Does it, really? When I click on the Apple-menu, the highlighted area does NOT include the corner. I remember that I tried it out, and it does not work in the corner. I can double-check when I get back home
A few of your gripes are "it doesn't do what I'm used to."
Perhaps, and some are just things that are plain weird or errors. Like window-resizes. I don't really see the harm in allowing windows to be resized anywhere, instead of just one corner.
Well, "maximize" (or 'zoom' as OS X calls it) resized the window to the smallest size needed to contain its contents since 1984, so I think you have to hand Apple this one
Hand them what? A feature that doesn't work like it should? I'm quite often viewing content and websites that could use all the space they could get. And intertwined with that content, is "smaller" content. In just about any OS, I can simply maximize the window, and be done with it. In OS X, I may have to maximize the window several times, because the window might not be big enough for the content, and it's not being maximized properly, unless the document I'm viewing is really a huge one (and therefore is not maximised to fullscreen). Yes, it might be a design-decision and they might have their reasons for it. But I want maximise to really maximise.
Maybe Leopard will be a big step forward for Apple. I think that it will have a new Finder (again!). And since Leopard will be the Mac OS that will compate against Vista, I think they are really working hard on it. Here's to hoping....
Offtopic for a moment: I think there is a serious demand for someone to market a boxed, Linux-compatible WL card.
I have WL54PC WLAN-card. It has been advertized as Linux-friendly. And when I plugged it in to my SUSE 10-installation, it worked right away. No installing, no tweaking, no nothing. It "Just Worked" (tm)
There are a lot more little 'glitches' in KDE though.
There are lots of glitches in OS X as well. The Dock sucks. It doesn't take advantage of screen-corners, and neither does the menubar (for example, the Apple-menu in top-left corner. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory). There are no virtual-desktops, there are no window-specific settings, the window-controls are crappy (the icons are small and unlabeled (unless you hover over them), and they ignore the needs of color-blind (I'm not one, but I have a friend which is)), windows can only be resized from one corner (which can mean that in order to resize a window, I have to first move it, and then resize it), "maximize" doesn't really maximize the window, use of metal is inconsistent, I haven't found "reply-to" field in mail.app etc. etc.
On the whole I prefer KDE to Gnome, and either one of those to Windows, but if you can get used to OS X and live with an interface that basically doesn't want to be customized on any sort of basic level, I think it's by far the most polished and easiest to work with.
Couldn't we just as well say "if you can get used to KDE, it will be the easiest to work with"? Same applies to just about any OS/GUI out there. But not all can get used to some particular OS.
Because it's an document-centric design rather than an application-centric one, and one that works with the common menu bar. It's something I vastly prefer over Windows' (and others') app-centric design, having used many different systems over the years.
Where is the "document-centric" design? If I'm working on some content in web-browser, and I close the browser-window (not the app), is the content saved? No. Can I continue from where I left off? No. When I reopen the window, I'm right back where I started. Where is the DOCUMENT I just worked on? Where are the marvellous benefits of this ingenious approach? You talked how "this is a document centric approach, and it's therefore better", without actually mentioning ANY benefits! And I don't see that "document-centric" approach here, since the application nukes the content the moment I close the window! The ONLY difference seems to be that in OS X, the app is left running in the background. But that doesn't really provide any benefits, apart from re-starting the app a bit faster perhaps. The content is nuked along with the window.
And like it or not, OS X is app-centric as well. What are those things in the Dock? Applications. Not contents, not music, not folders, not documents, but APPLICATIONS. If OS X was REALLY "document-centric", it would offer the user with content, and not applications. How do I access the content in OS X? Well, I start by loading this APPLICATION here.... Bzzzzt! If it's REALLY "document-centric", why do I have to use applications in order to access that content? Why do I have to load iTunes to access me music? Why is iPhoto the portal to my pictures? What are these apps doing in this "document-centric" design?
Let your novice users try to set up and use both and see which is more successful.
Well, apparently his novice-users ARE using the Linux-machines, and they are using them just fine! And what makes you think that Windows-installation is easy? When compared to some modern Linux-distros, installation of Windows is pretty damn complex! Installation of SUSE (for example) is as difficult as clicking "next" a few times, installing Windows is a lot more tedious and difficult.
How about doing a review from the perspective of someone who has never used a computer before - then lets see which one is easier to use (hint: the answer will be Windows XP by a massive margin).
OS X is nice, no doubt about it. But it's NOT the "be-all end-all" OS some Mac-heads think it is. I have owned a Mac Mini for close to one year now, so I have used OS X extensively. And while it's nice, I find myself using my Linux/KDE-combo more and more, as opposed to using the Mini. I just think that KDE allows me to DO the things I want to do, and in a way I want to do them. In OS X, the system basically tells me that "Here, you do that like this". And if I find that way of working to be unsuitable for me, tough. There's no alternative.
Hell, back when my wife used KDE, she complained about many small things in it. So I thought that maybe . Anshe will like OS X instead. And now that she has been using it, she complains as much as when she used KDE! And while she hesitated at first when I told her that I will be removing OS X from the Mini, she has accepted that now, as OS X has started to annoy her even more.
How many have blown away OS X to put a PPC linux distro on there?
I haven't done that YET. I wanted to try out OS X, and I have been doing just that. And the more I use it, the less enthusiastic I am about it. It's good, no doubt about it. But it's not the second coming of Jesus some people make it out to be. And in the end, it's still a closed-source OS.
I have never understood that particular braind-dead design-decision in OS X. So the window is not the app, it's just a window? And if I close the window, the app doesn't really close, just the window closes? What's the benefit there? I mean, if I have a web-browser open, and I'm in a middle of filling out a textbox in the browser (like this textbox in Slashdot). Now, if I happen to close the window when I'm typing the text, no harm is done, right? I just closed the window, the app is running, so I can continue where I left off, right? WRONG! When I re-open the browser-window, I'm right back where I started! The content of the window was not saved, and I have to re-type the text! Where is the benefit of this marvellous design-decision?
Really, what is the logic behind this? What benefit does this bring? Why doesn't closing the window also close the app, why are the two separate actions? I might understand this if I could close the app-window, and then re-open it, and continue where I left off. But it doesn't seem to work that way.
Well, it seems that those two models were designed close to 10 years ago (although they were sold as new quite recently). The Landwind is supposed to be a modern car with modern safety-features.
Actually, looking at the videos and pictures of the Landwind crash-test, it becomes quite obvious that the whole car is one big crumple-zone. The car seems to simply disintegrate.
The idea is pretty simple. When the bonnet raises, there's more room to absorb the impact-energy. Earlier, the only things absorbing the energy were the metal on the bonnet and engine, and the bones in the pedestrian. With this system, the bonnet can absorb more of the impact-energy, sparing the pedestrian.
Here is the EURO-NCAP test-report for Citroen C6. As it happens, it's the first car to achieve the maximum score for pedestrian safety.
You are right. But I just find comments saying "If we exclude all the problems I have had with the product, I have had no problems with the product!" to be pretty funny and pointless.
You assume that government schools are teaching kids literacy and math. ("public" schools are churing out illiterates who can't add in record numbers. It terms of science, math, and english, are children are getting stupider as government takes a larger and larger role in their education).
That's a problem of implementation, and not public schools as such. For example, education in Finland is handled by the state, and our pupils seems to be doing very, very well indeed.
Absolutely. The older powerbooks were pretty bullet proof. I had a Wallstreet G3 Powerbook from 1998 to 2002, and it had some problems: the hinges were just starting to go, and the power connector needed to be re-soldered to the daughterboard at one point, but other than those, it had zero issues.
"My car is great! There are ZERO problems with it. Well, it doesn't like to start when it wet or cold, it leaks oil, the doors like to lock themselves spontaneously and I had to replace the transmission. But apart from those problems, I have no problems with it! A fault-free car in my book!"
the left Shift key decided to not work. Have fun writing C++ code with no shift key. Took it to the Apple Store in Plano, had them adjust the key a bit, seemed to be alright. After a day of use, it totally stopped working. Called Apple, bitched up a storm. They refuse to do anything because the laptop wasn't DOA. By this time, I'm getting failure of keys on the left side of the keyboard and the right Shift key no longer works...
...I ended up purchasing an iCurve (wonderful stand), an Apple Keyboard and a Mighty Mouse (cool once you get used to it) just to get my work done.
1. Sell computer with faults in it 2. Sell additional hardware to the user, so he can work around the problem 3. PROFIT!
I don't know about you, but I would have been reluctant to buy Apple-branded products just to fix an issue that they were unwilling to fix in a satisfactory manner. You just gave them more money for not fixing a problem they should have fixed.
How are you going to get people to try the Linux GUI's as long as it's still largely a tweaker's OS?
I'm not. I even told the original poster that "If you like Windows and OS X, go right ahead and use them". I choose to use Linux/KDE for my own reasons, and if someone asks for my advice when it comes to OS, I would recommend either OS X or Linux, or both. I'm not going to tell anyone to "use Linux, or I will kick your ass!".
That said, I don't think Linux is a "tweaker's OS". It can be "grandma's OS" just as well. Just because I CAN tweak it, does not mean that I HAVE to tweak it. Back when I used Gentoo, I tweaked and tweaked the system, and I loved every minute of it. Now that I run Kubuntu, I haven't tweaked the system at all. Just because I have the option of doing something, does not mean that I have to do it. Just because I can compile my own kernel in Linux (for example) does not mean that "Linux sucks, because you have to compile your kernels!". I have the option of doing something, but there's no requirement for me to do it.
Really, your whole reaction is so defensive that it's clear you missed the point.
His "point" was that "linux is copying features from other OS'es". And while he whined about that, he also whined about lack of "new and original" features in Linux.
Linux cannot appeal to switchers if it has nothing new to offer other than stability.
It does offer more than just stability. for many people it (including the GUI) simply works better than the GUI in Windows or OS X. I have used OS X extensively. And I noticed that while I did use it more or less exclusively for few months (I wanted to find out what it has to offer), I noticed that I'm moving back to KDE, even though OS X might have all kinds of fancy things in it. For me, OS X simply does not work as well as KDE does.
Hell, if you REALLY look at it, OS X doesn't really offer anything new over Windows. Maybe some superficial things, but in the end, the two are very similar. It's more or less the same with Linux. If you look at the GUI's, you will notice that 99% of them all, is exactly the same stuff. It's the details that are different, and there's PLENTY of differences in the details. However, in the grand scheme of things, Windows, GNOME, KDE and OS X are 99% identical.
People keep on saying stuff like "Look at OS X! They are doing new and exciting things!". Like what? They still have icons, windows, menu's and pointers, just like we had 20 years ago! You mean stuff like Expose? That's a rather small thing in the grand scheme of things, and it's more or less related to the fact that OS X does not have virtual desktops, a feature every single Linux-GUI has. Virtual desktops are a one example of a feature that KDE (among others) offers that OS X or Windows does not offer.
Yes, OS X is very polished and it has lots of eye-candy. But that doesn't mean it's doing "new and exciting" things. It's doing the exact same things GUI's have been doing for the last 20 years. Yet, for some reason, no-one complains that "Apple isn't doing anything new!", whereas everyone whines that "Linux/KDE isn't doing anything new!". Apple has some nice trinkets (oooh, revolving cube when you switch users! Whoa! Minimized videos keep on playing back in the dock!) in their GUI, but there's nothing fundamentally new in there. I have watched the keynotes where Jobs demos OS X. What are the features that got the biggest applause from the crowd? The minimized videos/genie-effect, spinning cube at user-switching, expose and the "ripple-effect" in dashboard. Those are mere trinkets. they are just neat gizmos, but in the end, they are just pointless eye-candy. Where is the "new and exciting" stuff? Something really worthwhile, and not mere trinkets?
Linux is around 1% on the desktop and has been there for a looooong time. No movement. Why do YOU suppose that is?
Ask 10 different people what Linux'es market-share on the desktop is, and you will get 10 different answers. I have seen estimates ranging from 1% to 5%. And considering that it has only been in the last few years that Linux-desktop has really progressed, I don't think that's so bad. Why hasn't it taken the desktop by storm? Well, data seems to indicate that it's share is rising. But it's VERY hard to overthrow an entrenched competitor that has something like 95% market-share.
Usability - rofl, Linux has a reputation for being extremely hard to use
Just because something has a "reputation", does not mean that it's warranted. Linux is quite easy to use. Yes, it's a bit different from Mac or Windows, but not harder as such.
compatibility - let me see if you have this distribution download this build, if you have this download this, if you have this download this, oh before you can use this you need to install some parts of gnome because it would not work if you only have kde.
I have a nice list of apps I can choose from. I point and click to install the apps I want, and with zero hassle. Honestly, I'm not seeing the situation you are describing.
LowerCost - "you can't use this CHEAP winmodem go buy yourself a real modem"
So, because WinModems don't work, it somehow proves that Linux as a whole is expensive?
assuming you figure out how to use it after spending countless hours reading help sites, asking people on irc for help, and finding the right drivers for all your prehiperals then yes it soars greatly in this.
Usually after the installation is finished, things "just work". I don't spend time tweaking the system or reading bazillion manuals. And the performance is fine. Of course, I COULD tweak the system to my hearts content, but I'm not REQUIRED to.
And I fail to see the problem in "finding the right drivers". Just last weekend I helped install bunch of Windows-machines, and guess what? I had to find the drivers for the hardware on WIndows as well! And it can be a bit difficult to find those drivers when Windows just happily reports that there is a "display adapter" in the system and that it needs drivers. Luckily I had Knoppix-CD handy, I used it to snoop the contents of the system, and then fetched the correct drivers.
Why is it that Linux offers pretty much the features of Windows or OS X, or Unix for that matter?
Linux shouldn't offer same features as Windows, OS X or UNIX offer? Why not? Should Linux purposefully offer different features? Windows has the ability to connect to a network, therefore Linux must NOT have that feature?
KDE already has this feature (desktop-widgets that is). This feature has been available for a long time in Linux in general (for example, gkrellm). What the KDE-folks are doing is to simply support the Dashboard-widgets. The widgets themselves are an old hat on KDE and other GUI's. So KDE is NOT copying this feature from OS X. KDE already has technology for displaying and creating desktop-widgets, has had it for a long time already. They are merely adding support for Dashboard widgets in the future versions.
What is new and unique to Linux from a usability or UI point of view?
What is "new and unique" in Windows or OS X? 99% of features in GUI's are old stuff.
I have licences for both anyway, so why should I install Linux?
If you are happy with Windows or OS X, then go right ahead and use them.
Cherry-picking features from other OSs isn't a good way to develop a coherent OS
This feature has been available to KDE, Linux and *BSD for a long time already. They are merely adding support for Apple's implementation. And that is a bad thing because.... ?? Or do you think that everyone should do their own thing and not interoperate with others at all? If someone wants to interoperate with others, it means that they are "copycats"?
I know there's a lot of programming talent in the Linux userbase, but is there any design talent, or more particularly, UI-design talent?
Short answer: Yes.
Really, your whole rant is pointless. You are whining because "Linux is copying a feature from OS X!". Well, they (KDE that is) are not. they already have this feature. Have had it for a long time. They just decided to support Apple's implementation as well. And that is a GOOD THING!
Only problem is that the Dock absolutely, positively sucks. It's a nice piece of eye-candy, and it's fun to swoosh over it with the pointer (for about 5 minutes that is), but it's terrible for actually managing your apps.
Most UNIX-people use Apple because it still is UNIX but with a better GUI.
It's debatable that is the GUI "better". Better at what? Some time ago I introduced my wife to KDE. And while se used it just fine, she did complain about many things. About 9 months ago I bought a Mac Mini to try out OS X and to get a cool piece of hardware (which the Mini is). I thought that "if my wife has all those issues (although minor in the grand scheme of things) with KDE, maybe she would like OS X better". She has now used OS X for quite a bit and she complains just as much as when she used KDE! She hates the fact that closing the window doesn't close the app (really, what's up with that?), she hates the Dock and she dislikes the menubar.
And while the problems she had with KDE could have been fixed (for the most part) the issues she has with OS X are fundamental features of the GUI and can't be changed. There's no way to get rid of the menubar, you are stuck with the Dock, and I haven't found a setting that says "closing the window also closes the application".
There are lots of free video-drivers. X.org ships with quite many. There are free drivers for NVIDIA as well. The reason why XGL only works properly with those proprietary drivers can be numerous, but that doesn't mean that free drivers don't exist.
Well, they DID close the developement. Was the work done in public? No. Could people outside Novell watch as things progressed? No. Could people outside Novell test XGL? No. Could people outside Novell submit patches? No.
In my book that means that the developement was closed. No-one except the company developing the software had access to it.
Dave did major changes to XGL (as you can read in his post), and it's simply not possible to merge the code back while in the middle of a transition such as that. On top of that the X.org tree was pretty much frozen to allow the transition to modular X and the release of 7.0.
So what? Are any of those a valid reason for their "we don't want any outsiders poking at our code!"-attitude? Even though X.org was frozen, and even if there were major transitions going on, there was no real reason to close the developement of XGL. Will we get better XGL because Novell decided to go at it alone? I doubt it. I really, really doubt it. Open source process has proven it's excellence over and over again, why would this case be an exception? Or is this a Good Thing (tm) because Nat Friedman decided that "Hey, why don't we try closing the developement, instead of doing this open-source-thingy?". Where is the benefit?
And KDE also has something similar: SuperKaramba (which is official part of 3.5). In fact, gdesklets appeared after Karamba/SuperKaramba appeared. So it's not like this widget-functionality exists in GNOME today, whereas it doesn't exist in KDE.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it, really? When I click on the Apple-menu, the highlighted area does NOT include the corner. I remember that I tried it out, and it does not work in the corner. I can double-check when I get back home
Perhaps, and some are just things that are plain weird or errors. Like window-resizes. I don't really see the harm in allowing windows to be resized anywhere, instead of just one corner.
Hand them what? A feature that doesn't work like it should? I'm quite often viewing content and websites that could use all the space they could get. And intertwined with that content, is "smaller" content. In just about any OS, I can simply maximize the window, and be done with it. In OS X, I may have to maximize the window several times, because the window might not be big enough for the content, and it's not being maximized properly, unless the document I'm viewing is really a huge one (and therefore is not maximised to fullscreen). Yes, it might be a design-decision and they might have their reasons for it. But I want maximise to really maximise.
Maybe Leopard will be a big step forward for Apple. I think that it will have a new Finder (again!). And since Leopard will be the Mac OS that will compate against Vista, I think they are really working hard on it. Here's to hoping....
I have WL54PC WLAN-card. It has been advertized as Linux-friendly. And when I plugged it in to my SUSE 10-installation, it worked right away. No installing, no tweaking, no nothing. It "Just Worked" (tm)
There are lots of glitches in OS X as well. The Dock sucks. It doesn't take advantage of screen-corners, and neither does the menubar (for example, the Apple-menu in top-left corner. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory). There are no virtual-desktops, there are no window-specific settings, the window-controls are crappy (the icons are small and unlabeled (unless you hover over them), and they ignore the needs of color-blind (I'm not one, but I have a friend which is)), windows can only be resized from one corner (which can mean that in order to resize a window, I have to first move it, and then resize it), "maximize" doesn't really maximize the window, use of metal is inconsistent, I haven't found "reply-to" field in mail.app etc. etc.
Couldn't we just as well say "if you can get used to KDE, it will be the easiest to work with"? Same applies to just about any OS/GUI out there. But not all can get used to some particular OS.
Where is the "document-centric" design? If I'm working on some content in web-browser, and I close the browser-window (not the app), is the content saved? No. Can I continue from where I left off? No. When I reopen the window, I'm right back where I started. Where is the DOCUMENT I just worked on? Where are the marvellous benefits of this ingenious approach? You talked how "this is a document centric approach, and it's therefore better", without actually mentioning ANY benefits! And I don't see that "document-centric" approach here, since the application nukes the content the moment I close the window! The ONLY difference seems to be that in OS X, the app is left running in the background. But that doesn't really provide any benefits, apart from re-starting the app a bit faster perhaps. The content is nuked along with the window.
And like it or not, OS X is app-centric as well. What are those things in the Dock? Applications. Not contents, not music, not folders, not documents, but APPLICATIONS. If OS X was REALLY "document-centric", it would offer the user with content, and not applications. How do I access the content in OS X? Well, I start by loading this APPLICATION here.... Bzzzzt! If it's REALLY "document-centric", why do I have to use applications in order to access that content? Why do I have to load iTunes to access me music? Why is iPhoto the portal to my pictures? What are these apps doing in this "document-centric" design?
Well, apparently his novice-users ARE using the Linux-machines, and they are using them just fine! And what makes you think that Windows-installation is easy? When compared to some modern Linux-distros, installation of Windows is pretty damn complex! Installation of SUSE (for example) is as difficult as clicking "next" a few times, installing Windows is a lot more tedious and difficult.
What makes you think that? Seriously?
Hell, back when my wife used KDE, she complained about many small things in it. So I thought that maybe . Anshe will like OS X instead. And now that she has been using it, she complains as much as when she used KDE! And while she hesitated at first when I told her that I will be removing OS X from the Mini, she has accepted that now, as OS X has started to annoy her even more.
I haven't done that YET. I wanted to try out OS X, and I have been doing just that. And the more I use it, the less enthusiastic I am about it. It's good, no doubt about it. But it's not the second coming of Jesus some people make it out to be. And in the end, it's still a closed-source OS.
I have never understood that particular braind-dead design-decision in OS X. So the window is not the app, it's just a window? And if I close the window, the app doesn't really close, just the window closes? What's the benefit there? I mean, if I have a web-browser open, and I'm in a middle of filling out a textbox in the browser (like this textbox in Slashdot). Now, if I happen to close the window when I'm typing the text, no harm is done, right? I just closed the window, the app is running, so I can continue where I left off, right? WRONG! When I re-open the browser-window, I'm right back where I started! The content of the window was not saved, and I have to re-type the text! Where is the benefit of this marvellous design-decision?
Really, what is the logic behind this? What benefit does this bring? Why doesn't closing the window also close the app, why are the two separate actions? I might understand this if I could close the app-window, and then re-open it, and continue where I left off. But it doesn't seem to work that way.
Well, it seems that those two models were designed close to 10 years ago (although they were sold as new quite recently). The Landwind is supposed to be a modern car with modern safety-features.
At least Chrysler is doing something.
Actually, looking at the videos and pictures of the Landwind crash-test, it becomes quite obvious that the whole car is one big crumple-zone. The car seems to simply disintegrate.
See for yourself
The idea is pretty simple. When the bonnet raises, there's more room to absorb the impact-energy. Earlier, the only things absorbing the energy were the metal on the bonnet and engine, and the bones in the pedestrian. With this system, the bonnet can absorb more of the impact-energy, sparing the pedestrian.
Here is the EURO-NCAP test-report for Citroen C6. As it happens, it's the first car to achieve the maximum score for pedestrian safety.
You are right. But I just find comments saying "If we exclude all the problems I have had with the product, I have had no problems with the product!" to be pretty funny and pointless.
That's a problem of implementation, and not public schools as such. For example, education in Finland is handled by the state, and our pupils seems to be doing very, very well indeed.
"My car is great! There are ZERO problems with it. Well, it doesn't like to start when it wet or cold, it leaks oil, the doors like to lock themselves spontaneously and I had to replace the transmission. But apart from those problems, I have no problems with it! A fault-free car in my book!"
1. Sell computer with faults in it
2. Sell additional hardware to the user, so he can work around the problem
3. PROFIT!
I don't know about you, but I would have been reluctant to buy Apple-branded products just to fix an issue that they were unwilling to fix in a satisfactory manner. You just gave them more money for not fixing a problem they should have fixed.
I'm not. I even told the original poster that "If you like Windows and OS X, go right ahead and use them". I choose to use Linux/KDE for my own reasons, and if someone asks for my advice when it comes to OS, I would recommend either OS X or Linux, or both. I'm not going to tell anyone to "use Linux, or I will kick your ass!".
That said, I don't think Linux is a "tweaker's OS". It can be "grandma's OS" just as well. Just because I CAN tweak it, does not mean that I HAVE to tweak it. Back when I used Gentoo, I tweaked and tweaked the system, and I loved every minute of it. Now that I run Kubuntu, I haven't tweaked the system at all. Just because I have the option of doing something, does not mean that I have to do it. Just because I can compile my own kernel in Linux (for example) does not mean that "Linux sucks, because you have to compile your kernels!". I have the option of doing something, but there's no requirement for me to do it.
His "point" was that "linux is copying features from other OS'es". And while he whined about that, he also whined about lack of "new and original" features in Linux.
It does offer more than just stability. for many people it (including the GUI) simply works better than the GUI in Windows or OS X. I have used OS X extensively. And I noticed that while I did use it more or less exclusively for few months (I wanted to find out what it has to offer), I noticed that I'm moving back to KDE, even though OS X might have all kinds of fancy things in it. For me, OS X simply does not work as well as KDE does.
Hell, if you REALLY look at it, OS X doesn't really offer anything new over Windows. Maybe some superficial things, but in the end, the two are very similar. It's more or less the same with Linux. If you look at the GUI's, you will notice that 99% of them all, is exactly the same stuff. It's the details that are different, and there's PLENTY of differences in the details. However, in the grand scheme of things, Windows, GNOME, KDE and OS X are 99% identical.
People keep on saying stuff like "Look at OS X! They are doing new and exciting things!". Like what? They still have icons, windows, menu's and pointers, just like we had 20 years ago! You mean stuff like Expose? That's a rather small thing in the grand scheme of things, and it's more or less related to the fact that OS X does not have virtual desktops, a feature every single Linux-GUI has. Virtual desktops are a one example of a feature that KDE (among others) offers that OS X or Windows does not offer.
Yes, OS X is very polished and it has lots of eye-candy. But that doesn't mean it's doing "new and exciting" things. It's doing the exact same things GUI's have been doing for the last 20 years. Yet, for some reason, no-one complains that "Apple isn't doing anything new!", whereas everyone whines that "Linux/KDE isn't doing anything new!". Apple has some nice trinkets (oooh, revolving cube when you switch users! Whoa! Minimized videos keep on playing back in the dock!) in their GUI, but there's nothing fundamentally new in there. I have watched the keynotes where Jobs demos OS X. What are the features that got the biggest applause from the crowd? The minimized videos/genie-effect, spinning cube at user-switching, expose and the "ripple-effect" in dashboard. Those are mere trinkets. they are just neat gizmos, but in the end, they are just pointless eye-candy. Where is the "new and exciting" stuff? Something really worthwhile, and not mere trinkets?
Ask 10 different people what Linux'es market-share on the desktop is, and you will get 10 different answers. I have seen estimates ranging from 1% to 5%. And considering that it has only been in the last few years that Linux-desktop has really progressed, I don't think that's so bad. Why hasn't it taken the desktop by storm? Well, data seems to indicate that it's share is rising. But it's VERY hard to overthrow an entrenched competitor that has something like 95% market-share.
Just because something has a "reputation", does not mean that it's warranted. Linux is quite easy to use. Yes, it's a bit different from Mac or Windows, but not harder as such.
I have a nice list of apps I can choose from. I point and click to install the apps I want, and with zero hassle. Honestly, I'm not seeing the situation you are describing.
So, because WinModems don't work, it somehow proves that Linux as a whole is expensive?
Usually after the installation is finished, things "just work". I don't spend time tweaking the system or reading bazillion manuals. And the performance is fine. Of course, I COULD tweak the system to my hearts content, but I'm not REQUIRED to.
And I fail to see the problem in "finding the right drivers". Just last weekend I helped install bunch of Windows-machines, and guess what? I had to find the drivers for the hardware on WIndows as well! And it can be a bit difficult to find those drivers when Windows just happily reports that there is a "display adapter" in the system and that it needs drivers. Luckily I had Knoppix-CD handy, I used it to snoop the contents of the system, and then fetched the correct drivers.
Linux shouldn't offer same features as Windows, OS X or UNIX offer? Why not? Should Linux purposefully offer different features? Windows has the ability to connect to a network, therefore Linux must NOT have that feature?
KDE already has this feature (desktop-widgets that is). This feature has been available for a long time in Linux in general (for example, gkrellm). What the KDE-folks are doing is to simply support the Dashboard-widgets. The widgets themselves are an old hat on KDE and other GUI's. So KDE is NOT copying this feature from OS X. KDE already has technology for displaying and creating desktop-widgets, has had it for a long time already. They are merely adding support for Dashboard widgets in the future versions.
What is "new and unique" in Windows or OS X? 99% of features in GUI's are old stuff.
If you are happy with Windows or OS X, then go right ahead and use them.
This feature has been available to KDE, Linux and *BSD for a long time already. They are merely adding support for Apple's implementation. And that is a bad thing because.... ?? Or do you think that everyone should do their own thing and not interoperate with others at all? If someone wants to interoperate with others, it means that they are "copycats"?
Short answer: Yes.
Really, your whole rant is pointless. You are whining because "Linux is copying a feature from OS X!". Well, they (KDE that is) are not. they already have this feature. Have had it for a long time. They just decided to support Apple's implementation as well. And that is a GOOD THING!
Only problem is that the Dock absolutely, positively sucks. It's a nice piece of eye-candy, and it's fun to swoosh over it with the pointer (for about 5 minutes that is), but it's terrible for actually managing your apps.
It's debatable that is the GUI "better". Better at what? Some time ago I introduced my wife to KDE. And while se used it just fine, she did complain about many things. About 9 months ago I bought a Mac Mini to try out OS X and to get a cool piece of hardware (which the Mini is). I thought that "if my wife has all those issues (although minor in the grand scheme of things) with KDE, maybe she would like OS X better". She has now used OS X for quite a bit and she complains just as much as when she used KDE! She hates the fact that closing the window doesn't close the app (really, what's up with that?), she hates the Dock and she dislikes the menubar.
And while the problems she had with KDE could have been fixed (for the most part) the issues she has with OS X are fundamental features of the GUI and can't be changed. There's no way to get rid of the menubar, you are stuck with the Dock, and I haven't found a setting that says "closing the window also closes the application".
There are lots of free video-drivers. X.org ships with quite many. There are free drivers for NVIDIA as well. The reason why XGL only works properly with those proprietary drivers can be numerous, but that doesn't mean that free drivers don't exist.
In my book that means that the developement was closed. No-one except the company developing the software had access to it.
So what? Are any of those a valid reason for their "we don't want any outsiders poking at our code!"-attitude? Even though X.org was frozen, and even if there were major transitions going on, there was no real reason to close the developement of XGL. Will we get better XGL because Novell decided to go at it alone? I doubt it. I really, really doubt it. Open source process has proven it's excellence over and over again, why would this case be an exception? Or is this a Good Thing (tm) because Nat Friedman decided that "Hey, why don't we try closing the developement, instead of doing this open-source-thingy?". Where is the benefit?
And KDE also has something similar: SuperKaramba (which is official part of 3.5). In fact, gdesklets appeared after Karamba/SuperKaramba appeared. So it's not like this widget-functionality exists in GNOME today, whereas it doesn't exist in KDE.