Slashdot Mirror
Confessions of a Mac OS X User
An anonymous reader writes "Here's an interesting commentary on OSDir.com about one Mac OS X user's guilt over using it instead of Linux on his laptop, and how he's been burned by the dreaded iBook logic board problems so much that it underlines the tyranny of hardware vendor lock-in: it's not that Mac OS X isn't F/OSS, but that it only runs on Apple hardware. It also raises the obvious question: have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?"
have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?
You'll have to ask my ex-wife; she took the Mac.
Trolling is a art,
iDidn't do it.
I don't know what is up with this guy. His logic board gets fried, so he says that he can't stand hardware lock-in. It seems like just a rant, and doesn't really make sense. if he didn't like the hardware, he should have just sold the iBook on Ebay, instead of just keeping it. Running Linux won't fix the logic board, and he will be back to having the same problems that he had with his Dell(No Linux Compatibility with Linksys Wireless card.)
It's pretty far down on the things I feel guilty about. I'm a middle-class white American male, you insensitive clod!
Sometimes I feel guilty about useless navel-gazing, as should anyone who bases computer usage on guilt. Good God, use it or don't, and stop whining about it!
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
What, are you crazy?
I would so much rather run this than just about any Linux distro out there. Mainly because I can guarantee my vendor is available on the phone when I need them to troubleshoot any of the funky ass things servers tend to do.
And no, you can't come to my site or have a look at my logs because it's secure, just tell me what error code -16246 means in your software, ok, thanks, bye.
Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
I fell guilty about using Windows XP.... opps, sorry wrong subject.
-B
No, I haven't.
I think Linux has a loooong way to go as a desktop OS. The word from LinuxWorld was "It's not quite there yet.." which means that other people feel the same way.
Mac OS X just works. It has applications that I need to get along. I like having some games. I like having stuff like iSync & iTunes. Yes, I know there's Linux apps, but I like how everything works *together* and isn't an ugly kludge. See, at work, I need to get *work* done.. I don't have time to futz around with Xconfig.
I have never ever felt guilty about using Mac OS X instead of Linux on my Apple hardware.
Linux goes on the *x86* hardware anyway.
What a silly article.
Sometimes I feel guilty about doing some work, while I am trying to read Slashdot.
>> have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?
Hell no. I only ever use Linux for servers.
Using any of the window managers that ship with Linux makes me love my OS X box even more.
And hardware lockin is a double-edged sword. If the hardware is of poor quality is is indeed a problem but I have never had an issue with any of the Apple hardware I have owned that I couldn't get fixed by an Apple tech in a few days.
Can't say that for some of the x86 beige box machines I've owned that I've had Linux on.
Linux is not on par with mac os x as a desktop system. Maybe someday, but not yet. In this instance you get what you payfor. My webserver is linux and that works fine-- no way would I pay for mac to run my domain, its just to expensive. I love linux but I will only use it where it is the best solution.
Just like programming: java, perl, c++ depends on the solution I need to solve.
Jonathan
Now this is personal opinion, and I am sure I am inviting plenty of flames, so... here goes.
I don't think anyone should feel ashamed for not using linux as their desktop. Fact of the matter is, any OS claiming to be linux is just a mess of free software utilities and applications, on a unixy type setup.
While there have been a few noble attempts at actually building an OS from the linux kernel, it ends up being no more then repackaging the same crap in a more "shiny" way.
The linux kernel is a good base for an OS. Until something other then a Unix clone is made from it, I will stand tall to the fact that I wont use it for my desktop.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Every once in a while I feel a twinge of guilt over using an OS (Mac OS X) that, while based on an open-source foundation, isn't truly free the way Linux is. I believe strongly in the F/OSS model and would love to see it take over the software world, so shouldn't I be doing my part?
And then I look at the current state of the Linux desktop: it's pretty much caught up to Windows, but it's got a long way to go before it matches the Mac. I switched from M$ to Apple when I realized how much Windows sucked in comparison to the MacOS, and I've never really regretted that decision, so why would I want to take a step backwards? At the end of the day, I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Use what works, not what someone else tells you that you should use because it's morally superior (Linux) or what everyone else is using (Windows).
Right here, right now, OS X lets me get my work done faster, more efficiently, and more enjoyably than any other OS. If that changes, maybe my choice of OS will too. It hasn't happened yet, and honestly I don't expect that it will any time soon.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
About using a superior desktop product?
Sorry, I feel no guilt in using the right tool for the right job.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Don't feel guilty. In fact, you should go by the unspoken Apple mantra that those of us who use OS X are better than everyone else.
This post is more right because it was posted from OS X.
I've been a medium-level Linux sys admin for a number of years. But I'm also a web designer, and recently I decided that I needed to get a notebook. The decision to go with an iBook was almost a no-brainer: I wanted professional applications instead of almost-professional, and I didn't want to worry about incompatibilities, libraries, GNOME buggering itself, etc. And it has been marvelous. Now that I've replaced my linux box with a dedicated DSL router, I hardly ever turn it on.
Overall, perhaps I do feel a bit guilty. I wish Sodipodi, The Gimp, and Bluefish were more stable and competitive with FreeHand, Fireworks, and Dreamweaver. And while I've used all of those applications to do some advanced things, it is simply easier and faster for me to use my Macromedia apps. Sure they cost me a few (student) dollars, but they've been worth every penny. (and yes, I started with MacGIMP, which at least is better than WinGIMP).
But the best part is that I've stopped screwing around on the computer, thus freeing me up for other more important life activites (wife, for instance).
I think that he is going to try to load Linux on his Power Book. That's a followup story I'd like to see! I don't know if it is possiable, but he seemed to have trouble getting an wireless card running....
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
I only tried a Mac (Powerbook) less than a week ago. I used to own one of the early macs in the mid 80s that I loved but I felt frustrated by proprietary cuteness. I find Mac today has even more of the wonderful aesthetic appeal and is *much* more open thanks to the unix basis and the work of many. So I consider it the best of all worlds for my laptop needs. I love Linux and have owned several linux desktops and laptops. But the Powerbook is the first computer that has put a big grin on my face every time I use it in many a year. Guilt? Over happy computing?
So do I, but I keep findig places where Linux has the advantage. OS X is a kick-ass server and desktop OS, but Linux is really great for obscure shit, like making that ancient LPT photographic printer into a network printer, or packet-sniffing the network to figure out where all the traffic's coming from.
/dev/hda. Of course there's a bit more to it than that if you actually want it to happen quickly, but if you know your fundamentals it's no hassle.
Hell, I run 200 Macs, but I use Linux boot-CDs to image the ones from the pre-firewire days. It's just easier to have a respawning pair of 'netcat' processes listening on the server than fiddling with open-firmware or netrestore. I just boot the mac with the linux CD, netcat the file down and dd it to
Do I feel guilty about not using Linux? Sometimes, I feel bad for not using Linux on my x86 box here, but I need to run a windows app to track tickets on it. I feel bad for not running a few Linux boxes for the kids to toy with on campus, but if they show an inclination to geekiness I'll be showing them the way to OSS anyway.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Why would iFeel guilty about using OSX? I'm a new PowerBook owner and iFeel having a nice UNIX/BSD/Whatever core under my iHood is a feature. Linux is, as many have stated, not ready for mass desktop usage (though iDisagree, with the latest KDE builds...) so running OSX gives me a system my iFriends, my iMother, my iCoworkers, etc. are more comfortable using while it is secure, powerful, and pretty. That review of BSD yesterday said just that, "Greater server, but the desktop is lacking." OSX gives us Aqua, which solves the desktop problem.
Now, some people will say that using OSX and Apple hardware brainwashes people into supporting Apple blindly. That is not the case. iLove Apple. They have never done anything that iDislike and iHave never noticed any kind of subliminal messages. iLove Apple. iPlan to upgrade and iPlan to stick with this company. iCal tells me to...
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
...he just did not do a good job of making the point.
His main point is that if this happened to you on a PC, you could easily go to another vendor and run the same software on different hardware. Your Dell died and you think it's not going to recover? Drop the drive (or dd, or rsync, or whatever) into an IBM and you're basically good to go.
Because Apple does not let you run OS X on any other hardware, you are completely dependent on them for making your software work. If you get used to a certain environment and certain applications but then the hardware fails, you're screwed.
Not so with anything on the x86 platform. It may not be easy, but linux, Windows, and others can be moved to different hardware from different vendors pretty easily.
In other words, using Apple's software is _both_ software and hardware lock-in, and he hates it.
I thought the guilt thing was silly, tho. Use what works best for you; I find it takes hours more a month to maintain my stupid linux box (often just because it's x86) than my powerbook, even though I do much more crap to the powerbook. I'm certainly not going to feel guilty for just using my computer, instead of maintaining it.
...why would I feel guilty. I can do almost anything I can do with Linux with the additional benefit of apps like iTunes. I've never had a problem using closed source software, I just have a problem with crappy closed source software.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
Why is vender lock in for Apple ok when it's considered bad for anyone else?
Explain yourself.
Apple uses OSS as the foundation of Mac OS X. Apple uses open standards where it is possible in all aspects of the operating system and their applications. Apple even uses an open processor platform instead of IA-64 or IA-32.
I don't know of anyoen that says this. Monocultures are bad. Interoperability is good.
As far as Netflix Fanatic is concerned, Cricket still works for Apple. What does that tell you?
mbbac
Apple as a company is not an angel. But its not a monoply and is leverging open source an contributing back to the open source community. As a rule Apple shuns DRM (digital rights management).
But OS-X has at its core DARWIN which is an open source version of BSD which apple puts out. The parts of the OS that isn't opensource is the graphics layer above OS and a few other bits (hfs+ the file system is not open either I think.).
They've given back web browser code, updates to GCC etc. etc.. So all told they're not bad guys.
What I have never understood about certain segments of the open source community is why Apple gets such a big pass. The average slashdrone will rant endlessly (and probably rightly so) about the evils of SCO and Microsoft. When in fact Apple is more closed source and proprietary than both of them combined and talk about how cool Apple is and if only the world were a better place we would all use Mac's. Any model that fails to give you control of the hardware and software that you pay for is a bad one. Apple locks down both, a claim that is not applicable to either Microsoft or SCO. The open source community should get out of bed with Apple before we get another SCO situation on our hands. To those who say Apple would never do something like SCO look here.
/. long enough. ;) Apple is the underdog and a competitor to Microsoft, so it has to be good. That said, I think they also gain points in many geeks' eyes due to the fact that OSX is built upon BSD, which is itself embraced by the slashdot community. It's also really the first *nix OS with true mainstream application support. Or at least as much as Mac OS ever had, but most importantly it has Microsoft Office support (no matter your opinion, it's still the standard) Photoshop support, and probably a bunch of other graphical production apps I've never heard of but are pretty important to a lot of other people. So, even though they are extremly closed source and proprietary, they still provide geeks with an appealing alternative to Microsoft, not to mention the occasional cool, innovative, overpriced gadget.
You clearly havne't been visiting
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
The puritans are running amok outside of reality again.
How is something so blatantly WRONG modded up as interesting? Since when was utter ignorance at all interesting?
Need I go on with how Apple differs from Microsoft and SCO?
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
how could I feel guilty about OS X? ok, it's gross that icons wiggle and pop up when you click them, that the iBook itself looks like a jelly bean, and that sometimes the running iChat man makes me laugh...but some of us like computers to seem happy :). (why else do you think emoticons were invented?)
I personally would not want to see Apple in Microsoft's position, because I think Jobs would quite possibly be worse for the computing world, but they're playing nice right now. Comparing them to M$ and SCO is just stupid.
The vast majority of the stuff they do now is based on open protocols, and a lot of times these are protocols developed at Apple and then released. Rendezvous is probably the best example; this is something that computers users desperately need (yes, you too, even if you don't know it) and Apple's actually given us some hope we'll see it.
No, Aqua itself isn't open, but the Unix underpinnings are, and Apple does everything they can to give advancements back. Safari is based on an OSS rendering engine, and they've contributed back to that project quite a bit. They used an open (if not common) format for their audio (sorry, does Ogg have DRM? No? Then Apple can't use it).
As to the link you provided, that's totally unrelated. The guy is employed as a software developer at Apple. All employers have non-compete agreements with their employees, and all employers are somewhat harsh about employees doing things at home that are related to what they do at work. I'm currently under the thumb of a contract in which I'm modifying my own GPL'd code for the company but I can't rerelease the code. Incredibly stupid and annoying, but incredibly standard. And, of course, totally unrelated to this topic or to SCO.
As to control of the hardware and software, I guess it depends on your definition of "control". I can't think of any senses in which Apple has control of either my hardware or software. I can install whatever I want on my Macs, and it will only take <1 second to get through the BIOS, as opposed to the shite x86 boxes and their shite BIOS. I have control of the software too, in the sense that I've upgraded the crap out of OS X and strangely Apple hasn't seemed to mind. What do you mean by "control"?
I wake up in the middle of the night crying.. knowing that i use photoshop, dreamweaver, office and many other wonderfull programs on my unix box. I feel horrible that my favorite OS is supported by hardware manufacturers and works seamlessly with windows PCs but i dont have all the issues of a windows user..
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
First of all Apple actually contributes to OSS projects even though they generally stay away from GPLed code and don't have to contribute their changes.
They've made many documented improvements to KHTML, gcc, the *BSDs, and others. They've also made the entire underlying operating system available as OSS.
Can you even come close to saying anything like that about Microsoft and SCO? Those two companies are the ones who testify in from of congress that OSS is unconstitutional and will destroy the US economy.
Apple also doesn't lock down their hardware, and it's totally possible to run other OSes on Macs. Their is one proprietary part that is required to run Mac OS, but if you don't want to run Mac OS it's not a problem.
Ever heard of OpenFirmware? It's an open standard that Apple, Sun and others use instead of the antiquated BIOSes found in PCs. What do MS and Intel want to replace the BIOS with? A locked down firmware that will implement DRM for media and software and possibly even OSes at the most basic hardware level. That's open?
Apple uses standard components and has opened up many of their hardware innovations like FireWire.
In other words: you're nuts.
Are you sure you are talking about a Dual USB ibook, white, 12" screen?
Look at the following picture (and the rest of the instructions). The disk does not sit under the keyboard, and requires the removal of the back of the laptop and many other screws.
Your freedom of speech doesn't equate to my having to listen, agree and silently acquiesce--especially when you are plainly biased and just plain wrong.
The irony is that its the zealots (whatever banner they ride under) that are the first to accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them of zealotry.
Listen up, buddy, it's a fricking tool. Get over yourself and find something worthwhile to fight for. It's a shame that hordes of idiots--who don't even have a vested interest in it--flame and whine until you drown out all relevant and reasonable discussion of what makes one tool the right one for a particular task.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
You would feel guilty, as I do sometimes, because you have principles which you would like to uphold 100% of the time, those principles being a commitment to freedom(as in speech) and against contributing to an increase in non-free softwares userbase. Having principles make you feel dirty sometimes, as when you are forced into a pragmatic decision such as getting a mac because you don't have enough ability to get Linux/BSD/WhateverFreeOS running well, for example.
I would *love* to use Linux but I can't even get XDarwin and MacGimp to run on my powerbook. So yes, I do feel guilty sometimes. Is it aan overwhelming, mind numbing guilt? No, but it is there.
A blog about stuff.
OS X gives me a nice solid UNIX with a much nicer interface and better vendor support (both software and hardware). Thank You Very Much.
Besides, Apple's laptops are Really Nice and I haven't yet had anything like the same number of little annoying problems that I've had with both Windows and Linux on laptops. (This may well be related to generally superior hardware than you find from PC vendors who are engaged in cutthroat competition, but whatever.)
I actually bought our household's first Mac for my wife because I got rather tired of reinstalling Windows (and all her apps) for her every 3 months when it puked all over itself. I wanted something that wouldn't require a lot of admin effort on my part, but that was still easy enough to use and with enough software that she wouldn't pull her hair out.
It worked, although there were some teething pains as we both learned to use it and dug up the applications she needed.
I ended up liking her laptop so much that when it came time to replace my Linux laptop I went with a Mac for myself too. The silly things work well.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
Maybe we've reached the point where we're no longer able to simply take or leave an OS on its own merits. I use Linux most of the time because it's cheap, stable, and I like the KDE desktop. At work, I use Windows for proprietary applications unavailable elsewhere. I also have a cool older iBook running OS X that has taken years of rough treatment without causing me much offense. I'll buy a G5 soon to run Photoshop.
It's all a question of the right tools for the job at hand. Operating systems aren't a religion. There's no need to feel guilty using one or the other. No divine laws are transgressed.
That being said, I think the Open Source movement is highly worthwhile. It provides the means to quality computing for those who might not be able to afford proprietary software, and it certainly keeps Microsoft, Sun, and Apple honest. Well -- mostly honest, in the case of at least one of those companies.
I'm grateful to all those who have freely contributed code to the stuff I use. Power to the People.
But guilty for using OS X? How silly. Mac users should probably feel good about contributing to the diversity of the commercial software industry.
They should probably also feel good about an OS that works right out of the box, and which supports some quality retail software. Not to mention the time they save without the hassle of resolving dependencies, looking up hardware compatability, or the forever tweaking many of us actually enjoy with Linux.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
ok I call your ass on the carpet. tell me ONE thing that OSX can do that linux cant.
Easy: Open a complex Microsoft Office document and not lose any layout settings because of conversion issues...
Well that's one. Let me give you a few others:
-Real world page layout (quarkxpress, indesign)
-Photoshop (CMYK) editing
-Real time video editing/post production work of HD streams across ANY IEEE1394 video device.
-Wake up from sleep in less than a second
-Connectivity to a Microsoft Exchange Server
-Actually play Warcraft 3 (and sign up for the worlds of warcraft beta test!) (and no, buying WineX and dealing with the emulation layer isn't good enough)
I can go on and on (like professional MIDI software for musicians) but I just remembered you asked for one thing "OSX can do that linux cant."
Now sure, I can't run it on my Lego Mindstorm, but I think the stuff I listed is a little more important. and with my hardware accelerated X11 server, I can do alot of the stuff that you linux guys can do too.
More like Mac NOSeX...
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
This is just ideology run amuck. Programmers and engineers need to eat too. We can't all work for free.
Wake up. Free and Open have little to do with money or salaries or commercial interests. It has to do with rights, freedoms, security, and doing the smart thing for your own company and your clients.
My company runs Linux on all desktops (yes, we're small and nerdy so we can do this) and production servers (just good business, here). We pay money for our operating systems, just like we would to MS or Apple. We happen to pay RedHat and SuSE for our operating systems. We get fantastic support (so far). We make (small) profits here, and we're able to pay our programmers. The RedHat and SuSE people get paid, so they're okay too. Our products save our clients money, so they're doing just well also. What the hell is the problem? Yes, we release nearly all of our own products Open Source, under the GPL. And it doesn't prevent us from charging money to people for them.
If my company goes under, our clients have a lot of piece of mind that the latest source is available to them. Lately, there have even been 3rd party consultants who have taken our source and added features that we simply don't have time for (or disagree with), and they're able to make a living (partially, at least; I'm not sure) at that. Yee ha. There is no lack of money in Free and Open if that's what your goal is.
Dammit, Free and Open are not about money.
i spent an entire year preaching Linux to all my friends but i have to admit that all the way i've been having tons of problems with it... USB devices were not working, attempts to switch keyboard layouts gave me XFree86 errors, trying to do accounting with Gnucash was a lunacy, and could XMMS be ANY UGLIER? Then i tried installing XD2 from Ximian (which I still consider the best "graphical shell" for Linux) and that just broke *everything* on my laptop... On that day i just got so mad i walked down the street and got a powerbook G4...
so, back to the guilt thing.... yes, i do feel guilty - probably because i kind of showed myself as a hypocrite - preaching linux to others then getting an Apple machine. i think the key with Linux happiness is to recognize whether it's APPROPRIATE for what you do. if you need email, web browsers and a shell then Linux IS perfeect... but if you try to use it the way i did (USB, Music, several business applications, multimedia), then you better know how to recompile things yourself (i don't).
The big advantage in my view is that I feel better and work better when my screen's an aesthetic delight than otherwise.
So I'm delighted with all my Macs - I switched almost totally away from Linux and Irix, my previous systems, and in terms of computing environment, I couldn't be happier. The Mac isn't perfect, but it's as close to a hassle-free computing environment as I can get.
And that's worth its weight in gold, at least for me.
Just out of curiosity, could you give a few examples of things you can't do from the command line? I'll bet there actually are ways around it that you haven't heard.
D
Apple provides a neat little tool named security for this purpose. It allows full access to, and manipulation of, the keychain.
To retrieve my Slashdot password from the keychain, I would do the following:
Note that the first time you use security to access a keychain item, you will receive the standard Confirm Access to Keychain dialog. It would be unwise and unhelpful for this to happen when you are trying to access the keychain remotely via SSH, therefore it would pay to first access the keychain in this manner when you have access to the UI to Always Allow security to access that keychain item.Quite frankly, Linux always feels pretty "rough around the edges", and I'm not sure that'll ever really go away. (Some of it is probably inherent when you're talking about an OS developed by anyone, anyplace on the globe, who feels like contributing some code to it.)
The Mac with OS X is the polar opposite of this, with a stunningly beautiful GUI and some of the most original GUI-related concepts I've seen on any platform. (Even Gnome and KDE couldn't seem to resist sticking to the Windows-esque concept of some sort of START type button in a corner of the screen with menu windows popping open from it, listing the applications you can launch. OS X bypassed that completely with the "dock" idea.)
If you really are a command-line "power user" in Unix OS's, then yeah, Mac OS X is currently not really for you. The thing is, I suspect relatively few of us really work from the CLI as much as we like to think we do. (I know for example, I have several good friends who are nearly Linux zealots, and they constantly like to point out the powerful things that can be done from the shell prompt. They're quite right, except I still see their machines running X and a window manager most of the time. Unless your system is primarily a server, being remotely accessed but not generally used locally, a GUI is usually more pleasing to the eye, and is the environment people would rather be in. (If nothing else, people like having nice looking pictures as their "wallpaper", instead of staring at a blank screen with white text and a blinking cursor on it.)
I think of Mac OS X as "Unix for the rest of us", sort of how the original Macintosh was supposed to be the "computer for the rest of us".