Chalito Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10259059...g=2547-1_3-0-20 Does the last line in this article make anyone else slightly mad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssmithisme Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Yes it does. Mac is BSD shot full of holes. Apple takes open source software and charges 400$ for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Yes it does. Mac is BSD shot full of holes. Apple takes open source software and charges 400$ for it. What? And you don't think that Microsoft takes Open Source and sells it? I'd check your $400 quote, $30 for Snow Leopard and I tell you what, I'm quite happy to spend a little more on average to only have one operating to choose from, none of this Basic Home Business Ultimate crap. The reason why I use OS X is that it gives me a Unix environment which is great for developing in and takes away all of the hassle that comes with it. Yeah sure Apple could do better in places, but then the same can be said for Microsoft and all the Linux distributions. Personally I would spend $30 a year on a Linux operating system that worked as well as OS X on my MacBook Pro. I think Microsoft has complete ruined the OS market place with its 6 year development cycles, bombarding the user with different versions and charging through the roof for it. It might even be so shot to pieces that it'll never recover. I also think the article is fair, without OS X having been around, Linux would still be very very long away from what it is now. Apple turned into something that people desired, yet wouldn't always spend the money on, Linux has given them an option of trying something different from Windows, without which Apple they wouldn't no what else was out there. Ask the average Joe on the street what he has heard of, Windows, OS X or Linux, the later will rarely be mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Technically I think OSX is a very good OS, however Mac users do tend to be a bunch of smug bastards which generally annoys me. As for 6 year dev cycles, this is a damoclean sword. Businesses liked it because it was a stable platform, so while XP didn't bring much that was new during its tenure it allowed all manner of bug ridden yet mission critical applications to be used for a long period of time. The versioning of Windows isn't as complicated as many would have you believe tbh, and was largely brought about by the sheer level of piracy Microsoft was faced with. With XP, the corporate versions were basically stolen by everyone. As it stands, 90% of users will stick with Home Premium, a few use Ultimate (which even I think was a joke) and businesses used either Business or Enterprise which have specific features most home users won't want or need. OSX targets a different market sector that generally has more money and less piracy, if it was pirated as much as XP was I think you would see Apple look at similar methods of market segmentation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seshan Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Yes it does. Mac is BSD shot full of holes. Apple takes open source software and charges 400$ for it. You made a mistake and quoted Windows price tag not OS X's price tag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalito Posted June 10, 2009 Author Share Posted June 10, 2009 What bothers me is that most people I talk to who I consider to be "average" users still don't know what the hell Linux is, and most of them are mac users. The article made some fare points but saying that every time we log onto our Linux desktops we should thank apple...please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redxine Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Users are beginning to consider and even to expect alternatives to Windows. i.e.: React OS. That's pretty much the closest experience to Windows a person can get. Granted it is still in Alpha, but I think it has a huge potential to sweep windows users right of their feet. I like the idea of open source, especially in the corporate field with Apple. It takes alot (or does it) for a big company like Apple to make the entire core of their operating system open source. This is a power that Microsoft will never have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I like Windows and I like OS X for certain reasons. And Linux will always be good in my books as it offers me the flexibility and stability I want. Windows has flexibility but ist that stable (granted XP was really good). Mac OS X is very stable and is flexible but still is very limiting to a developer. Linux offers stability and flexibility but untill it has some killer applications, I cannot see myself using it (on devices other than my netbook). I really like ReactOS and its great what they are doing, I just can't really see it ever being complete. Imitating Windows is a VERY big job and must be very difficult for volunteers. We are getting closer and closer to windows 7 and they havent even achieved 50% XP Compatibility. Its still nice though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssmithisme Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I did go overboard with the price of Mac. Personally I have Anti-Copyright beliefs and I really dont like Microsoft much. Apple is a little better than microsoft but I tend to have alot of fuss and issues with their software. The hardware i think is overpriced too. I accually felt compelled to get a mac pro, and found that i could build a machine just as good or better for a way cheaper price than what apple wanted. I do feel that Mac OS is to limiting. I think it would be a relatively good OS if it was friendly for power-users. Also if it supported more hardware. I geuss the main reason I dont like Apple is because of the "Our stuff works on our stuff" thing they got going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 OK OK OK! Now mind you I'm usually NOT the one to ref one of these threads, but I must step in. This is all full of fail and you all know it. Why? You speak of the same thing as if this was a bhuddist, an atheist, and a catholic fighting on a forum over which religion is better.. It's what is better for you. Here's a Little Diagram for you. Ease of use(for the average user): Windows <-------------------------------*----------> OSX <--------------------------------------*---> Linux <----------------------*-------------------> Ease of use (for folks like us for daily use): Windows <-------------------------------------*----> OSX <----------------------------------------*-> Linux <------------------------------------*-----> Price Point (not with hardware prices involved): Windows <---------*--------------------------------> OSX <--------------------------------*---------> Linux <-----------------------------------------*> Price Point (with hardware prices involved): Windows <----------------------------*-------------> OSX <---------------*--------------------------> Linux <---------------------------------------*--> Stability: Windows <-----------------------------*------------> OSX <--------------------------------------*---> Linux <--------------------------------------*---> Security: Windows <------------------*-----------------------> OSX <----------------------------*-------------> Linux <---------------------------------*--------> You want a quick cheap out of the box experience with shelf hardware? Go with Microsoft Want a quick cheap and stable environment with shelf hardware and don't mind going the extra mile to learn? Go with Linux Want a quick stable environment and you don't mind spending some extra for the whole package? Go with Apple. My only argument is this: No I do not think that Apple does not deserve ANY thanks for the Linux desktop. Actually you could probably thank Microsoft for it, and I say that for a couple of strong reasons: 1. Linux has mucho more traits you could tie in with the Windows desktop than any of the Mac desktops (as far as UI, if your looking at CLI, they both of course go back to Unix. Neither really changed that much with it) 2. Microsoft, with their price points on the windows system, has led many to check out the Linux desktop so that they can have a cheaper (and yet of course free) desktop while maintaining the flexibility and low TCO of IBM compatible hardware 3. Because Linux was a free made version of Unix while BSD is an actual Unix environment. And my one argument for any of the MS folks who think Microsoft was the real pioneer? *Unix command line was around WAAAYYY before Dos was even thought of by the poor shmuck that sold the system to Bill..* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swathe Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 People bag Microsoft (myself included) but imo Apple is alot worse. They just maintain support through innovation(Ipods, even i like them) and more importantly the trendiness factor with beatnik wannabes. I feel as copyright etcis concerned they are the worst of the lot, and that Steve Jobs cancer is a direct result of Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 ReactOS is a technical exercise, not a product. Powershell is just as powerful as bash et al. Windows is just as stable as Linux, probally more so in my personal expirence. Windows doesn't cost much for most people, only fools go out and buy retail versions at full price. OSX is not BSD, it is based on the Mach kernel, and has some BSD userland. It is a *hugely* different OS. People, this isn't the 90's any more. Windows is stable and secure, as long as the system admin isn't a muppet. Microsoft have done a hell of a lot for computers over the last couple of decades and while some of there buisness practices have been shocking, Apple have a similar track record and Ubuntu has developed a track record of failing to contribute to upstream sources and the linux community as a whole. Harping on about the evils of M$ and claiming that Windows is shit is just childish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 @ Vako - I have not delved into powershell yet, but I do have it on a sticky note for the future. - I do feel that linux is more stable than windows, but at the same time it depends on what drivers your using and what hardware you have. My personal experiance is as long as you have it set up properly and you don't mess with the drivers or settings afterwards, linux is rock solid. For Windows I will have to admit that I have never had any real issues out of Vista, and even though I had some pretty raw issues with 7 beta 1, I am running 7 RC exclusively on my desktop and have found it to be almost perfection. - I know Windows does not cost much if you join MSDN, but it's all the poor souls that do not know about MSDN that makes me feel Microsoft is still shafting people (they do not actually advertise that ya know, and hell, until I joined this forum, I had no idea of it. I thought MSDN was just for programming and developer content.) @ the same time yes you can still buy a Windows OS on the cheap via oem from newegg, but when it is still $175 for Vista Ultimate, then that is lame because its all marketing hype that MS uses. I mean let's face it, it was never really about stability. Many many people hailed 98 to be awesome, and even ME, until you had to pay crazy prices for it. OSX is not BSD, it is based on the Mach kernel, and has some BSD userland. It is a *hugely* different OS. ... well then would you kindly send a mass memo to all the Mac fanboys out there. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard "IT'S NOT LINUX IT'S BSD!!!" hell, heard it so many times I even bought into it. :P Truthfully I do believe in a few ways that Mac does catch a lot of the undeserved flak, but we all know it's because of the tons of Mac users that just says "Mac is better than PC". Ya know that makes me think... Never really dealt with that issue till the commercials came out. Hm.... Also I feel that these same ignorant people that think that Mac is better than whoever made sliced bread is only saying it because they paid more for it.. Probably the same people that sit on the side of the road with their lip poked out waiting for a tow truck because they think they are better cause they paid 10x more for their broke down Land Rover while someone like us is happily driving around in a cheap Toyota (or insert ANY other vehicle brand here). *btw that was not trying to link Apple to Land Rover, just using it as a synonym for stupid people who think JUST because they paid more for it that they are better* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruff Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Powershell is just as powerful as bash et al. Windows is just as stable as Linux, probally more so in my personal expirence. Windows doesn't cost much for most people, only fools go out and buy retail versions at full price. OSX is not BSD, it is based on the Mach kernel, and has some BSD userland. It is a *hugely* different OS. People, this isn't the 90's any more. Windows is stable and secure, as long as the system admin isn't a muppet. Microsoft have done a hell of a lot for computers over the last couple of decades and while some of there buisness practices have been shocking, Apple have a similar track record and Ubuntu has developed a track record of failing to contribute to upstream sources and the linux community as a whole. Harping on about the evils of M$ and claiming that Windows is shit is just childish. Post is fall of win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Mac OS X is very stable and is flexible but still is very limiting to a developer. OS X is a brilliant platform to develop on, even if your developing not for OS X so I don't know what you mean by limiting? Its anything but. The hardware i think is overpriced too. I accually felt compelled to get a mac pro, and found that i could build a machine just as good or better for a way cheaper price than what apple wanted. Actually you couldn't be more wrong, especially now that Apple have "entry" level laptops and phone if you want to put it that way. The Mac Pro and XServe are known to be very good value for money, that is unless you use Apple BTO where they will charge you through the roof for upgrades, but then most places do that. Yes you pay more than average slightly for an Apple product, but you get a hell of a lot more in features and quality than with a Windows Machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yes you pay more than average slightly for an Apple product, but you get a hell of a lot more in features and quality than with a Windows Machine. This is debatable, while you may get more value per dollar from Apple, I would have to disagree with the view that this is universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalito Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 I usually get what I pay for when I pay for Microsoft products. The last thing I paid for was XP and I've never really had any issues with it. I didn't pay for vista and I used it for like a month on my home pc. Windows7 is going to be the next thing that i'll pay for out of pocket and I think it's going to be worth the money. What has always bothered me about apple is that they control what hardware you can use with their OS, which in turn gives them complete control of the pricing. If they had other companies make hardware and the prices were competitive I'd be much more inclined to purchase apple products...aside from the Iphone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 OS X is a brilliant platform to develop on, even if your developing not for OS X so I don't know what you mean by limiting? Its anything but. What I meant by that was in terms of languages for Applications, whereas every language under the sun has some form of interpretor, compiler etc for it whereas the mac, though it does have many, does have less. I love developing on OS X (PHP is my Favourite) but when I want to build a desktop application I find what I can use narrowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 What I meant by that was in terms of languages for Applications, whereas every language under the sun has some form of interpretor, compiler etc for it whereas the mac, though it does have many, does have less. I love developing on OS X (PHP is my Favourite) but when I want to build a desktop application I find what I can use narrowed. No more so than Windows or Linux, yes Objective-C is the default standard, but that is like C/C++ for Linux and Windows with the add on of C#. I don't know of any mainstream languages that you can't use on Mac, hell the Java VM is built into OS X. Also because of its BSD/UNIX roots, ported Linux OSS to Mac is often a lot easier than to Windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr0p Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 That entire article pissed me off. Apple is not responsible for the expanse of linux, dedicated linux users are. And I'm sick of how people use Ubuntu as the standard for linux, linux (in my opinion) is not supposed to be built around people who don't know anything about computers, which is what this article assumes when he said that he couldn't get flash to install because of his own incompetence. The last line of course just puts the icing on his cake of ignorance; the linux community is building itself and although Apple's advertising may be bringing some people away from Windows, I don't think that the people who didn't previously know about linux are all of a sudden going to become linux users because it's just not right for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonlit Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 That entire article pissed me off. Apple is not responsible for the expanse of linux, dedicated linux users are. And I'm sick of how people use Ubuntu as the standard for linux, linux (in my opinion) is not supposed to be built around people who don't know anything about computers, which is what this article assumes when he said that he couldn't get flash to install because of his own incompetence. The last line of course just puts the icing on his cake of ignorance; the linux community is building itself and although Apple's advertising may be bringing some people away from Windows, I don't think that the people who didn't previously know about linux are all of a sudden going to become linux users because it's just not right for them. I'd say I know a decent amount about computing having used an awful lot of platforms with different user interfaces both graphical and text and Linux still gives me shit. I want it to work, I really really do, and I have done since I found it some years ago, it has advantages (it's free, it's open source, it's portable platform-wise, it boot from USB without complaining and so on) but it still has massive usability issues. That said, it does well as an embedded OS, if I don't know it's Linux then it's doing its job, if it's a phone OS then it should behave like a phone, if it's a DVR OS then it needs to behave like a DVR, and often we've seen it as being very capable of that, even the Kindle is based on it. Do you count those as applications where those who know little to nothing about computers should never use it? I bitch about Linux an awful lot, but I do so because it leaves me no choice. Every few months, some new version or distro comes out and it claims to be the second coming on a polycarb disc, and for 5 minutes it is, until I actually try to do anything with it. Again though, I'm not an anti-Linux fanboy, I just want to spend my time using my computer instead of configuring and fixing it. Somewhat back on topic though, this is part of Linux' problem in my mind: half the fans want the good ol' code 'n' CLI from back in the 80s where no-one with less than 15 years of computing experience should use it and the other half want it to be the death of Windows so their 95 year old grandmother can use it. Maybe there's room for both, but if people worked together then maybe Linux would have less issues for both crowds. Will it happen? No, not with thousands of distros with thousands of developers with their own agendas pulling in thousands of different directions. No such thing as too much choice? I disagree. This post wasn't nearly as structured as I originally intended it to be, but I'm hoping you might be able to pick out the relevant points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Dunno why, but this just reminded me of when I first installed Mandrake 6... It would install programs @ random each time you reinstalled it, and I had no unearthly idea of how to install software with it, so it was like christmas every time I reinstalled... until I got sick and tired of it not doing something I wanted it to do so then I re-installed it. Truthfully, A LOT of things are easier to install in linux than windows. (have no idea about mac <-unknown) But there are so many other programs out there that you have to install in cli that make it hard, or better yet, things like flash that do not work specifically because of the hardware you have. IE.. like me. AMD+NVIDIA+LINUX+FLASH= FAIL! I have yet to find a version that works properly.... :(''''''' damn you adobe... If it was not for flash and the amount of flash related content (just like on the fly watching hak5) then linux would be my mainstay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I think linux can best be described as the product of 1 million monkeys with typewriters. It is pure chaos at points, but at others it comes together like the London Philharmonic. Linux doesn't need to be like Windows or OSX, and half of what is holding it back is the insistance that desktop OS's are the future. Desktops are dead, MID's are the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 eh.. I dunno, I mean mainstream wise, yeah, MIDs are the future... No, better yet it's NOW but I highly doubt that desktop os's are dead, I mean really for the point of there are too many at least half ass savvy people out there that do more than 'surf the web'. Now if we pull the cloud computing ouija board out then yes, no contest that the desktop is dead... But it's still something that will have to wait for the speed of the global internet to catch up on. Here's how I feel about it, the closer we get to 100% MIDs ruling the world the closer we get to cloud computing. Now I don't know about any of you but the very thought of this makes my stomach churn. Why you ask? Cause someone has to pay for it. And I am sorry, but I pay to play for my phone, internet, satellite tv, car, living, etc... and you do pay when you turn on your PC but it's the trivial price of the power that it takes to run it. If I want to make something in the Gimp, or scan some photos, or insert something here, then I am not paying for anything but what it takes to run the device. No service fees. Microsoft has kicked around the idea of pay to play for Windows for quite some time. They have not said anything (that I know of) about cloud computing but the basic principle is easy to put together. Windows Online all the time 100% stable (but for a 'nominal' fee of course). Anyone else smelling sulfer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolts Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 We shouldn't thank Apple for GNU/Linux any more than we should thank Microsoft. The only apple influence on Linux is the GNOME Desktop Environment, and the plethora of OSX dock clones. GNOME's design is rather reminiscent of OSX, but not the overall system. Similarly, KDE 3 has a design that is reminiscent of the Windows UI. Just because Ubuntu uses GNOME by default, doesn't mean Linux is trying to be Mac. Linux is not Ubuntu. Ubuntu uses patches and workarounds to be usable, doesn't seem to send their patches upstream to help fix bugs very often, and breaks when a workaround is fixed. Mac definitely did not influence me to use Linux, other than that I am not keen on using Mac. My experience has shown me that it is closed worse than Windows and about as stable. As for Cloud computing, it honestly scares me to think that people think having to rent computer time is a good idea. That how things were done in the 60s to early 80s. Certain cloud services are legit e.g. webhosting, but the trend I see by cloud supporters is to have everyone using a netbook, and logging on to all of their applications through the internet. There is little freedom in that model. Cloud computing is getting popular and could be useful for many things, but not every, or even most, things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.