|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Ask MacSlash: Why Does Anyone Use Linux?
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 238 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 03, @06:56PM (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think your over anyalizing this. =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday October 29, @08:17AM (#4090)
|
|
|
|
|
First off, I *hate* Win/anything. XP is complete garbage compared to OS X and anything below that, forget it. So now that that's out of the way..
I got my Tibook last year because I wanted a laptop that would run all my J2EE dev stuff and not be subjected to the m$ tax. fat chance. So the eye candy of OS X made me switch. Plus they finally had a term, etc..
Linux is still my server and dev station of choice tho. I think X on X is too clunky and my last install of it on Jaguar completely fscked up my whole system. Kernel panic city. Yes, I know WindowMaker comes default on XonX, but it's still quirky and not the same as my Linux boxen.
For dev I must have multiple desktops. Plus, I've grown quite close to WindowMaker the last five or so years; it's fast and small. I don't care about all the foofy aa fonts and jizmack. I just want to code.
That being said, I'm disappointed that there is not a JDK 1.4 out for OS X yet. I've tried various utils like Space and such for multiple desktops, but OS X still keeps getting in the way a bit - I want non-focused windows!
However, OS X definitely has its' place in my life. I can and do use it for my personal <1.4 java projects. Use iMovie quite a bit (miffed I can't use iDvd tho, but that's Apple fer ya). iTunes has good VBR encoding/ripping, but is still a little quirky. Like my iPod quite a bit. Dig my real plug and play various Firewire hard drives and cdrw. Like aa fonts on Mozilla and the like.
So some things are good, some are not. Guess it just depends on what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to question some of your points:
Firstly how can you say Linux has better web browser support? All the major browsers are available for Mac OS X unlike Linux. There are quite a number of other web browser software developments, and that IE is not so entrenched that make this market segment far more alive on Mac than any other platform.
Customisable interface: now whilst I would normally agree with you here. You cite a very bad example. Mac OS X applications can use click-throughs where a window does not need to have focus for a mouse event to opperate buttons in it (this is much like other OSes) however Mac OS X has strict guidelines on how these should be used and displayed. A control that supports click through will not be greyed out when the window looses focus unlike all normal controls which are drawn in their disabled state. This visual feedback for such a feature is not provided in any other OS that I know of.
Development environment. All of Mac OS X API's are exposed. You must misunderstand what an API actually is. It is any set of functions that the OS chooses to present to the programmer, and not exhaustively all functions even if they can be called by other processes.
Routinely exposing everything is not a good idea as developers are more likely to use your code in ways you never accounted for which can cause instabilities. So you hide some stuff for your own purposes.
Hiding useful stuff for only yourself to use in order to gain a competetive advantage in software is something else. But I'm not sure Apple has ever done this. All in all the menu additions fiasco could have been handled better by Apple.
As for you saying Apple has their own bunch of Core Graphics APIs that they keep to themselves. Where do you get such information, and where are your specific examples?
Because Apple needs to keep atleast the UI closed source to survive they is always the possibility for them to hide stuff for their own use, but to what end? They don't make any money directly out of their iApps and so have no need for each iApp to have a monopoly share in it's market. It is enough for these applications to exist to help bring users to the platform.
Back to development again. Can you honestly say you've looked at and tinkered with the Cocoa APIs and want to go back to using anything else? Apple's dev tools are sweet and don't cost a bean.
Device drivers. Linux has have poor device driver support for a very long time. Since it has been gathering momentum that thankfully has changed quite substantially.
Mac OS X is far newer than Linux yet I predict that it's device support will come for Mac OS X far quicker than it did for Linux. Here's why: 1 Far more people use Mac OS X than use Linux (just look at Apple's sales figures), 2 Apple's IOKit framework makes if far easier to develop drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've posted this nonsense in this thread before. Linux is not an "x86 system." Linux runs on over a dozen processor types:
x86
x86-64
ia-64
alpha
sparc32
sparc64 ("ultrasparc")
mips32
mips64
ppc32
ppc64
s/390
sh-{3,4,5}
arm, strongarm and xscale
parisc
moto 68k
Each of these is a real, native version of the kernel. I suggest you look at the Linux kernel source code tree sometime (specifically the arch/ subdirectory).
Granted, Linux development started on x86, and most of the developers use x86 machines, but that in no way means that Linux on non-x86 machines is somehow non-native.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My ibook.
mp3 at 128kbps
Limp Bizkit's "Full Nelson"
iTunes: about 17% CPU
xmms using the esd driver (all fink installed): about 4% CPU
Seems pretty clear Apple needs to do some work on their decoder. I wonder if it uses Altivec on G4's...
No telling how much work ESD is doing to pump it through Apples sound IO...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Monday October 28, @08:30AM (#4119)
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Is pink a better color than purple?
Well duh, of course it isn't. Purple rocks!
;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X Post Facto
Yes you can. Unless they're 603/M68k Macs.--
-(id)signature{NSLog(@"Frodo Morris\n");return self;}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erm, yes, in fact I do all the time (I run XFree86 on Darwin/x86).
What you are prepared to call a "Mac os X app" depends on how much your applications rely on the functions exported by the OS X window manager. A truly concientious programmer might create an A[GUI]I whereby functions from Aqua had parallels under X or vice versa. Obviously this would require a lot of developer overhead, unless they were writing for javax.swing (for instance), in which case it'd be S...L...O...W.
But of course it is still possible to create Darwin-only applications that do not require Aqua. The most obvious (though incredibly silly £:-) way is to distribute Darwin binaries without any source code. Another is to create source code that requires NetInfo. Granted, NetInfo runs on Linux (and a few others), but it's incredibly non-standard outside Darwin/OpenStep/NeXTStep.
As for "Macintosh/OS X applications with XFree running on Darwin", see the other posts in under this story about Mac OS X being a very good operating system except that Aqua is too slow. Indeed, there are a few posters who use OS X with Xfree. If I used OS X, that'd be what I'd do as well. As it is, I'm happy with my cheap-as-chips Linux/x86+Darwin/x86 system and Spectrum +2A :-)--
-(id)signature{NSLog(@"Frodo Morris\n");return self;}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mod Parent +5 INTELLIGENT+WELL_WRITTEN+ON_TOPIC!!!
--
I want to buy some cheese.
Oh, I thought you were complaining about the bazouki player!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday October 29, @06:38PM (#4137)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have one linux box on my subnet that's been up 275 days. But as has been mentioned elsewhere uptime is not a very good comparison since both OSX and Linux are capable of running years on end without crashing. Though I would say I have crashed OSX more, since I don't count GUI and application crashes in linux as a fault in the OS. I am a little biased, but Apple deserves it. They want me to pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @06:30PM (#4139)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I quit using MacOS because I don't trust companies not to discontinue products. When Apple killed Claris Emailer they lost me. Now I can use Evolution and I don't have to worry that it will become unavailable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Monday October 28, @11:38PM (#4140)
|
|
|
|
|
|
My parents however, bought a shiny new HP with a 1.6 GHz processor, twice as much ram, new video card, all the fixins. It also came with MS Windows XP Home. I don't think you could *possibly* be describing XP Home in your post, because it runs GODAWFULLY slow. When they showed me it, baby Jesus cried. The interface was more bloated than anything I've ever seen, it might take a good 2 seconds just to pop up the start menu. On a new machine, that is simply unacceptable. Don't get me started on how a machine almost exactly twice as powerful (if you follow Intel's "Clock Speed equals Power" ideologoy) can run Jedi Knight 2 almost exactly half as fast. The fact that XP is slow is no excuse for OS X being slow. Windows 2000 offers fast GUI response and is stable, and should therefore be the standard to which others strive. (Both OS X and XP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Monday October 28, @12:37AM (#4144)
|
|
|
|
|
What a fuckin' moron...
"Do you even know what Linux is?"
No, please enlighten me almighty Linus-Follower.
Do you know anything about who is using it and why?
Why is it relevant who is using it? If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you? Can you make your own educated decisions?
OK...so Intel is using it...they are also using Windows and probably OS X and OS 9 in their marketing department. In fact, most of these folks are probably running some form of Macintosh OS as well.
Next questions: Why are you such a fucking moron?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I do agree that the lag is ridiculous, I still think OS X is the best solution for many people. A menu lag is annoying, but it doesn't slow down my work inherently.
Also note the $2500 figure is off. My iBook last year with airport card and 384 megs came to $1800.
--r
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Monday October 28, @12:33AM (#4147)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use linux and have for years. Linux, however, sucks!
Good OS's are OSX and FreeBSD... monolithic kernels are useless!!! :)
Linux is a pain in the but... but it works... and it's so much better than windows and I can't do everything on my Desktop PC that I want with FreeBSD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @06:30PM (#4148)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using Linux for 5 years now, and I love it. My wife uses it fulltime at home, and does all the banking and email with it. The main thing we love about it is the freedom. People get hung up on Linux being free in the beginning, once you're into it you'll find it's full value. I've even released code under the Open Source (GPL) license. Currently our main machine is running Mandrake-Linux, with a file/web/email/jabber server running Slackware Linux and hosting our website. The server was built from old hardware, and runs without any graphical input; it's all command line. I've learned more about *nix since I started to play with Slack that way.
Also, during weeknights sometimes I'll work on our server. At work people don't understand why I 'waste time' working in Linux all the time since, as they put it, there's no money in Linux. I tell them it's like reading a book, there's always more to learn, and it's fun. Also I barely watch TV, as I find learning much more interesting to me.
By the way, my first computer was an Apple //e (yep, I'm 33 now) an I've had Macs on the outside for sometime. For Xmas I'm buying my daughter (2 years, 4 months old) a used iMac, and plan on having her going in OS X fulltime. I think that is a great OS, and certainly the direction I want to raise my family. Now, if it'll replace Linux in our household? Time will tell. In the meantime we'll enjoy both; that's freedom.
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @03:39PM (#4150)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried reading the OS X docs? It'd be nice if there was useful information in there...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @03:39PM (#4151)
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's called Darwin -- the pure Unix underbelly of MacOS X. But why would anybody want to do so?
From a performance basis, however, I have absolutely no problem with speed whatsoever. I have seen Wintel bigots derisively mischaracterize OS X before, and no doubt will see them in the future -- but seriously, this criticism is no longer meaningful.
I work both worlds, and far prefer the performance of Mac OS X -- even on my legacy hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @03:39PM (#4152)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Embedded systems, I have two Macs which dual boots
between Linux and OS9 (my Pismo) or Linux and
OSX (my G4). I've not yet put OSX on the Pismo
because it would first need a bigger drive
and I use it mostly for simple things (iTunes, etc).
But to develop for Linux aon embedded PPC boards,
I boot Linux on my Mac, so I can test and debug the code in a more comfortable environment. I have
exactly the same processor and libraries. My experience is that cross compiles sucks: you always end up bitten by some incompatibilities
which I don't want to take into account since it is for an instrument wit ha processor which will
be a PPC for the foreseeable future.
For example if I developed on x86, I'd need to take into account first the different byte order,
then some subtle FPU differences and finally a few other environment differences. If I were under MacOS, I would in any case need the kernel
sources and I could not even test skeletons
of the device drivers I write. So I use linux
on the Mac as a more comfortable development environment for embedded PPC work.
This said, when I'm not developing for the
embedded systems, I boot MacOS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @03:38PM (#4159)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because Linux is faster and will get the job done just as well as OS X? The OS is more than just pretty pictures on the screen...
A better anology is why would anybody put 20" racing slicks (OS X) on 4 cyl. powered car (any Mac made before 2001 running OS X) when there's a perfect good set of correctly sized high performance tires (Linux) available?
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @03:41PM (#4168)
|
|
|
|
|
Try one of these:
1. Go to local computer store and grab a $200 GHz CPU for your Mac.
2. Upgrade the motherboard of your Mac for AGP 4X.
3. Upgrade the graphics of your Cube to something current.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @12:04PM (#4170)
|
|
|
|
|
I have been using linux for 7 years, and last year I became a Mac/OSX home user, and I love Mac OS X, but I hate any of the other Mac OS Versions, and I know hundreds maybe thousands of Linux Users that do too.
So, there are linux people not using MAC OS X because:
1. They hate apple
2. They don't know enough of OS X, and they hate OS 9
3. Mac OS X can do everything linux does... That is correct, but with linux you can do it on a $200 PC.
4. A lot of the purist will refuse to use OS X until it becomes 100% open source, otherwise, screw OS X.
The 4 reason above probably picks up 98% of the reason why people still use linux, and unless apple does some sould searching, people will still use Linux!
Finally, as a Mac OS X (convert), I have to say that Mac OS X is everything linux has always wanted to be for a users deskotp. I LOVE IT. (BUT my first love is still LINUX) :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @02:20PM (#4171)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention that fink.sourceforge.net has had the same ports-like thing for a long time now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It boils down to this: it's free, as in freedom, and as in free beer. That doesn't matter to lots of people, and I'm not an ideologue about it, but both kinds of freedom result in a family of systems that are appealing to me.
Taken together these freedoms mean that anybody can put together a distribution and I can get it and try it for no money. I've tried out a dozen or so Linux distributions for no cost (other than the ongoing cost of my net connection, which I pay anyway). Different people have different ideas of how things ought to be set up, and I enjoy experimenting with them, seeing what they come up with.
I can make my own distribution if I feel like it. I haven't yet, but I might one day when I feel I have the time, to try out some ideas.
Some ideas fall flat; some work quite well. X11 is a bear to configure properly and it's taken years for packagers to put together decent auto-configuration tools, but they exist now and are getting better all the time. And X on Linux is much faster and more responsive than Aqua these days.
On Linux the sources are available for everything. For most people this doesn't matter, but for some--those who like to try changing how things work, or people--like security professionals--whose businesses require them to know exactly what their software is doing--availability of source is indispensable.
Linux runs on everything. If you have a project that calls for portability across a wide range of different hardware platforms, Linux is hard to beat.
Linux has an enormous available library of working software. A lot of it is quite unfriendly software by Mac standards, but it's also powerful, mature, widely-used, and free. The Debian GNU/Linux distribution currently has over 9000 packages ready for install--all free.
The Linux world is wide open. On the one hand that means there is no consistency; that world of software is chaotic, confusing, full of inconsistencies and stupid, unnecessary obstacles. On the other hand, it also means that anybody can try anything any way that seems good to them, and some of those ways are really good. And any time a programmer notices one of those stupid, unnecessary obstacles, he or she can change the source and fix it. It's a breeding ground for ideas.
I love Mac OS X; it's my primary working environment. But I'll always have a Linux system too, as long as the Linux world continues to be what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the kernel did the same thing then yes. However there are differences between what, say, the Sparc and PowerPC kernels can do from the PoV of sticking an OS on top. If all of the kernels could do the same things, then (source code for Linux app)+(#ifdefs for endianness)=compilable application. As it is, not all of the functionality that Linus specifies should be in the kernel ever makes it to certain ports (e.g. the ARM, M68k ports) so it would probably be better to view them as Linux "clones" rather than Linux proper. Anyway, this is just my humble opinion, which may not be to everyone's taste :-).
Just a quick example of multiple-platform OS is OpenStep (MacOS X v-1.0 £:-). This OS was available for i386, M68k and a few more archs, and applications built on one could be ported to another without anything more than a recompile.--
-(id)signature{NSLog(@"Frodo Morris\n");return self;}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @11:53AM (#4176)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the poster was referring to why do people still use Linux on a mac. While this doesn't negate the open source 'benefits', it does eliminate the "you don't need apple hardware" point.
So why would someone want to run linux on a mac? It's like putting 13" chrome rims on a car that came with 17s...
(and before you say anything, I know someone with 13" chrome... it's not pretty...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
speed
(Score:1, Insightful)
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @11:59AM (#4178)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linux is quite usable on an older computer, whereas in my opinion, OS X is not. On a 500 mhz iBook with 640 MB of RAM STILL (even with 10.2) suffers from annonying laggy menus, slow switching between programs, etc. This slows me down and is frustrating. None of this occurs on Linux running on the same hardware - and frankly, Linux is even faster on x86. Currently, a lot of folks ARE Switching from Linux to OS X. However, I think a lot more would take the plunge if Apple provided a way to turn off the bloatware GUI. No one likes having their $2500 computer lag, and it's especially frustrating given Apple's "Twice as Fast" claims. I took my iBook to work, and my Wintel-bigot coworkers literally LAUGHED OUT LOUD at how slow it was. It is sad that after all these years, Apple has finally delivered a great OS, but it's unusable for anyone not willing to buy a new computer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On a 500 mhz iBook with 640 MB of RAM STILL (even with 10.2) suffers from annonying laggy menus, slow switching between programs, etc. This slows me down and is frustrating.
None of this occurs on Linux running on the same hardware - and frankly, Linux is even faster on x86.
How does OS X behave if you use X11 (such as XonX) instead of the built-in Window manager? I just wonder whether it's true that Linux is faster, or whether it's the memory/CPU/GPU intensive window manager of OS X that slows the latter down. If the latter is true, then try switching to either OroborOS X or WindowMaker under OS X, both of which give a (vaguely) OS X-reminiscent GUI but don't have the same overhead.--
-(id)signature{NSLog(@"Frodo Morris\n");return self;}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @01:07PM (#4182)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of the primary reasons have been listed above so I won't rehash them. I will just throw in that I personally prefer KDE3 to the default OS X Aqua interface. I find the default OS X interface to be pretty but awkward. Perhaps you can install numerous add-on utilities to make Aqua more usable, but I haven't taken the time or gone to the expense yet.
I also like to use different Window Managers and Desktop Environments under Linux (KDE, GNOME, Windowmaker, Enlightenment, etc.) because I like variety. Out of the box, OS X is too limited and restricted to someone else's vision.
As a server, Linux is far superior to OS X in every way I can think of that is important including scalability.
I also have a question. Why are Mac users so obsessed with converting all Linux users? Linux users are obsessed with having FULL CONTROL over their systems. You should focus on converting Windows users. Like old school Mac users, Windows users only desire superficial understanding of their systems, if any at all, and they are willing to conform to someone else's vision.
Your time and energy would be better spent converting Windows users to OS X. There are more of them, and they are more likely to bow to peer pressure, chase a pretty face, or follow a trend. Besides, Windows users are in desperate need of help. Real Linux users (i.e. NOT Windows users who had a problem with a Linux driver so they went back to Windows to have many problems with many drivers) are doing just fine. We are the type of people who help ourselves.
I'll keep dabbling with OS X. It is off to a nice start, but a lot will have to change before it becomes my primary desktop OS. Since I am a computer hobbyist who likes variety and learning, I will probably always have more than one OS in my house. I don't understand why people have a problem with that unless they are just insecure.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @11:35AM (#4184)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been a linux developer for 5 years and while I enjoy working with it that's about the only thing I can come up with.
As for OS X, it's a a great system that's just getting started. Apple's done a good job so far (IMHO). OS X is what IRIX should have become 5 years ago...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @11:39AM (#4186)
|
|
|
|
|
1. There is a version of Linux for pretty much any PC/Mac ever built.
2. Linux is completely open source and free.
Those are two major reasons that people run Linux- ignoring all of the technical merits & software. As a "disclaimer".... I don't use Linux, I use OS X as my primary OS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's free.
It's 100% open source.
It doesn't require a purchase of Apple hardware.
Going back with being 100% free/open - it's been modified in many different ways to be scalable for clustered computing, as well as so many other arenas.
It's been out for about 11 years now.. so Linux has it's foot in the door in industries.
and probably so many more reasons i'm just not thinking of off the top of my head. Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @02:32PM (#4197)
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, ill informed bigotry. That's what almost every reply to this question has been. Both for and against, neither side can imagine someone using a computer for something other than what they personally need.
If you are using a computer for something that doesn't involve you sitting in front of it (web, file or print server, etc. etc.) then OS X has nothing, I repeat nothing, to offer over linux or any other BSD unix.
The poster would like to know "what Linux's got that OSX don't got." Well I'll tell you. Is it more stable? Yes. Faster? Yes. Better selection of software? Yes, if you want open source stuff for servers. No, if you want Adobe or MS desktop apps. Easier to use? Yes, as a server, as a desktop no.
Does this make it a 'better' OS? No, that's not even a valid question. Is pink a better color than purple?
Could it be that the pre-OSX Linux hype is keeping it alive today? Perhaps, if you stupidly think that no one uses computers for anything but the same things as you.
Is Sharp going to license OS X to run on it's handhelds?: NO
Is Tivo going to license OS X to run on it's set top boxes?: NO
Is IBM going to license OS X to run on it's high-end servers that run over 1,000 instances of the OS on one massive mainframe?: NO
Is Google going to license OS X to run on it's thousands of servers?: NO
Is Sun going to license OS X to run on it's low end blade servers?: NO
Is Pixar going to license OS X to run on it's render farm?: NO
I'm not even going to touch on issues of freedom because your average OS X user hasn't got the cultural basis to even evaluate a computer platform in those terms
To sum up: it's not a fekkin' competition, someone using a different OS from you is not a personal insult. Get a grip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where are you getting your facts? Or is this just an assumption? Linux has less than 2% of the desktop market; Apple has more than twice that. Even the people running Slashdot, that bastion of Linux, namely CmdrTaco and Hemos, have gone over to OS X. As Taco put it, OS X - and his new PowerBook are 'an important missing piece of the puzzle'. And a quick perusal of the thread they caused by this announcement shows that more people than you realise have migrated not from Windows but from the penguin - and the reasons given are myriad.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/26/0058238
R.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @01:09PM (#4204)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good summary. I too fall into the same boat. i use os x at home and work, but there is a linux box about 5 feet away from me in both places. As Linux is becoming stronger and stronger on the desktop, any reason for me to purchase a next generation apple is becoming less and less of an option as their price simply isn't competitive on the performance band. Only in ease of use and robustness. What happens when Linux equals that? it's just a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm one of those people. I replaced my (originally) $2000 Sony Vaio ultrathin laptop that only had Linux installed with an iBook, and I get both sides of the issue.
Aside from the laptop, I actually bought a system from Penguin Computing several years ago. That system was more than $500 (and if I translated that into a similar system today, i.e. above-middle performance, dual processors, top of the line video, etc., it would be over $500). And, I've considered replacing my current desktop with a new Linux box and a Mac.
Beyond all the cost of hardware issues, Linux is just cheaper to own. I mean, everything is free. I download my OS updates (it was such a shock to pay for Jaguar). Almost all of my apps are free. I don't buy the productivity argument, because I can do everything on my Linux box that I can in OS X as far as business applications are concerned.
In fact, the only reason I'm considering buying a desktop Mac is for the audio/video work that I do. Those applications really don't exist with the same polish on the Linux side of things, although drivers and hardware are all there.
I also feel that I have less to worry about on the Linux side. Less spyware, fewer viruses, and a stronger community (in terms of custom coding and technical expertise).
The big thing, though, for the lay person is cost. Let's be honest. Apple's hardware is ridiculously expensive from a price/performance standpoint. The entry tower shouldn't cost more than $900. Yet, it's over $1600. I don't understand that at all. It's really not better than a similarly priced PC, and getting OS X doesn't justify that premium in any objective measure. I'm very hesitant to sink that kind of money into a machine.
So, for corporate America, for example, where the cumulative extra $6-700 becomes significant, Linux provides a viable option that OS X and Apple do not provide. I can run Office, too, BTW, via crossover office. I do this at work, and generally have few problems with it.
Anyway, I'll stop rambling. But, I think corporate America is keeping Linux on the Desktop alive more than any dreams of home users.
As to it being useful, I do everything that my Windows using friends do. I can't think of anything that one would do in a normal office environment that I can't do on my Linux box. There are specialized applications and some developer tools that are not available for Linux (pro audio and video apps, some developer tools, etc), but for general use, Linux is really ready for prime time. There is little missing.
Just my $.02.
SujalBrowse baseball box scores faster with Watson using my Baseball Scores tool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday October 27, @12:55PM (#4217)
|
|
|
|
|
#1: cheap hardware (RH7.3 runs very nice on the PII/350 I just got for $77 on Ebay), #2: free+full power, unrestricted OS (compared to $129 for Jag, $499 for OS X 10-seat server, and $999 for unlimited-access OS X server; similar pricing for XP home(blech)/pro/server) and it comes with lots more stuff that all the neat things on sourceforge require.
For example, I just installed Gallery ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/gallery/ ) and it went onto my stock-installation RH7.1 box without a hitch, but it depends on something that, even though I downloaded the source for and compiled it as instructed for OSX/Darwin, still didn't work.
The biggest thing to remember is, just because you like something, doesn't mean everyone else does. I'm sure you sit there saying "OS X is so great, I can't imagine why everyone on the planet doesn't just love it" but everyone has different tastes.
I manage to piss off everyone-- I can't stand OS X or any of the Linux GUIs, but I *love* windows. (more or less: 95 was good, 98 & 2k were better, ME blew, and I'm not a big XP fan.) But for servers, I love Linux. CLI = good: *everything* worthwhile on Linux can be done from a CLI, which means 3 things: 1) it can be scripted, 2) that script can be automated with cron, and 3) text output can be emailed to you. OS X is just about as good, but why pay through the nose just for the priviledge of running on pricey limited hardware?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
umm... isnt that what support for any arch is? a port of the kernal to that arch? the ppc linux kernal is just as valid as the port to sparc or i386.
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
