Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th May 2008 17:54 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Ivan Krstic' critique of the One Laptop Per Child Project has made its ripples around the pond of the intertubes. Apart from the obvious part where it criticises a major project from an insider's point of view, it also had a few other remarks that caught people's attention - most notably the admission that despite his ability to do Linux kernel hacking, his main development laptop is a Macintosh running Mac OS X.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 26th May 2008 18:42 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

When you're programming, you want to focus on your work. It's hard enough juggling the architectural implications of your next line of code, without dealing with your operating system grating against you.

It's hundreds of subtle things that make Mac OS X an awesome developer platform, and it's certainly no surprise to me.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by Kroc
by danieldk on Mon 26th May 2008 19:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

When you're programming, you want to focus on your work.


True. I think that there were originally roughly two groups who were attracted to GNU/Linux: people who wanted to use an affordable UNIX-workalike on i386 hardware, and people who use GNU/Linux because it is free software. (Yes, this is an overgeneralization.)

For the first group, the availability of source code under a free license is possibly an additional advantage, but they are not (fully) attached to it. It's not that surprising that people within this group switch to OS X on the desktop: it quacks like UNIX, it runs on relatively low-end/cheap hardware, and generally has less hassles than GNU/Linux.

This can clearly be seen in the BSD community. Many BSD users/developers use OS X on the desktop these days, and I'd say that they have historically been less attached to copyleft licenses et al.

Edited 2008-05-26 19:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by SEJeff on Tue 27th May 2008 02:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

You're right, but only to an extent. Vim's code completion and features along with some macros is more than enough for some people. Vim runs the same on every platform for me. Not being a free software purist but more of an open suoecs purist, Linux is more than enough for me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 27th May 2008 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I'm curious: does VIM have a C parser or, by 'code-completion,' do you just mean e-tags based text substitution?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Karitku on Tue 27th May 2008 07:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Indeed, 3 people have changed to Mac it must be flood. How can Apple manage such a demand? Seriously Thom I would buy such a news if it was some major software design company but 3 random people?!?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 27th May 2008 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

The number is more like a million a quarter, and growing. But hey, keep on soaking in that fear.

Reply Score: 3

No thanks, Linux is fine
by dmantione on Mon 26th May 2008 18:50 UTC
dmantione
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm perfectly happy with my Linux desktop. Modern Linux desktops are way more powerfull than the commercial desktops. While some years ago I had to do some kernel driver hacking to make things work, my current hardware works fine from the installation CD's.

My only complaint is video codecs, but for that OS X is not necessarily a solution.

Reply Score: 8

RE: No thanks, Linux is fine
by BlackJack75 on Mon 26th May 2008 19:00 UTC in reply to "No thanks, Linux is fine"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Not sure what video codecs you're talking about. VLC and MPplayer play pretty much anything (both on Linux and OSX).

As for Linux being perfect I'd say it's fine, especially for programming work, but the current distributions still have their rough edges, mostly when it comes to configuring graphics cards and getting the best out of them (yes I blame mostly the manufacturers too). The last time I tried an ubuntu 8 cd on my PC with a radeon x1950 it just wouldn't let me use anything more than 16 bits colors.

I know it's not an easy task to write drivers but on a commercial OS such as OSX I never had to face this problem. That alone for me is worth the price tag. With todays Linux distribution you don't have to go compiling modules in your kernel as much as you used to do back in 2002 but the whole thing still smacks of organisation problems. I have heard people praising X11 for decades now but I still see it as a major hurdle today.

Edited 2008-05-26 19:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by dmantione on Mon 26th May 2008 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE: No thanks, Linux is fine"
dmantione Member since:
2005-07-06

Not sure what video codecs you're talking about. VLC and MPplayer play pretty much anything (both on Linux and OSX).


They do and they don't do. They are good enough that for most streams, they can play at least something. However, you need to install proprietary Real codecs and pirate Windows Media dll files from a Windows installations to get things work right.

Further, especially with Realvideo and Windows Media streams, it more often goes wrong than correct. Either the picture is not right, or it does not work smooth, or...

I simply need to spend more time than I like to spend on this issue and the results are not perfect. I simply want to click on a media stream in my web browser and have it start.


As for Linux being perfect I'd say it's fine, especially for programming work, but the current distributions still have their rough edges, mostly when it comes to configuring graphics cards and getting the best out of them (yes I blame mostly the manufacturers too). The last time I tried an ubuntu 8 cd on my PC with a radeon x1950 it just wouldn't let me use anything more than 16 bits colors.


Here I have no complaints at all. It's a long while back that I encountered a PC that did need manual intervention in its graphics setup. That is not to say there exist no problems, but at least I had many "it just works" experiences.

Edited 2008-05-26 21:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RealPlayer
by s_groening on Tue 27th May 2008 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No thanks, Linux is fine"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

I think the last time I ever wasted my time playing a Real Media stream of some sort was the Project Looking Class demonstration by Sun, and I never regretted ditching the stuff after that ...

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by pixel8r on Tue 27th May 2008 03:30 UTC in reply to "RE: No thanks, Linux is fine"
RE[3]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by ashigabou on Tue 27th May 2008 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No thanks, Linux is fine"
ashigabou Member since:
2005-11-11

OSX uses X11 too. so what was your point again?


OS X has X11 for compatibility, but the number of mac os X applications using it is really low. Most of them are unix applications that typical mac users do not use.

"Native" mac applications do not depend on X; On Tiger at least, X11 is not installed by default, and I bet nobody but developers and open source people install it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by MobyTurbo on Tue 27th May 2008 08:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No thanks, Linux is fine"
MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

X11 is installed on Leopard by default. You're right though, most people prefer to run applications that are native.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by Almindor on Tue 27th May 2008 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE: No thanks, Linux is fine"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

Perhaps if you were smart enough to go to http://ati.amd.com/support/driver.html and download a driver for your radeon (or use the one in the repositories if it's not too old for your card) you'd have it working. But then again paying for a new mac is such an economical solution to this rather pathetic problem.

Don't get me wrong tho, I don't mind you using Mac OS X but what you described is probably the worst possible pathetic reason. Even in Windows you'd have to go and download the driver to your card for it to let you have proper resolution and 3d.

Now.. the QUALITY of ATI linux drivers is another thing, but please don't criticize linux for it, they can't do anything about it.

Edited 2008-05-27 08:32 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: No thanks, Linux is fine
by ljgshkg on Mon 26th May 2008 19:33 UTC in reply to "No thanks, Linux is fine"
ljgshkg Member since:
2008-03-25

Well, I guess as a "somewhat more hardcore developer", it is fine for you. I'm a developer myself, and I've also use Linux for several years (with dual boot to Windows). I'm satisfy with Linux in general. But once a while, you just meet problems that you need to find information everywhere and have to edit configuration files to fix probelms here and there. Or may be you can't find some softwares that are as good as on Windows once a while.

May be it's because of age as said in this news. I'm slowly feeling less fun to play with those stuff and feeling the annoyance whenever problems hits me (even though I may know which files to edit already). I simply want everything to work as I want, without all those configruations.

I now uses Windows and still uses all those open source softwares, but I don't have all those problems I had on Linux that annoys me. Of course, that depends on personal character. But then, I guess, it's one view.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by l3v1 on Tue 27th May 2008 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE: No thanks, Linux is fine"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

May be it's because of age as said in this news. I'm slowly feeling less fun to play with those stuff and feeling the annoyance whenever problems hits me (even though I may know which files to edit already). I simply want everything to work as I want, without all those configruations.


Funny thing. I'm using Linux - not exclusively, but constantly - myself [10+ years since my first contact] and I've always found that everything gets simpler to do for me as the years go by, and that includes various configurations. I just happened to accept that Linux comes with having to do some things by hand, which wasn't really a hurdle for these years.

And I also have to say, all those "annoyances" people like to repeat and come up with every so often - configration issues and the like - are really not so frequent, unless one's sole businness is to setup new distros every day.

Yet, it's like a catch-22, since it's mostly newbies who keep installing things and distros again and again when they run into some problem - which is a train of thought coming from their Windows backgrounds for sure - and at the end they say Linux sucks, but it wouldn't suck if they wouldn't keep installing distros hoping they'll run into a magical everything-works one. Also, they'd need to learn that Linux is Linux is Linux, i.e. there's really not such a huge difference between distros that they need to install every new release they run into.

Edited 2008-05-27 08:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by marafaka on Tue 27th May 2008 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE: No thanks, Linux is fine"
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

Things will only work out of the box if you have no preferences. Having no preferences means your life is limited and you gave up your desires for convention. Billy knows everything you want? Where is your uniqueness?

You sure are unique, you just don't use computers for anything important so usual consumer box with a usual interface is fine with you. Right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by evangs on Tue 27th May 2008 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No thanks, Linux is fine"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Things will only work out of the box if you have no preferences. Having no preferences means your life is limited and you gave up your desires for convention. Billy knows everything you want? Where is your uniqueness? You sure are unique, you just don't use computers for anything important so usual consumer box with a usual interface is fine with you. Right?


I work on a software project whose code base spans some 10 years. The number of source files is in the thousands and the number of lines of code is in the millions. I collaborate with some 200 other developers spread across the globe.

I the default windows theme, and I've only changed the desktop background to something more to my tastes (e.g. landscape scenery photographed using HDR).

What exactly is wrong with "default" interfaces that make them unusable for developers on large projects? Most developers do not care about tweaking their desktops beyond the usual defaults. Neither are they under any delusions about how "unique" and "important" the work they undertake is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: No thanks, Linux is fine
by marafaka on Wed 28th May 2008 06:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No thanks, Linux is fine"
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

Working on a large project requires using specialized tools that don't come with regular operating systems, at least not with Windows, and they have to be tailored to your situation. Since you're talking about out of the box experience, that can't be it.

So if it's just about the default Windows user interface and tools, what is it there that you like so much, and can't get anywhere else? Don't you miss a powerful shell, a way to remotely run GUI software, a way to script remote machines, a way to control tens of windows on your so-called desktop? Because that comes out of the box on other systems. And yeah, by the way: when do you manage to see your HDR wallpaper; do you reboot daily, do you routinely minimize all your windows or something?

If I turn my head left a little bit, I see some happy windows users/coders. They have couple of windows open on the desktop, which they pleasantly positioned so that they can see their beloved wallpaper and important icons. Nothing wrong about that.

But there is another world where standardization, automation, omnipresence and control are stressed. Where people do not like their machines, they just use them. They do not care for the experience of using them, but would like things to be done without intervention... Gee, what kind of crap am I leaving here?

Good bye, no offence, happy life ... I'm gone ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: No thanks, Linux is fine
by thavith_osn on Tue 27th May 2008 15:05 UTC in reply to "No thanks, Linux is fine"
thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Way more powerful than commercial boxes? How do you figure that? I love Linux, don't get me wrong, just thought this was an interesting statement.

Reply Score: 2

A lot certainly do
by BlackJack75 on Mon 26th May 2008 18:52 UTC
BlackJack75
Member since:
2005-08-29

While I am not sure about the quantity there is certainly a clear movement towards OSX. Back in 2000 almost no developer (other than dedicated mac developers) would ever touch a mac with the back of his hand.

I don't know if this is a global trend but here in Switzerland I can tell you a lot of developers are going for the mac. In our small office we now have more macs than windows pcs (and one full-time linux user).

There are also a lot of web developers working on the mac now. Back in the days it wasn't an option when you couldn't run IE in VMWare and Firefox was only in its infancy.

That said there are still a LOT of programming jobs that require running Windows, including some that are not windows related like testing mobile apps on BlackBerry, Nokia or other emulators. (Yes, I know Nokia has linux ports of their emulators, but if you use them daily you know they are not the way to go if you want accuracy). I wish I didn't have to use VMWare so much on my mac.

Reply Score: 3

RE: A lot certainly do
by google_ninja on Mon 26th May 2008 19:13 UTC in reply to "A lot certainly do"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The most popular (or at least the most hip) stack in the web dev world is OSX/Textmate/RoR, and OSX used to be the best platform to do java work on (that is, until apple stopped caring about java)

Java and enterprise web probably make up 75% of the job market (to pull a number out of my ass), and if mac isn't the dominant platform yet, it is definitely the most preferred. IMO it has to do with the developer friendliness of UNIX, with the fact that if you want get stuff done and not have to mess with stuff to do it, OSX is head and shoulders above everyone else.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: A lot certainly do
by sbergman27 on Mon 26th May 2008 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: A lot certainly do"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The most popular (or at least the most hip) stack in the web dev world is OSX/Textmate/RoR,

The Django devs are working on that bug. Give them another year. ;-)

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: A lot certainly do
by google_ninja on Mon 26th May 2008 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A lot certainly do"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

IMO Python > Ruby which makes django > rails.

but then again, i think C# > all, so im really excited about the new (and open source) mvc framework ms is working on currently

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: A lot certainly do
by sbenitezb on Mon 26th May 2008 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A lot certainly do"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

but then again, i think C# > all, so im really excited about the new (and open source) mvc framework ms is working on currently


Well, Haskell > C#, and Haskell+happs rocks.

Edited 2008-05-26 22:43 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Obligatory KDE4 plug
by elsewhere on Mon 26th May 2008 18:52 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

Although a valid one... ;)

One of the objectives with supporting KDE4 on Windows and OSX was to enlarge the base of potential developers that may choose to leverage KDE4 and contribute back to the main development effort.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with this strategy, particularly in the case of something like KDE4 that will encourage cross-platform development, rather than tying to a (free or non-free) platform. IIRC, one of the core devs for KOffice uses OSX as his primary development platform, too, something few people were aware of until he mentioned it. Can't find the link, remember reading about it on the dot somewhere.

Reply Score: 5

v Go to your Macs and leave Linux alone
by shapeshifter on Mon 26th May 2008 19:01 UTC
detto Member since:
2007-11-25

I can't stand these would be Linux gurus that live in their own little world and still think that Mac's are more expensive than a comparable machine from another company.

Relax buddy, keep on hackin, drink your coffe and get over it if you don't want to pay the price for a MBP, but please calm down, it's an embarassing picture for the really open unix community.

Reply Score: 5

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I can't stand these would be Linux gurus that live in their own little world and...
...
...it's an embarassing picture for the really open unix community.


Detto, it is embarrassing for the Linux community, as well. Most of us eschew frothing at the mouth so. :-)

Reply Score: 5

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I can't stand these would be Linux gurus that live in their own little world and still think that Mac's are more expensive than a comparable machine from another company.


Well, and I can't stand those people who live in their own little world and still think there's nothing else out there. There are other countries out there, where people do live, where US prices are a distant dream (the exactly same macbook now costs ~$500 more for me), and the warranty well, you can get 2 years for ~$350, from the selling company, not from Apple. I'm thinking about buying a macbook on my US visit this summer, but I'd never think about buying one here (central europe, btw).

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Relax buddy, keep on hackin, drink your coffe and get over it if you don't want to pay the price for a MBP, but please calm down, it's an embarassing picture for the really open unix community...


MacBookPro's are overpriced and underpowered when you examine the cost/benefit ratio. And that was precisely his point.

Reply Score: 2

BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Good thing the majority of people are smart. That's why we never have idiots getting elected. By your standards the infinitesimal market share of linux on the desktop would make it terrible.

For anyone working 8 or 16 hours a day on a computer, little day to day comfort details can mean a lot. I don't really care if my computer could have been 500$ cheaper. I have been using my MacBookPro for the last two years and I am fairly sastisfied with it. Hardware-software integration brings a certain peace of mind over time which is pretty cool. It didn't burn, so I guess I was lucky. In the meantime my colleague with his Dell cries every day because Vista laptop changes his external display resolution everytime he connects it in the morning and my Kubuntu colleague never complains because he has got used to the idea that his computer is meant for programming (but still goes to the demo XP computer in the backroom to do tasks that would take him hours of configuration to do his box).

BTW, I don't see where you go the 90 days guarantee. That's the phone support. The standard guarantee is one year (three if you pay for the rather expensive AppleCare).

Reply Score: 2

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Good thing the majority of people are smart. That's why we never have idiots getting elected. By your standards the infinitesimal market share of linux on the desktop would make it terrible.

For anyone working 8 or 16 hours a day on a computer, little day to day comfort details can mean a lot. I don't really care if my computer could have been 500$ cheaper. I have been using my MacBookPro for the last two years and I am fairly sastisfied with it. Hardware-software integration brings a certain peace of mind over time which is pretty cool. It didn't burn, so I guess I was lucky. In the meantime my colleague with his Dell cries every day because Vista laptop changes his external display resolution everytime he connects it in the morning and my Kubuntu colleague never complains because he has got used to the idea that his computer is meant for programming (but still goes to the demo XP computer in the backroom to do tasks that would take him hours of configuration to do his box).

BTW, I don't see where you go the 90 days guarantee. That's the phone support. The standard guarantee is one year (three if you pay for the rather expensive AppleCare).


Umm, "fairly satisfied", doesn't sound too reassuring for the most expensive laptop on the market (in non gaming category).
Care to back up your claim about the Kumbuntu guy with some details? Or are you just making stuff up from what you red on the net?
Ok, the 90 days I meant the support, not the actual hardware warranty.

Reply Score: 5

sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

What is expensive? The cost or the value?

The Value of the MBA is far better. You can't even build a PC with comparable specs.

how much for a hp or Dell with:
- 5 hours battery life (with basic battery please, not the bulky monster handle you have to pay more)
- Led display with 2mpx camera
- keep below the 5.5 lbs
- Efficient built-in mouse support multitouch
- less than 1" thick
- Option for NON-glossy crap

I've just build a Dell XPS, similar to my MBP, which cost 2150$ CAD. Dell (with that ridiculous bulky battery for half the time) 2108$ CAD.
I include Win Ultimate to make less limitation against OSX. (but still ..)

My laptop works longer on one charge*, weight less, thinner, got a real touchpad mouse, better overall design, aluminum instead of crappy hard chemical.
Plus I have a full BSD subsystem and full IDE combine with the most enjoyable+productive interface.

In the end, the Dell looks very expensive for what it has to offer.

* At school, 2 users in class had Mac. In the same class, only two user didn't plug their laptop or use an external mouse, I always fun to see. That's problem the time you laugh at them!

Edited 2008-05-26 21:36 UTC

Reply Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You didn't mention esthetically pleasing (look at the bottom of a mbp and compare it to the bottom of an hp or dell machine), and very low noise (a mbp with the fan at max is about equivalent in noise to my hp pavilion with the fan barely going)

what you ALSO didn't mention is the relatively small HDs (top spec 2500$ machine has a 250gb drive, my 800$ machine has a 350gb drive), and very poor heat management.

Edited 2008-05-27 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

No I compare exact same hardware.

Your machine probably doesn't meet any of what I wrote.

Reply Score: 2

-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

You're Canadian, so you're forgiven. Canada + US != entire world, especially for Macs. Apple is an American company and it shows. If I were to buy a Mac on a smaller market, like here in Eastern Europe (no, we don't live in trees and we have electricity and broadband, thank you ;) ), I would pay A LOT.
And you're only comparing Apple to Dell/HP/brand name PC. Most techies can make their own PC or buy one custom made from a PC shop, so the value for money is greatly increased (for example most of the Macs are underpowered regarding video cards).

About laptops, I don't know, brand name PCs are probably better, because you want reliability. All desktop PCs are pretty reliable so you can go with a DIY. But I'd only buy an Apple desktop if I had lots of money (I mean LOTS) and little spare time. So do many Westerners, and that's why you buy Macs.

Reply Score: 3

sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

About laptops, I don't know, brand name PCs are probably better, because you want reliability. All desktop PCs are pretty reliable so you can go with a DIY. But I'd only buy an Apple desktop if I had lots of money (I mean LOTS) and little spare time. So do many Westerners, and that's why you buy Macs.


For my living I do consulting in Linux administration and windows/linux interoperability. It's fun and qualified people are rare. I could say a make a good living.

A DIY, its maybe less expensive, but when you take the time it requires (find good piece that work well togeter is not that easy), the price tag is not so much of a deal.

Plus OS X is a productivity helper for me, how much does it cost? I enjoy working with OS X, that make a real difference when you are 10 hours a day in front of a computer. I simply don't want to step back. The DIY is generally far bigger, need more wire, make far much noise.

Where it doesn't worth the price, is for gaming machine, but my PS3/Wii a there for that.

And note that I speak for myself against a highly generalize/stereotype comment. I'm pretty cool with the fact that a PC is a better option for you.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Shhhhh, no one mention this image to him:

http://images.businessweek.com/mz/08/08/pop_0808_42covsto_b.jpg

Edited 2008-05-27 16:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

And this contradicts my post how? I did mention that laptops are a different category. But desktops are a whole different beast.
And BTW, there are other laptop makers outside of Dell, HP, IBM/Lenovo. I suppose you heard of Acer, Asus, Fujitsu Siemens, Sony, LG, MSI or Benq.
These are usually cheaper than Dell, for example.

BTW, why wouldn't you take the Thinkpad in that comparison? More USB ports, DVD drive, larger resolution, for the Thinkpad. 1 extra centimeter of laptop thickness isn't exactly a disaster...

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

And BTW, there are other laptop makers outside of Dell, HP, IBM/Lenovo. I suppose you heard of Acer, Asus, Fujitsu Siemens, Sony, LG, MSI or Benq.


The room that I'm presently sitting in contains laptops made by Sharp, Toshiba, and Texas Instruments. So yeah, I suppose you could say I've heard laptops made by companies other than Dell, HP, etc.

BTW, why wouldn't you take the Thinkpad in that comparison? More USB ports, DVD drive, larger resolution, for the Thinkpad. 1 extra centimeter of laptop thickness isn't exactly a disaster...


Uh, yes - that's sort of what I was hinting at.

Reply Score: 2

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Good thing the majority of people are smart. That's why we never have idiots getting elected. By your standards the infinitesimal market share of linux on the desktop would make it terrible. For anyone working 8 or 16 hours a day on a computer, little day to day comfort details can mean a lot. I don't really care if my computer could have been 500$ cheaper.


I couldn't agree more with that. I'm not even sure technically comparable boxes from other venders are cheeper than Apple ones. So the price certainly isn't a reason to stay away from MacOS-X, and the Apple product are very nice and well designed. The fact that I spent my first years of personal computing makes me tempted to buy a Macbook air every time I see one.

Still, I don't. The reason for this is that I don't get the same proffesional attitude towards me as a customer from Apple as I get from IBM, Sun, or HP when something goes wrong.

I use my computer for a living, and I need to be sure that I can get good support even on the rainy day when something bad happens to it. Apple repairs takes for ever and it is often hard to get them to lend you some replacement equippment during the repair time.

Another problem is that they don't support their products for very long. This is mostly a problem on the server side where I have been abandoned by Apple a few times too many. E.g. A/UX was replaced by AIX with no resonable upgrade path, then AIX was replaced by nothing, agin with no upgrade path. On modern MacOS-X serveer, upgrades often break things that wasn't/couldnt be configured from the GUI. Major Software components are switched without much warning between different versions of MacOS-X server.

On the client side, Apple usually only have the latest version of Java on the latest version of their OS and sometimes it takes for ever before it bomes available. When Apple finally have Java version X, the rest of the world is talking about the new features that soon will be available in version X+1. This is fine if you are a user, but as a developer you develop the next generation of software, then you need the latest and greatest as soon as possible.

The locking of iphones on upgrade theing a while ago was another example of Apple not putting their customers first.

All of this, wouldn't be so bad if it was isolated events, but Apple seem to make it the standard behaviour in business.

So, I will probably stay on Thinkpad, and Linux for considerable time. If you buy a computer with Linux in mind most things just work just like they do on the Mac. Most people that have problem with Linux are people that try convert their their cheep old windows PC with hardware without proper Linux driver support.

The GUI of modern Gnome is very usable, so I don't feel that I miss much if I go the Linux/Gnome/Lenovo way. I'm a bit worried about Lenovo though, as I havn't had any chance to test their support (touch wood), but at least Linux gives me the very latest Java. On e.g Fedora, I can even choose between java 6 and a pre release of Java 7.

Reply Score: 3

REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

thats strange as ive always had nothing butgood service when ive dealt with a broken mac. Not something that happens often, but a family member had problems with a macbook pro and it was picked up and fixed very quickly. Dell also offers the same quaility service (this is without apple care) The only manufacturer who ive had problems with is acer, and it's not so much a problem it's just they have been rather slow.

Reply Score: 2

unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

thats strange as ive always had nothing butgood service when ive dealt with a broken mac. Not something that happens often, but a family member had problems with a macbook pro and it was picked up and fixed very quickly. Dell also offers the same quaility service (this is without apple care) The only manufacturer who ive had problems with is acer, and it's not so much a problem it's just they have been rather slow.


Glad to hear that Apple service worked well for you.

I think the difference betweeen Apple and Dell, and companies like IBM, Sun, Fujitsu and HP is that they are not just computer makers, they are solution makers. To them its not about replacing or fixing a broken product its about keeping the customer going. This makesa big difference in attitude.

As an example, a friend of mine had a broken ethernet pcmcia card, IBM promis to send a replacement by courier the same day. Unfortunately, the courier gets stuck in trafic, and my friend is going abroad so when the courier delivers the card, my friend is already gone. When IBM gets aware of the situation, they meet him at the airport of his destination and delivers another card, and tells him to send the other card back when he gets home.

Another example, one of my IBM servers goes down late on new years eve, according to my service contract they could have waited to the next day, but half an hour later an IBM technichan turns up at my doorstep, and in another 5 minutes the machine is up and running.

I have similar stories about HP and Sun. Apple and Dell on the other hand, do their job but never cares to make that little extra effort, or perhaps its me that have been unlucky so far.

Reply Score: 3

sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31


Another example, one of my IBM servers goes down late on new years eve, according to my service contract they could have waited to the next day, but half an hour later an IBM technichan turns up at my doorstep, and in another 5 minutes the machine is up and running.

I have similar stories about HP and Sun. Apple and Dell on the other hand, do their job but never cares to make that little extra effort, or perhaps its me that have been unlucky so far.


This would need a full analysis, because personal experience might quite be different.

Since the switch from IBM to Lenovo, on of my employer, decide that is was better to drop then. Not because the services isn't go, but because defect has become a real problem.

Now, with HP, customer services are not particularly better than Dell, but also their drivers and hardware support is abysmal.

Apple lags a bit to replace defect.

But I think one thing must be considered. Dell, IBM, Lenovo, HP deal with much more important customer then Apple, who buy considerable amount of computers. One deal goes off and it could lead to stock price drop. So they massively invest in a remarkable customer services. When the services was in place to the big one, it wasn't much an effort to effort it to their whole customers.

And note that you have to pay a premium price to get that from Dell.

Apple will probably get there when they will get some of those customers. But right now, if you cannot use another computer for a week when you replace your computer, Apple is definitely not the best choice.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

And if Macs and OS X were so great then why doesn't it have 90% market share?
Well, let's see, maybe because 90% of people are not gullible morons that will pay much more for much less of a product just because it's a bit shiny and in a cute little box.


Hmm. The last time I checked neither does Linux have 90% market share.

No, 90% of people see through it and go by a Dell or HP for half the price.

You're recommending Windows to people now? ;)

Reply Score: 5

lteo Member since:
2007-03-25

"And if Macs and OS X were so great then why doesn't it have 90% market share?
Well, let's see, maybe because 90% of people are not gullible morons that will pay much more for much less of a product just because it's a bit shiny and in a cute little box.

Hmm. The last time I checked neither does Linux have 90% market share.

No, 90% of people see through it and go by a Dell or HP for half the price.

You're recommending Windows to people now? ;)


Umm, I see, as a Mac user you find text without accompanying pictures incomprehensible.
I said Macs and OS X and Dell or HP. I did not say anything about Linux or Windows.
In other words I was talking about hardware sales. Not OS market share.
And yes, I can recommend a Dell or HP without recommending Windows. It's easy to format the drive and install a Linux distro.
"

The best products don't necessarily have the greatest market share. Different products are targeted for different markets (just like people choose different cars for all sorts of reasons -- there is no One Car that will suit everybody's needs). And Apple and Dell/HP/Microsoft have very different business models too. True, they are competitors but they are also very different companies. Apple sells the hardware + software together, while Dell/HP make the hardware and Microsoft makes the software for Dell/HP's hardware. So it's hard to compare them based on "hardware sales" and "OS market share", because they're different.

Also, how a product acquires market share depends on the company's resources and execution strategy, marketing efforts, etc. Just because a product is great doesn't mean it'll automatically gain instant market share.

To illustrate: let's talk strictly about OS market share. In your view, Linux is greater than both Windows and OS X, and that's why you use it. But its market share is still way behind both Windows and OS X even after 17 years. Surely 90% of people are not "gullible morons" who will choose Windows/OSX over Linux, when Linux is so obviously far more superior?

My point: A product's superiority does not automatically mean the greatest market share. Despite Linux's obvious superiority, it's still not a mainstream operating system with 90% market share (which seems to be your threshold for what a "great" product's market share should be).

Reply Score: 2

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

BeOS, AmigaOS

By comparison... the A1200 was more superior to the equivalent 486.. and both OSes ran rings around windows at the time..

And yet... to put it bluntly - we get stuck with shite.





... unless you have a ppc mac *coffs and /hides*
obligatory 'proud owner of a ppc g4 cube, linux desktop and intel mbp'

Reply Score: 2

sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

then it make less sense than before ...?!

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Umm, I see, as a Mac user you find text without accompanying pictures incomprehensible.

Resorting to personal attacks when you can't find anything intelligent to say? Well, sorry, I am not a Mac user. I happen to use Linux.

And yes, I can recommend a Dell or HP without recommending Windows. It's easy to format the drive and install a Linux distro.

Why not just recommend some PC with Linux preloaded then...

Reply Score: 7

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I can't stand these would be developers that take a linux project, cut 90% of features and call it improved.


There's a popular anecdote / joke among print journalists: a rookie writer walks into his editor's office, dumps a 1-foot high stack of paper on the desk, and explains by saying "I would have made it shorter, but I didn't have the time."

While it's counter-intuitive, minimalism is actually much harder than just dumping everything in (properly-done minimalism, that is).

Reply Score: 8

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

"I can't stand these would be developers that take a linux project, cut 90% of features and call it improved.


There's a popular anecdote / joke among print journalists: a rookie writer walks into his editor's office, dumps a 1-foot high stack of paper on the desk, and explains by saying "I would have made it shorter, but I didn't have the time."

While it's counter-intuitive, minimalism is actually much harder than just dumping everything in (properly-done minimalism, that is).
"

Ahh, I wish your almost poetically phrased comment could serve as an apology for all the featureless apps but unfortunately no, apps with limited features are just that, limited.

Reply Score: 4

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Ahh, I wish your almost poetically phrased comment could serve as an apology for all the featureless apps but unfortunately no, apps with limited features are just that, limited.


"Minimalist" is not synonymous with "featureless." Nor is the value of an application measured only by the number of features it boasts.

Reply Score: 5

dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Ahh, I wish your almost poetically phrased comment could serve as an apology for all the featureless apps but unfortunately no, apps with limited features are just that, limited.

However "limited apps" as you call them aren't necessarily bad apps. In fact just about every one of my favorite apps is a limited app, in as much as there exists a different app with more features.

The most important thing for me is that an app does what I need. And generally speaking I find that apps that do just what I need are easier and faster to use than apps that do everything I need plus a whole bunch more.

For example on windows I far prefer Foxit to Acrobat, desite Acrobat having far more features than Foxit. Foxit does everything I need much faster than Acrobat and I don't need any of the extra stuff Acrobat offers. So while I can accept that Foxit is a limited app when compared to Acrobat, I would in no way consider it a worse app.

Of course the features I need aren't necessarily the features you need and I my perfect app isn't your perfect app. But that's why there are several different apps that do the 'same' thing.

On the whole there is something to the small apps that do few things well philosophy.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"
maybe because 90% of people are not gullible morons that will pay much more for much less of a product just because it's a bit shiny and in a cute little box
"

iPod

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

maybe because 90% of people are not gullible morons that will pay much more for much less of a product just because it's a bit shiny and in a cute little box


iPod

So true ;) Too bad I can't mod you up for this ^^ It's impossible to walk around anymore without seeing someone with an iPod :O I wouldn't buy one of those but it seems that most people do. As for iPod itself; it sure is "a bit shiny and in a cute little box" ;)

Reply Score: 2

Random bloggers?
by averycfay on Mon 26th May 2008 19:10 UTC
averycfay
Member since:
2005-08-29

Who are these people and why should I care what operating system they run?

No seriously, I've never heard of any of them.

Reply Score: 10

MacOSX and dynamic language devs
by sbergman27 on Mon 26th May 2008 19:14 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

For the kinds of work that I do, I find that Python is the most useful language for me, so I spend a fair amount of my time in Python related settings. One strong trend that I have noted is that Python and Ruby programmers tend to develop on Macs running OSX, deploy on Ubuntu, and favor permissive, BSD and MIT style licenses.

I happen to prefer Linux and copyleft style licensing for most situations. But criticizing other's choice of OS or licensing preference, whatever they may be, is considered poor form in these communities. (Which as an OSNews reader, I must say is quite refreshing.)

Considering the projects like Django, Rails, and others, it is undeniable that Python and Ruby devs developing under MacOSX are making substantial contributions to FOSS, and that FOSS is becoming a first class citizen outside of the OSes which are normally considered "the FOSS OSes". This is good.

Reply Score: 11

A bit sensationalistic title
by TLZ_ on Mon 26th May 2008 19:21 UTC
TLZ_
Member since:
2007-02-05

I think the content in this was all-good, but the title was misleading and quite tabloid. Something like "More open source developers using non-linux plattforms?" or something like that.

There is no sign that the OSS-group of people is doing something as radical as "flocking" to another OS.

I can also find experiences of FOSS-devs really not liking OSX so it's not anyone who tries it are converted. (http://cactuswax.net/articles/no-thanks-macbook/)

Regarding the the article itself: can't say I find it that revolutionary. It's a long known thing that Mac OSX has UNIX(like) underpinnings and that you can because of that get a lot of *nix GNU stuff. And off course: someone is going to like it.

For the moment I'm a Linux-user at home, but I can definetely see why people would like to use Mac OSX or god-forbid Windows as well. Even if they are fans of GNU and such. And is this really *that* wrong? Aren't we talking about *freedom* here? And that freedom should also include using a non-free OS if one prefers that.

For myself I'm trying out Linux(quite new to it) as much as I can, but if I can't find a way to do graphics(including prepress) on it I'll prob. switch or at least get a mac in addition to my other boxes. (Port Adobe Design pack(Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, etc...) to Linux damn it!)

Edited 2008-05-26 19:29 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: A bit sensationalistic title
by hylas on Mon 26th May 2008 19:46 UTC in reply to "A bit sensationalistic title"
hylas Member since:
2005-07-10

"It's a long known thing that Mac OSX has UNIX(like) underpinnings ..."

Ahem:

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/unix.html

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/apple.htm


hylas

Reply Score: 5

RE: A bit sensationalistic title
by BlackJack75 on Mon 26th May 2008 19:52 UTC in reply to "A bit sensationalistic title"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Adobe isn't going to their graphics suite to Linux. Seriously, they won't do it. Get over it.

I have to admit that's one of the reasons I found Linux desktops not suitable for my daily use. I just couldn't get used to the gimp (that was years ago, not sure if Gimp is a decent challenger today but it still means a lot of re-learning for people who have grown habits).

The adobe suit costs thousands of dollars, so you are only going to pay if you do this as your main job. If you're a casual user, they know piracy is the norm and they don't want to port it to Linux so people can copy it. But if you pay for it you can well shell out another 150$ for a windows license (or get a mac).

I think the only chance for linux to get big in the graphics industry is for some group of devs to manage to build a suite similar to Adobe's using InkSpace, Gimp and others and provide a perfect integration between each of them. But that does require some serious work and maybe the support of a big corporation (à la OpenOffice). And then again graphics are a very slow moving business. Try to send your linux-made graphics to a printshop. They'll always complain that you didn't set some flag when saving your PDF and ask you to resave it with the right options in Illustator...

Reply Score: 2

Misconstrued point ...
by MacTO on Mon 26th May 2008 19:41 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

Krstic wasn't writing about Unix developers or their use of Mac OS X. He was writing about the infighting over the future availability of Windows XP on the XO, about failings in the XO's mission, and other such stuff.

He wrote about his own use of Mac OS X to illustrate that this whole argument of open source vs. close source is nonsense too. But it was just one example. He added a second example which is, evidently, being ignored. He also mentioned, Mitch Bradley. Bradley uses Windows and, apparently, developed significant software outside of the world of Windows.

I highly suggest that you read the relevant bits of Krstic's article to see what he means.

Reply Score: 4

A personal perspective ...
by MacTO on Mon 26th May 2008 20:04 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

I'm not going to claim that I'm a developer, never mind a great developer nor an important one. But I do use a lot of open source software, and I do like dabbling with programming languages for an internal sense of gratification.

On top of all of that, I have used Mac OS X for years and am not an open source ideologue. I like the idea of open source, and I will use it when it fits my needs. But I usually avoid calling commercial software evil.

In spite of all of that, I find myself walking away from the world of Mac OS X. The reason is simple: I want something that just works. At the very least, it should usually just work.

Open source on the Macintosh seems to be split into two camps: the Mac OS X specific or optimized stuff, and the quick and dirty ports. The quick and dirty ports almost always work as well or better on Linux than they do on Mac OS X. Let's face it: a lot of software was designed for Linux, and that hurts the BSD camp as much as it hurts Mac OS X users.

But what about all of that great Mac OS X specific or optimized software? Surely that stuff must just work. It does if you have the right version of Mac OS X. If you don't have the latest version of Mac OS X, or (usually) the version immediately prior to the current version, then you are shit out of luck. Incidentally, I have noticed this mentality with the ports systems for Mac OS X.

I'm sorry, but I don't care about operating systems enough to dump a $100+ every time a new release comes out. And I certainly don't care enough to dump $1000+ for a new computer every second or 3rd release because Apple no longer supports the old hardware. And I certainly don't care enough to spend a tonne of money replacing my commercial or shareware software just because Apple decided to switch operating systems or processors or whatever their next great new idea will involve.

Windows makes up for upgrade now mentality by offering excellent backwards compatability. On top of that, most developers will ensure that their new software will work on the last version of the OS and maybe the version before that. Software usually works on new versions of the operating system too. Not always, but usually. They certainly haven't forced people to abandon old software the way that Apple has due to OS revisions or changing processors.

Linux makes up for the upgrade now mentality by offering free upgrades and by having reasonable support for old hardware. Best of all, the technically inclined can usually get old software to work either through recompiling the old code and linking against old libraries. Yes it's work, but it is usually possible.

Reply Score: 11

RE: A personal perspective ...
by MobyTurbo on Tue 27th May 2008 03:19 UTC in reply to "A personal perspective ..."
MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

This is a very good critique, but it ignores one point, Macs have a much higher resale value, so when you *do* upgrade, and not all people need to be on the upgrade treadmill except for us power users, then you're in a much better financial position to upgrade. I've seen previous generation Mac hardware selling for the same price as new on craigslist, and old PPC hardware selling for more than 50% of the price of new Core 2 Duo hardware. Try getting that much of a percentage of your purchase price out of another system.

Also, Leopard runs on much older computers than Vista, so that part of your message is somewhat incorrect - it's only because Microsoft this time around didn't add much except DX10 to Vista that people don't need to upgrade this time so it appears as if one isn't stuck in the Windows world if one has old hardware. Now, when Windows 7 comes around, it will be a different story - much like XP vs 98/ME or greater in it's impact on compatibility.

Also, OS upgrades have been coming with a lot less frequency in the Macintosh world lately. Leopard was 3 years in the making if I recall correctly, and Apple has said that they will continue to have a slower upgrade cycle than the 18 months between Tiger and Panther. 3 years is not a bad figure for an operating system upgrade of that level, especially when it will probably run on even older hardware, as all OS X releases have in the past. (You're referring to Leopard not running on PowerPC *G3* CPU hardware? That's not as bad as you're making it out to be, Leopard is a 64 bit OS, after all...)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A personal perspective ...
by MacTO on Tue 27th May 2008 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE: A personal perspective ..."
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

Macs have a much higher resale value, so when you *do* upgrade, and not all people need to be on the upgrade treadmill except for us power users, then you're in a much better financial position to upgrade.


Yes, but only to a point. Much of that resale value is lost after Apple drops support for a model. Which makes sense: how many people are going to want to buy a computer when it is going to get harder and harder to find software for it (because a lot of software requires the latest OS)?

Also, OS upgrades have been coming with a lot less frequency in the Macintosh world lately.


Thankfully.

(You're referring to Leopard not running on PowerPC *G3* CPU hardware? That's not as bad as you're making it out to be, Leopard is a 64 bit OS, after all...)


Try telling that to the people who bought G3 iBooks near the end of the processors life. Some people weren't to happy to find out that 10.5 dropped support for them, particularly given the supposed longevity of the Mac (which is largely a thing of the past anyway). Telling them that Leopard is a 64 bit OS, is not going to make them any happier.

You're probably right about my assessment of the Mac being a somewhat unfair in the light of Vista and its hardware requirement. On the other hand, very few applications are going to require Vista in the near future. The market for Windows XP based applications is simply too large. I can also mix those latest applications with a 10 year old application on Windows. (Which may be important if the software and associated hardware costs over 10 grand.) Don't try that on a Mac. It won't work.

Reply Score: 3

MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

"Macs have a much higher resale value, so when you *do* upgrade, and not all people need to be on the upgrade treadmill except for us power users, then you're in a much better financial position to upgrade.


Yes, but only to a point. Much of that resale value is lost after Apple drops support for a model.
"

Yes, and then you'll have similar or better than a PC as far as resale value goes.

Which makes sense: how many people are going to want to buy a computer when it is going to get harder and harder to find software for it (because a lot of software requires the latest OS)?


Not everyone cares about using the latest software, and besides, Macs actually have a pretty good record at being able to run the latest software - because OS X keeps getting faster. It's only when say an old G3 can't run Leopard that there is a problem. That doesn't happen *every* OS release though, nor are those old G3 ibooks expected to run the latest software if they were Windows machines from the same era.

"Also, OS upgrades have been coming with a lot less frequency in the Macintosh world lately.


Thankfully.
"

I agree, but of course, hardware obsolescence wasn't inevitable for every OS release anyway. Au contrair, OS X has been able to run faster on all compatible hardware anyway - and Leopard was a major change because of the 64 bit stuff. An exception, not a rule.

(You're referring to Leopard not running on PowerPC *G3* CPU hardware? That's not as bad as you're making it out to be, Leopard is a 64 bit OS, after all...)


Try telling that to the people who bought G3 iBooks near the end of the processors life.


How old is that? How many PCs that old are running the "latest software" too? By the way, it is very common to see older versions of software or older OSs supported that run on the older OS for those who have hardware that old.

for them, particularly given the supposed longevity of the Mac (which is largely a thing of the past


How so? Consider that the OS releases are slowing down, and the OS isn't going to make another transition like 32 bit to 64 bit anytime soon, and that the OS hasn't otherwise gotten slower and more bloated like Windows... Didn't XP need a lot more hardware than 9x, BTW?

You're probably right about my assessment of the Mac being a somewhat unfair in the light of Vista and its hardware requirement. On the other hand, very few applications are going to require Vista in the near future.


That's because Vista was a lame release. Windows 7 will be breaking compatibility, by all accounts.

The market for Windows XP based applications is simply too large. I can also mix those latest applications with a 10 year old application on Windows.


I've run programs written for PPC processors on OS X on Intel acceptably. There is backwards compatibility in Leopard going back to the first OS X eight years ago. Now, ten years ago, that's a bit of a tricky number, but Tiger, before Leopard, could run Classic, which means it could run those special 10 year old apps. Classic was only dropped by Leopard, but since Carbon is trivial to port Classic apps to, there isn't much of a demand for those OS 9 apps anyway. If I do need to run them, there's always Sheepshearer or Basilisk; which'll run them as fast as the original hardware or faster on typical OS X hardware. (Of course, if you try to run them on 10 year old hardware, you'd have a problem - but that's a non-issue, 10 year old hardware for PCs belongs in a museum too. Heck, the IRS considers hardware 3 years old fully depreciated.)

(Which may be important if the software and associated hardware costs over 10 grand.) Don't try that on a Mac. It won't work.


You're arguing corner cases, and Leopard runs 8 year old software, but not 10 without emulation; which nowadays is pretty trivial. Big deal. Now, newer software using newer features of the OS, that's a problem... That was a problem with Windows too though until Microsoft decided with Vista not to add any useful features though, and a problem that will arise again according to them in Windows 7. (If it doesn't, I argue that they'll die, because nobody will want to upgrade - like now.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: A personal perspective ...
by Nossie on Tue 27th May 2008 08:03 UTC in reply to "A personal perspective ..."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

interesting thought.. none of us like parting with cash.. BUT

I have a g4 cube running leopard server... 9 year old hardware running OSX 10.5 relatively well all things considered.

I wouldnt dream of putting Vista on my old athlon XP.. your argument is more against closed source than mac as a platform, with linux you get to cherrypick features yet keeping with an up to date kernel.. even with windows you'd still be updating your hardware every three revisions AT LEAST.

under most conditions, leopard actually runs faster than tiger.. it has been a while since I've heard that about a gnome/kde distro and has NEVER been the case with windows.

Different strokes for different folks and all that I really don't think your problem is with apple/osx

Reply Score: 2

RE: A personal perspective ...
by netpython on Tue 27th May 2008 16:06 UTC in reply to "A personal perspective ..."
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

I would have to fink the hell out of it to make use of every day linux applications.

Reply Score: 3

Short term fad IMHO
by kragil on Mon 26th May 2008 20:16 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

At the moment it is lack of sexy hardware that stands in the way of Linux.
I think once HP Mini like netbooks with Atom CPUs and good amounts of SD-card like storage are available lots of developers will use them.
But generally I think FOSS is unstoppable. And better WLAN/3D/Webcam support in Linux will make everything just work at some point in the not too distant future. Just look at the commitments by hardware vendors at the Linux foundation colab summit.
Linux will have the hardware support of XP (or better) and the desktop sexiness of OSX (Compositing in Metacity, KWIN or Compiz) and the price of air.
That is a combination that is hard to beat in the long run :-P

Conclusion: _At the moment_ MacOSX is a good platform for people who are not able or don't want to shop for supported hardware, but the need for that skill will deminish by the end of the century. Linux will be on cell phones, routers, gadgets and the Kernel will be realtime and support more hardware than any other piece of software.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Short term fad IMHO
by -oblio- on Tue 27th May 2008 09:17 UTC in reply to "Short term fad IMHO"
-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27


[...]
I think once HP Mini like netbooks with Atom CPUs and good amounts of SD-card like storage are available lots of developers will use them.
But generally I think FOSS is unstoppable. And better WLAN/3D/Webcam support in Linux will make everything just work at some point in the not too distant future. Just look at the commitments by hardware vendors at the Linux foundation colab summit.
Linux will have the hardware support of XP (or better) and the desktop sexiness of OSX (Compositing in Metacity, KWIN or Compiz) and the price of air.
That is a combination that is hard to beat in the long run :-P

Conclusion:
[...] Linux will be on cell phones, routers, gadgets and the Kernel will be realtime and support more hardware than any other piece of software.


So slowly Linux will turn into Emacs, the One True Operating System! ;)

Reply Score: 1

Been there, done that, now I'm back
by DoctorPepper on Mon 26th May 2008 21:39 UTC
DoctorPepper
Member since:
2005-07-12

I tried "switching" to the Mac world in 2002. I got two of the 17" LCD iMacs (one for me, one for my wife), and it is a fine piece of hardware & software. Problem is, it just wasn't "Unix" enough for me, and the development I do, so I went back to Linux full-time a year or so later. I still have my iMac, it has been relegated to be the print server for my home network, and also maintains my iTunes library.

My wife, on the other hand, loved her iMac so much that when it died, I ended up buying her a MacBook Pro (15", core duo). That machine is still going strong. She isn't a developer, btw, she's an accountant, and much prefers the Mac/OSX to Windows on a PC.

Reply Score: 2

The matter of needs
by alexandru_lz on Mon 26th May 2008 22:31 UTC
alexandru_lz
Member since:
2007-02-11

I've read all the coments so far; they make a very interesting read, in the friendly sense of the word.

As a sort of a disclaimer, I'm a relative newcomer to the OS X world. I've been a Unix user for the last few years, with some enjoyable contact with pre-8.0 MacOS and more, but less enjoyable contact with Windows. I'm currently using OS X on my laptop and my Mac Mini, and running FreeBSD on my other desktop.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see Linux, or any kind of what passes as the current state-of-the-art (*BSD, Solaris included) as a viable desktop alternative for much more than its current marketshare in this field. As much as we hate it (or cannot understand it), most users find it extremely inconvenient, and certainly not worth switching to a system that:

* Cannot detect peripherals properly. I have had seemingly endless battles with Ubuntu until I could use my old 21" Dell CRT -- and Ubuntu is, supposedly, easy to use; and don't even get me started on the Gnome panel, which still couldn't keep buttons the same size the last time I checked it (granted -- it was a while ago). What good is being stable, customizable and having flashy interface when X11 can't get the resolution right. Blabbing about Windows' crappy scheduler as being unfit for the 21st century dwarves compared to this.

* Still lacks some popular software. Yes, most osnews readers probably agree that there are only two really portable file formats -- plain text and PDF -- and that the best way to make your document ready for print is using LaTeX. Until this does become mainstream though, Gimp is still a bad joke even compared to Photoshop Elements, Nvu tries to be something even half as good as Dreamweaver, there's no equivalent for Flash, Scribus comes nowhere near Pages and if everyone is using MS Office at your workplace, good luck even moving around OpenOffice.org

[There were quite a few others, but my message is already getting long enough, so I'm letting just these two.]


These two things alone -- don't even get me started on others -- are reasonably enough to make OS X a competent choice. If you come to think of it, almost none of the problems posed by open source environments such as Linux are really the fault of those who develop them. The most difficult part of understanding this is changing your empathic reasoning.

As a developer, I understand and I sympathize with other developers; I also get quite a few advantages which I appreaciate from running a system like Linux (or FreeBSD, to make it more personal). If I run into a problem, it's fairly easy to say, oh, it's ok, this is not the programmer's fault, it's <crappy hardware documentation, closed standards, a lot of work and very little time> -- I'll just fix it by editing this or that file.

As a user who wants to get things done, it is not unreasonable to think "well, I don't care who's fault it is -- if it's a known issue, why isn't it already fixed?". Ironically, it doesn't help that fixing the problem involves editing files with nasty syntax and strange options, rather than editing a registry entry or downloading and installing a fix.

Needless to say, it's also a matter of what and how you're using. In my own case (mostly Java and LISP development, heavy LaTeX usage coupled with bitching about Scilab and SPICE), OS X is really like Linux, except it doesn't break with the next update and it can actually detect my monitor and play videos without asking me to pirate some dlls; so it's a viable platform, and the one I'll be using in the foreseable future -- and in any case, more viable for open source development than the old Classic environment.

Reply Score: 5

MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

Sorry, but it is time for rant mode.

I'm pretty tired of listening to people complain about the hardware support of Linux, while pretending that Mac OS X excels in this area. Simply put, Mac OS X sucks more than Linux when it comes down to hardware support.

There is one reason, and only one reason, why people have fewer problems with hardware compatability on the Mac: they either bought the hardware from Apple, or they bought it because it has a Mac compatability label printed right on the box.

Contrast that to Linux. People will try to use Linux with whatever hardware they have, or buy on a whim. Then they bitch to the world when it doesn't work.

Of course Mac OS X is going to look better in those circumstances. You're handling Mac OS X with baby-hands while you expecting Linux to fend for itself. That's sheer nonsense, and I wish the people who praise Mac OS X's hardware support while criticising Linux in the same area would realise that.

Reply Score: 6

brotherStefan Member since:
2008-05-27

@ MacTO

I guess I'm not clear on the point of your rant. You're observing that a good number of people have gotten fed up with Linux support on "whatever hardware they have", so they've taken corrective action rather than continue to complain. Do you see this as being somehow unfair, or are you just lamenting having been abandoned somehow?

Edited 2008-05-27 02:56 UTC

Reply Score: 0

MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

Sorry, but it is time for rant mode.

I'm pretty tired of listening to people complain about the hardware support of Linux, while pretending that Mac OS X excels in this area. Simply put, Mac OS X sucks more than Linux when it comes down to hardware support.

There is one reason, and only one reason, why people have fewer problems with hardware compatability on the Mac: they either bought the hardware from Apple, or they bought it because it has a Mac compatability label printed right on the box.


A lot of stuff that plugs into a USB port Just Works on a Mac. My Canon printer has much better support. My digital camera has much better support. My MIDI keyboard has not only better hardware support, the level of music creation software for it is practically incomparable to what's available on Linux, and unlike Windows, it doesn't need special bare-metal hardware drivers with all the multitasking problems that entails. Linux is great if all you do is program and use the internet, but if you do more than that, OS X has a lot going for it.

As a programming environment, it has a lot going for it too since the virtualization software, such as VMWare Fusion is a generation ahead of other platforms, you can do cross-platform development a lot better and the software is cheaper. (Of course, WINE is available on OS X too if one is so inclined. :-) )

Also, you get Unix compatibility for free; with all the open source goodies you want - including a few open source goodies that aren't on Linux. :-) Of course, the computer hardware *is* typically more expensive, and that's a drawback, but I'm using a Mac Mini so when people say that I just give them a puzzled look. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

A lot of stuff that plugs into a USB port Just Works on a Mac.


And a lot doesn't. My printer (a Laserjet 5L, connected through a parallel to USB converter) works without a hassle on GNU/Linux. It worked terrible on Leopard until 10.5.2, after a certain number of pages, it just refused to print anything but empty or mangled pages.

Similarly, the wireless support is quite bad in Leopard. E.g. I worked for two months on the Eduroam wireless network full-time. On a MacBook plus Leopard, the connection was constantly dropped, and it usually took ten minutes to authenticate succesfully. A friend, who has an Ubuntu laptop OTOH, had no problems connecting at all.

I have used GNU/Linux for a long time, but bought a MacBook because it is said to be a hassle-less system where you can still open up a terminal. But it has been a bumpy road, and my next laptop will be a HP or Lenovo machine with GNU/Linux.

As a programming environment,


Oh, where is valgrind? Why doesn't gprof work? Yeah, some great tools are included, but they're mainly oriented towards Objective-C.

it has a lot going for it too since the virtualization software, such as VMWare Fusion is a generation ahead of other platforms,


VMWare Server works fine on GNU/Linux here. Actually, I have a fast machine that does nothing else than serving VMs over my network. This has been much more of a timesaver for me than Fusion or Parallels. And VirtualBox seems to mature quite well, and is included in some GNU/Linux distributions.

you can do cross-platform development a lot better and the software is cheaper.


Cheaper than Eclipse + JDK? Cheaper than your favorite editor and wxWidgets? By the way, where's that latest JDK? What, you don't have a 64-bit Intel platform? Sorry, no JDK6 for you on the Mac.

Also, you get Unix compatibility for free; with all the open source goodies you want


And no decent package manager out of the box? (yes, I know Fink/Darwinports)

I think OS X is a great system for many people (including many potential new users coming from Windws). But it's an outright lie that everything it perfect. It's not.

Edited 2008-05-27 08:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

"A lot of stuff that plugs into a USB port Just Works on a Mac.


And a lot doesn't. My printer (a Laserjet 5L, connected through a parallel to USB converter) works without a hassle on GNU/Linux. It worked terrible on Leopard until 10.5.2,
"

Luckily, the current version of Leopard is 10.5.2, and with regards to your printer, YMMV. My Canon MP210 worked terrible in Linux, CUPS didn't even support it and the driver, which barely supported just the printer in this multifunction printer, I had to find on the Australian Canon website labeled prominently "unofficial". On OS X, I can print, scan, etc, all while using it's features and resolutions at will.

Similarly, the wireless support is quite bad in Leopard.


I've heard of that problem before. Sorry you're experiencing it. Help is on the way in 10.5.3 in early June.

I have used GNU/Linux for a long time, but bought a MacBook because it is said to be a hassle-less system where you can still open up a terminal. But it has been a bumpy road, and my next laptop will be a HP or Lenovo machine with GNU/Linux.


Well, as usual with these things, YMMV. For me it's been great, and the problems you've mentioned have either been fixed or in less than two weeks will be fixed.

"As a programming environment,


Oh, where is valgrind? Why doesn't gprof work? Yeah, some great tools are included, but they're mainly oriented towards Objective-C.
"

Valgrind is Linux-specific. Ask its developers because they didn't write a tool that was for Unix and portable, like 99.9% of open source out there. I could ask the same question about Linux too, BTW. "Where's DTRace?" :-) (For your two examples of missing Linux tools in OS X, countless more exist of tools that have been ported.)

As for being oriented towards Objective-C, most of the tools are simply Unix tools, only OS X specific stuff has Objective-C, which, by the way, is available in Linux too, from gcc, which is what compiles it on OS X. Cocoa, incidentally, is not an Objective-C only API, it's supported in Python and Ruby too.

"it has a lot going for it too since the virtualization software, such as VMWare Fusion is a generation ahead of other platforms,


VMWare Server works fine on GNU/Linux here. Actually, I have a fast machine that does nothing else than serving VMs over my network. This has been much more
"

VMWare Server works fine in OS X as well, if you prefer to run a server rather than a client.

VirtualBox seems to mature quite well, and is included in some GNU/Linux distributions.


VirtualBox is available on OS X. You knew that though.

you can do cross-platform development a lot better and the software is cheaper.


Cheaper than Eclipse + JDK?


Out of context! VMWare Fusion (or Parallels) are cheaper than their non-OS X counterparts. Well, except VirtualBox. Anyhow, to answer your question, Eclipse does run in OS X.

Cheaper than your favorite editor and wxWidgets?


wxWidgets creates native-appearance applications in OS X also, and many of the most famous Linux editors, such as VIM and Emacs, have multiple GUI and command-line ports.

By the way, where's that latest JDK? What, you don't have a 64-bit Intel platform? Sorry, no JDK6 for you on the Mac.


I guess if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick. Yes, for those who have a non 64 bit system, they're stuck with JDK 5. I am not in that situation, but if I was, I wouldn't consider that to be an insurmountable difficulty.

"Also, you get Unix compatibility for free; with all the open source goodies you want


And no decent package manager out of the box? (yes, I know Fink/Darwinports)
"

I run macports, Darwinports successor. Having to download it (for free) is a small price to pay, and it works seamlessly. With thousands of ports.


I think OS X is a great system for many people (including many potential new users coming from Windws). But it's an outright lie that everything it perfect. It's not.


I never have portrayed it as "perfect", it's the best solution for me. I have two things I do with it besides the internet, both of which are hobbies at present, though thanks to the fact that OS X has a commercial market, maybe I'll make money at it. These two things are programming, and music creation. The latter application Linux falls quite short in. OS X is perfect for people like me, who have the need to run some software that's commercial - some of which has no open source equivalent in sight, and open source software too.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Similarly, the wireless support is quite bad in Leopard. E.g. I worked for two months on the Eduroam wireless network full-time. On a MacBook plus Leopard, the connection was constantly dropped, and it usually took ten minutes to authenticate succesfully. A friend, who has an Ubuntu laptop OTOH, had no problems connecting at all.

I have played some with my girlfriend's iMac G5 and noticed something odd..It connects to the network via a wireless USB dongle, everything seems to work fine at first but then it just drops the connection and won't reconnect unless the dongle is unplugged and then plugged back in. The same dongle works fine under Linux and Windows though.

Another thing that bothers me is that OSX doesn't have NTFS write support. Our 500Gb external drive is NTFS formatted so this means I can only read from it, not write. (I did try with ntfs-3g but the write speed was so horrible that there's no point)

There's a few very minor things I dislike about OSX but I actually generally like it. What I noticed instantly was that it has lots of eye-candy effects yet everything is snappier than under Linux. Scrolling pages in web browser, moving windows around and so forth. AFAIK (I could be wrong) it is because in OSX every drawing function is hardware accelerated whereas under Linux they aren't. Only relatively small part of the X11 drawing functions are hw accelerated under Linux, and if your app in question uses Cairo for its needs then you're even worse off as Cairo uses no hw acceleration at all. (Note that most GTK+ themes themselves use Cairo which means you're doing all the screen drawing in software)

Another thing I liked about OSX was the tight integration of the software. Most apps can bring whatever info they need from the calendar app or mail app or address book and so forth. Oh, and Evolution is such a mess compared to OSX calendar or mail apps. Having both the mail and calendar in the same app makes Evolution look clumsy and cluttered. Oh well, these are just personal preferences.

Reply Score: 2

szaka Member since:
2005-12-17

I did try with ntfs-3g but the write speed was so horrible that there's no point

The most typical problem is not using the right package and device. I get over 30 MB/sec with external USB and over 60 MB/sec with internal SATA disks on Linux. The OS X values (if the driver and the device are used correctly) are reported to be lower by only a few MB/sec.

One user recently even noted on the NTFS user list that the NTFS-3G driver outperformed ext3:
http://www.nabble.com/Re:--Linux-NTFS-User--ntfs-3g-report-was-ZFS-...

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The most typical problem is not using the right package and device.

I used macfuse from http://code.google.com/p/macfuse/ and NTFS-3G from http://macntfs-3g.blogspot.com . The latest available packages of course. Still, the write speed to my external drive was perhaps something around 500kb/s. OTOH, under Linux it works just fine.

Reply Score: 2

szaka Member since:
2005-12-17

You have 500KB/s external driver speed when you use USB1 (full-speed), not USB2 (high-speed). There can be many reasons for this, including well-known Apple USB driver bugs, and all are completely file system independent.

The Linux USB drivers are indeed much more mature but sometimes they also have problems like randomly dropping power thus losing data, causing corruptions.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You have 500KB/s external driver speed when you use USB1 (full-speed), not USB2 (high-speed). There can be many reasons for this, including well-known Apple USB driver bugs, and all are completely file system independent.

Yeah, I know the difference between USB1 and 2. Do note however that before installation of Macfuse and ntfs-3g I could read from that external disk at normal speeds. Only after installing those did the speed drop. High speed read-only access ain't much better than slow read-write, unfortunately.

The Linux USB drivers are indeed much more mature but sometimes they also have problems like randomly dropping power thus losing data, causing corruptions.

Never heard of such :O Atleast that has never happened to me on any of my USB devices. In my experience Linux USB has been a lot more stable than f.ex. under Windows where I have several times had the whole computer become unresponsive. But well, maybe I've just been lucky then ;)

Reply Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

"Sorry, but it is time for rant mode.

I'm pretty tired of listening to people complain about the hardware support of Linux, while pretending that Mac OS X excels in this area. Simply put, Mac OS X sucks more than Linux when it comes down to hardware support.

There is one reason, and only one reason, why people have fewer problems with hardware compatability on the Mac: they either bought the hardware from Apple, or they bought it because it has a Mac compatability label printed right on the box.


A lot of stuff that plugs into a USB port Just Works on a Mac. My Canon printer has much better support. My digital camera has much better support. My MIDI keyboard has not only better hardware support, the level of music creation software for it is practically incomparable to what's available on Linux, and unlike Windows, it doesn't need special bare-metal hardware drivers with all the multitasking problems that entails. Linux is great if all you do is program and use the internet, but if you do more than that, OS X has a lot going for it.

As a programming environment, it has a lot going for it too since the virtualization software, such as VMWare Fusion is a generation ahead of other platforms, you can do cross-platform development a lot better and the software is cheaper. (Of course, WINE is available on OS X too if one is so inclined. :-) )

Also, you get Unix compatibility for free; with all the open source goodies you want - including a few open source goodies that aren't on Linux. :-) Of course, the computer hardware *is* typically more expensive, and that's a drawback, but I'm using a Mac Mini so when people say that I just give them a puzzled look. ;-)
"


See you messed up right there, you were talking about hardware support not software and here you go and mention music creation software. There is a very powerful DAW on Linux (and OSX) called Ardour that even though a bit clunky t times is pretty powerful and should be getting full Midi support very soon. If you are using a standards compliant Midi keyboard then it will work in Linux, I too use a Mac specifically for music but I don't delude myself thinking that hardware support on OSX is better than Linux. My expensive FW interface giving me Kernel panics on Leopard is proof of that. http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6694353


Linux works on far more hardware than either windows or OSX does out of the box, the fact that you can take a Linux cd pop it into a Mac and install, without any driver installation should be proof enough of that. X11 is old and has been around for decades, it is slowly getting overhauled and better monitor detection and support is making its way into X11, its far better than it used to be. A lot of the monitor setting also depends on the video drivers you are using and if the video card is detecting the monitors resolution correctly. For example, my ATI 9800 Pro card would never give me a sane resolution (it would give me the highest) on my monitor. I just got a new nvidia card and that detected everything right from the start and works flawlessly.


As for the printer, unless the printer came with its own specific drivers, then the support should be the same on both platforms since they use the same driver base for the most part.

Reply Score: 2

MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

"Sorry, but it is time for rant mode.

I'm pretty tired of listening to people complain about the hardware support of Linux, while pretending that Mac OS X excels in this area. Simply put, Mac OS X sucks more than Linux when it comes down to hardware support.

There is one reason, and only one reason, why people have fewer problems with hardware compatability on the Mac: they either bought the hardware from Apple, or they bought it because it has a Mac compatability label printed right on the box.


A lot of stuff that plugs into a USB port Just Works on a Mac. My Canon printer has much better support. My digital camera has much better support. My MIDI keyboard has not only better hardware support, the level of music creation software for it is practically incomparable to what's available on Linux, and unlike Windows, it doesn't need special bare-metal hardware drivers with all the multitasking problems that entails. Linux is great if all you do is program and use the internet, but if you do more than that, OS X has a lot going for it.
"


See you messed up right there, you were talking about hardware support not software and here you go and mention music creation software.


That's silly, mentioning the music software support is a big part of the overall picture of how well I can use this peripheral. Or are we only allowed to mention hardware, or software, but not both when comparing OS X with other operating systems? :-)

There is a very powerful DAW on Linux (and OSX) called Ardour that even though a bit clunky t times is pretty powerful and should be getting full Midi support very soon.


A) Pretty soon is not good enough.
B) I bet it's still not as good as what is available on OS X, such as Logic or Cubase.

If you are using a standards compliant Midi keyboard then it will work in Linux, I too use a Mac specifically for music


Ah hah, then I guess you might think it is better at that? :-)

but I don't delude myself thinking that hardware support on OSX is better than Linux. My expensive FW interface giving me Kernel panics on Leopard is proof of that. http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6694353


Well, it depends on the hardware. I'd say in general, all things being equal, OS X works better with my hardware. YMMV.

Linux works on far more hardware than either windows or OSX does out of the box, the fact that you can take a Linux cd pop it into a Mac and install, without any driver installation should be proof enough of that.


No, it only proves that Apples use non-proprietary hardware for the most part, even back in the PPC days it did; and the New World (actually pretty old now ;) ) PPC machines all had stuff like PCI busses and video cards with the same chipsets, etc. Yes, they used OpenFirmware (and Intel Macs use the EFI standard.) but those are actually less proprietary, not more, are well documented, and give the lie to the "Apple lock-in hardware" myth.

X11 is old and has been around for decades, it is slowly getting overhauled and better monitor detection and support is making its way into X11,


Macs have been around even longer, and they've had this right for third party monitors for quite some time. :-)

its far better than it used to be. A lot of the monitor setting also depends on the video drivers you are using and if the video card is detecting the monitors resolution correctly. For example, my ATI 9800 Pro card would never give me a sane resolution (it would give me the highest) on my monitor. I just got a new nvidia card and that detected everything right from the start and works flawlessly.


That is bragging about hardware support?

As for the printer, unless the printer came with its own specific drivers, then the support should be the same on both platforms since they use the same driver base for the most part.


I know, and the Canon MP210 does not. If you investigate the Linux printing site, few multifunction printers are multifunction under Linux. Many have OS X drivers. Of course, Windows supports even more hardware, but who wants to rely on that as their main operating system? :-)

Reply Score: 1

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I don't particularly remember saying the Linux was better for music creation. What I said was that hardware support is not an issue and if the issue is software then that is something else altogether. I use Mac for music because like you said I use commercial music applications (logic). However, that has nothing to do with the discussion, it was about hardware. I have three Midi keyboard controllers as well as midi drum pad, all work with no issues in linux.

When I mentioned Ardour I wasn't trying to say that it was better than (insert favorite package here) I was illustrating that you did have options on Linux for music, they may not be commercial quality for some people but they are available. Pretty soon should be good enough, how long did it take for Logic, Cubase, ProTools to get where they are now? Why don't you go dp a little reading on the history of these apps. It took years for most of these apps to get to the level they are at now. Ardour doesn't have the resources or the years behind it that projects like Logic have had, so yes pretty soon is good enough considering that it is all created by volunteers in their spare time.

Reply Score: 3

MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

When I mentioned Ardour I wasn't trying to say that it was better than (insert favorite package here) I was illustrating that you did have options on Linux for music, they may not be commercial quality for some people but they are available. Pretty soon should be good enough, how long did it take for Logic, Cubase, ProTools to get where they are now?


The thing is, this is like those niche apps for Windows. There just isn't enough of a demand to be easily fulfilled by open source. Maybe it will happen, until then, like you are, I'll be running OS X for the best of both worlds - commercial and open source. That's what it's good for.

Reply Score: 1

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

Look,

I run both linux and os x...

I also have a XDA II pda with a hacked on win mobile 6 OS... Vista doesent even recognize the damn thing anymore yet XP works fine.

Vista only lets me explore the device rather than use active sync...

Linux doesnt even let me do that without using another hack on the device to turn the SD card into generic storage.

Mac os X allows me to sync contacts, files, e-mails, sms and a plethora of other things without trouble...

There is your mac compatibility RIGHT there ;)

Admittedly that is using a third party paid for app on the mac...

The way I see it, there is a need for such things (windows support) on the mac and people are willing to pay for it. On Linux, there is the same need for compatibility but too much zealotry to support a proprietary (win mobile) system. If there is enough need for things on linux they eventually get done for free... think winmodems and/or NDISwrappers for wifi.

Looking at it from the other direction I have an Asus AMD board with dual sata controllers... one promise and one via..

Windows XP requires 3rd party drivers for promise
Windows Vista requires 3rd party drivers for promise
Linux comes with drivers out the box -- woot!
OSX ... meh, osx I cant find drivers for it

Wait, thats an AMD processor... yep OSx works fine on that minus the hdisk controller but that lack of driver and the constant hacking/praying to update Leopard without his jobsness intervening was the deal breaker for me to go back to Linux.

I still get better audigy support under linux than I do Vista but I havent played with it enough under OSX.

I love Linux for its diversity, but it's the penguins diversity that is also its own downfall.

A utopian vision would be open sourced OS X. Then everyone would be happy -- for a few years. Apple might be bankrupt - or not caring about the desktop and looking at the 'cloud' aka Sun. The open source folks would have forked it into oblivion, and because nobody could agree on anything Windows would look more polished out the box and apples once worshiped GUI would be tarnished, old and shot shit straight out the water due to bureaucracy and lack of direction.

Something to think about at least, I love OSX and Linux and I think its great that both platforms can share the others fruits.. I really think there is a symbiotic relationship between OSX and linux.

Reply Score: 2

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

I aint changing distro for win mobile ;)


hehe

Reply Score: 2

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Mandriva solutions work on every distro ( Linux distro ;) ).

Reply Score: 0

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

You would think that there would thus be a major market for a seller of Linux systems that contain a set of strongly-tested modern hardware. Why do you think such a player hasn't arisen from the sizeable ODM market?

Reply Score: 2

Not exactly...
by bert64 on Tue 27th May 2008 08:07 UTC
bert64
Member since:
2007-04-23

Well for one, you *can* hack the kernel on OSX, you can get the kernel source from http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.2/ and hack with it...

Second, if you're doing kernel development it matters little what base OS you run, because chances are most of your development will be done under a virtual machine, rebooting your main system constantly to test the kernel changes you're making would be terribly unproductive, as would running such a bleeding edge kernel as your main system.

Reply Score: 1

Maturing Users.
by theTSF on Wed 28th May 2008 01:47 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

I would agree with the Maturing Users comment. I use to be a purest Linux user but then I kinda got a Mac and I am more happy because of it. First the Linux community is a community of revolution while it is a good thing, there is a lot of rage and anger in the community over time I mellowed more and more and the Linux community is always angry about one thing or an other it just wore me out. The Mac community is a bit more mellow while there is a chance do make a difference it is less complex they know that Microsoft can be both the Bad Guy and the Good Guy at the same time. There is no joint allegence to many factors. Linux as the OS, the GNU license, its ideals of its version of software freedom. It is a lot to defend. Switch to a Mac guy I can just focus on my work and the odd Microsoft Bashing and a bit of a feeling of smugness when a bunch of windows systems go down because of a virus.

Next the lack of choice in the UI is actually a good thing. GNOME vs. KDE war just kinda got to me. While both can run each others apps the other normally looked a bit off on the other. All those choices for applications to get some simple job done. It is just overkill. I want to do a task having to many choices is just one more step in the process of getting it done. Also the Mac UI is well designed Linux and Windows tends to copy the features with mixed success, either they make a watered down version that looses the effect or an overboard versions that add to much features to it that no longer makes it a simple easy to use tool.

Less of the OS. OS X compared to Windows and Most modern desktop Linux distributions really gets itself out of the way. The broken record "It just works" holds true. I am not thinking about where in the /dev/ folder my drive is installed /dev/hda3 or /dev/hds1. Or other things like having to do a loopback to mount an ISO file.

I am not saying that Linux is better or worse then OS X but I found as I get older OS X better suits my needs then Linux does. It gives me the parts of linux I want I still have the terminal for old Unixy goodnes. But when I am not in hacker mode I have a sane UI to run.

Reply Score: 1