Posted on 05/28/2007 7:40:29 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
>>funny how quickly anyone with a dissenting opinion on Macs will get attacked by the fanboys <<
Yep, and its pretty much the same fanboys every time. I’m convinced some on here are paid Apple employees. Last month, I compared Apple cult members to liberals and got attacked by people who essentially proved the point I was making.
You would think that some of them, if they TRULY believed Mac was a superior platform would just ignore as delusional others who don’t agree. I would never argue with someone who thought the moon was made of green cheese, but someone on here apparently can’t resist. For God’s sakes, its a computer to do work on, not a being to fall in love with.
I've used both operating systems on a regular basis for many years, so my claim is based on actual experience. Linux is great for servers - but lousy for typical desktop usage. Mac OS X is a much better system for a typical computer user.
"In alot of ways, Linux is ahead of windows in ease of use. Just look at the installation of software packages, it’s arguably ahead of macs too."
Mac OS X can compile, install and run many Unix/Linux applications, and Intel-based Macs can boot Windows and Linux in real or VM modes. The Linux software packages you claim are "arguably ahead of macs" probably work just fine on Macs.
Dell could decide to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development to create DellOS on top of Linux, similar to Apple's creation of Mac OS X on top of Unix. Dell could create a consistent, easy-to-use interface, and some great application suites. In a few years, it could be the first great Linux-based desktop operating system. It might even become a worthy competitor to Mac OS X.
Excellent post, I prefer Sun or BSD Unix to Linux as well. Dell won’t make a software play anytime soon though (if ever), the current battles are in GUI and portability where Linux scores the worst.
Linux is pretty portable, it's currently on at least x86, Itanium, SPARC, MIPS, Alpha, M68K, PowerPC, ARM, PA-RISC and mainframes. And unlike Microsoft, there's no central authority that can make support for Alpha and MIPS disappear.
As far as GUI and general usability, I tried Ubuntu like I said I would. Windows XP is still ahead. I would put it at "acceptable for the average consumer if he can't afford better."
Linux normally struggles with wireless because of a lack of drivers, caused partially by the failure of manufacturers to release specifications so that drivers can be written (perfectly within their rights though). OEM, which is where most laptops and embedded devices come from, solves that problem. An OEM is not going to ship a Linux system with wireless hardware that has poor or non-existent Linux drivers.
Laptops are the hottest commodity these days and finding Linux drivers for the hottest new notebooks often impossible.
So true, but as above, most OEMs aren't shipping those with Linux. In many cases it's up to the poor user to find drivers to make it work, or use the kludge of a wrapper around Windows drivers (NDISWrapper). The latter kind of blows it for the philosophical purists since they have to use proprietary software (oh no, the world's gonna end!).
If Dell put out their owb O/S they might find a few fringe buyers of Linux but not enough to offset any loss of collaboration with Microsoft.
As a consumer I hope their Linux sales take off if for no other reason than increased competition. If Microsoft drops the price for Home because of this then the consumers win again. If it fails, well, one more in a long list of PC industry casualties, which are fine with me as long as they didn't die because of anti-competitive behavior.
Yeah, it's a bit like hating Microsoft because of the C: prompt. These Apple-bashers really need to update their arguments!
Open source drivers will never be created first as there is no real incentive to do that. Linux’s only actual attribute is rawness, which can benefit servers in some situations but is the exact opposite of what you want on a desktop. I’d take an Apple server over a Linux one any day, too.
Maybe not first, but an OEM wanting to produce a high-speed Linux laptop will have solid drivers for it.
I’d take an Apple server over a Linux one any day, too.
Agree in general for me personally, but there are cases where Linux would be preferable. For example, Google could not have done what it did with OS X or Windows since they needed to be able to freely modify the OS at all levels. Linux is better for a cluster where you have expert maintainers because it's fast, infinitely flexible, and $0 * thousands makes for lots of savings. OS X is better for a cluster where you want any admin to be able to run it (XGrid!).
As Google is finding out if you go with Linux you have all that baggage from whacko leftist Richard Stallman and the FSF to deal with. They’re now requesting Google hand over their internal software improvements.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/05/23/googlecode/index.php?lsrc=mwrss
Apple would never do something like that.
True, you do. But Google wouldn't be where it is now without Linux.
Maybe, maybe not but partnering with leftists always has a cost.
Novell might find that out since partnering with Microsoft, run by ultra-leftist Bill Gates. Or you could just license from SCO and get sued for no reason, just ask Daimler-Chrysler.
Stallman and the FSF are well known ultra-leftists, LMAO at your constant diversion/protection attempts. Here he is singing in Cuba recently, not to mention his Green Party solicitations right from his own website (http://www.stallman.org)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-gN1zoI28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw
Funny watching you call other leftists while you try to run cover for these actual whackos constantly.
Duh, haven't I told you that? At least in Stallman's case, Linux isn't mainly made by him (although Linux usually includes some of his tools, as does OS X). In Bill and Steve's case, you're buying software directly from the leftist, and putting money in the leftist's pocket to help fund leftist causes while Stallman doesn't get a dime.
So if you want to go all philosophical on me again, you're pretty screwed as to where you get your software. BTW, where does BSD come from? Hint, find out what the name stands for. Isn't that a known leftist breeding ground?
Stallman owns more rights in Linux than anyone else, your own link to Ubuntu the other day showed him with more than everyone else you named combined. Why you continue your endless denials in defense of that freak is the only remaining question.
Yeah, we've been over this. He has the rights to numerous small tools and applications (few of which are used by most users) that make up a minority of the average Linux distro.
It's interesting how quickly you devolved this thread from a factual discussion of technical and market realities into a rambling paranoid rant against Stallman again.
And watch out for those radicals from Berkeley the next time you touch your beloved BSD.
LOL as usual I’m the one actually keeping the thread on topic - Apple vs. Linux. And in that comparison not only does Apple have better products, they aren’t as far left as Stallman’s kooks or the communist governments rallying behind Linux. When faced with these simple facts you’re hilarious to watch, bringing up all sorts of unrelated BS and denying the obvious. But we’re used to it, we’ve even seen you admit to making up lies to defend Russian hackers illegally cracking Apple’s OSX operating system. Anything you can to support Stallman’s “free software for the world” vision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.