My company has flex time and, to some extent, comp time, as determined by the employee within reason. So, if I work 9 today and 7 tomorrow, that's OK. Nobody cares, much less notices. Just don't skip any meetings or miss too many important deadlines.
This, however, is far from the norm.
As a (reasonably) high paid professional, all too often companies assume that that means you're willing and able to work an absolute minimum of 40 a week, with 45-50 often times being the norm. And I think employees, perhaps motivated by some sense of guilt, often times work those hours without complaint. I say bullshit.
I'm a high paid professional because I'm good and I know stuff. My (reasonably) high pay is because of what I know and the skills I have. Not the hours I'm willing to keep. Working 40 a week, and not 10 minutes more, is first-and-foremost something the employee has to strive for. Employers will get the hint eventually.
But this seems to be a uniquely U.S. phenomena. Many areas of the world (Italy springs to mind) have a great deal more respect for leisure time then we do here. There is an innate understanding that life is to be lived and enjoyed, not worked. In the U.S. the emphasis seems to be on money money money. You're considered successful if you're pulling in $100K a year, regardless of the hours you worked to get it.
Well, what the fuck good is $100K a year if you don't give yourself the time to enjoy it? I'm always amused by people who save up all their "enjoying life" time for vacation. What? You gonna pack a whole year's worth of "enjoying life" into a two week jaunt to the Caribbean? Good luck with that.
I say we in the U.S. ought to ditch our puritanical work ethic already and slow down a bit and enjoy life a little more.
Maybe the current economic downtown will give some of us an opportunity to do just that!
Your 'then make it pretty' comment reveals that you have absolutely no clue what good UI design is all about. Good UI design is devilishly hard work. There are a lot of considerations that go way beyond mere appearance.
For at least some enlightenment on the subject, read this post:
> and will that have a positive effect on desktop Linux adoption?
What does that have to do with anything? Why is this question even being asked?
The answer is 'no', obviously. Several reasons. First off, nobody uses Linux on the desktop. Last time I saw the number it was hovering around 1.3%. Neck and neck with Windows 98. Second, the entire user interface philosophy between Macs and Linux are completely opposite. Apple strives for clean interfaces, consistency, and just enough features to make 95% of us happy. Linux doesn't have a cohesive strategy for it's UI. Some of it is decent, but the bulk of it is a mess. Average folks still cannot use Linux.
At least, these days, there's a growing realization of the problem within the Linux community. Distros like Ubuntu are doing they're part to make things better. But there is still a long, long, LONG ways to go before Linux catches up with Windows in terms of usability. And even farther to go to catch up to Apple.
The notion that Linux will benefit from Apple's rise in market share is fiction. Won't happen.
Even if I were to accept your numbers, which I don't, you failed to consider one important point: Resale value. A 2 year old Dell laptop, any flavor, is practically worthless. A 2 year old Apple laptop will still fetch better than 50% of it's original value.
Apple's laptops have been a better value than PC laptops for several years now. Based on recent sales numbers, it would appear the general public has begun to figure that out.
I've known several non-techie, non-programmer types who've tried Linux. No dice. Linux is still miles away from being consistent enough, polished enough, and feature-rich enough for average folks to use.
Remember this: Once an average user needs to go to the command line: Game Over. The command line is not a user interface that average folks are going to want to use. Ever.
Assuming, for a minute, that the distro is polished enough that the command line can be safely avoided: Still no dice. Apps are still too wildly inconsistent and quirky (not to mention buggy) for average use.
How many times, in this forum, do I have to listen to the techie set rise up with some pathetic excuse for Linux? Desktop Linux is still primarily built by geeks, for geeks. As such, average users are going to stay away in droves.
> Is the SIM Unlock process that has become mainstream doing damage to iPhone?
Mainstream? I really wonder what percentage of iPhone owners have messed with SIM unlock crap. I bet it's some fraction of 1 percent. Mainstream? I seriously doubt it.
I thought "Flim and the BB's" were first but they may have been the first to record in a strictly digital format. Their CD's have two D's "DD" on the cover instead of the traditional three "DDD". If I remember correctly 3M asked them to come in and record to test out some of their new shiny digital recording equipment.
Well! I knew if we dug long enough you'd be accurate about SOMETHING!;)
btw unfortunately I'm sure a decent percentage of those macs are using IE. Ancient Bondi Blue G3 iMacs running system 9. Plenty of grandmas still using them. Safari didn't even exist yet.
> The sample size for these sites is more than 40,000 urls and growing
vs, ummmm let's see (counts with fingers).... ONE for W3Schools.
This shows Safari holding at 4.49%, which is in line with the Mac platform's market share of about 3.5%. Linux market share, btw, is 0.7%. Which is entirely understandable. (Their share at W3Schools is rather high. Apparently a lot of Linux users are busy learning HTML.)
As you noted Safari does run on Windows. And you're right, Windows DOES suck!
I'm guessing at least 99% of Mac users haven't bothered to download another web browser. Why would they? I'd say a decent percentage aren't even aware that downloading another web browser is even an option. I worked with end users for 4 1/2 years and people don't mess with stuff like that unless they absolutely have to. I use Firefox, btw, because it has web development plugins that I find very useful. But, again, 99% just don't care. Safari use is roughly equal to Mac market share, which proves my point.
Now, the whole "Flash player wasn't an Apple product" angle is interesting. Because the same can be said of Linux. Linux is just the kernel, after all. Linux distros frequently ship with a ton of (partially complete, inconsistent, largely undocumented) OSS apps, but very few if any could be called a "Linux" product. If that's the way your going to measure things then Macs ship with way more Apple software than Linux ships with "Linux" software. It's probably better to measure things based on the availability of compatible software for the platform, not with what ships with it.
> Which is why you NEVER see anything like Firefox, Camino, VLC, or Handbrake installed on a Mac, cause who needs them?
Indeed, who does? Safari is a capable web browser, Quicktime and Flash do just fine with video, and Handbrake is used exclusively by thieves. Again, 99.9998% of folks don't need those apps!
> You're an idiot
Wow, really digging for the high-brow intellectual argument, huh?
1. Portability What, specifically, is gained by having a choice of hardware? You mentioned graphics cards. What, specifically, is gained by having a choice of graphics cards? I mean it! For 99.9998% if the population Apple offers hardware sufficient to their needs. Including graphics cards.
2. Flexibility You admit that this is something that '90%' (I like my 99.9998% better) of folks don't care about, which is good because it reveals that you have at least some perspective. But you talk about having to recompile the kernel to suit your "needs". What "needs" are these? I'm not talking about "wants" or "would be cools", I'm talking about absolute, couldn't get it done any other way "needs". And, assuming you've got real "needs", do they balance against the time and headaches required to achieve them?
3. Security You admit OS X is pretty good. Again, there's hope for you. It would be wrong to suggest that Apple's response to security has been 'negative' (although sometimes it's rather 'quiet') but the proof of the pudding is in the numbers. Which system experiences the fewest real, active and exploited security issues? OS X to be sure. (Although neither is the train wreck that is Windows.)
4. Software Ecosystem You are correct that there is a staggering amount of 'choice' when it comes to Linux software. I can choose between any number of poorly-designed, inconsistent, and inadequately tested Linux apps. Particularly editors. (And they are all so EASY to install!!!) OS X, by contrast, offers a very good selection of well-designed, consistent, usable applications suitable, again, for 99.9998% of all user's needs.
5. Usability You said "I know a lot of people disagree with this" and you're right. A lot of people do. For good reason. One good way to measure usability is the "grandma test". Which system do you think grandma is going to have an easier time with? Enough said.
I couldn't help but notice the lack of the word "Dependability" on your list. Which system is most likely to "just work"? OS X, of course.
> Isn't freedom of choice a great feeling?
I wish people's ideology wouldn't get mixed up with reality. So many Linux types get so hung up on the grand glorious vision of Linux that they fail to acknowledge it's significant tangible shortcomings.
btw -- even if I were to accept your fantasy about Linux and KDE having the superior UI it still doesn't explain why the original poster would want to run Linux on Mac hardware. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Your earlier post concerning OS X raises valid points. You identified a few UI annoyances, at least one or two I bumped into myself.
But, compared to Linux.... well, you can't even compare!
You think KDE has a better UI? You must be kidding me.
The inconsistencies and missing features within Linux leave me gasping for air. There is absolutely no comparison. I'll give you an easy one: Installing an application. Here's another: audio. I had Linux running on standard Wintel hardware on my last workstation. No audio. Spent 10 minutes trying to figure it out and then gave up. No fucking way should something like that take more than 10 minutes to figure out. Here's another: Printers. Here's another: Scanners. All this shit is a pain in the ass in Linux. On a Mac it just works. I wonder how many days it would take to figure out how to hook up my Firewire DV camera to a Linux box? I'm just going to keep wondering because I'll be dammed if I'm going to subject myself to that sort of hell.
The second anybody is required to use a shell for anything the game's off.
Here's the deal: I'm no slouch. I've been programming for years. But every time I find myself on a Linux box I am constantly bumping into shit that doesn't work. Any time I want to get shit to work or I want to do something ever so slightly outside of what was delivered and supported by the distro I find myself in this quagmire of configuration files and shell commands. It absolutely fucking sucks.
Suggesting that Linux's UI is somehow better than OS X reveals a staggering lack of perspective and maturity. I'm very sorry to bust your bubble but... I don't know, man. You're take on this is simply messed up. Techies are switching to Macs in groves. Get with the times, dude.
> I've slowly come to despise most of what Apple does
Like what? Building and supporting an OS that's actually usable? The trouble with Linux is that it's simply NOT usable for 99.9998% of the population. From a usability standpoint, Linux is a fetid pile of shit. It's fucking awful. Non-starter for virtually everybody. Mac OS X, by contrast, is rather easy to learn and use.
So unless you've got some specific reason why OS X didn't work for what you were trying to accomplish (which is possible) then I cry foul. Plus, if you're wanting to run Linux, go run it on a PC!! What's the deal with people wanting to run Linux on a Mac??? I just don't get it. Stupidity.
> I have the urge to commit my 24" Core 2 Duo iMac to a single Linux operating system
My advise is go lay down until the 'urge' goes away. Unless you've got some compelling reason to take a shiny 24" iMac and turn it into a piece of crap by removing OS X. Which I doubt. As a web developer I can understand having Linux around for this and that but to replace OS X with Linux lock, stock, and barrel is generally just... well I'm trying to be fair here but the only word I can find for it is 'stupid'. It's stupid.
I mean, don't you have work to do? Why spend time on this? It's weird.
Slashdot Mirror
My company has flex time and, to some extent, comp time, as determined by the employee within reason. So, if I work 9 today and 7 tomorrow, that's OK. Nobody cares, much less notices. Just don't skip any meetings or miss too many important deadlines.
This, however, is far from the norm.
As a (reasonably) high paid professional, all too often companies assume that that means you're willing and able to work an absolute minimum of 40 a week, with 45-50 often times being the norm. And I think employees, perhaps motivated by some sense of guilt, often times work those hours without complaint. I say bullshit.
I'm a high paid professional because I'm good and I know stuff. My (reasonably) high pay is because of what I know and the skills I have. Not the hours I'm willing to keep. Working 40 a week, and not 10 minutes more, is first-and-foremost something the employee has to strive for. Employers will get the hint eventually.
But this seems to be a uniquely U.S. phenomena. Many areas of the world (Italy springs to mind) have a great deal more respect for leisure time then we do here. There is an innate understanding that life is to be lived and enjoyed, not worked. In the U.S. the emphasis seems to be on money money money. You're considered successful if you're pulling in $100K a year, regardless of the hours you worked to get it.
Well, what the fuck good is $100K a year if you don't give yourself the time to enjoy it? I'm always amused by people who save up all their "enjoying life" time for vacation. What? You gonna pack a whole year's worth of "enjoying life" into a two week jaunt to the Caribbean? Good luck with that.
I say we in the U.S. ought to ditch our puritanical work ethic already and slow down a bit and enjoy life a little more.
Maybe the current economic downtown will give some of us an opportunity to do just that!
Your 'then make it pretty' comment reveals that you have absolutely no clue what good UI design is all about. Good UI design is devilishly hard work. There are a lot of considerations that go way beyond mere appearance.
For at least some enlightenment on the subject, read this post:
http://daringfireball.net/2004/04/spray_on_usability
whj
OK everybody, listen very carefully:
I've been listening to every Apple Quarterly Conference Call since 1st quarter 2003 and Jobs has never, NEVER been on the call. Not once.
That makes his lack of participation on the most recent call completely unrelated to anything. Including his health.
whj
> and will that have a positive effect on desktop Linux adoption?
What does that have to do with anything? Why is this question even being asked?
The answer is 'no', obviously. Several reasons. First off, nobody uses Linux on the desktop. Last time I saw the number it was hovering around 1.3%. Neck and neck with Windows 98. Second, the entire user interface philosophy between Macs and Linux are completely opposite. Apple strives for clean interfaces, consistency, and just enough features to make 95% of us happy. Linux doesn't have a cohesive strategy for it's UI. Some of it is decent, but the bulk of it is a mess. Average folks still cannot use Linux.
At least, these days, there's a growing realization of the problem within the Linux community. Distros like Ubuntu are doing they're part to make things better. But there is still a long, long, LONG ways to go before Linux catches up with Windows in terms of usability. And even farther to go to catch up to Apple.
The notion that Linux will benefit from Apple's rise in market share is fiction. Won't happen.
whj
Even if I were to accept your numbers, which I don't, you failed to consider one important point: Resale value. A 2 year old Dell laptop, any flavor, is practically worthless. A 2 year old Apple laptop will still fetch better than 50% of it's original value.
Apple's laptops have been a better value than PC laptops for several years now. Based on recent sales numbers, it would appear the general public has begun to figure that out.
The iPhone will easily top 10 million in 2008. For a concise and logical explanation as to why, read this:
http://www.macworld.com/article/133636/2008/05/10_million_iphones.html
whj
> So please PLEASE at least read the stats and do a quick comparison before you speak.
Done. I followed your links and got a $300-$400 price difference, not $700 or $900 as you suggest.
Both your and my comparisons ignore three significant points:
1) Mac OS X is better than Vista. Much better. Go read the reviews. Compare the features. Be sure to consider stability and security in your analysis.
2) Macs bundle some very nice software which would cost extra on the PC.
3) RESALE VALUE. This alone compensates for whatever monetary difference may exist initially, and then some. http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2007/11/07/mac_price/
So, I guess you'd be wrong then. I kinda wish there WAS a -1 Disagree. Would've been faster than doing all this typing.
I've known several non-techie, non-programmer types who've tried Linux. No dice. Linux is still miles away from being consistent enough, polished enough, and feature-rich enough for average folks to use.
Remember this: Once an average user needs to go to the command line: Game Over. The command line is not a user interface that average folks are going to want to use. Ever.
Assuming, for a minute, that the distro is polished enough that the command line can be safely avoided: Still no dice. Apps are still too wildly inconsistent and quirky (not to mention buggy) for average use.
How many times, in this forum, do I have to listen to the techie set rise up with some pathetic excuse for Linux? Desktop Linux is still primarily built by geeks, for geeks. As such, average users are going to stay away in droves.
Me? I'll stick with Mac OS X
> Is the SIM Unlock process that has become mainstream doing damage to iPhone?
Mainstream? I really wonder what percentage of iPhone owners have messed with SIM unlock crap. I bet it's some fraction of 1 percent. Mainstream? I seriously doubt it.
I thought "Flim and the BB's" were first but they may have been the first to record in a strictly digital format. Their CD's have two D's "DD" on the cover instead of the traditional three "DDD". If I remember correctly 3M asked them to come in and record to test out some of their new shiny digital recording equipment.
A Q1CS8
http://www.amazon.com/Flim-&-The-BB's/artist/B000
Well! I knew if we dug long enough you'd be accurate about SOMETHING! ;)
btw unfortunately I'm sure a decent percentage of those macs are using IE. Ancient Bondi Blue G3 iMacs running system 9. Plenty of grandmas still using them. Safari didn't even exist yet.
Hey, I'm an Apple fanboy, and I think it's a fine idea.
The page I found is:
= 2
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid
which just clumps OS X at 3.5%. Which page are you talking about?
Are you stoned? Safari market share 4.5% and the Mac's is 3.5%. Safari is HIGHER, my friend. It means that virtually all Mac users are using Safari.
Are we through here?
w3's values are not indicative. From their website:
= 0
.... ONE for W3Schools.
> our data, collected from W3Schools' log-files over five years,
From W3Schools' log files? It would appear that only a small percentage of Safari users visit W3School's website. Which seems logical.
Here's some more reliable numbers, widely reported in the tech media the last few months:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid
From their site:
> The sample size for these sites is more than 40,000 urls and growing
vs, ummmm let's see (counts with fingers)
This shows Safari holding at 4.49%, which is in line with the Mac platform's market share of about 3.5%. Linux market share, btw, is 0.7%. Which is entirely understandable. (Their share at W3Schools is rather high. Apparently a lot of Linux users are busy learning HTML.)
As you noted Safari does run on Windows. And you're right, Windows DOES suck!
I'm guessing at least 99% of Mac users haven't bothered to download another web browser. Why would they? I'd say a decent percentage aren't even aware that downloading another web browser is even an option. I worked with end users for 4 1/2 years and people don't mess with stuff like that unless they absolutely have to. I use Firefox, btw, because it has web development plugins that I find very useful. But, again, 99% just don't care. Safari use is roughly equal to Mac market share, which proves my point.
Now, the whole "Flash player wasn't an Apple product" angle is interesting. Because the same can be said of Linux. Linux is just the kernel, after all. Linux distros frequently ship with a ton of (partially complete, inconsistent, largely undocumented) OSS apps, but very few if any could be called a "Linux" product. If that's the way your going to measure things then Macs ship with way more Apple software than Linux ships with "Linux" software. It's probably better to measure things based on the availability of compatible software for the platform, not with what ships with it.
> Which is why you NEVER see anything like Firefox, Camino, VLC, or Handbrake installed on a Mac, cause who needs them?
Indeed, who does? Safari is a capable web browser, Quicktime and Flash do just fine with video, and Handbrake is used exclusively by thieves. Again, 99.9998% of folks don't need those apps!
> You're an idiot
Wow, really digging for the high-brow intellectual argument, huh?
OK, point by point:
1. Portability
What, specifically, is gained by having a choice of hardware? You mentioned graphics cards. What, specifically, is gained by having a choice of graphics cards? I mean it! For 99.9998% if the population Apple offers hardware sufficient to their needs. Including graphics cards.
2. Flexibility
You admit that this is something that '90%' (I like my 99.9998% better) of folks don't care about, which is good because it reveals that you have at least some perspective. But you talk about having to recompile the kernel to suit your "needs". What "needs" are these? I'm not talking about "wants" or "would be cools", I'm talking about absolute, couldn't get it done any other way "needs". And, assuming you've got real "needs", do they balance against the time and headaches required to achieve them?
3. Security
You admit OS X is pretty good. Again, there's hope for you. It would be wrong to suggest that Apple's response to security has been 'negative' (although sometimes it's rather 'quiet') but the proof of the pudding is in the numbers. Which system experiences the fewest real, active and exploited security issues? OS X to be sure. (Although neither is the train wreck that is Windows.)
4. Software Ecosystem
You are correct that there is a staggering amount of 'choice' when it comes to Linux software. I can choose between any number of poorly-designed, inconsistent, and inadequately tested Linux apps. Particularly editors. (And they are all so EASY to install!!!) OS X, by contrast, offers a very good selection of well-designed, consistent, usable applications suitable, again, for 99.9998% of all user's needs.
5. Usability
You said "I know a lot of people disagree with this" and you're right. A lot of people do. For good reason. One good way to measure usability is the "grandma test". Which system do you think grandma is going to have an easier time with? Enough said.
I couldn't help but notice the lack of the word "Dependability" on your list. Which system is most likely to "just work"? OS X, of course.
> Isn't freedom of choice a great feeling?
I wish people's ideology wouldn't get mixed up with reality. So many Linux types get so hung up on the grand glorious vision of Linux that they fail to acknowledge it's significant tangible shortcomings.
btw -- even if I were to accept your fantasy about Linux and KDE having the superior UI it still doesn't explain why the original poster would want to run Linux on Mac hardware. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Your earlier post concerning OS X raises valid points. You identified a few UI annoyances, at least one or two I bumped into myself.
.... well, you can't even compare!
... I don't know, man. You're take on this is simply messed up. Techies are switching to Macs in groves. Get with the times, dude.
But, compared to Linux
You think KDE has a better UI? You must be kidding me.
The inconsistencies and missing features within Linux leave me gasping for air. There is absolutely no comparison. I'll give you an easy one: Installing an application. Here's another: audio. I had Linux running on standard Wintel hardware on my last workstation. No audio. Spent 10 minutes trying to figure it out and then gave up. No fucking way should something like that take more than 10 minutes to figure out. Here's another: Printers. Here's another: Scanners. All this shit is a pain in the ass in Linux. On a Mac it just works. I wonder how many days it would take to figure out how to hook up my Firewire DV camera to a Linux box? I'm just going to keep wondering because I'll be dammed if I'm going to subject myself to that sort of hell.
The second anybody is required to use a shell for anything the game's off.
Here's the deal: I'm no slouch. I've been programming for years. But every time I find myself on a Linux box I am constantly bumping into shit that doesn't work. Any time I want to get shit to work or I want to do something ever so slightly outside of what was delivered and supported by the distro I find myself in this quagmire of configuration files and shell commands. It absolutely fucking sucks.
Suggesting that Linux's UI is somehow better than OS X reveals a staggering lack of perspective and maturity. I'm very sorry to bust your bubble but
tyvm! :)
> I've slowly come to despise most of what Apple does
Like what? Building and supporting an OS that's actually usable? The trouble with Linux is that it's simply NOT usable for 99.9998% of the population. From a usability standpoint, Linux is a fetid pile of shit. It's fucking awful. Non-starter for virtually everybody. Mac OS X, by contrast, is rather easy to learn and use.
So unless you've got some specific reason why OS X didn't work for what you were trying to accomplish (which is possible) then I cry foul. Plus, if you're wanting to run Linux, go run it on a PC!! What's the deal with people wanting to run Linux on a Mac??? I just don't get it. Stupidity.
> I have the urge to commit my 24" Core 2 Duo iMac to a single Linux operating system
... well I'm trying to be fair here but the only word I can find for it is 'stupid'. It's stupid.
My advise is go lay down until the 'urge' goes away. Unless you've got some compelling reason to take a shiny 24" iMac and turn it into a piece of crap by removing OS X. Which I doubt. As a web developer I can understand having Linux around for this and that but to replace OS X with Linux lock, stock, and barrel is generally just
I mean, don't you have work to do? Why spend time on this? It's weird.
Although my Mac system isn't completely devoid of lights, they are smaller and far fewer.
You wanna install Linux? Oh man. For crying out loud, GET THEM A MAC!
whj