Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP
LXer has an interesting look at the big three operating systems with some surprising results. From the article: "If you think that a Linux advocate cannot make an objective analysis of desktop operating systems, then you need to read this report. You may find yourself surprised with some brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy."
The article advertises itself as "brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy." With a headline like that, I was hoping to get a real analysis of what's going right and what's going wrong for all three. Instead, the author ends up dodging the key positives and negatives of each system in favor of more nebulous concepts like available software. His conclusion is that Linux is losing because it doesn't have eductional titles or tax software. Excuse me?
A more thorough analysis would have focused on why these packages are lacking. What is so special about Windows and Mac that they have these markets clinched? Does his analysis show that Linux needs this software, or is it actually competing in a different market? These are the types of questions that are actually important.
Finally, some of his analysis was just confusing. According to the author, Apple is nicer than Windows because they make nice hardware. Wait. Aren't we comparing software? If hardware is a key issue, why isn't that brought up in all three analyses? And why does he believe that the higher price of Apple's hardware makes it only appealing to Enterprise users when it's quite obviously home users who use it?
All in all, I give him an A+ for effort, but a D- for content. He's really trying, but he doesn't have any real goal in mind during his comparisons. As a result, his analysis comes out confused and unfocused.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Like people who care about such important things have a terribly contagious lethal disease.
That sucks big time and sounds like a-moral freaks who would sell their moms (not that I buy that point of view, but it sure as hell sounds like it).
- Each system has different programing architectures with OS X a little closer to Linux than Windows. OS X uses a UNIX architecture to run its internals. However, the OS X desktop interface does not resemble Linux or other UNICES which depend on X. You can use X on the Mac natively.
I get so tired of hearing that OS X uses a UNIX architecture, but I digress. Also I like how Linux sucks because software like Income Tax apps are lacking...hello? I processed my last 3 income tax paperwork via Turbo Tax online. What a bad article, no wonder I stopped checking 'digg.com'fak3r.com
Didja realize when he spoke of Linux he was enthusiastic, but when he spoke of Windows it seems someone was forcing him to do it. It's also filled with excuses "The large volume...seduces", "The lower cost...".
I may despise Windows, but i'll never say it isn't a good OS. If you want to make money, it's better for development, and development tools are easier. Like AOL, UI is key to Microsoft, and many, if not most, developers want that. Plus, tools for the braindead like VB and it's ilk are in abundance with help files, technical support, and addins. It's debugging is usually superior to Linux because it goes line by line, making it an excellent tool for the beginner.
I like Linux, and Linux is robust. I am learning to use C with a friend right now, and we login to my Debian box via SSH to get it done. But one thing is for sure, it ain't as easy. (Which is half the reason i want it that way, but that's another story.)
Linux is more secure, if you know what you are doing. To the average idiot, buying Windows and Symantec's security suite is ten times better. It works out of the box, it has support, and is updated for viruses.
But the "reviewer" didn't even get into overall usuability.
Windows is better, hands down because everyone knows it, it's UI is beautiful and easy to use to most people, there is a great deal of software support for it, and games are written for it. If you are willing to spend money, there's nearly nothing you can do with Linux that you can't do with Windows.
For the techy, however, Linux can be better in that it is control, speed, and reliability. Futhermore, debugging tools such as having the source, using strace, or having knowledgeable people in the newsgroups or mailing lists that speak Geek and are overall familiar with the techy nomenclature, can be a boon and a welcome diversion from the ignorance found amongst Windows support personell.
But, for the non-techy trying to save cash, or the techy trying to save time, the "other" OS may be better.
So much for my opinion. But (in my opinion!) it's alot less biased than his.
Have you read my journal today?
GoogleFight confirms it. Slashdot wins. :-P
Offtopic interesting link: Digg vs. Slashdot
Interesting site. Unfortunately, it's only a "FIRST POST!" tracker. It doesn't really compare the quality of the two sites. Digg has its ups in that just about everything that you might find cool flies through there. On the other hand, that also means that the noise ratio is pretty darn high. On top of that, Slashdot has a much better comment system. (Though Digg is really trying with their latest Slashdot-ripped-off-threaded-comment-system.)
Slashdot's focus and superior discussion forums really put it ahead of Digg for most professional users. As a result, the far more attractive (and generally better constructed) Digg ends up attracted far more students, highschoolers, and budding programmers than it may intend.
Final Analysis? Go whereever you feel more comfortable. The Internet is big enough for both.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Please stop trolling The Associated Press for news.
Note to you: please stop trolling Slashdot.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
That said, once AGAIN we see that same stupid statement. It's taken as a tautology that Apple's stability is due to it's hardware. From the article:
"Macintosh OS X runs on a limited number of hardware devices which allows Apple Computers to offer a stable and high-performance product overall. Apple's entry level products such as the Mac mini provides a low-cost, high-value multimedia platform."
Bull. While that can't do anything but help, I don't buy it. I think Linux has proven that you can run an operating system on a very diverse set of hardware (that is, the same hardware Windows runs on) and be entirely stable enough to run for months without issue (Windows has gotten there, for the most part). OS X is stable not because there are only 3 pieces of hardware it runs on, but because it was well designed and well built, based on a stable and mature architecture (BSD). It's perfectly stable (from what I hear) when installed on generic Intel computers that it was never designed for.
Besides, what does OS X run on? It runs on Powerbooks, the Minis, PowerMacs, iMacs, iBooks, and the G4 Cube, and more. Each of those has numerous different revisions (often amazingly different, as the difference between a G4 PowerMac and a G5 PowerMac, or a 12" Aluminum Powerbook and a 15" MacBook Pro). In the year I have owned a PowerBook there have been 3 revisions, along with the MacBook Pro. That's one year, one computer line. Not including the different sizes (12", 15", 17").
When will people stop blaming OS X's stability on the hardware. When will they start to blame it on good design. Give Apple a fair shake.
Besides, if the hardware thing was true, OS 8 and OS 9 should have been MUCH MORE stable because they only ran on those few pieces of Apple hardware, while Windows XP should be much LESS stable because it runs on so many million different types of computers.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
When you consider more tax software companies are making their software available as web packages, which OS you are using becomes moot. As soon as this happened I abandonned the Mac tax software, since it was a good $15-$20 than the PC version.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Or did you just come and bitch on /. about things not working exactly as they do in Windows?
Dude. Seriously. Not helping.
Installation problems always have and always will be key areas that users complain about. Users think of Macs and Windows machines as "easy" in that respect, because the OS ships with the machine. They've completely forgotten how they used to have that kid next door come over to install Windows for them in exchange for a few bucks or some homemade cookies.
A more complete analysis would show that Linux needs the crucial "early adopters" in the home market who are willing to put up with its faults to have the latest and greatest. Those early adopters would then drive sales of OEM Linux machines.
Unfortunately, Linux has already experienced quite a few cycles of early adopters. Every time it fails on the follow through. Whether it be support for the distro ending (e.g. JDS), a breakneck upgrade cycle (e.g. Mandrake/Mandriva), or just plain user unfriendliness (e.g. user can't upgrade to latest package X from the repository because they need to upgrade to the latest OS version), users end up becoming frustrated with Linux and leave. The vendors take notice of this and drop support for their commercial Linux software. Thus Linux loses popular support until the next cycle.
I've talked about this many times before. Linux distro providers need to decide if they're really trying to target the home desktop or not. If they are, they need to stop targetting the workstation market and make something that really blows the home market away. Linspire is pretty much the only distro that is taking this step. It's too bad that they've got their technology wired all wrong. Perhaps Ubuntu can do it, but it will need to nail both the OEM Linux market, as well as user's needs going forward. Given that much of their success and failure is still dependent on areas farther back in the pipeline (e.g. GNOME), only time will tell if Ubuntu becomes a serious contender in the home.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Agreed; the GUI configuration utilities never seemed to help me accomplish anything in Ubuntu. Maybe it was just the WL card I'm using (some piece of shit Marvell-based one -- thanks a bunch Linksys for not changing the model number), but every time I tried to use the control panels either in Gnome or KDE, it was a crap-shoot as to whether the changes would get applied, or whether the system would hang, or none of the above.
I don't find installing a new distro to be something enjoyable or entertaining, thus I'll probably stick with Ubuntu until I find a very compelling reason to change to something else, but I think if I was going to do it all over again I probably would have picked SuSE or RedHat. All in all, running Ubuntu has been an interesting experience -- I've discovered that the "spit and polish" aspect of an OS counts for a lot more to me than I thought it would.
So I suppose I'll keep coughing up $2.5k every few years for a new shiny thing from Apple, since so far they're the only company that I've found that does it right.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It seems to me that the fact that you are surprised when everything just works says quite a bit.
Seriously, Free software means that _this_ is what the people want. They want it so bad, they're making it themselves.
Very few people actually use windows- you ask them what kind of computer they have, and you'll hear "Dell" or "Packard Bell" or "Gateway" - maybe even an "IBM". These people have no idea what they're using or if anything might do what they want better.
Leaving out the fact that this is Free software is trollish- if you don't qualify any comparison with "This is what the people who actually have to use it want to use", then you're just feeding this FUD machine that zero-charge software equals lower-quality- because OF COURSE there's something available for Windows that isn't available for my Free operating system.
Doesn't mean I miss it in the slightest.
And by the way, I have no problems using tax preparation software on Linux, or converting things to and from PDF. I also have no problems watching DVDs legally- as my DVD player and software predate the DCMA.
I have no interest in Visio, Framemaker or Photoshop, or rather any other software that doesn't want me to use it. I may be interested in performing some of the tasks that are possible with these programs- but I've already got adequate Free software, that works and does things the way _I_ want to.
XP provides an adequate operating system for hosting a number of applications.
The correct - and more important - distinguisher would be that XP provides the only hosting choice for a large number of applications.
We all, and Bill Gates and even Wallstreet know that if all software available for Windos were available for OSX and Linux as well, with no difference in price, support or ease of installation, Windos market share would drop faster than you can possibly sell your M$ shares. Not to zero, some people just use whatever is there or don't know any better, but users are already moving to OSX in droves despite the app count disadvantage.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That just reflects people looking for info about a platform, has nothing to do with people running the distros, just what is popular to read about and think about and, to some extent, a popular choice for newcomers, not for those established with a distro already.
An analogy would be to look at how many people search for, say, a Ferrari versus how often people search for a Ford Focus. The Ferrari are more interesting and people search for them, but doesn't mean that the proportion of Ferrari drivers to Focus drivers is anywhere near what google search statistics would suggest with this methodology.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
A collection of sentences, some of which express something tangible.
Not finished? I'll summarize it for you: Linux is pretty neat. Windows is neat too. Macs are neat. Why did this article get posted to slashdot? It's completely devoid of ANY information or insight.
Vandemar.org
Windows XP is the best OS Microsoft have done so far - provided that you get rid of the *TRULY AWFUL* default Windows XP UI & go back to the "Classic" UI, as well as doing some registry hacks to get rid of all the "patronising" features that treat you like a five year old. When you do that, and accept Windows big design flaw (the ever-expanding, ever-fragmenting registry), it's worth using. I still, personally, use Linux much more but that's because of what I do on my computers & the way I like to do it.
What I *REALLY* have a problem with is the *WINDOWS MENTALITY*...
I've been using Linux and free software now for many years & it's great when I can run my favourite free apps on Windows or Linux - Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, Vim, OpenOffice, etc. Sure, many of free apps don't compare feature-for-feature with some of their commercial equivalents but if I've ever been in the situation where I've felt a free application needs an additional feature, then I've dropped an email to the developers of that app to say what feature their app needs and why I think it needs it. I've not always got a response but at least I hope someone is maybe considering my suggestion. But in my mind, this type of feedback is core to the advancement of free software because it gives the developers a viewpoint of their software from the usability perspective.
Unfortunately, the "Windows Mentality" deems that you don't feedback to software creators - instead, you just hand over money & have a shrink-wrapped box put in your hands. And when you try out the software, it either does what you want it to do or doesn't; if it's the latter, you just use it, put up with it & wait for the next version...
I really don't care how many people use Windows and whether or not they'll migrate to Linux. But I do wish many Windows users would make more of an effort looking for free software apps & just try them out. Rather than just handing out money, or passing round CDs of cracked commercial apps, I wish they'd put some energy into giving free software a try & contacting the developers - whether to just say "Thanks" or to suggest enhancements to their software.
I don't believe all software should be free - whether you write programs or paint ceilings, you deserve renumeration for any hard work you do if that's what you want. But the free software movement is one where everyone who has access to a computer can take part in - and with many mature free apps, they're now at a stage where it's the users who dictate "what happens next" by telling the devlopers what's needed.
Unfortunately, far too many people just sit there expecting software to just "fall into their laps" after they hand over money & it's that mentality that needs to change here.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
(1) This guy thinks he is an every-man. Since most people are exactly like him, whatever he desires is what most people desire. (Please sir, I'd like free educational and income-tax software.)
(2) This guy thinks that his sundry experience with a smattering of systems and operating systems constitutes some kind of basis from which to form opinions of some value, or to give advice. At least he could have polled three of his best friends and make a data-set taken from four people who think they are Everyman. As it is, this guy thinks everything that matters to him is what really matters in the big bad world out there.
(3) This guy is a terrible writer. He doesn't know how to present a cogent argument, formulate a clear thesis, and support it with evidence.
I've read a lot of really mundane and pointless articles. This one tops them all.
Warren
If you have a dozen monkeys typing on a dozen typewriters for a dozen days, you would have an analysis of Linux vs. XP vs OS X with a dozen times as much depth as this one. About all I got out of it was the there's no tax software on Linux. The author seemed to think writing important-sounding sentences would cover up the fact that he didn't have anything to say. The few times an actual idea was introduced, it wasn't expounded on, and strengthening examples were left out. If this were a technical writing class, this paper would get a "C-", and then only because it was mostly grammatically correct.
I've gotten to the point where I just don't want to screw with my computers. Probably since I do systems support professionally, I have little patience for doing it on my own stuff. I just want my hardware, apps, etc to work with no intervention on my part.
What I find with free software is I'm asked to make major, major compramises, and that the people pushing it seem to think I should be happy, and even thankful, to do so just because it's free. I particularly get in to this with audio apps. I have a number of pro audio apps I use that weren't cheap. Regardless, to me they are worth the money. When I check out the free alternatives, they are woefully lacking. However they get suggested to me as though they are drop in replacements, and anything lacking well "you don't really need that."
In the end, I just don't care. Sure, the open source ideal is nice, but if it can't do what I want I am not going to be a crusader about it. I'll pays my moneys and use commercial software. The ability to go to my desktop at work or at home and just sit down and use it, no problem, with all the apps I need, is priceless to me.
The main point is, these programs are not used very often by an average user. How many times a year does your neighbour use Photoshop? How many booklets does she lay-out? The commercial tools on the MS-desktop are simply too expensive for such a rare use. Buying a legal version of Photoshop is not an option when you use it twice a year. People simply need trial-versions or, better, illegal versions. But that takes a lot of downloading-and-installing, or having friends who can help you with illegal versions.
Probably the biggest advantage of Linux-for-normal-people is the fact you do not have these problems. You simply háve all those programs you use only twice a year, and if you don't, aquiring & installing them is so much easier than on a MS-desktop. This advantage is seldom mentioned, but it is potentially the main reason to switch. TFA doesn't mention this either, instead it calls Ubuntu a mid-level desktop. But for the average user, it's more like a top-level desktop, since he can by default do so much more without friends having a pile of illegal software available.
Trust me, I work for the government.
I disagree. He seems to be a real asshole. He's rarely openly aggressive, but he starts out being really annoying and passive-aggressive, constantly slams Ubunto for no good reason (as it turns out, his hardware was broken), and quickly turns to insulting the people trying to help him.
Some choice quotes:
And so on.
I don't like Linux. I use a Mac, and I use Windows at work. I have absolutely no interest in Ubuntu. And I still think he's extremely unfriendly. He's telling the very people who try to help him that they've "reached a new low". Wow.
Remember, he wants these people to help him. They're not paid to help him. They do it out of the goodness of their heart (or maybe they have some leass altruistic reason, but hey sure as hell don't have to help him), yet all he does is insult them and demand a solution which is simply not possible in this here reality.
It's kinda weird how long it took until the others went from being apologetic to calling him what he was.
What an ass.
You've hit the nail on the head.
If you're not comfortable installing, say, Windows XP, then don't install Linux--that's comfortable installing it, not simply able to, there's a difference. Yes, many Linux distros are (barring any rare problems, like what this guy apparently had) easier to install than XP these days, but ANY installation process can run into problems that put a computer in an unusable state. If you're not comfortable backing up your stuff somewhere where it can't get hurt (CDs, DVDs, a hard drive that's unplugged from the box) and with the idea and process of doing a complete format of the hard drives and a reinstall of all OSs on the machine if something goes wrong, then don't do it.
I would honestly feel OK with my grandma using Ubuntu as her desktop OS. But I wouldn't expect her to install it, just like I wouldn't expect her to install WinXP. "Ready for the average desktop user" does not mean "ready for the average desktop user to install".
Actually, I'm just curious as to why ubuntu's one of the big three OSes.
I mean, Slax is much better in terms of ease-of-use and installation. Not to mention it's a chunk smaller, highly modular and uses a WM that's simply better (bitch at me all you want about Gnome V. KDE. I've used both. My girlfriend (who is nongeek) has used both. We kinda agree which is superior).
I'm just really shocked that KDE gets no representation just 'cos ubuntu's the hot linux flavor of the week.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1