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 Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:21:40 +0000, Brent wrote:   
   >   
   > > On 2/13/05 12:32 AM, in article   
   > > pan.2005.02.13.05.32.50.593621@NOSPAM.liamslider.com, "Liam Slider"   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> 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.   
   > >   
   > > Comparing Ubuntu Linux and YDL on a PPC Mac to OSX, I find the OSX has much   
   > > more easy functionality plus a terminal window to boot.  The Linux is   
   > > smaller, and runs better on my G3 Pismo laptop than OSX, though OS9 was   
   > > pretty good on the laptop.   
   >   
   >   
   > Well, I was talking about on x86...but damn, no terminal window? WTF?   
      
   Steve;s original vision for the Mac was "no command line" and that pretty much   
   stayed with that OS to the end. But to be fair, MPW (Macintosh Programmer's   
   Workshop) did have a fairly powerful command line interface.   
      
   > > I am using Linux to extend the life of my laptop computer - and it seems   
   > > to work pretty well.  I have trouble with getting 24 bit color (millions   
   > > of colors) in graphics and getting CD's to play.  OSX and OS9 did not   
   > > have these issues at all - and the ease of setup were good things.   
   >   
   > Never had either of these problems with x86 hardware.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > I am also able to use a command line in OSX.   
   >   
   >   
   > Yeah, I still have to give a, "WTF!?"   
      
   Hunh? Would you clarify the reasons for that? I don't dare make any assumptions   
   about what you mean here.   
      
   > > I do not find Linux comparable to OSX, at least in my case.  Linux is   
   > > smaller, speedier on the same hardware, but does not have the same   
   > > amount of polish without a LOT of end user work.  And in my case, I may   
   > > never get the full functionality out the my computer due to the drivers'   
   > > availability!   
   > >   
   > > I will still use Linux on the laptop, but my desktop is remaining OSX.   
   >   
   >   
   > I'm guessing, just guessing from *all* the reports, that Linux is just   
   > a lot less polished on PPC hardware than it is on x86 hardware. I guess   
   > it'll have to catch up if we want to snag Mac users.   
      
   Yellow Dog Linux is a port of Red Hat Linux. They do a good job of keeping it   
   up   
   to date. I don't think it's an issue of PPC/x86 hardware. Linux, even in the   
   coolest, most recent RedHat or SuSe incarnation, has this rough-edged   
   clunkiness   
   to it -- something that a software engineer might not see, but that someone   
   with   
   a background in UI design or QA would definitely see.   
      
   --   
   Timberwoof  http://www.timberwoof.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)