On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 14:46 -0600, Grant Robinson wrote:
> On May 17, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Jon D wrote:
> 
> > The only reason I would buy a Mac is for the laptop hardware.  I don't
> > need cute eye candy, or a nifty music playing program.
> 
> Do you need to get work done?  Because that is the most important 
> question to ask before choosing an operating system, programming 
> language, or anything else.  "Will it get the job done?"  

Well by that logic, no one should need anything more than Windows.  Of
course the real question is "to what degree will it get the job done?"
And for my line of work, and many other folks, OS X and Linux are almost
the same, but Linux edges out OS X in flexibility and, yes, ease of use.
We're talking a specific kind of ease of use, though.  Most of what I
need, though, is in the unix toolset, which OS X provides.  Other things
OS X does come close on, but not quite.  Things like easy X11 network
transparency (all there in OSX , but since X11 is not OS X's native GUI,
there's a couple of extra steps needed to make it work).  Again, nothing
major.  Just minor things that make Linux for me, overall, a bit easier
to work with.  I used OS X as my main workstation for about a month
recently and really liked it except for a few Quartz behaviors relating
to focus and mouse events that drive me up the wall.

I add myself to the list of folks who will probably buy a Macbook soon
and run linux primarily on it.  It's a simple question of economics and
quality hardware at this point.  I do run a PB 12" right now with OS X
and I do like it (it's better than linux on this laptop, due to hardware
issues).

> I can't 
> really think of an operating system that only has "cute eye candy" and 
> a "nifty music playing program".  If you were insinuating that Mac OS X 
> is such, perhaps you need to actually sit down and use it for a while, 
> rather than repeat stereotypes you read on slashdot. :) I use it 
> everyday for my work, and it performs better for my needs than any 
> other operating system I have used.  When you get past all the 
> definitions of freedom, and made up words from Brother Larry, what it 
> comes down to is everyone needs an operating system that "just works".  
> What that means is different for different people.  For me, OS X 
> strikes a nice balance.  I can play with just about anything that I can 
> on Linux (sans the kernel), but I'm not forced to in order to get basic 
> things working (like wireless or 3d acceleration).  Your mileage with 
> Linux or BSD WILL vary based on the chipsets in your hardware, and with 
> OS X that has been reduced to dealing with the invariable manufacturing 
> defects in products (unless you choose to run a pirated version of OS X 
> on generic PC hardware, and then all bets are off).

Off topic, but I would not consider buying a Macbook, installing Linux
on it, and then cracking the DVD and installing it on my spare intel
workstation to be piracy at all.  Still bets are off.

And to be fair, if I am to believe Apple's advertisements and marketing,
the cute eye candy and nifty music playing program are major selling
points for apple.

I agree, though, OS X does strike a great balance for most folks.  I
refuse to support anyone in my family running windows, and even Linux
support is a stretch for me.  Instead I do recommend they buy Macs and
everyone who has has not regretted it.  These people don't use bash or
perl or sed or awk, even though those are all there on a Mac.

> This is one of the weaknesses of the PC market as well.  Yes, it's nice 
> that there are so many options, but it's also a nightmare for OS 
> developers for any operating system except Windows, where they make all 
> the hardware companies do the work for them.  It's also the same reason 
> I have a Linux box that has never been completely stable (it used an 
> early ATA-66 chipset that has never been fully stable under ANY version 
> of the kernel, and still to this day has spotty support).  That being 
> said, building your own machine is fun, and I have done it many times.

It's actually a nightmare for Windows developers too.  And Vista is only
going to make it worse (what 6 flavors?).  The dirty little secret of
the windows world, though, is that most developers of hardware really
target one PC brand, Dell.  If it works on a Dell that's most of the
market and good enough.  In some ways Dell is the Apple of the PC world,
but without the class, design, and engineering.

> 
> Grant
> 
> 
> --------------------
> BYU Unix Users Group 
> http://uug.byu.edu/ 
> 
> The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
> author.  They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list


--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group 
http://uug.byu.edu/ 

The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author.  They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. 
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list

Reply via email to