XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux.advocacy
XPost: alt.os.linux.redhat
From: timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com
In article ,
Liam Slider wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:10:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> > is there anyone who knows OS X and Linux well who can make an honest and
> > reasoned comparison of the two?
>
> I haven't exactly used OSX. However I can tell you a bit about Linux. The
> whole "fiddling with config files" claim is pretty damn well a thing of
> the distant past, unless you like fiddling with config files. Consistancy
> that Mac users brag about is there. Linux is usually easy to install, in
> fact there was a recent comparison of installations between Windows, OSX,
> and Linux, and Linux was considered comparable to OSX. Ease of use is
> there, GNOME is so simple to use anyone could use it. I'd compare it quite
> well as a DE with how I've heard Macs describes, and GNOME follows strict
> HiG as well....just like OSX does. Linux gets more life out of old
> hardware, just as Apple claims to.
There are some things which one should not use the Linux GUI tools to
configure.
The DNS tool, for instance, makes a hash of things, and documentation for how
to
actually use it is not easy to find.
GNOME has lots of inconsistencies between applications in how cut-cop-paste
work. I don't want to write down a stupid little lookup table of which app does
it how.
> The biggest difference is hardware, OSX runs on prorpietary hardware
> specifically, custom designed for it. Virtually every system, and
> peripheral that Macs use has chosen by Apple to work for OSX. With Linux
> this is hardly the case. However, even so, Linux has come a long way, and
> most hardware is automatically detected and configured.
Linux has long supported many kinds of hardware. A certain amount of
standardization and the BIOS have made that a lot easier.
> And there are gui
> configuration tools. For what little else....well, I'm sure you Apple
> people have no problem with Linux users being selective in their choice of
> hardware do you?
No. You can use what hardware you want. Just make the decisions for the right
reasons. "Because everybody else does" and "Macintosh is not a computer, it's a
religion" are not legitimate reasons.
> I'd say, overall, that Linux is a fair match for the Mac. There are
> differences here and there, we have some advantages in some areas and some
> things, you have some advantages in some areas and some things. Personally
> I don't get the Linux bashing by Mac people.
I don't mindlessly bash all things Linux; I save that for Windows.
Linux has its strengths and it is slowly working on its weaknesses. As a server
or a workstation for a technical user, it's great. But as a workstation for a
nontechnical user, it still has a long way to go.
> You should be bashing
> Windows. Now *that* is a shitty OS, and these days, certainly involves way
> too much fiddling to keep going.
I got a herd of old Dell Optiplex GX150s for fairly cheap recently. The intent
is to replace a few creaky old rustbucket desktops and to build a load-testing
system. They came with W98. I unpacked one to check it out. I plugged it into
my
network, adjusted the networking settings, and got it into a state where it
will
not boot. Perhaps using OS X or even Linux has spoiled me, but an operating
system that can be so badly horked just by changing networking settings sucks.
I will install W2k on the ones destined to be workstations. Not WXP; that has
created all kinds of extra flowery tech support problems with no advantages to
me or the user that I can see. W2k is the least-intolerable of all the Windows
releases.
I will install Linux on the rest. I'll keep one as W98 for testing. Maybe I can
figure out how not to hork it.
--
Timberwoof http://www.timberwoof.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
