Re: The Myth of the secure Mac

Snit wrote: 
"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
qWY8f.24067$NJ.23569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 10/29/05 10:35 PM:


I love watching Linux folks talk out of both sides of their mouths.  :)

On one hand a Linux brag is that it is free.
On the other hand a Linux brag is that more is spend on it than on OS X.


These two comments are not mutually exclusive. If Apple charges 10
million users $130 a year, that is more per user than Redhat charging 50
million people $50 a year--even though Redhat would take in a lot more.
Besides, the majority of income related to GNU/Linux is from the sale of
services and/or support. Give away the razor, but charge for the blades,
as it is.


Right - there is a cost for Linux - it is in in the support.  That is not
the same as saying it is free.  Sure, to the hobbyist it can be free (minus
hardware), but to claim it is a free OS and then to talk about how so much
is spent on it is contradictory.



Most home users can get by without commercial support just fine. You
have to be exceptionally stupid to need a paid support plan for
GNU/Linux on the home desktop.



I would like to see the evidence that the money spent on Linux is not spent
by home users (with, of course, some small exceptions).
Go check out IDC's results, they probably break it down for you--or is that not included in the blub of research whatever magazine you cite pays for? Want some evidence? Look at user community patterns--most of the 'hobby community' and 'home users' are using the free distros like Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, etc. Very few actually buy boxed sets. However, Redhat and Novell both do a booming business selling enterprise-level support for their products. They make no bones about that.


If this is the case then the free versions are missing something pretty big
- why else would people pay so much for the non-free versions?


IMO, Debian is of higher quality than *any* of the 'big business'
distros. However, those for-pay distros offer professional service
packages (Debian just has an active community), disks and hard
documentation, and, more importantly, someone to blame if things go wrong.

However you slice it - people clearly pay for Linux.


People pay for GNU/Linux *support*.


People pay to use Linux - paying for the razor or the blade is not really
important.
I don't pay for Linux. The only time I've payed for a copy is when a distro comes with the book I bought.


The reality is that to count Linux as one OS is not honest - it is a group
of OS's that use a common kernel.

That run the same apps,

As can OS X and other Unix like OS's


OS X's compatibility in this regard is lacking a great deal. 


Insert example here:
-----
LostIRC
SillyMUD
DikuMUD
Sun Java (this only matters because of Apple's glacial update times for Java)
3ddesktop
Firestarter
snort
conary
Mac on Linux
Xen
Xinerama

need I go on?

-----


use the same general conventions,

Ditto. 


OS X's conventions are radically different from GNU/Linux's. So are most
Unixes. It's one of the big reasons the BSDs are so different from
GNU/Linux. They are *very* different below the most superficial layers.



Insert explanation why this matters to most users here:
-----
GNU/Linux commands and BSD commands are very much different. Whereas the BSD tools employed by OS X are designed with the most critical functions and excellent implementation, the GNU tools are typically designed with additional functionality in mind. GNU/Linux is case sensitive, the OS X is not. Therefore, many of the command options that GNU/Linux users are accustomed to are remapped to different letters and numbers. Also, many applications (for example, emacs) do not use the same keyboard shortcuts because the Mac keyboard layout is different. Additionally, the location of files/devices, and their names are substantially different from what GNU/Linux users are used to. As an example, we can cite disks--on GNU Linux, the primary master drive would almost always be /dev/hda. On OS X, it would probably be something like /dev/disk01. Volume mounting is also different--OS X automatically automounts volumes into the /volumes directory structure. The closest analog on GNU/Linux would be an automounter daemon mounting targets in a /Media directory--but OS X's nomenclature and usage is quite different. Furthermore, OS X does not integrate application installation with commands on the CLI. For example, an application drag-installed to ~/Desktop could not be readily invoked on the command line. Conversely, in almost all modern Linux distributions, software package installation will *always* put a link to the app within a location specified in PATH, or as a direct addition to the PATH variable itself. This allows applications to be simply started with a variety of different variables; to use a common example, nethack cannot be simply invoked in Wizard mode on OS X, without using the text version found in Fink (which, might I add, does not map out the direction keys properly--at least, not on an iBook).

There are many other differences to be found in OS X that matter to a user, but I believe I have demonstrated my case well enough for the current situation. 
-----

and follow the same general philosophy.

To some extent...


To the full extent--even commercial organizations like Novell and Redhat. 


The philosophy of how the OS is made is not the same as how it is designed,
used, marketed, customized, etc.  There are many different philosophies in
the Linux world.

Like?

Explain these differing philosophies and how this impacts the end user here
----------------

----------------

By the same argument we should count Panther and Tiger seperately. 

Incorrect - unless you want to count each release of each distro separately.
The better analogy is to count each FreeBSD based OS, or maybe just Darwin
and OS X separately.



FreeBSD is a BSD distribution. There aren't many things based on FreeBSD
that aren't FreeBSD.


OS X is, in part, based on FreeBSD
Not exactly. It's userspace generally follows FreeBSD conventions, and utilized BSD tools. But it is *not* a fork of FreeBSD. OS X's inclusion of the BSD tools are mainly a throwback to it's Next days, and historic in origin.


Just because GNU/Linux is structured differently than most commercial
efforts, does not mean that it is less homogenous or less of a coherent
platform.


Sure it is less coherent... heck, look at the split between KDE and K.


KDE and GNOME you mean? 


Um, yeah... sorry for the typo / brain fart.


That split isn't very wide. You can run GTK apps in KDE just fine, just as QT
apps will run in KDE. The decorations and widgets look a bit messed up, but
the apps still work fine.


They work - but "look a bit messed up". That is a split.
Not a very large one. Using the same logic, OS X is even more split because that same 'fracturing' exists on OS X, but made worse through common use of the quartz WM in addition to GNOME, KDE, and friend--as well as OS X's native interface, and Classic.


And they are just the two biggest.


The only two that are really relevent at this juncture.


Based on what?
Well, considering the people that actively make use of the alternatives... I'd say it doesn't matter. Using the alternatives is almost always (save the instance of Live distros designed for low-spec computers, and other specialized tasks) a concious decision on the part of the user. These are people who *want* to use something against the grain--the same people who would use shell replacements on Windows, or Shapeshifter on OS X.


The Linux movement is anything but coherent - one of its strengths is that
different setups need not be consistent with each other; it is designed to be
very very customizable.



And it still retains cohesion. It's just *not* what people are used to.
Rather than maintaining a consistant look, they maintain consistancy in
compatibility, and overall philosophy.


Above even you agree that the compatibility is not complete.
Across GNU/Linux distributions? I'm not aware of very many apps that will run on one distro but not on another. Those are almost all propriatary software (e.g Yahoo Messenger).

Add to that
dependencies,

Which are resolved automatically on just about every moder GNU/Linux distro.

different philosophies of different GUI designers,
This is not very big, these designers typically don't strike out on their own and implement radically different designs on specific distributions.

etc. and
you have a very inconsistent platform
Inconsistant by the measurements that many people used to Windows and Macs use. It depends entirely on your point of view. I consider GNU/Linux to be much more consistant, since support for anything rarely disappears--while support on either of the two main commercial platforms comes and goes. If you build an app for GTK 1.2 today, it will still run on GTK 1.x in 5 years. The same might or might not be true for Windows and Macs apps (there are many siutations where forward compatibility is broken--this is mostly found in user scripts, but can be found in apps as well). Features almost *never* disappear on GNU/Linux, whereas Macs are like the arctic north, ever changing never constant. What happened, for example, to Finder's spatial navigation? Why does Apple keep changing their preferred window decoration (Pinstripe to Brushed Metal to Wood to Platinum, all in one big pile)? Why can I not apply a consistant system theme across all of my apps and the widgets therein?

- if you consider Linux one platform.
Os X tends to be far, far more coherent / consistent.  That can be both good
and bad.
It is inconsistant in my eyes. It's as chaotic as GNU/Linux ever tried to be.


Almost undoubtedly OS X is bigger than any given Linux distro, not that it
matters much.  Heck, OS X can run most Linux software, but the opposite is
not true (except a few PPC distros).

OS X and GNU/Linux share *some* applications

Most. What Linux apps do not run on OS X? 


Let's see... LostIRC doesn't work at all, most MUD servers don't work
without a *lot* of tweaking and many don't work at all, Beagle doesn't
work on OS X, mono isn't as well supported on OS X, and many others.
It's mostly the Linux or x86 specific (Beagle, and mono to a degree), or
truly esoteric... but there are certainly exceptions (LostIRC, for example).



I have never used it, but according to the LostIRC SourceForge page the OS's
it runs with are:

<http://sourceforge.net/projects/lostirc/>
-----
Operating System: All BSD Platforms (FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD/Apple Mac OS X),
All POSIX (Linux/BSD/UNIX-like OSes), FreeBSD, Linux
-----
I spent two days trying to get it to compile cleanly once. I gave up and went back to Xchat Aqua. Maybe it has something to do with using Apple's X11 instead of Fink's Xfree86? Of course, at this point I couldn't even consider switching over if that is the problem.


Beagle: <http://beagle.gel.ulaval.ca/distributed/>
-----
Compiles on UNIX (Linux/OS X) with gcc 3.x and Windows with Visual Studio
.NET
-----
Well, I guess it would technically *run*, but your stuck with the crappy slow backend. No extended filesystem attributes, no on-the-fly indexing.



Seems OS X runs those programs...


, but OS X's nagging compatibility problems are one of the main reasons I'm
considering dropping it on my Macs (most of the apps I use daily are '*nix'
apps, only three are Mac-specific. OmniWeb, Shiira, and Quicksilver). There
are tons of GNU/Linux applications that *simply will not run* on OS X. There
are many more that won't run without a lot of tinkering. In many ways,
Cygwin
provides better compatibility because at least there you have a chance at
knowing what will and will not work beforehand.

Do you have any examples? Would love to know what apps 


They never seem right on OS X, even under the most advantagious
circumstances. X11 definitely plays second fiddle on OS X. You also have
the X11/Fink Xfree86 divide going on (apps built for one won't run on
the other), as well as the interface inconsistancy and sporadic package
management. It's a lot like how Microsoft implements features--they
develop it to the point where they could reasinably claim to have the
feature, but it never feels natural. The same is true for traditional
*nix apps on OS X.



I do not use many X11 applications, but the few I have worked fine - though
they certainly feel more like Linux apps sitting on top of OS X...

That's the problem. It's like your wearing two different shoes or something.

Though I have to wonder, have you run those same apps on a native GNU/Linux installation? There are many instances where apps will run on OS X, but lack functionality, prompt updates, or just run like ***. OpenOffice is a prime example of this.

and it
makes their generally lower quality UI stick out like a sore thumb.
What apps were you using? Most of the GNU/Linux apps I use have very high quality UIs.

 There
are, I am sure, quite a few exceptions.
Are you running GTK or QT apps in that shitty quartz WM? If so, I think I found your problem.


- and why you opt for the non-Mac specific ones on a Mac.


They work better


In what way?
Depends on the apps. Some run faster, some do things that no Mac analog does (or at least, no reasonably priced Mac app does)...



, I'm more familiar with them


That is likely they primary reason 
PRobably why you think the *nix apps are of inferior quality.



, I prefer the interfaces (why I prefer The GIMP over Photoshop, despite
having Photoshop),


Oh my... you are certainly one of the few with that view.
The GIMP is disconcerting for people used to Photoshop, and the same tends to be true for those used to The GIMP trying to use Photoshop.



they have features the Mac versions don't (this is especially true for Ogg
playback if you use QT7), or there simply aren't any free Mac apps to perform
the task at hand.


Can you try to answer again but be even more vague and elusive. :)
Ogg playback sticks out like a sore thumb because I've been wrestling with it for years. The Ogg component for quicktime is alright, but it's somewhat slow and resource heavy. It also doesn't work with QT7. Other solutions like Whamb are so buggy they'll spawn a kernel panic weekly.


Your Mac experience would almost undoubtedly be better if you used
applications that work best with the OS you are using!



I've looked--they're either incapable, expensive, or poorly designed in
the situations where I forgo the Mac apps in favor of *nix apps. It's
not my fault that the majority of Mac apps fall in one of those catagories.



Yet you are having a devil of a time finding examples!  I will grant that
IRC is likely a fair example - I have not found a good, free IRC client on
OS X.... then again I have not looked much.
IRC clients, telnet/MUD clients, *nethack*, media players (Mplayer on OS X sucks, though VLC is alright), and lots of others. The only area OS X really shines at are web browsers, because of excellent applications like OmniWeb and Shiira.


That makes the software options for OS X larger than that of the Linux
OS's...


Certainly not for people accustomed to GNU/Linux software--OS X *might*
run 75% of the 'GNU/Linux' apps out there. Might. Even less run cleanly.

I would love to see your support of that. 


I guess I just make use of odd apps, but I can never seem to get many of
the *nix apps I use on GNU/Linux to run properly on OS X.


A sure weakening of your "75%" claim.
A good quarter of the *nix apps I try on OS X fail. I don't know if it's because of my personal taste ina pplication, or simply because OS X's compatibility sucks. It certainly sucks *for my purposes*.


You generally get only the most common applications on OS X.

Which is a lot more than you get of OS X apps on most Linux distros.


Fortunately for everyone, OS X specific apps are fairly well irrelivent.


Irrelevant in what way? 
No one cares about Mac apps but Mac users.

You do not know them? 
I know them well enough, it's why I don't use them.

In the computing world it
can be said that Linux is far less relevant - heck, Windows is the only real
"relevant" OS to most users, and it is largely designed to be a copy of the
Mac... only recently has Linux even entered the picture.

It entered the picture back in 2000. It's been gaining ground ever since.


In the server space and some others, of course, Linux is far more relevant.


When your platform's most compelling application is a shareware web
browser, your platform's third party developers are in sad shape.
Amazing really, considering OS X's dev tools.



What OS / application are you even talking about?  Linux and Firefox?  But
Firefox is freeware, not shareware...
OS X / OmniWeb. It's the *only* (well, shiira is nice at time as well) OS X app I've run across that I actually like. Quicksilver is only a necessity.


but that is rarely mentioned or even accepted by the Linux
advocates.


I do not accept the 'fact' that OS X has good *nix compatibility. I know
from first hand experience that it does not.

You keep saying that but offering no examples. I look forward to them. 


I've given you a more exhaustive list in threads past, though a sample
can be found in this response.


And, above, I show them to be at least in part incorrect.
Depends on your definition of 'works'. I know Beagle doesn't work at all decently on OS X--it doesn't run decently on GNU/Linux until you build Linux with things like extended attribute support for ext3 or apply the inotify patch and build with it. Even then, the high-compatibility backend is slow as molassas


Most Mac users, for what it is worth, do not use X11 software - why should
they?  The Mac software is generally superior and more consistent with the
rest of the environment.


More consistant with the rest of the environment? Yes. Superior? Not on
your life.


I suppose it depends on what application and what needs we mean specifically
- but in general, for most users, yes, the Mac apps are both more consistent
and better than the common X11 apps.  They are also often more expensive
(for example MS Office vs. Open Office, of example).



Yes, OS X's lack of a decent office suite is a detriment (Open Office
sucks out loud on OS X).



In what way is OpenOffice any better on Linux (other than on OS X it is in
an alternative user environment).
Runs a hell of a lot better, gets updated more promptly (OOo 2 hasn't even been qualified for OS X yet, and the beta was only available every third build--whereas development occurs first on GNU/Linux), will integrate properly with the rest of the UI, can be preloaded, updates are managed through the package managers...

  Other than support of open standard file
formats and price, what does OpenOffice have going for it that MS Office on
the Mac does not?
Open Office on the Mac sucks, more than MS Office does--but MS Office on the Mac isn't very good either. But as to your question, I find OOo to be easier to use. OOo also uses a compress file format by default, and can run off a key drive.


Linux has many things going for it - I just wish those that advocate for it
would strive to be honest.  Most simply aren't.


Most advocates of any platform are not honest. 

There is some truth to that... and that does include much of the Mac
advocacy I read.


This trait of dishonesty is more common within Mac advocates than it is even
Windows advocates (I am excempting the trolls on all sides). Take a look at
the deceptive ramblings of those like Oxtard or Travlinidiot. They are
*masters* of obfuscating the opposing viewpont with dubiously credible
'facts' and blatantly erroneous conclusions.

Not to defend either of them, but do you have any specific examples? 


Oxtard's insane claims within this very thread would be an excellent
display. Perhaps Travlinman's insistance that Xserve clusters provide a
better price/performance ratio than IBM's Blue Gene solutions (the Mac
clusters certainly have a lower price tag, but performance is
dramatically lower)?



Compare computers from the same time frame.  When the OS X clusters came out
they were very price competitive.

Travlinidiot was making this claim like a week ago.
.

Quantcast