Comparisons like this are useless. A true comparison would be Linux to Solaris (or some other server OS) and Mac OS X to MS Windows XP.
Linux cannot compete in the workstation arena and Mac OS X cannot compete in the server arena.
I know many Linux users will argue the point that Linux is a strong workstation environment because of it's ability to be customized but this customization comes at the cost of ease of use and standardization which are the 2 main requirments of a usefull GUI.
I too used to be a member of the "You SUCK, Mac Haters Club".. it's strong religion because of all the facts to back it up.
But, an inteligent person would have an open mind to reevaluate the situation when circumstances change. You should stick your head inside of a G4 sometime you would be suprised at the similarities.. ATX, IDE, USB, PCI, etc.. Lay a PC motherboard next to a G4 motherboard and most people would not be able to tell them apart!
Also, Mac OS is not Unix-Like.. it IS UNIX. Unless you think BSD is not a UNIX?
With the information you are relying on to support your conclusion I would be amazed if you knew any "knowledgable" people.
Comparing Linux and OS X is an exercise in futility! It's like comparing Apples and Penguins, they just are not comparable.
I recently purchased my first Macintosh. I never thought anyone would hear me saying that because I have been, for many years, a card-holding member of the "You SUCK, Mac haters club." So, what reformed me you ask? If I had to pick one thing it would be an open mind. During my Mac hating years my strongest supporting evidence that all Macintosh users were morons was the absence of a command line. I knew this even before being introduced to UNIX. My commodore 64 had a stronger command line than Apple! But that said I never had anything derogatory to say about their GUI. It is and has been known that Apple has the easiest to use GUI available. Ease of use is the driving factor behind having a GUI and any moron can use a Mac right?? Now enter UNIX unquestionable the strongest CLI available. So, combine the worlds strongest CLI with the easiest to use GUI how can you deny the strength in that union?
The only valid complaint one can argue against Apple now is the price of their equipment. I believe that this will change. If you look inside of G4 you will notice how similar it is to today's X86 platforms with ATX, IDE, PCI, etc. The attempt to open clone manufacturing of the Apple platform failed primary because from a hardware standpoint it was drastically different from what was being mass-produced but that's no longer true. The main reason that Apple stopped the production of Apple clones was that they did not want to have sub standard hardware to launch their OS on. Now with these factors mitigated I would not be surprised to see Apple give the clone concept another try.
Now I will attempt, once again, to drive home what I believe to main marketing problem that Linux has today. That problem is that Linux cannot currently compete in the workstation arena. It seems to me that most everyone on Slashdot is devote support of Linux as a workstation operating system instead of simply being a supporter of Linux. In marketing you emphasize the positive while trying not to shine light on the negatives. If Linux has one major negative right now it would be it's poor GUI. It's strong points include stability, cost, and function as a server. I would say that most people that taught Linux as a workstation OS are those people that believe that the power of the GUI is its ability to be customized. This goes to the mindset of this group of people whom I believe are primary made up of techies, geeks, etc. They are superimposing the functionality of the CLI with that of the GUI. When in fact the reason the first GUI was created was to make the OS easier to use. So, if you create a GUI that offers greatly expanded customization at the expense of ease of use you have lost site of the concept a GUI.
If you want a good comparison to Linux I would match it up to say Solaris or some other primarily server OS. In choosing something to compare with OS X I would suggest looking towards Microsoft. XP and OS X are the closest modern workstation operating systems that I can think to directly compare. I say modern because the closest thing to Mac OS X that I have EVER seen would have to be Amiga. It's a given that it would be an unfair comparison due to the fact that Apple has today's technology to build on but if you have ever worked on an Amiga and sit down at an OS X machine you will instantly recognize the similarities. Mac OS X is the Operating System that Amiga could have been.
Well, there it is a RANT from a reformed Mac Bigot!
KDE, FVWM, FVWM 95, Afterstep, Enlightnment, Afterstep, and YES even GNOME STINKS!
The main problem with X Window Managers is that there is not uniformity. You can't just say I run Linux, you have to specify which distribution and which Windows Mangers.. plus none of the window managers truly provides an integrated GUI to the OS.. it's just something that sits on top of the OS a good parallelism would be windows 3.0.. we all know that one STANK! I hate MS but I would have to admit that their GUI blows away any X Window manager... and I don't think you could get anyone that has used it to deny that Mac OS X has the most advanced GUI out today. The main complaint against it would be that it is closed source. One problem with open source is that you cannot get everyone working on a particular task (i.e. the GUI) to work on the same project.
The surevey can't be true because of the alhiemitan curve ratio.
That combined with the inherient ability for the poll to be taineted by micro$oft's statical analysis make the data total useless. Microsoft is EVIL and and anyone that supports their products are all PAGAN Scum, no offense to PAGAN Scum..
If you use windows you are an idiot and the only reason you have not switched over to Linux as your workstation is that you don't realize how much software there is for it and how EASY it is to use.
Remeber the survey is crap and it just CAN't be true.. If it were true it would mean the end of the universe as we know it.
DrVPN
We are Micro$oft, you will be assimilated!
I think that meets all your design specs on how to craft a response.:P
Linux as a desktop / workstation is hopeless. Let's be frank here.. all the window managers stink! I love Linux as a web/mail/DNS/etc Server.. but I would never have it as my exclusive desktop. Unless something happens for Linux like it did with BSD when it went into Mac OS X, doubtful because of Linux's restrictive commercial licensing, it's a lost cause. The only people that use Linux as a workstation are hardcore geeks.... I know this is going to attract flames of examples of people that use it as a desktop.. but remember most of the people on/. are hardcore geeks, just like me:P
I just received my new Replay TV 4004. I have had Tivo since it came out. The Replay seems to win on options. It has the ability to create categories of shows and put recorded movies into those categories. It's like creating custom channels.
But by far the best feature of the Replay 4000 is it's network functions. Although I have not used the feature yet. The ability to share movies with other Replay 4000 users over the Internet makes it the clear cut winner of the bunch.
Anyone interested in trying this feature out shoot me an email address and we can exchange Replay IDs.
I agree 100%. I would like to start up a site that lists OpenSRS sites. Anyone running an OpenSRS site please send me an email at drvpn@hotmail.com and I will try to get the list updated with your information.
I agree. We run a OpenSRS registrar (T3Link) and believe me it is great to have the ability to work with a small enough company that you actually get someone on the phone to help you and still be backed up by the strength of a large company like tucows.
Ok, I am the first to jump on the bandwagon and say that Microsoft is an evil plot to undermine advancements in technology. But, if one can step back and look at MS Office objectively then there is no denying that MS Office is the one application that has gained its recognition on its merits. Once MS Word was able to overcome WordPerfect as the superior word processor there has only been improvements in the complete office package. The only office product to even attempt to compete against MS office was Lotus and that was a vain attempt with a weak set of applications.
MS Office is the standard and instead of trying to fight it we should get behind any, yes ANY, attempt to port this product to ANY non MS Windows platform. If MS Office is ever ported to Linux or BSD it will be the first step in moving that OS into the mainstream as a workstation OS. Until then they will be primarily used as servers and the fringe devotee.
Oh and YES I want the paperclip guy to DIE DIE DIE!
I guess you are just so used to democrats being lyers (ie Clinton) that you think we need more lyers and cheats in the White House. You are just a mindless GORON!
DrVPN
"A process where one human being, or other sentient being, exports and audible, linguistically coded message from their mouth, or other sound producing apparatus, to another's ears, or other sound input device. This coded message is then decoded by the recipient's brain, or other decision making unit, and then replies in a similar manner using a newly formed linguistically coded message."
The Compaq iPAQ H3650 Pocket 170293-001 with the optional PC Card Expansion Pack 170338-B21 enables PCMCIA support. It is documented to work with Compaq WRLS LAN PCCRD 11MBPS US 146927-001. I am pretty sure that it would work with most wired ethernet cards as well but that defeats the purpose doesn't it? All this is based upon the CE that it comes installed with but the potential for a linux Ipaq with networking is certainly there.
I wonder if the VHS is the same as this with the addition to the holes. If so then who is going to make a hole punch.
Reminds me of the days when people would punch low density disk to make them hd disks. Only thing is the hd disk were not coated the same. I wonder... hmmm.
Everyone knows how statistics works you can make a case for anything given the right formula and data. I just bought a 58" HD Ready TV and it cost me ~3000. But a lot of the cost was it's 58" and its widescreen format. They do have 30" tube HD ready televisions. Yes they cost more but I believe the main reason is the fact that they don't produce enought because demand is low. My thoughts are that we have plenty of television stations and the interactivity within television does not impress me. woo hoo I get to pick whats going to happen next in the toyota commerical. What I would like to see if a better quality picture and HDTV provides that. I am not to concearned with the local stations sending it though. I am sure if we took a poll of the slashdot users to see if they were using broadcast television, cable, or DSS then I am almost positive that broadcast would be the looser here. What we need is the cable TV companies to support, we need more stations on the DSS to support it and we need more people to buy the sets. It is mandated that by 2006 we you will be watching televison on HDTV or a converted HDTV signal on your non HDTV tv anyways. So why not help get behind this now and ensure quality television in the future. This is like people saying "uuhh I don't need cable modem 33.6K gets me everything on the web anyway" I know the arguments of why VHS won over BETA even though BETA is a far better quality video. But do we want to stick our heads in the ground and let it happen again? I think not.
Although it's not wireless an intresting side note is that most of the new fiber being laid within the cont US is laid through right of way purchased from railroad companies.
Not to mention if you built a magnet strong enough to repel the force of gravity the earth produces it would repel the earth.:( - I like it where it is:)
Being a network engineer for a large company I get to deal with high-end servers and the one drawback I see in today's servers is poor IO. I would much rather see a motherboard with a fiber GHz bus than a GHz CPU. Unless you are doing encryption the CPU does not really come into play with say a web server or a firewall. I know that the GHz bus technology exists today just look at most RAS equipment and you will find that most have fiber GHz bus. We keep getting faster and faster memory, hard disks, and network cards and the bus speed stays the same. I can't imagine why anyone would put a GHz Ethernet card in a system with a 100Mhz buss. Am I the only who can see the flaw in this logic?
Slashdot Mirror
Comparisons like this are useless. A true comparison would be Linux to Solaris (or some other server OS) and Mac OS X to MS Windows XP.
Linux cannot compete in the workstation arena and Mac OS X cannot compete in the server arena.
I know many Linux users will argue the point that Linux is a strong workstation environment because of it's ability to be customized but this customization comes at the cost of ease of use and standardization which are the 2 main requirments of a usefull GUI.
DrVPN
I too used to be a member of the "You SUCK, Mac Haters Club".. it's strong religion because of all the facts to back it up.
But, an inteligent person would have an open mind to reevaluate the situation when circumstances change. You should stick your head inside of a G4 sometime you would be suprised at the similarities.. ATX, IDE, USB, PCI, etc.. Lay a PC motherboard next to a G4 motherboard and most people would not be able to tell them apart!
Also, Mac OS is not Unix-Like.. it IS UNIX. Unless you think BSD is not a UNIX?
With the information you are relying on to support your conclusion I would be amazed if you knew any "knowledgable" people.
DrVPN
Comparing Linux and OS X is an exercise in futility! It's like comparing Apples and Penguins, they just are not comparable.
I recently purchased my first Macintosh. I never thought anyone would hear me saying that because I have been, for many years, a card-holding member of the "You SUCK, Mac haters club." So, what reformed me you ask? If I had to pick one thing it would be an open mind. During my Mac hating years my strongest supporting evidence that all Macintosh users were morons was the absence of a command line. I knew this even before being introduced to UNIX. My commodore 64 had a stronger command line than Apple! But that said I never had anything derogatory to say about their GUI. It is and has been known that Apple has the easiest to use GUI available. Ease of use is the driving factor behind having a GUI and any moron can use a Mac right?? Now enter UNIX unquestionable the strongest CLI available. So, combine the worlds strongest CLI with the easiest to use GUI how can you deny the strength in that union?
The only valid complaint one can argue against Apple now is the price of their equipment. I believe that this will change. If you look inside of G4 you will notice how similar it is to today's X86 platforms with ATX, IDE, PCI, etc. The attempt to open clone manufacturing of the Apple platform failed primary because from a hardware standpoint it was drastically different from what was being mass-produced but that's no longer true. The main reason that Apple stopped the production of Apple clones was that they did not want to have sub standard hardware to launch their OS on. Now with these factors mitigated I would not be surprised to see Apple give the clone concept another try.
Now I will attempt, once again, to drive home what I believe to main marketing problem that Linux has today. That problem is that Linux cannot currently compete in the workstation arena. It seems to me that most everyone on Slashdot is devote support of Linux as a workstation operating system instead of simply being a supporter of Linux. In marketing you emphasize the positive while trying not to shine light on the negatives. If Linux has one major negative right now it would be it's poor GUI. It's strong points include stability, cost, and function as a server. I would say that most people that taught Linux as a workstation OS are those people that believe that the power of the GUI is its ability to be customized. This goes to the mindset of this group of people whom I believe are primary made up of techies, geeks, etc. They are superimposing the functionality of the CLI with that of the GUI. When in fact the reason the first GUI was created was to make the OS easier to use. So, if you create a GUI that offers greatly expanded customization at the expense of ease of use you have lost site of the concept a GUI.
If you want a good comparison to Linux I would match it up to say Solaris or some other primarily server OS. In choosing something to compare with OS X I would suggest looking towards Microsoft. XP and OS X are the closest modern workstation operating systems that I can think to directly compare. I say modern because the closest thing to Mac OS X that I have EVER seen would have to be Amiga. It's a given that it would be an unfair comparison due to the fact that Apple has today's technology to build on but if you have ever worked on an Amiga and sit down at an OS X machine you will instantly recognize the similarities. Mac OS X is the Operating System that Amiga could have been.
Well, there it is a RANT from a reformed Mac Bigot!
DrVPN
KDE, FVWM, FVWM 95, Afterstep, Enlightnment, Afterstep, and YES even GNOME STINKS!
The main problem with X Window Managers is that there is not uniformity. You can't just say I run Linux, you have to specify which distribution and which Windows Mangers.. plus none of the window managers truly provides an integrated GUI to the OS.. it's just something that sits on top of the OS a good parallelism would be windows 3.0.. we all know that one STANK! I hate MS but I would have to admit that their GUI blows away any X Window manager... and I don't think you could get anyone that has used it to deny that Mac OS X has the most advanced GUI out today. The main complaint against it would be that it is closed source. One problem with open source is that you cannot get everyone working on a particular task (i.e. the GUI) to work on the same project.
Can I get an Amen!?
DrVPN
Linux is Going to rule the WORLD!
:P
The surevey can't be true because of the alhiemitan curve ratio.
That combined with the inherient ability for the poll to be taineted by micro$oft's statical analysis make the data total useless. Microsoft is EVIL and and anyone that supports their products are all PAGAN Scum, no offense to PAGAN Scum..
If you use windows you are an idiot and the only reason you have not switched over to Linux as your workstation is that you don't realize how much software there is for it and how EASY it is to use.
Remeber the survey is crap and it just CAN't be true.. If it were true it would mean the end of the universe as we know it.
DrVPN
We are Micro$oft, you will be assimilated!
I think that meets all your design specs on how to craft a response.
Linux as a desktop / workstation is hopeless. Let's be frank here.. all the window managers stink! I love Linux as a web/mail/DNS/etc Server.. but I would never have it as my exclusive desktop. Unless something happens for Linux like it did with BSD when it went into Mac OS X, doubtful because of Linux's restrictive commercial licensing, it's a lost cause. The only people that use Linux as a workstation are hardcore geeks.... I know this is going to attract flames of examples of people that use it as a desktop.. but remember most of the people on /. are hardcore geeks, just like me :P
DrVPN
www.t3link.com
But by far the best feature of the Replay 4000 is it's network functions. Although I have not used the feature yet. The ability to share movies with other Replay 4000 users over the Internet makes it the clear cut winner of the bunch.
Anyone interested in trying this feature out shoot me an email address and we can exchange Replay IDs.
drvpn@t3link.com
T3Link Hosting
I agree 100%. I would like to start up a site that lists OpenSRS sites. Anyone running an OpenSRS site please send me an email at drvpn@hotmail.com and I will try to get the list updated with your information.
Nick Powers
I agree. We run a OpenSRS registrar (T3Link) and believe me it is great to have the ability to work with a small enough company that you actually get someone on the phone to help you and still be backed up by the strength of a large company like tucows.
Possibly Crystal Methamphetamine???? Of course the player would be gritting his teeth and producing a lot of body oder. lol!
Ok, I am the first to jump on the bandwagon and say that Microsoft is an evil plot to undermine advancements in technology. But, if one can step back and look at MS Office objectively then there is no denying that MS Office is the one application that has gained its recognition on its merits. Once MS Word was able to overcome WordPerfect as the superior word processor there has only been improvements in the complete office package. The only office product to even attempt to compete against MS office was Lotus and that was a vain attempt with a weak set of applications.
MS Office is the standard and instead of trying to fight it we should get behind any, yes ANY, attempt to port this product to ANY non MS Windows platform. If MS Office is ever ported to Linux or BSD it will be the first step in moving that OS into the mainstream as a workstation OS. Until then they will be primarily used as servers and the fringe devotee.
Oh and YES I want the paperclip guy to DIE DIE DIE!
I bet they would be singing a diff tune if they had ever spent any time on Mir.
I store my passwords in a complex neural network that only I have access to.. my mind.
I guess you are just so used to democrats being lyers (ie Clinton) that you think we need more lyers and cheats in the White House. You are just a mindless GORON! DrVPN
"A process where one human being, or other sentient being, exports and audible, linguistically coded message from their mouth, or other sound producing apparatus, to another's ears, or other sound input device. This coded message is then decoded by the recipient's brain, or other decision making unit, and then replies in a similar manner using a newly formed linguistically coded message."
MrNick
I wonder if the VHS is the same as this with the addition to the holes. If so then who is going to make a hole punch.
Reminds me of the days when people would punch low density disk to make them hd disks. Only thing is the hd disk were not coated the same. I wonder... hmmm.
MrNick
Everyone knows how statistics works you can make a case for anything given the right formula and data. I just bought a 58" HD Ready TV and it cost me ~3000. But a lot of the cost was it's 58" and its widescreen format. They do have 30" tube HD ready televisions. Yes they cost more but I believe the main reason is the fact that they don't produce enought because demand is low. My thoughts are that we have plenty of television stations and the interactivity within television does not impress me. woo hoo I get to pick whats going to happen next in the toyota commerical. What I would like to see if a better quality picture and HDTV provides that. I am not to concearned with the local stations sending it though. I am sure if we took a poll of the slashdot users to see if they were using broadcast television, cable, or DSS then I am almost positive that broadcast would be the looser here. What we need is the cable TV companies to support, we need more stations on the DSS to support it and we need more people to buy the sets. It is mandated that by 2006 we you will be watching televison on HDTV or a converted HDTV signal on your non HDTV tv anyways. So why not help get behind this now and ensure quality television in the future. This is like people saying "uuhh I don't need cable modem 33.6K gets me everything on the web anyway" I know the arguments of why VHS won over BETA even though BETA is a far better quality video. But do we want to stick our heads in the ground and let it happen again? I think not.
Although it's not wireless an intresting side note is that most of the new fiber being laid within the cont US is laid through right of way purchased from railroad companies.
Although you can obtain the equipment legaly is it legal to actually use it in this manner?
Not to mention if you built a magnet strong enough to repel the force of gravity the earth produces it would repel the earth. :( - I like it where it is :)
First thawte, now netsol... Whose next ?
Well, if this is some kind of quest for world domination then the next logical piece of the puzzle would be ARIN.
Now if that happened I would start stockpiling food and weapons. *hehe*
Mr. Nick
Being a network engineer for a large company I get to deal with high-end servers and the one drawback I see in today's servers is poor IO. I would much rather see a motherboard with a fiber GHz bus than a GHz CPU. Unless you are doing encryption the CPU does not really come into play with say a web server or a firewall. I know that the GHz bus technology exists today just look at most RAS equipment and you will find that most have fiber GHz bus. We keep getting faster and faster memory, hard disks, and network cards and the bus speed stays the same. I can't imagine why anyone would put a GHz Ethernet card in a system with a 100Mhz buss. Am I the only who can see the flaw in this logic?