Ubuntu, Macintosh and Windows XP 641
LXer has an interesting look at the big three operating systems with some surprising results. From the article: "If you think that a Linux advocate cannot make an objective analysis of desktop operating systems, then you need to read this report. You may find yourself surprised with some brutal honesty that leaves out the free software philosophy."
Far from "brutal" (Score:5, Insightful)
A more thorough analysis would have focused on why these packages are lacking. What is so special about Windows and Mac that they have these markets clinched? Does his analysis show that Linux needs this software, or is it actually competing in a different market? These are the types of questions that are actually important.
Finally, some of his analysis was just confusing. According to the author, Apple is nicer than Windows because they make nice hardware. Wait. Aren't we comparing software? If hardware is a key issue, why isn't that brought up in all three analyses? And why does he believe that the higher price of Apple's hardware makes it only appealing to Enterprise users when it's quite obviously home users who use it?
All in all, I give him an A+ for effort, but a D- for content. He's really trying, but he doesn't have any real goal in mind during his comparisons. As a result, his analysis comes out confused and unfocused.
XP is a Bad Development Platform? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why leave out the "free software philosophy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like people who care about such important things have a terribly contagious lethal disease.
That sucks big time and sounds like a-moral freaks who would sell their moms (not that I buy that point of view, but it sure as hell sounds like it).
Silly review... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Each system has different programing architectures with OS X a little closer to Linux than Windows. OS X uses a UNIX architecture to run its internals. However, the OS X desktop interface does not resemble Linux or other UNICES which depend on X. You can use X on the Mac natively.
I get so tired of hearing that OS X uses a UNIX architecture, but I digress. Also I like how Linux sucks because software like Income Tax apps are lacking...hello? I processed my last 3 income tax paperwork via Turbo Tax online. What a bad article, no wonder I stopped checking 'digg.com'Re:Why leave out the "free software philosophy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Moo (Score:4, Insightful)
I may despise Windows, but i'll never say it isn't a good OS. If you want to make money, it's better for development, and development tools are easier. Like AOL, UI is key to Microsoft, and many, if not most, developers want that. Plus, tools for the braindead like VB and it's ilk are in abundance with help files, technical support, and addins. It's debugging is usually superior to Linux because it goes line by line, making it an excellent tool for the beginner.
I like Linux, and Linux is robust. I am learning to use C with a friend right now, and we login to my Debian box via SSH to get it done. But one thing is for sure, it ain't as easy. (Which is half the reason i want it that way, but that's another story.)
Linux is more secure, if you know what you are doing. To the average idiot, buying Windows and Symantec's security suite is ten times better. It works out of the box, it has support, and is updated for viruses.
But the "reviewer" didn't even get into overall usuability.
Windows is better, hands down because everyone knows it, it's UI is beautiful and easy to use to most people, there is a great deal of software support for it, and games are written for it. If you are willing to spend money, there's nearly nothing you can do with Linux that you can't do with Windows.
For the techy, however, Linux can be better in that it is control, speed, and reliability. Futhermore, debugging tools such as having the source, using strace, or having knowledgeable people in the newsgroups or mailing lists that speak Geek and are overall familiar with the techy nomenclature, can be a boon and a welcome diversion from the ignorance found amongst Windows support personell.
But, for the non-techy trying to save cash, or the techy trying to save time, the "other" OS may be better.
So much for my opinion. But (in my opinion!) it's alot less biased than his.
Re:XP is a Bad Development Platform? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Far from "brutal" (Score:2, Insightful)
M-Windows XP with SP2 is the best version of M-Windows yet. I find it stable but it is still vulnerable to infiltration. It's familiar to many long-time M-Windows users and its market-share won't be dropping sharply any time soon. Call this phenomenon, "Winertia".
OS X is a delight to use. TFA's author is right to say that the tight coupling to Apple hardware is its challenge. Apple will continue to serve a small percentage of computer users.
Ubuntu (Linux + Gnome + tweaks) is also very usable. That's why Ubuntu is (deservedly) the most popular Linux distribution. If anything is hurting Ubuntu, it is people's unfamiliarity with everything that a user can do -- and do easily -- with Ubuntu.
Re:Please stop trolling Digg for stories! (Score:3, Insightful)
Offtopic interesting link: Digg vs. Slashdot
Interesting site. Unfortunately, it's only a "FIRST POST!" tracker. It doesn't really compare the quality of the two sites. Digg has its ups in that just about everything that you might find cool flies through there. On the other hand, that also means that the noise ratio is pretty darn high. On top of that, Slashdot has a much better comment system. (Though Digg is really trying with their latest Slashdot-ripped-off-threaded-comment-system.)
Slashdot's focus and superior discussion forums really put it ahead of Digg for most professional users. As a result, the far more attractive (and generally better constructed) Digg ends up attracted far more students, highschoolers, and budding programmers than it may intend.
Final Analysis? Go whereever you feel more comfortable. The Internet is big enough for both.
Note to CNN (Score:3, Insightful)
Note to you: please stop trolling Slashdot.
That stupid "It's the hardware" argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, once AGAIN we see that same stupid statement. It's taken as a tautology that Apple's stability is due to it's hardware. From the article:
"Macintosh OS X runs on a limited number of hardware devices which allows Apple Computers to offer a stable and high-performance product overall. Apple's entry level products such as the Mac mini provides a low-cost, high-value multimedia platform."
Bull. While that can't do anything but help, I don't buy it. I think Linux has proven that you can run an operating system on a very diverse set of hardware (that is, the same hardware Windows runs on) and be entirely stable enough to run for months without issue (Windows has gotten there, for the most part). OS X is stable not because there are only 3 pieces of hardware it runs on, but because it was well designed and well built, based on a stable and mature architecture (BSD). It's perfectly stable (from what I hear) when installed on generic Intel computers that it was never designed for.
Besides, what does OS X run on? It runs on Powerbooks, the Minis, PowerMacs, iMacs, iBooks, and the G4 Cube, and more. Each of those has numerous different revisions (often amazingly different, as the difference between a G4 PowerMac and a G5 PowerMac, or a 12" Aluminum Powerbook and a 15" MacBook Pro). In the year I have owned a PowerBook there have been 3 revisions, along with the MacBook Pro. That's one year, one computer line. Not including the different sizes (12", 15", 17").
When will people stop blaming OS X's stability on the hardware. When will they start to blame it on good design. Give Apple a fair shake.
Besides, if the hardware thing was true, OS 8 and OS 9 should have been MUCH MORE stable because they only ran on those few pieces of Apple hardware, while Windows XP should be much LESS stable because it runs on so many million different types of computers.
Or the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can I fill in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude. Seriously. Not helping.
Installation problems always have and always will be key areas that users complain about. Users think of Macs and Windows machines as "easy" in that respect, because the OS ships with the machine. They've completely forgotten how they used to have that kid next door come over to install Windows for them in exchange for a few bucks or some homemade cookies.
A more complete analysis would show that Linux needs the crucial "early adopters" in the home market who are willing to put up with its faults to have the latest and greatest. Those early adopters would then drive sales of OEM Linux machines.
Unfortunately, Linux has already experienced quite a few cycles of early adopters. Every time it fails on the follow through. Whether it be support for the distro ending (e.g. JDS), a breakneck upgrade cycle (e.g. Mandrake/Mandriva), or just plain user unfriendliness (e.g. user can't upgrade to latest package X from the repository because they need to upgrade to the latest OS version), users end up becoming frustrated with Linux and leave. The vendors take notice of this and drop support for their commercial Linux software. Thus Linux loses popular support until the next cycle.
I've talked about this many times before. Linux distro providers need to decide if they're really trying to target the home desktop or not. If they are, they need to stop targetting the workstation market and make something that really blows the home market away. Linspire is pretty much the only distro that is taking this step. It's too bad that they've got their technology wired all wrong. Perhaps Ubuntu can do it, but it will need to nail both the OEM Linux market, as well as user's needs going forward. Given that much of their success and failure is still dependent on areas farther back in the pipeline (e.g. GNOME), only time will tell if Ubuntu becomes a serious contender in the home.
Hear you loud and clear. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't find installing a new distro to be something enjoyable or entertaining, thus I'll probably stick with Ubuntu until I find a very compelling reason to change to something else, but I think if I was going to do it all over again I probably would have picked SuSE or RedHat. All in all, running Ubuntu has been an interesting experience -- I've discovered that the "spit and polish" aspect of an OS counts for a lot more to me than I thought it would.
So I suppose I'll keep coughing up $2.5k every few years for a new shiny thing from Apple, since so far they're the only company that I've found that does it right.
Re:Unavailable tax software??? (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me that the fact that you are surprised when everything just works says quite a bit.
Re:Far from "brutal" (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Sir, I have not. Wireless is not a major selling point for desktops in the enterprise. Secure-wireless networking is not a show-stopper for Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is junky for Bluetooth as well. But that hasn't stopped Ubuntu from gaining significant support.
No, we just think he is a tool, also (Score:3, Insightful)
Very few people actually use windows- you ask them what kind of computer they have, and you'll hear "Dell" or "Packard Bell" or "Gateway" - maybe even an "IBM". These people have no idea what they're using or if anything might do what they want better.
Leaving out the fact that this is Free software is trollish- if you don't qualify any comparison with "This is what the people who actually have to use it want to use", then you're just feeding this FUD machine that zero-charge software equals lower-quality- because OF COURSE there's something available for Windows that isn't available for my Free operating system.
Doesn't mean I miss it in the slightest.
And by the way, I have no problems using tax preparation software on Linux, or converting things to and from PDF. I also have no problems watching DVDs legally- as my DVD player and software predate the DCMA.
I have no interest in Visio, Framemaker or Photoshop, or rather any other software that doesn't want me to use it. I may be interested in performing some of the tasks that are possible with these programs- but I've already got adequate Free software, that works and does things the way _I_ want to.
apps (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct - and more important - distinguisher would be that XP provides the only hosting choice for a large number of applications.
We all, and Bill Gates and even Wallstreet know that if all software available for Windos were available for OSX and Linux as well, with no difference in price, support or ease of installation, Windos market share would drop faster than you can possibly sell your M$ shares. Not to zero, some people just use whatever is there or don't know any better, but users are already moving to OSX in droves despite the app count disadvantage.
Re:XP is a Bad Development Platform? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's debatable...
almost all 3rd party tools run on Windows
No, most don't. You need an emulation layer to run the most flexible development tools; those found in UNIX. Because windows lacks basic automation powers outside of normal user processing, the developer has to write "helper programs" that on UNIX are already written, to do basic transformations.
No pipelines, no universal application interface, I'd say windows doesn't have any of the things that I use regularly in my development.
The interop argument is silly. If you're writing code for interop you can do it just as easily on Windows as any other platform.
No you can't. It's certainly much easier to build and develop on a unixish system than on a Windows system.
My schism tracker project builds automatically for Win32, x86/Linux, and ppc/MacOSX all from the same source tree, all in parallel, and at one point, all from the same machine.
I do not see for a minute how it is even possible to do this on Windows unless I either (a) do an awful lot of work, or (b) use a UNIX environment on Windows and do slightly less than an awful lot of work.
If you're writing stuff for Windows, you have the support of some of the best frameworks available today.
If you mean to say, writing software _on_ windows gives you access to some of the best frameworks available, I have to tell you you're wrong. Most Windows frameworks have very poor accessibility outside of C++, or possibly VB.
If you mean to say writing _targetting_ windows gives you access to some of the best frameworks available, I still have to say you're wrong. The win32 frameworks don't mesh well with any other systems' development model.
Sadly, that seems to be intentional...
Meaningless to infer usage from those stats.. (Score:4, Insightful)
An analogy would be to look at how many people search for, say, a Ferrari versus how often people search for a Ford Focus. The Ferrari are more interesting and people search for them, but doesn't mean that the proportion of Ferrari drivers to Focus drivers is anywhere near what google search statistics would suggest with this methodology.
There was a point in all that babble? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Coral Cache Mirror! (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another idiot. (Score:2, Insightful)
(1) This guy thinks he is an every-man. Since most people are exactly like him, whatever he desires is what most people desire. (Please sir, I'd like free educational and income-tax software.)
(2) This guy thinks that his sundry experience with a smattering of systems and operating systems constitutes some kind of basis from which to form opinions of some value, or to give advice. At least he could have polled three of his best friends and make a data-set taken from four people who think they are Everyman. As it is, this guy thinks everything that matters to him is what really matters in the big bad world out there.
(3) This guy is a terrible writer. He doesn't know how to present a cogent argument, formulate a clear thesis, and support it with evidence.
I've read a lot of really mundane and pointless articles. This one tops them all.
Warren
Re:Far from "brutal" (Score:2, Insightful)
Monkeys (Score:2, Insightful)
Precisely (Score:3, Insightful)
What I find with free software is I'm asked to make major, major compramises, and that the people pushing it seem to think I should be happy, and even thankful, to do so just because it's free. I particularly get in to this with audio apps. I have a number of pro audio apps I use that weren't cheap. Regardless, to me they are worth the money. When I check out the free alternatives, they are woefully lacking. However they get suggested to me as though they are drop in replacements, and anything lacking well "you don't really need that."
In the end, I just don't care. Sure, the open source ideal is nice, but if it can't do what I want I am not going to be a crusader about it. I'll pays my moneys and use commercial software. The ability to go to my desktop at work or at home and just sit down and use it, no problem, with all the apps I need, is priceless to me.
Re:Doesn't have a what?... (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably the biggest advantage of Linux-for-normal-people is the fact you do not have these problems. You simply háve all those programs you use only twice a year, and if you don't, aquiring & installing them is so much easier than on a MS-desktop. This advantage is seldom mentioned, but it is potentially the main reason to switch. TFA doesn't mention this either, instead it calls Ubuntu a mid-level desktop. But for the average user, it's more like a top-level desktop, since he can by default do so much more without friends having a pile of illegal software available.
Re:Why leave out the "free software philosophy"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people just want to get their work done without having to count how many machines they've installed ProTax2007 on, or document it when the vendor says they're coming round for an audit. Some people just want to get their work done without having to trawl through a 25-page EULA for every piece of software they install, that's different for each program.
Some people just want to get their work done without having to add code in the programs they write, to try and stop people copying it. Some people just want to get their work done without having to deal with support queries from someone whose license key doesn't work.
Some people just want to get their work done even when the license server fails, or the internet is down, or Microsoft is taking too long on the phone to "activate" the program they're trying to use. Some people just want to get their work done even if the DRM insists that they're not allowed to do it.
Some people just want to get their work done without restricting the freedoms of others.
Re:Read his thread before judging (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. He seems to be a real asshole. He's rarely openly aggressive, but he starts out being really annoying and passive-aggressive, constantly slams Ubunto for no good reason (as it turns out, his hardware was broken), and quickly turns to insulting the people trying to help him.
Some choice quotes:
And so on.
I don't like Linux. I use a Mac, and I use Windows at work. I have absolutely no interest in Ubuntu. And I still think he's extremely unfriendly. He's telling the very people who try to help him that they've "reached a new low". Wow.
Remember, he wants these people to help him. They're not paid to help him. They do it out of the goodness of their heart (or maybe they have some leass altruistic reason, but hey sure as hell don't have to help him), yet all he does is insult them and demand a solution which is simply not possible in this here reality.
It's kinda weird how long it took until the others went from being apologetic to calling him what he was.
What an ass.
Re:Far from "brutal" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some tips (no flames, honest) (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're not comfortable installing, say, Windows XP, then don't install Linux--that's comfortable installing it, not simply able to, there's a difference. Yes, many Linux distros are (barring any rare problems, like what this guy apparently had) easier to install than XP these days, but ANY installation process can run into problems that put a computer in an unusable state. If you're not comfortable backing up your stuff somewhere where it can't get hurt (CDs, DVDs, a hard drive that's unplugged from the box) and with the idea and process of doing a complete format of the hard drives and a reinstall of all OSs on the machine if something goes wrong, then don't do it.
I would honestly feel OK with my grandma using Ubuntu as her desktop OS. But I wouldn't expect her to install it, just like I wouldn't expect her to install WinXP. "Ready for the average desktop user" does not mean "ready for the average desktop user to install".
Re:Far from "brutal" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Incomming! (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, Slax is much better in terms of ease-of-use and installation. Not to mention it's a chunk smaller, highly modular and uses a WM that's simply better (bitch at me all you want about Gnome V. KDE. I've used both. My girlfriend (who is nongeek) has used both. We kinda agree which is superior).
I'm just really shocked that KDE gets no representation just 'cos ubuntu's the hot linux flavor of the week.