, or opening up terminal/shell and going hardcore when I want.
Moreover, I no longer have the time to "play around" with an OS no matter what it is. I work as an SMB consultant primarily in technology. In fact I am proably wasting 15 minutes I could be charging someone about $50 for by writing this post. I don't have time to toy around with something that might or might not work.
great example is our accounting software. I looked at NOLA, liked the package a lot, but decided on Quickbooks for Mac. Why? Our CPA supports Quickbooks and gives us a discount for using it because it makes her job easier, plus it took about 15 minutes to install and another two hours to set up. It would have taken at least that long to get Nola up and running, let along configured. Furthermore, our sectary was already familar with the software which saved a lot of time for us in training. TCO was a hell of a lot cheaper than NOLA for our business. Now that's not the case with everyone.
Boils down to right tool for the job. Linux has its place, like running application spefic taks such as Kiosks and on embeded chips. I like Linux's flexablities in that regaurd, but the average user just wants something that is easy to use and works. They don't have the time nor the desire to mess with problems.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I need to change my scripts and pipe output to start gui's like debuggers and the like in different ways. This tweaking of scripts isn't a bad thing at all, it is a necessity. My co-workers have their own setups that are different then mine, is that wrong? No it's right for them. Macintosh is about doing things one way, and that way is the right way.
You do realize that Mac OS X has a Unix console, a full set of console tools, X Windows support, and that other traditional Unix tools are often a recompile away? That it can be configured as a multiuser system where everyone has unique configurations? Have you even used Mac OS X? You seem to be thinking Mac OS 9 or older. Mac OS X does a wonderful job of burying Unix so a novice user doesn't see it but it is there for more advanced users.
The trick with OS 10 was to install MacsBug and kill frozen apps that way. It worked for me 90% of the time. I wish that MacsBug was still alive, I prefer it to gdb in most cases and it was always running so you could instantly debug any app. I used to use it to find out which files were likeley to crash an application (bad prefs, etc) by listing which files the current process was reading. I do miss MacsBug.
Oh, and get the PB. I'm writing this from one. If you replace the ram yourself (it costs less) you get to sell the old ram online later. Otherwise, they charge you for one dimm and keep the two you already paid for -- unless you get it done at an Apple Store.
t'nera semordnilap
Seems like someone would be more of a lobotomized primate if they can't handle
learning and using more than one OS environment. Back in "the old days", people
would constantly learn new things, while retaining knowledge of the past.
As reflected in many of the posts here, these days it's "I know what I like and like what I know".
Besides, most Linux desktops (to me) appear to have a Windows fixation and the goal is to emulate
Windows as closely as possible... "see, we can do that too! M$ has got nothing on us! ".
The rest of it doesn't seem much different than the Unix V7 I used back in 1979.
Other than the concept of "we did it, we own it", I just can't see the big deal about Linux.
For the most part, it's just a clunky, cranky subset of what's in OS X. Sure, there's some
people that would like to tweeze the source of iTunes or iMovie or the Finder, but I'd rather
have other experts (that know and love the code) doing that for me while I concentrate on other
things. For the $130 a year that Apple charges, it's a bargain. Based on a 2000 hour
work year, they are doing the work for 6.5 cents an hour. That's not "free" like Linux, but
it's close.
Computer/car analogies are lame, but cars these days don't have controls on the
dash that let you control the fuel-air ratio or ignition timing. With Linux, you need
to know these controls or the car won't run as well as it could. With Windows,
the dash has lots of these controls and they have to be manipulated to make
the car go, yet provide no feedback as to what the settings actually are and what
you are changing. Often, they change themselves or continually revert back to
random settings without rhyme or reason.
With OS X, you just get in and drive to your destination quickly and efficiently.
That may seem lobotomized, but not everyone has the desire or time to be a mechanic.
OK. The article refers to "64-bit processor support".
Is that like saying a 10Mbit ethernet card has "100Mbit" network support because it will run on a 10/100 network at 10Mbit?
OSX Runs in 32-bit mode on a G5. There is no significant difference made to the user by the 64-bitness of the processor (please don't tell me about hardware 64-bit integer instructions).
If Linux gets around to running on the G5, it will likely be 32-bit for a while, too, since ppc32 is where the work is going these days. I'm still guessing Linux will support the G5 in all its glory before OSX does.
Does someone want to correct me? Can I write an OSX app that accesses the 42-bit address space of the G5?
The only OS I know that treats you like a lobotomised primate is the one from Redmond. Oh, Classic Mac OS was limited, but what there was was very straightforward and encouraged poking around. OS X carries on that tradition... it's much easier to figure out how to do fairly deep stuff in the OS just by fiddling with it than just about anything else with a GUI that I've used since the advent of "X desktops".
I see more condecension coming from Red Hat than Apple.
"With OS X, you just get in and drive to your destination quickly and efficiently."
But if you want to putter, well, I've puttered around in Gnome and I've puttered around in OS X, and I know which one *I* think has a better geek interface, and it doesn't start with "G".
Much as I'm a BSD fan, I have to say that in any real sense of the word Linux is UNIX. It's a chaotic goofball absent-minded-professor UNIX, but it is UNIX.
less is more
Don't re-release the Cube, release a Slab, the size of the Performa 47x, a little smaller than the Next Slab or the Sparcstation 1.
It would have 0 or 1 PCI slots, depending on whether the video was on the motherboard. It'd come with a modest processor, G4/700, G3/800, whatever Apple can get cheaply.
It would have the same ports as the iMac or eMac, plus an SVGA in and a USB in. The SVGA in would go to a memory mapped video window. The USB in would go to a software hub that exposed itself as an ethernet port, a mouse, and a keyboard.
It would have room for two internal 3.5" IDE drives, and ship with one installed, the other accessible via a sled... or it'd come with a firewire shell to put an IDE drive in... ether way, there's a way to plug in a second IDE drive.
Now imagine you're a PC user, you just bought your Mac Slab. Plug one of the USB out ports on the PC to the USB in on the Mac. Plug the video out on the PC to the video in on the Mac, and plug your existing SVGA monitor into the Mac.
It would fit comfortably under your monitor.
Now... boot it up. Once it's up you can log in to Mac OS X or you can fast-user-switch to your PC.
Or, launch the iSwitch app, and your PC display is in a window in front of the Mac.
Your PC drives are visible as network drives from the Mac, and your Mac drives are visible as network shares from the PC.
Later, you maybe get a studio monitor and plug that in to the ADC port, the PC display comes to live on the old monitor.
Over time, you transfer almost everything you're doing from the PC world to the Mac world. There's just... well, you're really not sure you've got everything... so you take the hard drive out of the PC and slot it in the available slot in the Mac. You turn off the PC and sell it on eBay to one of the remaining PC users who hasn't switched yet.
I'd say, $399-$449. $499 at the most. Slower than the eMac, no built-in monitor, low and stylish.
Call it the iSwitch. Think different.
Here are a few options:
Desktop Manager GPL
CodeTek Shareware, $30.00
Space.app QPL
Have fun-
The majority of the time, yes. Thank goodness for that. But unfortunately, not all of the time.
:)
I've had 2 gui hangs since installing Panther on my PowerMac G4 last Saturday. The first one, I couldn't ssh in. Telnet to port 22 accepted the connection, but no sshd greeting. So the lowest levels of the kernel were ok but all of userland was hosed. Hard reset.
Second freeze, I was able to ssh in successfully and kill loginwindow. But the login dialog never came back up. Just a new loginwindow process using 50% cpu constantly. The other 50% cpu was used by umount_afs. Killing it, even with -9 did not work. Apparently while I had been browsing my network in the finder earlier, the machine had discovered my iBook and tried to mount it. Then it went crazy when the iBook went to sleep. Dang, guess the network filesystem hangs are still there!!
Anyway, I had to reboot this time as well, but at least I could do sudo reboot and do it cleanly.
I love OS X and believe it's hands down the best OS out there, but it still has a long way to go in terms of stability and avoiding obscure lockup situations. I'd love to see it achieve the level of Solaris or IRIX in this regard. Hell, even Linux or FreeBSD. Most users probably rarely if ever encounter these things, but it seems that we power users tend to find them anyway...
Right, it starts with a "K".
test of censorship or legal servability enforced
on 'eye'denttify able 'blogggers on.ly.
Factoid: I did a ls -R in / in the command shell on a shiny new Mac G5 in the local CompUSA store. It is amazing how many files there are in the base os. This sucker went on for many minutes before I got bored watching them fly by. It is obvious that in this speed test a (G5, or any modern PC for that matter) just isn't near as fast as an IBM PC running DOS that only has about 4 files (autoexec.bat, config.sys, msdos.sys and io.sys). The old IBM PC boots faster too.
This is not to say that I wouldn't love to have one of these artful beauties sitting on my desk right now.
-- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
Apple has changed (well, failed to implement, really) a lot of the things that are common, if not prevalent, on other unices. Specifically, dlopen() and company. Whereas most, if not all, other unices support dlopen and friends, Apple decided not to upgrade the NeXT kernel, instead relying on dylib. Granted that people have contributed dlcompatible items to fink et al, but this is still a shortcoming on Apple's part. Additionally, Apple/NeXT uses/used 'frameworks', which are (imho) libraries done The Right Way -- headers, libraries themselves, and related material are all in a .framework wrapper. However, this has a tendency to break (or at least horribly maim) various Makefiles, as one as to link with not '-lc', but '-framework System'.
There are other issues, too, but I have to get back to work.
Color Classic
Sure, it post-dates the MacII. But Apple did build color all-in-ones before the iMac.
If you read my post again, you will find nowhere I asked Apple to open their source. Do they open their source for Windows? no. But they release their products in that platform. They are taking a lot from the community and contributing very little.
One of the major annoyances the Linux user has to face is Quicktime-only sites. They have a standard yet they don't release a player like they do for Windows. This hurts a lot the community they're leeching from. They should release at the very least the QT player for Linux and FreeBSD.
The Linux market is big enough. In fact, it's close to the Mac market. Even Macromedia releases their Flash player for Linux.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Both seem pretty comfy. I can do what I need to at from home with OS X and I can also do all kinds of cool design, music recording and digital photography that I can't do on Linux. OS X rocks. Linux Rocks. I like them both equally. lets face it too. The coolest commerical apps are on Mac OS X right now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As of this day, only FreeBSD can run these applicatiosn but Mac OSX can't do anything with them... OpenOffice-1.0-x86-Linux.tar.gz netscape-v304-export.x86-unknown-linux-elf.tar.gz (oh yea, ad infinitum "-x86-linux...")
I just checked the Contrib section of my local Linux vendor and discovered libTalent-1.0.so is obsolete and is only needed when you buy a computer. What you need to download is libTalent-1.0.1.so. I may attest that symlinking libTalent-1.0.so to libTalent-1.0.1.so is protocol-compatible for applications linked with the earlier libTalent. Wow, how quick Linux technology updates faster than Mac OSX!
For OS X, they said:
Uninstallation service for installed programs: no. Most programs can be deleted by dragging files to the trash. This may leave files in the system folder or other locations.
Actually, dragging an application to the trash starts an uninstall script -- same thing happens on install. Maybe they thought they were deleting a single file, but most applications are actually directories that contain the "other locations" that they were probably thinking about.
There's a certain beauty in things just working and not bothering the user; I guess the reviewers expected to be hassled.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
achieve the level of Solaris or IRIX in this regard. Hell, even Linux or FreeBSD
Hmmm, having worked for a while on an Onyx station, I can tell you that in my mind, IRIX is by FAR the worst unix of all I know in terms of stability.
I was just working at the time on a automatic reconstruction of lanscape with stereo aerial images, and the scene we were trying to render did hold a couple of million triangles with full texturing.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Linux is [...] [t]he equivalent of some guy 1983 whose only car was some beater that he constantly had jacked up to tweak the motor.
Huh? I've been using Linux as my primary desktop OS since '98, and the amount of "tweaking" and "tinkering" I do dropped massively from when I used to run MS systems (which broke stuff with every update, and occasionally at random inbetween updates). I first set up fvwm in '96, and I've been using it without tweaks or tinks since then, and it works fine. I first set up emacs in 1987, and have been using it with few or no tweaks since then.
I'm sure there are plenty of people using Linux because it allows (not "forces") them to tweak with their systems, but there are also plenty of people using Linux because it allows them (out of the box, no tweaking required) to keep using software they've been using since the seventies or eighties. Compare that to MS (who forced their users to switch to new stuff at the beginning of the nineties) or Apple (who's trying to force their users to switch to new stuff now).
I was never in Apple PR. I was Director of Strategic Relations in the Design & Publishing Markets group in 1999.
No employee relationship since then... though I did write a white paper for a marketing contractor about the Xserve last year.
I do split my time between Linux and Mac... and Linux on the desktop has come a long way in an amazingly short time. I like OS X's consistency, et al. but I sure wish it ran faster without plunking down $2K for the latest hardware...
I think the next few years will be very interesting as the Linux GUIs improve even more. I wonder if Apple or open sourcers will get to a radically new way to use computers first...?
Rules? We have no rules. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edsion
Hey dipshit, maybe Quickbooks is so easy for your CPA to set up because they've had hours upon hours of training on it. If they had training in the other app, it would be just as easy.
You must be supreme god yuppy guy. Mr. "I don't have time to play around". If you were so goddamn efficent and didn't need computer stuff, then why bother reading slashdot. Why bother going through the comments. If you want to get the news quit wasting your goddamn time posting you're "I'm better than you time-wasting people" crap.
We don't give a fuck how much money you make or could be making. I make just as much money using Linux, since I know what I'm doing. Linux has all the tools that I need to run an efficent, stable server. Fuck most of my server have over 2 years of uptime, and cost less than $500 for hardware. How about that for TCO? Sounds to me like you don't give a fuck about what your clients get, just what you end up with in the end.
You're just a goddamn business machine drone, and have no enthusiasm for what you are doing. Enthusiam is what creates innovation, instead of doing the same systematic bullshit all day long with the same goddamn tools, blah blah blah.
I bet your wife really likes your efficent, get-the-job-done, attitude too. I'm sure you get the job done in no time, cos you don't have time for life or anything else it sounds like.
I used to be a big fan of virtual desktops, and had many custom settings so things would open up in the right room, I could hotkey stuff around, the works.
Nothing on earth is faster and easier to use than Expose. Not only is it quicker in terms of time (even quicker than switching to a virtual desktop) but right away you get a picture of the "Big Picture" of what is going on in your computer (or your apps). With virtual desktops sometimes windows don't end up where you expect, and other things mar your understanding of what is going on all over.
What you also get is to see visually what you are choosing, which also helps eliminate duplication (especially good with browser windows). The need for window shading is simply gone - who cares when in a split second I can see what all the other windows are doing? There is no such thing as windows obscuring things any longer.
Every day I go to work now and sit in front of my Dell with XP, and stare at the meaningless icons at the strip at the bottom of the machine (or at least one row of them) and I curse being stuck doing tasks there.
After Expose I have finally ceased looking around for a virtual desktop I like, because almost all the reasons I used to use virtual desktops have been addressed by Expose.
The only thing I still like virtual desktops for is when I have a number of windows in a particular configuration, like for a set of log windows. But for that I usually just run an X11 VNC session with only those things, and then others can access it too which is nice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Those would affect internal drives too, not just the external ones like in Panther... :-)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Whoa! That hurts. As one of the Powerbook owners at a Perl/PHP developer conference that was probably noticed by the original poster, I guess I should speak in my defense before people like you keep implying that I'm not an "intelligent user" and like to be treated like a "lobotomized primate."
Unfortunately I am guilty of being a "Macfanbot" by your definition--I've used Macs for personal use since 1985. However there is a logic error in your argument: you imply I've somehow stopped using Linux. How many of these Powerbook and iBook Perl/PHP coders deploy their stuff on Linux machines? How many of these people ran Windows-only for development or had a dual boot configuration on their notebook? How many of them have Linux desktops at home? I personally answer "yes" to all the above question and still have more Linux desktops in use than Mac ones.
The thing was, until Mac OS X, I never thought to use Macs for development. Sure I'd whip out something in MacPerl, but that isn't saying much. Now, it is different, I code from the same machine I make Keynote presentations on. From the compliments I get from my talks, I guess my platform choice hasn't hurt. Or are you saying that in order to be a card-carrying "intelligent user" I have to do all my presentations in "Pres2"?
At OSNews.
The summary is that the libraries most people link to are indeed 32 bit. However Panther bests Windows and Linux in having a larger availiable address space per application (4GB). And of course the OS does support more than 4GB of RAM.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's Expose, with an accent on the last 'e', not ExposZ. Is that an attempt at showing the accent mark?
CodeTek's shareware VirtualDesktop for OS X solves one of your missing problems.
---
Changing the background color on a window? What kind of window?
Finder window colors: In icon view, use Show View Options from the View menu
Terminal colors: Select Window Settings from the "Terminal" menu to change background and window transparency. I have mine set as green text on black semi-transparent. Nuvo-Retro!
Application window colors: Depends on the application
---
Other issues:
Resizing windows: No alternative that I know of
Cut and Paste: I notice no delay, unless cutting something very, very large (multi megs). I notice no errors either.
Ultimately, OS X works like OS X, just as KDE operates like KDE. . . There is no "Linux skin" for OS X that I know of. If you're that attached to "the Linux way," obviously no other OS will cut it for you. That's fine. I've used several OSs for over two decades. OS X is easily the best I've seen, IMHO.
Doug
"I would really never have considered buying a mac before OSX (come on, they didn't even have a command line!)...."
Dude, MPW! You obviously didn't know any hardcore-geek Mac users. Before switching to Linux, that is what I used. It rocked! It was probably the most integrated CLI and GUI ever. You could close windows from the command line, you could send Apple Events, you could copy things to the clipboard, you could control Macs remotely with a remote shell. It was completely odd and totally Mac. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it kicked the ass of DOS. Good times...
Look at me, I'm your friendly neighbourhood first post troll
You have to admit, they are friendly.
I run both.
OS X is the ultimate user interface. and what else runs dreamweaver / flash / photoshop / illustrator? the desktop environments available on linux cannot compare.
linux, however, is what i trust for my servers. i trust apple to make my OS secure, but i do not trust them to respect my modifications to the OS between software updates. Apple has screwed up my PHP / MySQL / Apache customization before and i was not impressed. RedHat is much better in this respect.
My post was a parody of its parent. Maybe you should do a little more reading before replying in such earnest.
That's why you are using OS X, and the original poster using Linux.
Looks like different cultures to me.
BRAVO! Your post has been one of the most intelligent on this theme!
:-) ((Excluding, of course, anything MS!!) :-)
Alternative (non-MS) OS' users should stand togather for one, if no other, reason-
OS Diversity! As in the natural world (and in YOUR own family, I may add) genetic diversity is the way of improvement of a specis. Anyone can imagine what happens to a specis (or family) that's procreation is limited by inbreeding!
Computer Hardware needs OS Diversity for maximum services (& ease-of-use) to continually improve.
I'm sure that the GENERAL CONSENSES on this site agree/s that BOTH Linux & MacOSX (particulary when able to run on a single system) offer the user continually improving usability & services! About the only recuring objection that I see, on this site, refers to the closed ((or expensive)) Mac Hardware!?!
Just to confirm (or inform) readers here - that I am POSTING from (non-Mac)Debian GNU/Linux on PPC! True, presently I have NO OTHER OS' installed on THIS Hardware - but I have the option of adding MacOSx thru MOL, and am presently awaiting the OS for which Chiefly I acquired THIS Hardware -- AmigaOS4!
Who says- "You can't have it ALL!"?
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
How much would you pay me for a port of tip(1)?? tip(1) is BSD software that will allow you to connect stdin/stdout to a serial device (ie. /dev/tty.*) so that random software can access it.
I'm going to guess that you will need a Carbon driver wrapper so that classic style apps can use the BSD stdin/stdout or the /dev/tty.* devices. Do you know how MacAuthorize interfaces the modem?
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Look guys,
I use Windows 2000/XP, Jaguar, and very rarely, Linux. They all have their own little advantages and disadvantages over each other, but how can anything possibly be more important than an OS being open? Without that trait, even the coolest, slickest, most stable and secure OS still throws it's future at the mercy of the company controling it. Apple seems like a cool company for the most part (at least compared to Microsoft, not that that's saying much); but it's still a company. Right now, it churns out great work because that's a profitable strategy against market leader Microsoft. Tomorrow, it might not be. And for those who can't switch to Microsoft, you don't see Apple behaving quite as honourably.
I implore you, do not surrender control of your operating system in exchange for anything. Nothing can make that a winning proposition in the long run. A benign dicatorship can offer citizens plenty of perks over a chaotic democracy, but I've never seen a group of people ultimately happy with that choice; other than the dictators themselves.
A large chunk of our lives takes place in computers. If the Linux community looks at the fruits of a dictatorship OS (one controled by a company) as a viable alternative to a free OS, rather than simply a challenge, we will all ultimately regret it. At any moment, even a seemingly benign company like Apple could decide that they needed to put DRM software, or lousy security, or ill-conceived product activation schemes into their OS; and if there isn't a good alternative available, and there won't be a damn thing you can do about it. Or, simply because it's a company, it could be required by the government to install spyware of one sort or another, and you won't be able to get it out. With a free OS, you'll never have to worry about that.
Apple has been an inspiration to technophiles since it's inception, and I think OSX is really great piece of work. But computer operating systems are already too important to our lives to relinquish control over, and will become more and more vital every year. My sincerest hope is that Apple will one day be confined to making contributions to a ubiquitous open source OS, rather than producing one which only it controls. And that will only happen if people never lose sight of how important it is to do whatever it takes to retain control over their computers.
No one will probably read this, since this is an old thread, but I just wanted to go on record as pointing out that no feature is as important as freedom. Cheers.
Virtual Desktops and Expose solve different problems. Virtual Desktops are for logically organising open windows and/or applications into groups, Expose is for switching between open windows. They would complement, not replace, each other.
I agree the grouping is nice for things like multiple log screens. But beyond that, a lot of what I used to use windows for was grouping - so that I didn't have to minimize or maximize windows at all. I could just switch to the right desktop and there the window would be already opened.
With Expose, you don't need to care about grouping for that purpose anymore because it is so easy to select any window in the system.
When you can see all of the windows in the system in a split second, why hide windows in multiple rooms anymore? The only reason would be if you want to see groupings of windows in the same app in a certain way, but beyond the log example I almost never find myself needing that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Original post:
Re:The 4 People Who Switched To OSX (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward
Another point to consider is that after someone drops a couple or three thousands dollars of dollars on their Apple rig, there is a strong psychological need to justify the expenditure. Very few folks want to reveal publically that their very expensive choice was a mistake. In other words, such a party would not be the most objective source for information.
My parody reply to it:
Another point to consider is that after someone spends a couple of weeks installing and hand-tuning Linux, there is a strong psychological need to justify such time expenditure. Very few folks want to reveal publically that their very time-consuming choice was a mistake. Etc.
See my point now?
I run a linux as a hobby, using it for a file and dns server, mainly beacuse I can't afford a third mac, but I do have an old pc around that's more than capable of pushing linux. I do have a few complaints about linux as a desktop that haven't been mentioned.
-There is no system wide address book that I can sync with my phone
-all of those little apps have such goofy names, I can't figure out what does what without looking it up first
-I can't buy a linux box for my parents without expecting to do full-time tech support
-system preferences are not centralized (no, they're not)
-poor color calibration tools
-poor type support
-an overall lacking of GUI polish
-poor third-party hardware support (a printer that prints isn't worthwhile to me without all the features being available)
I think that most of these issues from Linux people developing for other Linux people, rather than for other professionals. It will be decades before designers have all the color, type, printing options on Linux that have existed on the Mac since the classic days. Hell, Microsoft can't even get it right and they now have a sizable share of the publishing industry. And the publishing industry is only getting bigger.
Tip is already in Darwin/OSX and has been since the beginning. It was in NextSTep too, since at least 1993.
But it won't work on my work-supplied stupid DELL or any new sub $500 computer.
Maybe it is in Darwin, and maybe it is in Mac OS X Server, but it is not in OS X unless it is buried. Assuming I have a copy of Jaguar running on my Mac, where should I look for tip(1)?
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
i don;t think Apple will buy Sun.
Last I checked, the market cap for SUNW was about 13 billion. Way down from where it used to be, but still a lot compared to Apple's 8 billion. That's a lot for Apple to swallow - they'd have effectively to go into debt.
Sun is struggling to keep their high-end niche while getting pushed out of the low end - it's not clear to me that they have a brilliant future, or that Apple could help much (there's that "synergy" thing again). Sun's products are great (we use them extensively), but everyone is gunning for their markets with cheaper stuff.
The precedents aren't very good. I don't see that Compaq got their money's worth for DEC, or that HP got it's money's worth for Compaq, or that GM got anything like a good investment in Hughes Aircraft. The list goes on.
Helium balloons want to be free.