Replies

In briefly glancing at the article, I spotted some factual errors about Macs. The author was wrong about file typing - it doesn't depend entirely on file name extensions. The author complains about font anti-aliasing, without mentioning that it can be easily adjusted in System Preferences to suit the user's preference. And there were conspicuous omissions in his discussion of user interface technology, like the Quartz Extreme compositing engine that give Mac OS X a fast, smooth appearance - in contrast to X11's crude window system. Of course, some of the opinions are subjective. The author prefers a cheap plastic case to a sturdy aluminum case.

The author also fails to note that most Linux software can be compiled to run on Macs, but Mac software generally won't run on Linux. Next year, Macs will be able to run Windows too, so there is a lot more versatility in the Mac environment.

The bottom line is - Linux is an excellent operating system for servers, but a lousy platform for desktop users. Linux has a long way to go before it can catch up to Mac OS X as a desktop computer, and given the state of anarchy and chaos in the Linux development community, it's unlikely to ever catch up.

Not a bad post.

^^^^^^^^^^The author also fails to note that most Linux software can be compiled to run on Macs, but Mac software generally won't run on Linux.^^^^^^^^^

The author made it a point on multiple occasions that the mac had a permanent home on his desk.(in one wording or another)

What he also noted is that installing software on linux is easier and requires less feedback.

^^^^^^^Next year, Macs will be able to run Windows too, so there is a lot more versatility in the Mac environment.^^^^^^^^^^

And in the meantime?

We'll see if it helps them re-capture their spot as #2.

Besides, macs give you much less versatility in the hardware department.

^^^^^^^^^The bottom line is - Linux is an excellent operating system for servers, but a lousy platform for desktop users.^^^^^^^^^^

Heh, that's not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is that "but a lousy platform for desktop users." is a statement that only applies to last year's linux.

Linux has a long way to go before it can catch up to Mac OS X as a desktop computer, and given the state of anarchy and chaos in the Linux development community, it's unlikely to ever catch up.

Yeah, but the converse is also true. Mac OS X has a long way to go for use as a server platform - too many compromises were made for user interaction. For deploying server farms of generic IP services such as web servers, directory services, databases, etc. Linux is hands down the choice when it comes to flexibility.

" Next year, Macs will be able to run Windows too, so there is a lot more versatility in the Mac environment. "

Could you please explain what you mean here. Do you have any reason to believe that when the Intel-based Macs come out in 2006, that there will be an increased ability to run Windows over Virtual PC? ....or are you saying something different, IOW that because Windows is made for Intel based computers and the 2006 Intel Macs would have the same chip, that there will be an new out of the box ability to run Windows based software [or a Windows OS such as XP Professional] ?!

I am a longtime Mac user who needs Windows based software for my law office and therefore have used Dell PCs for this purpose. I am not particularly computer savvy, so if you could keep your response clear and not assume I know more than I do, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.