On Jul 12, 2005, at 6:20 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
I was talking about the OS as well.
I'm not talking about the OS. I'm talking about the user interface.
JUST the user interface.
Thanks for the clarification
The user interface that Windows uses is based on a set of user
interface guidelines developed by IBM, not Microsoft. You're legally
allowed (according to the rules of the Microsoft Sucks Authority)
to say nice things about the user interface (the way the interface
between the OS and the user behaves) without implying that the OS
underneath is any less of a steaming mess of rotting tentacles and
unexploded nerve bombs.
Hmm..I'd agree the 3.x interfaces were much much much better than the
9x/4.x ones. And within the context of the time period, only small
differences between Apple, Microsoft, GEM, etc.
Yeah, I'd say your on top of it as well. I guess my point was that if
there is little difference between OS X and other flavors of *nix, the
choice would be (IMHO) based mostly, if not entirely, on aesthetics.
Um. No. Not at all. Things like "I'm actually able to get commercial
software for OS X" and "I don't have to learn a different user
interface for every application" and "I don't have to deal with
porting 'all the world's Red Hat' software to FreeBSD just to get
a web browser".
Actually using Red Hat isn't an option. I've tried that. Having to
learn a new OS every time they upgrade (I've used 2.1, 4.1, 6.0,
7.several) is not acceptable. Linux isn't an option, really. I want
an OS, not a kernel that's a slow motion explosion of experimental
OS design and a hundred unrelated packages flying in formation.
Even debian-stable isn't really stable, not in the continental-drift
common-source-tree-back-to-1980-when-I-first-worked-on-it sense
that BSD is.
There's some design flaws in BSD, yes, but they're well understood,
I can work around them. Linux? Every time I work on it, it's a
different OS altogether. I do software, that's my vocation and
avocation, and I simply can't use an OS I can't depend on. That's
why I'm using OS X. It's BSD in the blood and bone, and at the same
time it's actually got a good enough GUI (for all its faults) that's
well integrated enough that lots of people use it. I don't have to
scramble for software through Linus' leftovers.
And I agree with you on that as well. That's why I don't use Linux
anymore (RH 3.x to 5.x was simply murder. So was the migration from
AOUT to ELF) But, again, we were discussing interface design and
aesthetics. Is there no BSD compliant window manager that is more
functional in design than the OS X interface?
Jack
--
Compact Macs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>.
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Compact Macs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/compact.shtml>
--> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to: <mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Archive:<http://www.mail-archive.com/compact.macs%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------
iPod Accessories for Less
at 1-800-iPOD.COM
Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal
www.1800ipod.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
