Or: "we found some traction amongst geeks against this company or product, so we're going to approve any barely relevant story in a bid to foster a community for return hits".
It's not like liking Macs is a genetic disorder. I've only liked them since 10.2, but every minute of usage since then has been so painfree that I'm comfortable in saying its the best OS for the kind of usage I need - an average amount of office work, minimal but some graphics work, lots of tertiary systems admin, general internet access, useful PAN/Bluetooth access for mobile work, good support for being a music hub, and enough in the box for some basic music composition fun, as well as overall excellent stability. Say that about anything else on the market - go on. Then call me a fanboy, because I'll be able to blow massive holes in 50% of what you list.
120 comments, ignoring the precedent here, obviously, a biased audience. Mac OS X, Aqua and Apple's other software are making Linux and its associated software look poor, and by putting more and more distance between them in quality with every release it's getting worse - and they're doing it on the 'unix-like' turf. So of course stories like this will increase in regularity. For a company with a small marketshare and a penchant for innovation of course Apple will seek to protect its new products in order to market them as effectively as they can. The fact that they won the court case in a US court would tend to suggest that judges don't think there are first amendment problems.
People can sit and moan on slashdot about companies not playing by their rules, but the facts are, many of them are irrelevant to businesses. Face it, Apple have better designers, coders and marketers. For me, Open Source missed its chance at the desktop 2 years ago. Next year Linux etc. will be firmly back in third place again on the list of choices for my desktop.
When I used Linux I also tried to stick to KDE - it certainly covered more bases than GNOME seemed to (at least on default installs of Debian), but I find that even doing this only leads to about 40% of what I'm now used to on OS X. When you do try OS X again, just try dragging things - anything - into other applications to see what I mean. The staggering depth without complication is what makes me exude about the thing - far from "stinking" (it's not evil, it's just computer software!).
Also, try looking a little harder for free OS X software - it's definitely there, I have loads of it!
I see most people have beaten you up over this, but I agree with everything you've written. I'd also mention, sort out font installation, kerning, and add to the KDE/GNOME thing by asking them to at least agree some rules of interoperability to vastly improve the nonexistant integration between related apps (they could really learn a lot from Apple's iLife for example).
Yep, LDAP is one answer, Apple use this for Mac OS X Server. I'd agree that much more work at this needs doing; centralised management seems to revolve around ssh'ing in to individual machines currently. Linux is miles away from the desktop in terms of having a simple management system with sensible defaults to help guide setup, so less skilled admins can properly support even less skilled users. Currently I'd only trust a Linux desktop with someone who knows exactly what they're doing. Anything else will just lead to exponential increases in support calls.
But it would take very very large changes to even approach some of the functionality (especially the integration) offered by Apple's software with OS X. The "could" argument is pretty weak when it generally "doesn't". Most people aren't coders either.
I used Linux mainly before I switched to Mac, and it just seems to me that since I switched (early 10.2 time) OS X has been accelerating away from Linux in the functionality areas that I require.
But... realtek network cards are generally rubbish. It's not much money at all for a much better chipset. In a server, things like this are very important.
I'll tell you why you should consider it. Mac OS X comes with a lot more than just "eye-candy" (although I might point out that it's not very good form to criticise a feature of a different system simply because your favourite doesn't do it too well), it's the greatest thing since sliced bread for some people simply because it comes with bloody great software.
While it's fun if you've got hours to kill to muck about with Linux, installing bits of software here and there, OS X is simply ready to use. Plug in your printer, camera, scanner, it'll just work, and there's good quality software to use with them. Linux has nothing to compare to the quality of even software in the iLife suite, let alone the Pro applications that Apple offers. OS X is the consummate "home" operating system.
I like Linux, it's a fantastic server OS, but in my opinion, the desktop software is lacking massively because it has no integration. Best of breed picture editing might be made by (for instance) a GNOME favouring author, which won't play nicely with best of breed word processor which is written without using that toolkit. Actual features which simply don't exist - not to mention the more esoteric things like look-and-feel differences from having different toolkits on the same desktop. It's not particularly pleasant even on the Mac when some apps are more Carbon than Cocoa based, so mixing Qt, GTK+ and other styles (Firefox, OOo, etc.), which are even more fundamentally different is just bad. I'm not belittling choice, just pointing out for me that the Open Source desktop has some fundamental flaws in my opinion, things which stop the job getting done.
Of course these are all just my opinions, but it's nice to not sit waiting for functionality to arrive, and just get on with it.
I was just wondering, as limiting yourself to genres that only the PC can do and then arguing that everything else is not worth considering seems to be a little childish.
If I could just point out, that's a pretty conceited attitude which I see regularly, and one I can only put down to cognitive dissonance regarding hardware purchases, and then you go on to prove it by criticising resolutions.
If you've ever played a console title on a 30"+ TV cranking out of a decent home cinema system, of which all of the current boxes are capable of doing nicely, then you'd retract that last sentence. Sitting on your own at a desk with a mouse, and a puny 19" monitor typing "gg" is hardly "WHOA" in my book.
If your gaming experience is defined by your framerate then ignore my advice to the actual poster, but seriously, there is more to life than FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS.
There is a battlefield game coming to Xbox too, (other reply to your other post didn't mention that). Many sites still belive HL2 is coming too.
But, to attempt to remain on topic, do any of those RTS games get ported to Linux either? Very few, if any. Of course it's subjective, but I think if you're looking at Linux gaming, then you have to expect that the titles that get ported will be the most popular, which may not fit with your tastes.
Please think of my advice there as "please reconsider the alternatives" then. I used to help out on planetquake.com/linux but the sheer amount of time and effort put into just helping people get one game running vastly outweighed anything interesting regarding the game itself.
I firmly believe that unless you get as much of a kick out of mucking about with kernels as you do from the games yourself then the Linux configuration is a colossal waste of time that could be spent gaming.
Install Linux, get a console, and simplify. The Xbox has or is getting 75% of what's decent on the PC. Joypads take five minutes to learn unless you're mentally deficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Or: "we found some traction amongst geeks against this company or product, so we're going to approve any barely relevant story in a bid to foster a community for return hits".
Haydays? Maybe some of those guys could bale firefox out?
I bet they just bought Macs and got on with real life.
It's not like liking Macs is a genetic disorder. I've only liked them since 10.2, but every minute of usage since then has been so painfree that I'm comfortable in saying its the best OS for the kind of usage I need - an average amount of office work, minimal but some graphics work, lots of tertiary systems admin, general internet access, useful PAN/Bluetooth access for mobile work, good support for being a music hub, and enough in the box for some basic music composition fun, as well as overall excellent stability. Say that about anything else on the market - go on. Then call me a fanboy, because I'll be able to blow massive holes in 50% of what you list.
People can sit and moan on slashdot about companies not playing by their rules, but the facts are, many of them are irrelevant to businesses. Face it, Apple have better designers, coders and marketers. For me, Open Source missed its chance at the desktop 2 years ago. Next year Linux etc. will be firmly back in third place again on the list of choices for my desktop.
Agreed, I prefer new features AND more speed. Which is why Mac OS X Panther was such a nice update.
The difference is, Apple improved it. Everyone since has just royally screwed it up.
I passed the entrance exam but then decided the Powerbook Polytechnic was preferable.
re: drag'n'drop, you've just proved my point, KDE only does it at a file level, every example you quote is just files. OS X is a lot more granular.
Also, try looking a little harder for free OS X software - it's definitely there, I have loads of it!
I see most people have beaten you up over this, but I agree with everything you've written. I'd also mention, sort out font installation, kerning, and add to the KDE/GNOME thing by asking them to at least agree some rules of interoperability to vastly improve the nonexistant integration between related apps (they could really learn a lot from Apple's iLife for example).
Yep, LDAP is one answer, Apple use this for Mac OS X Server. I'd agree that much more work at this needs doing; centralised management seems to revolve around ssh'ing in to individual machines currently. Linux is miles away from the desktop in terms of having a simple management system with sensible defaults to help guide setup, so less skilled admins can properly support even less skilled users. Currently I'd only trust a Linux desktop with someone who knows exactly what they're doing. Anything else will just lead to exponential increases in support calls.
But OS X and Linux are both fairly poor choices for big datacenters, so the hit is fairly irrelevant.
I used Linux mainly before I switched to Mac, and it just seems to me that since I switched (early 10.2 time) OS X has been accelerating away from Linux in the functionality areas that I require.
I'd also be interested to know in which cases the kernel, and not the physical disk subsystem or network infrastructure, was a significant bottleneck.
But... realtek network cards are generally rubbish. It's not much money at all for a much better chipset. In a server, things like this are very important.
While it's fun if you've got hours to kill to muck about with Linux, installing bits of software here and there, OS X is simply ready to use. Plug in your printer, camera, scanner, it'll just work, and there's good quality software to use with them. Linux has nothing to compare to the quality of even software in the iLife suite, let alone the Pro applications that Apple offers. OS X is the consummate "home" operating system.
I like Linux, it's a fantastic server OS, but in my opinion, the desktop software is lacking massively because it has no integration. Best of breed picture editing might be made by (for instance) a GNOME favouring author, which won't play nicely with best of breed word processor which is written without using that toolkit. Actual features which simply don't exist - not to mention the more esoteric things like look-and-feel differences from having different toolkits on the same desktop. It's not particularly pleasant even on the Mac when some apps are more Carbon than Cocoa based, so mixing Qt, GTK+ and other styles (Firefox, OOo, etc.), which are even more fundamentally different is just bad. I'm not belittling choice, just pointing out for me that the Open Source desktop has some fundamental flaws in my opinion, things which stop the job getting done.
Of course these are all just my opinions, but it's nice to not sit waiting for functionality to arrive, and just get on with it.
I was just wondering, as limiting yourself to genres that only the PC can do and then arguing that everything else is not worth considering seems to be a little childish.
Spoken like a true fanboy. Are you 12?
To stay on topic: Is RTS viable on Linux? Maybe if you're not so choosy perhaps? Do the Total War games get ported to Linux, for example?
Halo isn't even a Live game by the way, it's lauded for its single player and LAN gaming.
If I could just point out, that's a pretty conceited attitude which I see regularly, and one I can only put down to cognitive dissonance regarding hardware purchases, and then you go on to prove it by criticising resolutions.
If you've ever played a console title on a 30"+ TV cranking out of a decent home cinema system, of which all of the current boxes are capable of doing nicely, then you'd retract that last sentence. Sitting on your own at a desk with a mouse, and a puny 19" monitor typing "gg" is hardly "WHOA" in my book.
If your gaming experience is defined by your framerate then ignore my advice to the actual poster, but seriously, there is more to life than FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS/FPS/RTS.
But, to attempt to remain on topic, do any of those RTS games get ported to Linux either? Very few, if any. Of course it's subjective, but I think if you're looking at Linux gaming, then you have to expect that the titles that get ported will be the most popular, which may not fit with your tastes.
I firmly believe that unless you get as much of a kick out of mucking about with kernels as you do from the games yourself then the Linux configuration is a colossal waste of time that could be spent gaming.
Install Linux, get a console, and simplify. The Xbox has or is getting 75% of what's decent on the PC. Joypads take five minutes to learn unless you're mentally deficient.