XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   XPost: alt.os.linux.redhat   
   From: sorry.no.em@il.i.get.vira.and.spam.invalid   
      
   imouttahere@mac.com wrote:   
      
   >>GNOME is so simple to use anyone could use it.   
   >   
   > That's not quite under dispute. MacOS 6.0 was also simple to use, 15   
   > years ago. The issue is one of modern functionality. How well does the   
   > system sleep and wake up? How easy is it to use 802.11, share stuff   
   > over the network. How well does the OS manage power for portables?   
   >   
      
   Dunno about OSX since I'm on a PC, but Mandrake gives me about 20-25% longer   
   battery life than Windows, so the answer would probably be "excellent". As   
   to the other things, I agree that OSX makes everything easier than any   
   other OS, with the side-effect that when it comes to doing something "out   
   of the ordinary" it gets cumbersome and annoying - which in OSX would be   
   something as simple as displaying a hidden file. Luckily, OSX now has a   
   shell, so I can do most stuff there since it's basically still just BSD.   
      
   > Macs have the great advantage of having both the OS and hardware   
   > designed for each other.   
      
   Nah. You just don't have any choice. You get what Apple chose for you. And   
   there's no system where the OS and hardware aren't designed for eachother.   
      
   > Windows has this to some extent, though of course Microsoft has a hard   
   > time keeping OEMs in line.   
   >   
      
   Microsoft have a hard time writing proper code, and a hard time making   
   usable interfaces.   
      
   > Linux IMV is perpetually wrong-footed in this area, chasing the   
   > hardware but never quite managing it.   
   >   
      
   I don't believe there's any OS supporting more hardware than Linux. On the   
   other hand, I don't believe there's any OS supporting less hardware than   
   MacOS.   
      
   > It's be great to have dedicated Linux hardware but this seems counter   
   > to Linux's least-common-denominator strategy of hardware support.   
   >   
      
   That's not the strategy. The "strategy" is to support all hardware possible.   
      
   >>I don't get the Linux bashing by Mac people.   
   >   
   > Indeed. Apple owes a lot to the GNU/Linux community.   
   >   
      
   Yep, you owe OSX. MacOS < 10 was utter crap. No multitasking, static memory   
   allocation, come on. Brilliant choice to make the radical shift Apple did   
   with throwing out their code and forking BSD. Applause for that. M$ could   
   learn something there (but won't).   
      
   > However, we do get sensitive about people making claims that Linux is   
   > as good as OS X.   
   >   
      
   You guys get sensitive about any claims about anything being better than   
   anything Apple, or something being wrong with something Apple. My brother   
   almost went into a rage when I called it a design flaw that my 4th gen iPod   
   locks when it's inserted into a computer port instead of waiting until it   
   actually gets mounted. We discussed it for 45 minutes, but I had to let it   
   go, because he was looking dangerously red and was still completely unable   
   to even consider the fact that there could be something wrong with   
   something Apple, so it had to be me who was stupid. Of course the latest   
   software update for my iPod fixes this issue, but I dare not tell him or   
   he'll get angry again.   
      
   > For one thing, the linux environment lacks anything as clean as OS X's   
   > window server, its font rasterizer, multimonitor support, etc.   
      
   Quartz is cleaner than Xorg? How do you mean? Do you have any benchmarks?   
   The XFS font server is much better than the OSX one, you guys don't even   
   have sub-pixel hinting. You probably won't get it either, since M$ have   
   their ridiculous "cleartype" patent. Multi-monitor support? I don't   
   remember that _not_ being in Linux.   
      
   >   
   > The Linux community tends to punt the hard problems and then ignore   
   > them, or, worse, look to what Microsoft has done and slavishly copy   
   > them.   
   >   
      
   So when you copied BSD you copied Windows? Microsoft have never had an   
   original thought themselves, they just buy them and claim them. If you   
   actually understood what's under the hood of the Quartz eye candy (i.e. a   
   full-fledged BSD system), and you actually understood how Windows is built,   
   it'd be apparent to you how silly that statement really is. Oh, and OSX has   
   the Dock... Every used an Amiga in the early 90s? There's something really   
   familiar there ;). If you seriously believe that Apple have invented OSX   
   themselves, you're seriously dillusional. OSX is more GNU than it is Apple.   
      
   > Apple pays a lot of people a lot of money to tackle these issues and   
   > solve them.   
   >   
   >> You should be bashing Windows.   
   >   
   > We do that too :)   
      
   Of course you do. And you do it like you do it to Linux here, without caring   
   to use it to make sure what you say is right. I use OSX on my brother's   
   Dual-G5 regularly to take care of business when he's not in the company,   
   but I also use Windows, and I also use Linux. It's clear that you just use   
   OSX.   
      
   --   
   Why do cats jump out of windows? Because it sucks!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)