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."

Comments

Far from "brutal"

[AKAImBatman]

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.

XP is a Bad Development Platform?

[ThinkFr33ly]

FTFA:

Windows XP does not compare favorably with Linux, Macintosh or UNIX variants as a development platform.

Really? Windows has excellent development tools (almost all 3rd party tools run on Windows, and Visual Studio is usually considered one of the best if not the best IDE for development). The interop argument is silly. If you're writing code for interop you can do it just as easily on Windows as any other platform. If you're writing stuff for Windows, you have the support of some of the best frameworks available today.

Why leave out the "free software philosophy"?

[Cyclops]

I keep finding it all around the place, some pseudo-pragmatists saying derivates of:

• urgh, they insist on ethics
• urgh, they insist on freedom
• urgh, they insist on ...

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).

Re:Why leave out the "free software philosophy"?

[Kohath]

Some people just want to get their work done. Sometimes the ethical hairsplitting and free vs. not-free debate gets in the way of that. Some people want software, not a cause.

Silly review...

[fak3r]

All throughout the article the author tries to paint OS X as being the end all, with little fact. Plus, what user looking to try one of these 3 OSs will understand this jibbish?

• 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'

Re:Can I fill in?

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Read his thread before judging

[LKM]

Abusive? No.

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:

"But it's my fault, really. I should never have believed all that crap about "providing access to all"."

"I thought -- probably because of all the liberation/openness rhetoric of Ubuntu -- I wouldn't need Microsoft software to get Ubuntu to work. Guess that's not the case."

"So in other words, you didn't read my first post, in which I said that the disc is fine and I've tried reinstalling multiple times. This just makes my day."

"Seems like a fishing expedition there."

"Okay, why not just tell me how to get into the boot loader?"

"Just yesterday I thought I knew what chutzpah was.

"Starting on the right foot" would include "not getting locked out of my computer because I installed a OS billed as 'Linux for Human Beings' ". "Starting on the right foot" would include finding instructions that answer the frequently asked question of "how do I set up a new partition and install to that partition?". "Starting on the right foot" would include an Ubuntu forum that doesn't take me a week of trying to access from different computers and connections before it consistently loads.
Stop making excuses. So I wouldn't answer what Windows version it is. Can anyone think of any reason why one version of Windows over another would cause GRUB error 25? No? Okay then.
The problem is not the devices, or the Windows version, or getting the latest install CD, or scratches on the install CD. The problem is the boot loader. The problem has already been diagnosed. You just want to chase all these wild geese because you don't want to admit that maybe this "access for all" OS has a serious problem.
Would somebody just tell me how to edit, modify, fix, whatever, the boot loader? That's all. It should be really simple, given the rigorous testing that they would put a software capable of locking you out of your computer through."

"I downloaded it, burned it to a CD, bought a new hard drive, installed the distro, locked myself out of my computer, spent countless hours getting help from my brother through each step of the way solely so I could have a real story about how a Linux distro fucked me over. I was so willing to tarnish the reputation of Ubuntu that I did all that, devious schemer that I am. And to top it all off, I literally, *jumped* at the chance to wait for "ubuntuforums.org" to load so I could be subjected to "advice" like "Can't get into your computer? I know! Go open Linux and post your menu.1st file!" My doctor always told me my blood pressure was too low.
But it's no big deal, right? So what if I can't get it to run? I'm just one person. It's not like Ubuntu is intended to be usable by everyone, right? It's not like I can believe what they say at ubuntu.com."

"And you've reached a new low."

"There's a really simple solution to all of this that should have been the second post: tell me how to edit the boot loader. If you really want to expand the Ubuntu user base (i.e., if you don't use this forum merely to degrade people who are trying to get it installed), you'd tell me that. You still have a chance."

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.