OSNews

..not to mention he's excited about XFree86, who still uses this?

but you can play mp3s with linux.

in fact my favorite method of dealing with crazy codecs on osx was mplayer (via darwinports), which comes from the free software world.

you can also edit photos on linux. if you are a photoshop user strictly, well duh, you are not using linux. we already know that.

office apps? once again, linux has handled these formats fine for some time.

Don't you have a calculator on one of those systems ? ;-)

Ease of use also comes with how aesthetically the underlying system is designed.

Yet GNU/Linux is a nightmare in that regard compared to the BSDs, Solaris, et al.

The best Linux can hope for is hiding the underlying system from the users. It really needs some modernisation.

there are people like me who find Linux easier than
either Windows or Mac.
=====================

How is this comment modded up to 4 when he proclaims that Linux is easier to use then OSX when earlier in his post he has admitted he has never tried OSX


very strange....

"Ease of use doesn't end with having a GUI. Ease of use also comes with how aesthetically the underlying system is designed."

Yeah, I want you to say that to my mom ...

Edited 2006-06-05 19:54

I guess its not a intuitive as everyone says then...

yes, clicking on finder, then preferences.. what is this? a mensa test?!

edit: i realize that sounds snide.. i should expand, all i really meant is, if youre going to go into any os trying to use it like another, rather then relearning, youre always going to have some trouble, os x is not windows is not linux is not os x.

Edited 2006-06-04 19:42

I did my time on Windows, Linux and OS X. For me it's obvious OS X is the best desktop OS of those three.

For you, it IS obviously the best desktop OS. For him, Linux obviously is the best. What is the difference between him having an opinion based on his experience and you having one based on yours?

Every desktop OS has flaws, depending on who is using it and what you're using it for, and that's the subject of his article. I've found things I really love AND really hate about Windows, OS X, Linux, BeOS, OS/2 and DOS. However, I use what I need to use for the job I'm doing. At work, it's Windows because our software is written for Windows. At home, it's Windows strictly for gaming because I cannot use it efficiently as a desktop OS, and Linux for everything else. Once I install World of Warcraft via Cedega I may drop Windows altogether. For a time, I used OS X for both gaming and all other home uses, and I loved it apart from a few minor annoyances, but I couldn't afford to keep buying Mac hardware so I went back to x86.

All I'm saying is don't knock the guy for using what is best for him when you have stated that you use what is best for you. It really makes you look stupid.

The difference between him and me is that I don't write multi-page articles complaining about something I don't even use.

He isn't really stating what's wrong with OS X, he's just complaining that his pizza is bad, because it's not a pie.

He uses Linux, spends a few moments with OS X, goes back to Linux and writes an article that OS X isn't Linux (so it sucks). If that's his personal opinion that's great for him, but most people don't care. Yet he presents his opinion as a "Linux is the benchmark and OS X doesn't come near it" article.

If he ran the OS X division the next OS X release would be a Gnome based GNU/OS X Linux distro.

I used a Linux desktop for years and still do on occasion (depending on where I am as I only have one iMac). There is still a lot wrong with Linux (despite every year is the year of the Linux desktop), making it very easy to write an article with even more pages than this one talking about why Linux is so crap (because it doesn't work like OS X).

But that's a waste of time, just like writing why dogs suck because they aren't cats.

If you like Linux, great. If you like OS X, great. You can even like Windows XP, but it's stupid to downgrade something different because it isn't the same as something else.

It sounds like in the end, you and I agree on the main point: Use what works for you. That said, you made one assumption that bothers me. You said:

He uses Linux, spends a few moments with OS X, goes back to Linux and writes an article that OS X isn't Linux (so it sucks).

From reading the article again, it sounds like his experience with OS X starts with 10.2 on his laptop, but later he is running 10.3 based on his description of Exposé. I get the feeling he used the OS for at least the better part of a year before making his decision that it didn't fit his needs. I personally didn't take that long myself; I spent about 8 months on OS X and for the most part loved it, but the thought of having to buy another Mac just for an OS upgrade sent me back to x86 and Linux. OS X worked for me, but Apple didn't.

Well, if he's talking about 10.2-10.3, why share this with us now?

If you go to the shop and buy a new Mac now you won't find anything less than OS X Tiger on it.

I had some isues when switching from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 too, but I don't it will be real usefull info at this point in time.

Like the author I switched from Linux to OS X too and it took me a little while to settle in. I have used many operating systems, so I guess I'm more used to learning something different.

Personally, I wouldn't say linux distros are just a collection of beta software. I am sure emacs/vim/gimp/etc. are more stable than Applescript/Safari/etc.

However, it appears the author of this article is simply more used to the linux way. Also, his needs seem to be best fulfilled by linux (no multimedia and office and plenty of text editing)

Personally, I wouldn't say linux distros are just a collection of beta software. I am sure emacs/vim/gimp/etc. are more stable than Applescript/Safari/etc.

However, it appears the author of this article is simply more used to the linux way. Also, his needs seem to be best fulfilled by linux (no multimedia and office and plenty of text editing)

What is the Linux way? Linux is just a kernel. Emacs/vim/gimp run just as well on FreeBSD. Most flagship software like Firefox, OpenOffice and The Gimp even run on Windows.

Linux is credited for a lot of things, while it's software doing it that runs on many other operating systems too. Solaris runs Gnome too, FreeBSD runs KDE.

When you have a Linux desktop, what do you really have? KDE/Gnome? Not Linux. X11/Xorg? Not Linux. Safely browse the web and do MS Office stuff? Firefox and OpenOffice aren't Linux either. Chat with Gaim/Kopete, again not Linux. You can set up a FreeBSD machine that runs all those things too.

SUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, etc... that's not Linux, they are Linux based operating systems. They use the Linux kernel, the GNU stuff and a bunch of apps.

Sure the kernel is an important part of an operating system, but in the whole picture it's a small part. When it comes down for the user to do stuff he uses applications in a desktop enviroment that run just as well on other operating systems.

I really wonder which one modded this one up.

Author was specific about his personal preferences and specified few times this should not reflect to public opinion.

For me personally, OSX is the worst, Windows next, and Linux rocks. And as I always specify, I'm prepared to throw ammounts of money on HW, but being 11 years Apple customer, made me switch away from Mac. Currently I'm ditching Apple completely and as soon as my G5dual and mini are outdated, this will be the end of Apple history at me.

But to be fair, every user has and is entitled ot his own preferences, and so are you. Enjoy OSX. Just please don't generalize it for the humanity.

Author was specific about his personal preferences and specified few times this should not reflect to public opinion.

Then he should not write a public article, but make some notes in his private diary. If you write public, you'll get the public's response.

It really has nothing to do with OS X vs Linux, it just comes down to someone who complains that two different things aren't the same.

And what's worse, he isn't the first! And they all do it the same way: they're an expert on one system and an obvious noob on another. Then they say their own system r0x and the other one sucks (basicly because it's not what they are used to).

We even had this a couple of times with Linux pitted against...Linux! "I love my Slackware, tried Fedora and boy did it suck, because it wasn't Slackware. I'm a Debian user for years, tried SUSE and it didn't even have apt-get, so it sucks.", etc...

Then he should not write a public article, but make some notes in his private diary. If you write public, you'll get the public's response.

Agreed, but the diff between you and him is he specified personal opinions, while you said it in general way that should apply to whole population. Also in public as original writer (so, where do you find the strength to bash over him?).

This was the reason for my post, not the endless pissing contests my [put anything inside] is better than yours.

Do, not take me wrong. I agree with your opinion that articles as such are unwanted, I don't agree with the way you put it out (your opinion as truth for population).

Do, not take me wrong. I agree with your opinion that articles as such are unwanted, I don't agree with the way you put it out (your opinion as truth for population).

I don't think I stated my personal opinions as facts. In my personal opinion OS X is the more complete and better working desktop OS and in my personal opinion Linux distributions are collections of software sometimes dubious quality. Not to say some stuff is very good though, but it's never a unity.

There is one real solid fact and that is the author complaining that two different things aren't the same thing and he needs a couple of pages to do so. Now sometimes it's funny to read how an expert on System A makes a mess on System B, thinking it works just like System A, but this time the author really taking it out on OS X. And for what? For not being a Linux distro?

He should have written: I like Linux a lot, but I tried OS X anyway and I didn't like it because it isn't Linux.

He should have written: I like Linux a lot, but I tried OS X anyway and I didn't like it because it isn't Linux.

Funny you put it like this. If you'd put it like this originaly, I would confirm your comment not attacked you. Hell, I would even mod you up if I would have damn mod points. You could even add "... it isn't Linux and shut the fsck up" and I would still agree.

Now, let me disect your original comment:)

I did my time on Windows, Linux and OS X. For me it's obvious OS X is the best desktop OS of those three.

This is generaly, not personally spoken. If you'd wanted to speak personally, then you should put something like this:
For me and my use OSX is the most suitable.

Every Linux distro looks like it's a messy collection of a bunch of beta software with a logo of the distro maker stuck on together with the reason why this one out of a thousand distro's does it all right.

Again, generaly spoken. Now look for example my side.

Please, do not be offended with this next part, it is merely trying to represent my point of view on your comment, not to insult you in any way.

While that might be truth from where you stand, I can assure you that I can't achieve as much conforming, uniform and well balanced system as on Linux distros (but real fact is that in my opinion OS9 was the most conforming and consistant OS of all, ever). It is all about personal choice. And the most messy OS? Definitely OSX. As I finally set up all the tools I need (and most of them were still crapped out. yes, using linux apps under x11 on OSX is crap worth) my desktop looked like holly damnation of the crappy rainbow (btw. I did first tried to find OSX equivalents of the apps I need, and whenever I did, I used that one, but that still wasn't enough to make a difference), not even two pieces of software looked similiar.

One could say you're not capable to set up Linux, then again one could say I'm not capable to set up OSX. On the other hand, what is the truth? You're probably most productive under OSX which seems to suit you best. I'm most productive under Linux, which seems to suit me best. Everyone got its own best, where best completely differs. And in the end all that it matters is that we both are happy. And this should be reason enough why one OS can't be better than other. Sooo,... Which is better, yours or mine? Answer is, neither when speaking for humanity. And yes, one is better when you look at this thing personally. But then again, speak like you did in this last comment of yours.

This is why I often ask people to stop speaking their opinion as general. Go trough my comments and you'll find out I never speak my version as humanity opinion, except in few comments where this really is general opinion or real state of the things.

And even this being so, I don't just attack everyone, I just attack posters that post "hollier than thou" like comments (like you did, rightfully accusing writer of the mistake, by repeating his mistake) but being just as guilty as the reasons for their post. Maybe you didn't ment it to be like it was, but you did it.

Fair enough?

Edited 2006-06-05 16:15

I think "For me it's obvious OS X is the best desktop OS of those three" is clearly a personal opinion, because of the "for me" part at the beginning.

Now I do give you a point for claiming I generalised Linux distro's for being a messy collection. Ubuntu and SUSE aren't messy.

But I think things do become a little messy when you use Gnome and start using KDE apps or when you use KDE and install some Gapps. Simple things like a file requester start to differ from application to application. XMMS isn't Gnome or KDE, so it introduces its own file requester.

Install Ubuntu and only extra Gnome apps you start with a consistent system that stays consistent.

However there are (and have been) distro's that just fill your hard disk with 5 browsers, 4 e-mail clients, 7 news readers en 4 instant messengers. These kind of distro's are messy (IMHO). To attain this level of "choice" a lot of beta crap is included. Like I remember a version of SUSE where you had about 3 programs to control the sound volume.

I'm happy Ubuntu still manages to deliver a good functional system on only 1 CD.

because of the "for me" part at the beginning.

Not really enough, but close... But then again you noticed the part because of which I attacked so vigorously.

Take summary of what you said in my viewpoint:)
I can take OSX, install some apps with fink, add some java apps using swt, add some older apps, which still use their theme (I will stop here but I could continue) and I get completely the same mess as you mentioned about Linux.

Consistancy is up to user, and this is just a nicer way to put up what you said in the next paragraph.

[distros filling your hdd with 5 browsers, 4 e-mail clients]
And while I don't like that for most of the things, you don't like that... there probably exist a lot of people that like that thing. And here I take on your claim.

For example, web developer is happier if he can test his pages on more than one browser, but all on one computer.

I use 3 mail clients. Why? To be able to actively track some things, by fashinably being selective about what do I see and what I don't in that particular moment. My previous use was using different mail clients, which was easier to set up. Nowadays I just use evolution under 4 different users. Even though it is more hassle to set up (and to use, I don't use username without password and I don't use keychains for that particular purpose), it is far more productive.

Personally, I use two rss feed readers constantly (I had to install both additionaly). One to keep history (liferea, running minimized in tray but maximized when I search for something being older, and the fact beagle indexes liferea should be enough), and one to have quick access to daily news as fast as possibly which liferea sure isn't.

I use two messengers, Gnome-X-Chat for IRC and Gaim for MSN and Jabber. While IRC (I'm on development chanels only) is 24-hour on, Gaim isn't (I want to be selective when people can bug me and when not. And closing software is much easier than using busy, off-line etc). Both of those were already installed.

Are you saying my usage is wrong? That I can't be productive, because I don't use software as you do? Hell, all those things boost my productivity and for sure boost web developers productivity. But, then again. Looking from the perspective of the OS which doesn't have virtual desktops, that claim would be acceptable (btw. I know OSX has a thrird-party virtual desktop solutions, but none I tried was worth anything).

IMHO, if you don't understand the reason why some distros like that exist, don't crap on them. There probably was a reason why that particular distro was being worked on. You not understanding the reason (or you not liking it) is not reason enough to say something like that. Some people would disagree, and the fact that people are happiest if they get all they need already installed by default.

Again, another even nicer example of exposing your flawed assumtion. DeMuDi (or Agnula), I'm spare time musician and I really enjoy with one distro providing me with more tools than I will ever need, but without a single hassle of installing my audio setup (yeah, before Agnula, this was a real pain in the ass). And Agnula provides a lot of duplicated things, that is as long as you don't see the diversities between implementations.

Edited 2006-06-05 18:03

I did my time on Windows, Linux and OS X. For me it's obvious OS X is the best desktop OS of those three.

I think you are wrong. The best assesment of usability between the various desktop OS was carried out last year at the Birmingham City Library in the UK.

They made Mac, Windows and Gnome and KDE systems available for both library staff and members to try. This is a summary of what they found as told by the Birmingham City Council's IT manager with responsibility for the open source trial:

"We had Mac, Microsoft Windows and best-of-breed open source configurations, including KDE and Gnome. We had 300 people using the PCs. The one they preferred was Gnome."

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2005/11/15/212909/Birmingham...

So it shows that all HIG and usability work put in to GNOME is paying off. Gnome is turning out to be a more intuitive interface than OSX.

Of course I am biased, I am a GNOME user since version 1.0.

Edited 2006-06-04 23:15

I think you are wrong. The best assesment of usability between the various desktop OS was carried out last year at the Birmingham City Library in the UK.

I can't be wrong about my personal opinion. :-)

I rate my desktop OS as something I use for work and in my private live. The library people just work with their computer, I have to sleep with it too.

Like most people on OSNews I do a little more with my computer than just surf the web and send an e-mail. I do a very wide range of stuff with my computer.

I doubt the library people in Birgmingham inserted any DVDs, edited pictures or played MP3 files. If they're presented with OS X/XP/Gnome/KDE and asked to wiggle their mouse I'm sure they'd prefer Gnome because it's the most simplistic DE.

I like Gnome too, I prefer it over KDE. But for me it's not the GUI or DE. After spending a lot of time with Linux, googling my way to solutions for problems I found OS X a welcome relief. Fiddling around to get things working can be fun, but after a while you get old and tired and you want something that "just works".

For that matter I'd rate XP over Linux/Gnome, but given a choice between them I'd go for Linux 'cause it's more fun.

But in the end it's your personal taste which OS you prefer. I don't doubt there are people around who prefer MS-DOS to XP, Linux or OS X.

I mean...you mis os X software (Emacs.app, TexShop !!!) for which there is no linux equivalent....

I'm probably missing something there,
what are the advantages of Emacs.app and TexShop over say
Emacs/Xemacs and
TeTeX or MikTeX (which is rapidly coming to all unixes near your home)
for a linux distribution ?

"my osx gripes:

- its slower than a gnome-based linux (i.e. dapper) on the same hardware

- it has bugs (beach ball of death - i actually was seeing DUAL beach balls of death)

- it is a unix...kinda

- it had problems finding and talking to our printer at work - ubuntu found it and deals with it, no problem (its an HP printer)

- no obvious built-in features like virtual screens (i found many free and open utilities to do this, but something so trivial should be built in)

- no unifying package management. darwinports etc live in a different universe.

- ANNOYING nag notes to update crap i didn't use - itunes etc"

So at least you tried to use it :-)

Maybe it is slower and maybe sometimes there is a bbod (never had two of them), and yes it is more like unix than linux, but

- both use CUPS for printing, so this should not be a problem.
- virtual screens are so trivial that even Windows had them build in (TM). Why should they copy this when they have Expose?
- so no unifying package management. Prrrft. Sorry, thats too much. You have (m)pkg or Drag&Drop via .DMG. It is easy enough.
- never found the "ignore this update" function? You are sure you used OS X for more than 1 minute?

- virtual screens are so trivial that even Windows had them build in (TM). Why should they copy this when they have Expose?

Actually Windows does not have virtual screens built in. There is a lousy application from Microsoft to handle it, as well as many 3rd party applications.

Perhaps I should use an ironic flag next time...

my osx gripes:

- its slower than a gnome-based linux (i.e. dapper) on the same hardware

Really? I have *extreme* curiosity about that statement.

I haven't yet done my set up with Dapper, but I've got a dual boot Breezy/10.3.9 Pismo Powerbook (g3 500/512) and OS X is far and away faster than Breezy and I never get "ghost arrow" with OS X. I get it all the time with Breezy.

also every difference between OSX and Linux is seen as OSX's fault...

He likes to do stuff in a certain way, which is not possible with OS X and is possible with Linux. Can you blame him if he considers this to be a plus for Linux and a minus for OS X? Isn't this what every user is after: personal comfort?

He didn't have to choose between OSX or Linux, he just had to be fair. Every system has its pros and cons...

Fair has nothing to do with it in this particular context. This isn't an impartial review or comparison. He's a particular kind of user with particular needs and he explains why Linux is better suited to him than OS X. That's all.

Expecting one desktop interface or operating system to be good for everyone is not realistic.

You are totaly right! This is pure fundamentalist, the author has nothing constructive to say at all. Much the same way people will mod me and other opinions down even though my comment is not including personal attacks, using offensive language, being off-topic or including advertisements. I just gave my honest opinion and was moded down by yet another fundamentalist...

Bu the way,I'm a Win, OSX and Ubuntu linux user and I know I first need to learn before being able to criticise. Sorry my poor english.

Xglx itself, which is what you're referring to when you talk about XGL, cannot have a future. It's a massive hack, running one X server on top of another X server. Progress on any sensible alternative, however, seems to have completely stalled. There are some very key things that need to be fixed and developed. The various kernel drivers touching the video card need to be coordinated or merged in some way. Then, the DRI and DRM need to be retooled to properly support memory management and concurrent rendering for multiple clients. Then, an EGL implementation has to be built on top of the DRI. Then, the GLX calls in XGL needs to be ripped out and replaced with EGL calls. In any sensible implementation, the next step would be to move input drivers out of X11 too, and run the whole thing as a non-priveleged user.

At that point, you'll have a system comparable with OS X 10.4 (with Q2D Extreme enabled). In other words, you'll have enough to be able to have a composited desktop with nifty window management effects. That's probably okay for the next couple of years, at least. If you want to go beyond that, you're going to have to fundementally address how clients talk to the X server. RENDER in its current form is really not sufficient to do either what WPF can do, or, I'd argue, what it was designed to do. Addressing this issue, while retaining X's network transparency is going to be very challenging.

The above sequence is itself a technical challenge, though I'd argue its not any more out of reach for a small team than many, already-successful projects. What fundementally puts a Vista and Leopard competitor in the realm of "wishful thinking", however, is the organizational issue. First, what we're talking about here is trying to build a graphics stack without having a system architect. Second, we're talking about not just building a graphics stack, but building a suite of software and intermediate implementations to preserve compatibility with a huge amount of obscure hardware and software. When Apple built OS X's graphics stack, they didn't have to worry about how to support FreeBSD running on a SPARC machine with a framebuffer sitting on sbus. This is something, however, that anybody digging into OSS graphics code will have to face, whether they want to or not. And of course, let's not forget the hardware vendors, without whom the current state of affairs would probably not be possible. I can fully understand why NVIDIA and ATI choose to keep their specs and source code closed, but there is no denying the fact that their doing so puts a severe damper on any project that involves leveraging the GPU.

Of course, Novell is a dark-horse here. It could very well be they are working, behind closed doors, on a proper foundation for XGL. You might see a code-drop one day with all the pieces sorted out. Sure, it may just support a couple of drivers (Radeon, Intel), and a few platforms (PPC, x86, and amd64), but it'd be something, and something is better than nothing. Short of that miraculously happening, any proper implementation of XGL is a ways away.

I mean really, he's comparing it against OS X 10.2?

Well, there several areas of that article that raised my horsefeathers flag.

1) Talking about Expose -- that was a 10.3 feature.

2) Talking about the different versions of iTunes that he was nagged to upgrade to. I've run OS X since 10.1 and don't recall there ever being more than 2 updates to iTunes in a 6 month period.

3) His saying that you have to remove dependencies when trashing/uninstalling an application.

4) His calling software update a bit of nagware.

{sarcasm}Because yeah, if there's a system critical security update and/or point release, I would sure as hell hate to find out about it in a prompt fashion. Oh, the incovenience.{/sarcasm}

(Besides, every time I boot Ubuntu I'm prompted to update software. So I suppose that being told to update Python -- a program I plan to use on the 25th of No-never -- is just Ubuntu's nagware.)

---

So, given all that ... I really wonder how much time he really spent with OS X.

If any at all.

Edited 2006-06-05 01:44

2) Talking about the different versions of iTunes that he was nagged to upgrade to. I've run OS X since 10.1 and don't recall there ever being more than 2 updates to iTunes in a 6 month period.

During the eight or so months I had a Mac, iTunes updated five times that I recall. One of those was a major version update and the rest were minor point updates.

(Besides, every time I boot Ubuntu I'm prompted to update software. So I suppose that being told to update Python -- a program I plan to use on the 25th of No-never -- is just Ubuntu's nagware.)

You may not use Python, but a lot of software on your system probably does since it's one of the more popular scripting languages. To my knowledge, LSongs from Linspire is written entirely in Python (not saying you use that program, just an example).

You may not use Python, but a lot of software on your system probably does since it's one of the more popular scripting languages. To my knowledge, LSongs from Linspire is written entirely in Python (not saying you use that program, just an example).

I should've extended my "sarcasm tag".

The writer of the article was calling software update nagware because it was letting him know there were iTunes updates and he doesn't use iTunes.

I'm about as interested in Python and GIMP as this guy is in iTunes, but I'm not complaining, nor do I consider it nagware or get all bent out of shape about it.

What I do care about is that my system sends me a prompt, easy to deal with notice that there's new software out there that I might be interested in.

---

As for the iTunes updates, I'll take your word on it that there were more updates than I recall.