Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 22nd May 2014 18:21 UTC, submitted by Shane
General Development

I was at the OpenStack Summit this week. The overwhelming majority of OpenStack deployments are Linux-based, yet the most popular laptop vendor (by a long way) at the conference was Apple. People are writing code with the intention of deploying it on Linux, but they're doing so under an entirely different OS.

But what's really interesting is the tools they're using to do so. When I looked over people's shoulders, I saw terminals and a web browser. They're not using Macs because their development tools require them, they're using Macs because of what else they get - an aesthetically pleasing OS, iTunes and what's easily the best trackpad hardware/driver combination on the market. These are people who work on the same laptop that they use at home. They'll use it when they're commuting, either for playing videos or for getting a head start so they can leave early. They use an Apple because they don't want to use different hardware for work and pleasure.

Apple's laptops are still the best PCs money can buy at the moment (despite their horribly outdated displays). It's no wonder Linux developers, too, favour them.

Thread beginning with comment 589358
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

As for ease of installation, what's so difficult about dragging and dropping to the Applications folder, or running a .pkg file? The former is so simple a child could do it, and the latter is no different from running an installation wizard on Windows. Conversely, the last time I installed any of those apps on Slackware Linux, I compiled the packages using Slackbuilds. That's over the heads of most Windows and even Mac users.


You say that as though your experience on Slackware is representative. Other Linux distros have a one-click install process, so you should either compare with that, or compare your experience on Slackware to the experience of compiling packages for OSX.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

No, I say that as a counter to "GNU/Linux is always easier than OS X", which is what porcel was implying. You can compile to install on any of the three OSes mentioned, or you can use a package manager/installer on any of the them. Using software installation to try to say OS X is crap compared to GNU/Linux or Windows is just plain misleading.

Reply Parent Score: 3

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

No, I say that as a counter to "GNU/Linux is always easier than OS X", which is what porcel was implying.


You were saying that as a counter to this:

Open source applications such as LibreOffice and Inkscape are much easier to install and much more stable in Linux


Which is a far cry from what you claim he is implying. The widest scope of his claim is installing open source software is easier, not software in general.

A better argument would be that it is those open source applications that don't support OS X as well as other platforms.

Using software installation to try to say OS X is crap


Which is not what he did. He listed it as an aspect of OS X which he thinks is crap. In general, that's the point of those lists - not that any one item makes it crap, but is one part that is crap.

Reply Parent Score: 4