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
Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP
,etc. Then I started using the Mac as a production machine at a DoE lab.
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
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
"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!
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
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
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?
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.
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.
- fader
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).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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
"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.
"Quoting yourself is stupid." -Me