OSNews

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

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.

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

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?!?

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

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

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.



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

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 ...

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Edited 2008-05-26 22:43 UTC

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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'

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

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...

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).

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.

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

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.

"
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

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"

"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