hey whoa man. i didn't mean to set you off. i wasn't discouraging him from buying a mac. i would say that mac is a really good platform if you have the money. i dont and wish that i did. when i said that linux was made by people that know computers, i meant that those people made them, but didn't necessarily have the common user in mind. there is certainly a learning curve for linux. but i plan to be a programmer, a graduate of computer science, so that for me, isn't bad. you certainly have some good points, and i would say that anyone that is willing to brave the learning curve to get linux will have a better computer experience than with microsoft. Mac eliminates the learning curve at a price. I don't want to get into any kind of "which OS is the best" war. i think that Mac is great - i've run into so many problems with linux and windows on the same computer it's not even funny. If you have the money, Mac is better because they have more software options that were built to be sold, meaning that a lot more effort can be put into it.
basically, unlike windows, both mac and linux are less prone to being taken down by viruses and stuff. my reference to mac in the first place was to put ubuntu or linux/unix in the spotlight for being secure. but i never said that Linux was the absolute best or that mac was even bad. and this does happen to be a conversation within a group concerned with linux. i'd like to keep the conversation focused on helping this guy get his stuff in working order with ubuntu. On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Kenneth Miller > <[email protected]> wrote: > > and oh yea, i was going to tell you that mac actually uses some parts of > > linux at it's base. that's what makes mac secure. yes, that's right. > you're > > Apple uses Darwin, a UNIX-compliant BSD-variant created by NeXT Step. > It also incorporates Xorg and has long sponsored GCC, CUPS, and LLVM, > as well as Webkit, which are open technologies that it uses. Linux > also happens to use GCC, CUPS, LLVM, and Webkit (to a small degree). > > What you're trying to say is that Apple uses a lot of software from > the GNU canon, which it does. Linux is a kernel and nothing more. > > > paying for the configuration and changes that they have done to it. the > > interface and some changes to the simple base, but it's basically part > linux > > at heart. or unix anyway, idk which one > > I am a happy Mac owner. I pay a premium for several reasons: > > 1) The hardware. Maybe not the fastest, but oh well, neither have > been my PCs. Their mag-safe power coupler that pops out when it's > pulled too hard, the built in webcam, the simple, durable, elegant > polycarbonate case.... it's just a machine that's built to have both > form and function. > > 2) The software. I get all the UNIX goodness I've come to demand. > > 3) The "Walled-Garden" effect. True, they're using free software and > charging for it. However, they also add their own value to the > product. Apple OS X is a stable, functional operating system. They > have made numerous innovations and bits of software that glues the > whole experience together and makes it cohesive. > > 4) Cocoa/Objective-C. I'm a programmer, and I've recently embraced > the dark side - I actually am one of those despicable OOP purists, and > the Objective-C way appeals greatly to me. > > > So, in conclusion, Apple adds some value to the package. They use > free software and don't break any licenses. There's nothing locking > me in to their software - I could just as easily move to OpenStep or > some other GNU alternative and be just fine. Since Apple has a better > product, I see no reason to. > > For Apple you do pay a premium. If you don't want to pay that, fine. > I respect you, for the longest of times I didn't want to pay either. > So Apple isn't evil like Microsoft, but they're not good like > Canonical. They're just a company making money making products. You > can bemoan their hardware all you want, but face it: you're buying an > iPod, not a multifunction touch-screen mobile computational apparatus. > The difference between the two is that one is Apple branded and comes > with the whole Apple-sanctioned "experience" and the other is > something that may or may not work where you might have to do some > work. With Apple, that bit of work is done for you. But you pay for > it. > > One size does not fit all. Apple works for me. It might not for you. > Linux exists to give YOU more choice. If Linux is the right choice > for you, GO FOR IT!!! > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kenneth Miller < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Listen man, linux is one of the best systems if you simply know how to > >> work with it. > > If not it can be a royal pain in the rear! Trust me on that one... > > >> and i was going to say, if you still have the installation cd and a > valid > >> activation key for xp or something, you can install virtual box and run > xp > >> virtually. then you could install itunes, and edit it with the virtual > >> machine. it would be easy, the only drawback would simply be that it > would > >> take some time for the xp Operating sys to install on the virtual > machine. > >> and you will need the necessary resources. just go to add/remove and add > >> virtualbox. i searched for "ipod touch in ubuntu" a single time and this > is > >> the first thing i clicked: > >> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PortableDevices/iPhone > >> > >> it's an official help site to show you how to run windows virtually-it's > >> even maintained by the actual ubuntu.com. you just have to have some > faith > >> that things will work out. anytime you have a problem, you can email me. > i > >> want things to work out for you. why don't you go ahead and tell me what > it > >> is that you find is so bad about ubuntu, if you have driver problems or > >> problems configuring things... anything. > >> > >> and if that doesn't work go ahead and do mac, but here's the thing-linux > >> was made by people that know computers. it simply takes someone who > knows > > Apple engineers are some of the best. So are Microsoft's. > > >> them (enough) to use it. there are some features and abilities that > linux > >> has the mac and xp don't have. like emerald and compiz. have you > installed > >> them? > > Apple's desktop has been rendered by OpenGL ever since Mac OS X 10.0 - > or for ten years by now. While the OS X effect doesn't flaunt flashy > animations quite like compiz (I'm a real fan of having my windows > either burn up, explode, shatter, or beam out when they go away) it's > still a 100% hardware graphics accelerated GUI with all the benefits > thereof. It's quite nice, actually... just not as customizable. > Returning to my one size does not fit all point... > > If you don't care about customizing the living daylights out of your > computer, perhaps a Mac is for you? If you want to tweak it to no > end, then Linux is definitely for you! > > -- > Registered Linux Addict #431495 > http://profile.xfire.com/mrstalinman | John 3:16! > http://www.fsdev.net/ | > http://www.fsdev.net/~cmiller<http://www.fsdev.net/%7Ecmiller> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Linux Users Group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit our group at http://groups.google.com/group/linuxusersgroup -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
