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.

Re:Far from "brutal"

[Dystopian Rebel]

I read slashdot every single day and this is the first time I've ever come across the term "Ubuntu".

Ubuntu has been mentioned regularly.

http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=ubuntu
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=&query=ubuntu&au thor=&sort=1&op=comments

It must be Digg that you're reading. Slashdot is the ugly site, remember?

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP
Posted by tadelste on Mar 19, 2006 3:44 PM
Lxer.com; By Tom Adelstein

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.

All three desktop operating systems have admirable qualities. Each has some weaknesses. Attending a recent User Group Fair, I had another chance to see them at work. Having used and programmed on each platform provides some unbiased insights.

Background
I have owned several Macintosh computers. I had new world and old world bios machines including several older 6500s, 7600s, etc. that would not take OS X. I also had a blue and white, a beige workgroup server, Power Mac G4s, a Cube, iBook, etc. I remember making the transition from OS 9 to OS X. I liked it.

I used Microsoft from the DOS days to early Windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.11, Windows 95, 98, ME, NT3.51 - 4.0, 2000 and XP. I still have the licenses and media for everything since Windows 3.1. I managed large IBM networks with OS/2 on the desktop and LAN Server 3 as the server. I won't get into my NetWare experience.

I used Solaris, AIX and Linux starting with Slackware 3x. I even ran Red Hat on Sun IPCs, Sparc 5 and 10 workstations. I'm now using SUSE SLES and Pro, RHEL, Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu for daily use on servers and workstations.

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.

Windows has a completely different programing structure from OS X and Linux. Windows relies heavily on its user interface which has evolved over time. Programing involves using Windows shell extensions. XP uses the NT kernel to manage file systems, internals and communication with the graphical shell.

OS X and Linux use completely different schemes with kernel extensions and independent programs running inside the user interface shell. The UNIX shell runs independently in what kernel developers call userland.

UNIX and Linux programmers consider their programing methods preferable to Windows. Windows developers consider the interface extensions easier to use and providing for more rapid application development. Each have merit when you look at them objectively. Of course, Macintosh developers will say that since they moved to the UNIX method that they experience more stability.

Macintosh
I started with the first Mac configured as a desktop publishing machine. I remember liking it because it cut costs we otherwise spent on type setting and graphics, paste up ,etc. Then I started using the Mac as a production machine at a DoE lab.

For personal use, I used the Mac for graphics, audio productions and developing web sites. OS X made a huge difference since I didn't have to reboot in the middle of working. I also knew my way around UNIX and that allowed me to use Internet applications I hadn't used previously.

I found the developers tools useful. I enjoyed the interface. I found myself exploring more of the system when I purchased "OS X, the Missing Manual". The same book helped me discover ways of using Windows and Linux I hadn't known previously.

Windows XP
I recall using XP for three months without having to reboot it. I don't remember that happening before. I started collecting Microsoft Certs when Windows 95 arrived. I had used Excel 5 and Access to develop financial tools. Later, I became a sysadmin and ran a couple of large NT networks.

XP appeared safe behind our firewall. After three months, my system became sluggish and prone to malware. I did maintenance on the system regularly including defraging the disk, deleting unnecessary files and checking the registry.

I liked XP better than any previ

So Macintosh is to CHICKEN!!!

[TheRealMindChild]

"Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP"

Have you ever noticed that in the scheme of naming meat for the three big land animals is completely broke?

Cow == Beef
Pig == Pork
But CHICKEN is still just CHICKEN ("Poultry" doesn't count as it encompasses all domesticated food birds).

Using this known quirk, we can safely assume, that if all of these Operating Systems were a meat, Macintosh would be CHICKEN!

Is this a real number?

[fishdan]

...Ubuntu has in excess of 25% of the Linux desktop market which compares to number two SUSE with 11.4% of the market....

Have there been any really good studies showing this? I'm aware of a few very small samplnigs that show something like this, but nothing that was statistically significant. I'd be grateful if anyone knows of a good study showing usages. Anecdotally, Red Hat dominates my group of friends -- if we knew about a survey, we'd probably skew it pretty good too.

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.

Re:XP is a Bad Development Platform?

[ThinkFr33ly]

You can't pipe program output, redirect to file, etc.

First, I can't recall the last time I needed or wanted to redirect output to a file from a command line app while I was doing development. Perhaps it's because I do a different kind of development than you do, but regardless, I would hardly classify XP is a bad development platform over something like that. Even so, you're completely wrong as it's very easy to pipe output in XP.

Search through source file relies on 3rd party solutions, and few of them have the ability to work with regular expressions.

Huh? Aside from the fact that hitting F3 in Windows will bring up a find dialog that can search the contents of files, Visual Studio (and virtually every other IDE that runs on Windows) has the ability to search with regular expressions.

Re:XP is a Bad Development Platform?

[mrsbrisby]

Really? Windows has excellent development tools

That's debatable...

almost all 3rd party tools run on Windows

No, most don't. You need an emulation layer to run the most flexible development tools; those found in UNIX. Because windows lacks basic automation powers outside of normal user processing, the developer has to write "helper programs" that on UNIX are already written, to do basic transformations.

No pipelines, no universal application interface, I'd say windows doesn't have any of the things that I use regularly in my 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.

No you can't. It's certainly much easier to build and develop on a unixish system than on a Windows system.

My schism tracker project builds automatically for Win32, x86/Linux, and ppc/MacOSX all from the same source tree, all in parallel, and at one point, all from the same machine.

I do not see for a minute how it is even possible to do this on Windows unless I either (a) do an awful lot of work, or (b) use a UNIX environment on Windows and do slightly less than an awful lot of work.

If you're writing stuff for Windows, you have the support of some of the best frameworks available today.

If you mean to say, writing software _on_ windows gives you access to some of the best frameworks available, I have to tell you you're wrong. Most Windows frameworks have very poor accessibility outside of C++, or possibly VB.

If you mean to say writing _targetting_ windows gives you access to some of the best frameworks available, I still have to say you're wrong. The win32 frameworks don't mesh well with any other systems' development model.

Sadly, that seems to be intentional...

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'

Another cheap shot at everybody's blood pressure

[dildo]

I wonder if the /. editors are on the take from pharmaceutical companies that sell anti-hypertension drugs?

It seems like once a day there is an article like this that provides no real content, but may inspire limited skirmishes between hotheaded zealots. No doubt some of them are on these medications.

Or maybe the editors just like to see the ants fight after they shake up the bottle.

Franklin Hoenikker, is that you?

Mammal meat vs. other animal meat

[tepples]

Have you ever noticed that in the scheme of naming meat for the three big land animals is completely broke?

No, the system works as designed. For mammals, the English name of the animal comes from Anglo-Saxon, while the English name of its flesh prepared as food comes from French. See also sheep => mutton; deer => venison. But for species in other classes that extend Chordata, the English name of the prepared flesh is derived directly from the common English name of the animal: duck => duck; pheasant => pheasant; frog => frog legs; tuna => tuna.

Re:Mammal meat vs. other animal meat

[lostenroute]

Not quite. Mammals: horse > horse goat > goat buffalo, bison > buffalo, bison rabbit > rabbit Fish: snail > escargot It's eratic, or broken, as the original poster stated.

Unavailable tax software???

[iamnotaclown]

Say hello to WINE.

I did my taxes this year with Quicktax under WINE. To my surprise and delight, everything just worked. Kudos to the sidenet-wine-config people -- this tool downloads and installs several key bits of software from Microsoft that many windows apps expect (such as IE).

Doesn't have a what?...

[Cyclops]

Like all Linux desktops, Ubuntu has limitations. It lacks applications such as Photoshop, Framemaker, Pagemaker, Visio, Access, Quickbooks, a PDF converter, legal DVD players and most importantly income tax preparation software. Without those applications ported directly to Linux, Ubuntu remains a mid-level desktop.

I won't even go deep into the Linux is a kernel so shouldn't have any of those apps reasoning, and assume he's speaking of the user land, tipically a variant of GNU/Linux or even some *BSD with a GNOME or KDE.

No... I'll simply say...

• The GIMP satisfy virtually all "photoshop" needs (maybe not some small part in some graphics shops, but otherwise you're bitching without real knowledge).
• I don't do much in the area of Framemaker or Pagemaker, but most desktops will do fine with the functionality present in OpenOffice.org Draw
• Visio has some nice features, but I've lived for years with Dia managing a network of almost 200 equipments in a variety of multi-level networks
• Access is b0rked by design. PostgreSQL and MySQL are on Enterprise level, and they're at your feet on most GNU/Linux distributions
• PDF Converters? Have you tried printing? Go there. Notice the Create a PDF Document option...
• Legal DVD players? Write your congressmang, senator, whatever favorite politic of choice and influence and tell them how wrong DMCA is.

That stupid "It's the hardware" argument.

[MBCook]

I use OS X, which I switched to because I like the UNIX internals and the excellent Apple applications.

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.

Or the internet

[Midnight Thunder]

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.

Re:Or the internet

[munpfazy]

>When you consider more tax software
>companies are making their software
>available as web packages, which OS
>you are using becomes moot.

Yup.

Even if that weren't the case, judging a computer system by whether or not you can perform a task that one needs to perform roughly one hour per year is just silly. The author mentions a dozen application that are used daily, followed by the line, "and most importantly income tax preparation software." Most importantly? In what bizarro-universe is a home pc's most important feature tax prep software?

Even if there weren't several very robust online tax prep services, and if paper forms and human tax accountants weren't an option, it's hard to believe there are many potential linux users who don't have a friend or colleague who would lend them a windows machine once a year in order to do taxes. (Whether you're willing to give your SSN and banking info to a machine administered by someone other than you is another matter, I suppose.)

In passing, it's worth noting that of the other "missing" applications, only two that are genuine categories of software rather than specific vendor packages - PDF converters and legal DVD players - really have no place on the list.

There are plenty of ways of generating PDFs on linux. Having spent a fair amount of time generating PDFs from both platforms in recent years, I claim it's far easier to make arbitrary material into a high quality PDF using an unmodified linux install than it is in windows, even after paying hundreds of dollars to Adobe.

What's more, while there are no *legal* dvd players and there are a hand full of important codecs that are *legally* restricted in the US, it is trivial to install illegal software to satisfy one's every multimedia need. If linux growth were restricted only to those of us who claim it is ethically defensible to obtain an illicit copy of media playing software which is distributed for free to users of one OS but cannot be purchased at any price by users of another OS, in order to play our own legally purchased media on our own hardware, the linux community would never notice the difference.

Re:Or the internet

[doubledoh]

I stopped paying taxes in 1998 and that has worked just fine too!

Note to IRS: Just Kidding

Re:OUTGOING

[deesine]

What's that mean?

That there's one less competitor in getting that girl to notice you.

Read his thread before judging

[fader]

Make sure you read the thread that he posted on the Ubuntu forums before feeling too sorry for this jerk. He had a problem, and people tried very hard to help. He refused to try anything anyone suggested and became very abusive. People continued to give him suggestions and try to help. He just got nastier and nastier. His experiences are bad only because he chose for them to be.

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.

About the tax software

[Maxo-Texas]

It's interesting to be since I have a fairly complicated return (including long and short term gains on taxable stock sales), I live in a sales tax state so I had that, I have accounts with interest income, my income is decent so I run it through the AMT (apparently I don't know what "decent" really is since AMT doesn't apply to me), I have a mortgage and school taxes. I'm reasonably smart but basically a "B" type not some superbrain.

My 2006 taxes took me about 100 minutes to complete from start to finish- by hand- without a program. The only thing I needed a calculator for was the sales tax thing (for the love of god could they have made it more complicated-- multiply the base amount by something like 1.337?).

Besides you only use tax software once a year as it is. Most people who would be interested in free software won't make enough that tax software would matter anyway.

Personally, I think the -government- should be required to produce a generic "C" program or web page that calculates your taxes according to the tax code and if it is wrong, you only pay interest- no penalties. Tax collection is a government function- it's insane that we have these huge industries built around calculating your taxes.

Sure-- 10% of the population would still need accountants and so on but 90% really don't need these things.

I'm moving pretty aggressively towards opensource software and mildly aggressively towards linix. It won't be because of the cost- I can buy a complete windows system at Fry's for $369 - slap in a hot video card and a cool quiet power supply and match 90% of the score of any single card $1800 system on the plant. How they do this when the operating system alone costs me $99 and the bloody hardware in the computer is worth over $369 purchased piecemeal is beyond me. Microsoft must be giving the OEM folks OS's for almost free.

No- the reason I will leave windows (and not go to mac) is because of DRM.

It's MY COMPUTER. Unless they are going to BUY it for me and give it to me free, I'm not going to give them money for a system that is going to snoop and report on what I'm doing, tell me what software I can and can't run, and tell me what content I can and cannot play.

Sure- I may have a $379 special version of whatever windows is out there the rest of my life- I also might have a PS2 or XBOX for the same reason- to play games (Tho there is a ton of MAME content out there these days for linux).

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.

apps

[Tom]

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.

Re:apps

[MBCook]

"The fact is, Apple hasn't gained markeshare over Windows since OSX was introduced in 2000."

Market share is the same? That's odd, I can find articles that say otherwise. Do you have articles that say your point? Check out the table on this page. Apple's share is growing. It's not meteoric, but it going up. Or by "not growing" do you mean "hasn't gone up 10 points"? I switched, I know many others who have, and I have been asked by many people interested in switching.

"The fact it, most companies are not going to switch to OSX for the simple cost of ownership. [...] Once you switch to OSX, you have to buy a whole slew of applications for it as well, which compounds the cost."

OS X is cheaper. There was an article not too long ago that I read that said that for a business, a Mac costs $1500-$3000 less than an equivalent Windows desktop when you add in all the time with security updates, virus protection you have use, spyware protection, etc. This was for 1-3 years. That means the Macs PAID FOR THEMSELVES, not just the difference between the PC and the Mac. As for the apps, big deal. You are a Photoshop shop? Instead of buying CS 3 (or 4 or whenever you upgrade) for the PC, buy it for the Mac and make the switch then. Office is there too. Most programs are there. Give it a try. And with the Intel transition, it won't be long at all before you can run legacy or custom code under WINE at full speed just like under Windows.

"Application support just isn't in OSX also because the development environment for Windows is so much easier and more robust then OSX. XCode and Objective C, while free, represents everything that is wrong with Apple, their adherance to old philosophies that are failing, but too much ego is involved to let it go."

There is no application problem. I never had one. The one program I haven't found a replacement for in the very short time I looked? Microsoft Project. I'm sure there are replacements though. And have you used XCode and Objective-C? They are a pleasure to use. Objective-C and Cocoa makes GUI programming SO MUCH NICER than other languages. Have you done much Windows programming? A big GIANT HOG of an application (Visual Studio) to do it all for you and lock you in just as much as you seem to think XCode will. Except XCode is built entirely on top of GCC, a standard compiler. Visual Studio is built on top of Microsoft's compiler.

And XCode is free. Microsoft will give you the compiler, but you have to pay out the nose for the IDE.

"If your serious about Mac programming, then you use CodeWarrior instead of Apple's free tools. Without good software tools, then the slew of shareware and freeware apps that PC users get to use just isn't available on the Mac platform."

Can you back that up with examples and proof? Most people I know are happier with XCode than CodeWarrior. And what "shareware and freeware apps" does the Mac lack? What about all the nice things Macs come with (iTunes, iMail, iCal, Address Book, iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, Garage Band, iWeb) that Windows computers DON'T?

"I will whole heartedly agree that Microsoft has a lot to fear with Ubuntuu and other Linux alternatives."

Agreed.

"But to suggest that people are adopting OSX in droves is just unfounded."

Wrong again. You just have to remember that compared to an installed base of 200 Million or so, droves can still look small.

"Microsoft will never have to worry about OSX, in fact, with people finding ways of running WindowsXP aond the new Macintels, Microsoft is laughing their way to the bank as PC users buy Apple's to run Windows in a fancy box."

Wrong again. Microsoft has to worry about OS X. They have to RIGHT NOW. Why do you think they are adding so much stuff to Vista? The search (see: Spotlight), the sidebar (see: Dashboard), the 3D accleerated GUI (see: Quartz). It's not Linux th

Re:Our brutal honesty.

[Aranth Brainfire]

"What is this server running on?"

Well, I dunno what it used to be running on, but right now I'm going to guess it's running on a mixture of molten plastic, metal, and smoke.

Free Software

[pandrijeczko]

I've never has the need to use Apple hardware or OS X so I'm not qualified to comment on either.

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.

Re:OT- Re:Read his thread before judging

[fader]

Because he posted a similar rant last time Ubuntu got mentioned. I just happened to remember it because I was shocked enough at his behavior to reply, so it was easy to find again.

The way he linked to evidence of his own jerkishness as if he thought it defended him, I think the guy really might honestly need therapy.

Re:Can I fill in?

[fader]

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that if you're trying to upgrade one package and it prompts you to upgrade a bunch of others, there are some dependencies involved.

If you upgrade package a package that depends on some library "libfoo" that also has a newer version out, there's a chance that all of the other packages that use "libfoo" will need updated as well. This is because OSS tends to do a huge amount of software reuse. Windows and MacOS [X] software doesn't do that to the same extent.

The reason you can't just upgrade thet first package and not libfoo and all the others is that it will completely break things. Instability is what you'll get if you're extremely lucky, but it's far more likely that all those programs will crash as soon as you try to run them, because you're using an incompatible older library.

The good news, though, is that Ubuntu only makes minor security or stability upgrades within a release. You won't see a package go from version 1.5 to 2.0 within a given Ubuntu release, specifically because it's newer and less tested. If there's an upgrade available, you can rest assured that it's extremely unlikely to break anything -- these are minor, well-tested updates. If an upgrade is available, take it! You may be at risk if you don't. The updates you see are guaranteed not to be bleeding-edge.

(NB: This isn't true of all distributions, but it is true of Ubuntu.)