Re: Big Mac Hoax 2: "OS X is Unix"

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:11:27 -0700, Snit wrote:

"TheLetterK" <non@xxxxxxxx> stated in post
pan.2006.07.15.19.48.56.199860@xxxxxxxx on 7/15/06 12:48 PM:

I find that some Linux/Unix users get very hostile toward Mac with very
little cause and little real experience with it. I tend to regard that
as mostly psychological. I was able to adapt all of the stuff I was
doing on Linux to OS X with very little trouble.

I've been using Macs for 5 years, and I don't like OS X. It's better than
Windows, but worse than GNU/Linux or any of the free/open BSDs. I
*certainly* wouldn't consider replacing my Linux box with a Mac.

Everyone is welcome to an opinion and I am certainly not trying to talk you
out of yours, but I am wondering if you can describe in specific ways some
of the areas where you think OS X fails compared to whatever flavor of Linux
you use. Also, what flavor do you use?

Depends on the situation. I like Ubuntu for desktops, Debian for servers,
and Gentoo for EPIA boxes.


I find it a little puzzling that you mention ext2 support. It's hardly a
selling point of Linux.

There are reasons why ext2 support is needed, particularly is Apple is
wanting to court long-time Linux users (who may well be *using* large ext2
partitions).

I doubt Linux users are the core market they are going after. Windows is
much more likely.

It would still be trivial for Apple to add ext2 support to OS X. If not
ext2, then at least something like ReiserFS or XFS. Both of these are
better than HFS+ anyway.


Also, when you speak of the Mac "looking good" and how good KDE can be made
to look, I think you're falling into a common misconception among Linux
users, namely that all Linux needs in order to be on par with the mainstream
OS's is some glitter or shine to make it look good. That has nothing at all
to do with my reasons for switching to OS X. In my opinion, Linux does not
need any more glitter or shine. The Linux community already wastes too much
effort on frivolous things, like themes for gtk, gnome, command prompts,
etc., while neglecting fundamental technology. What Linux needs is not
glitter, but better design and better technology.

Can you cite *anything* that OS X handles better than GNU/Linux? I
certainly can't think of anything.

I will compare OS X to Ubuntu:

Good design isn't about glitter. Good design is about achieving your desired
results with the simplest possible means.

By that definition, OS X is quite possibly the *worst* design in the history
of computing. OS X is many things, but simple is not one of them.

Do you have an example?

Alright how about this. On most platforms, there is but one method to
configure SMB shares. On OS X, there are two. One interface allows you to
turn on Samba with the default options. The other requires you to edit
smb.conf, in /etc (a place that is, by default, hidden to the user).
Unlike on GNU/Linux, there is no instruction for doing this (Apple
doesn't even indicate that this is possible).

Do not mistake singular instances like the iLife suite as an indication of
platform-wide simplicity. OS X is somewhat easy to use for certain tasks
that Apple intends for users to perform, but it is intentionally and
needlessly complicated in almost everything else.


Another typical misconception you've dragged in here is the Almost There
fallacy. KDE can be made to look almost as good as Mac. It's Almost
There. Indeed, Linux has been Almost There for the entire past decade
when I was using it. I have no doubt it will continue to be Almost There
for many more years.

It's *almost there* with everything, whereas OS X is *there* with very
few things, and lacking entirely in most everything else.

Such as?

As an example, consider OS X's abysmal server performance. It is an
antiquated, overly difficult pile of *** compared to a modern *nix.


Let me know when it's actually There. In the meantime, I'm going to be using
OS X.

I feel your pain.

Why do you care what OS he prefers? You prefer Linux. Ok. No skin off my
nose... sad you feel the need to belittle OS X though in such vague terms.

OS X has quite a few advantages for me. One of the most important is
that OS X is more reliable and much less work to maintain than Linux.

That's a load of BS. It might be more reliable and less work *for you*,
but for most that is rarely the case.

What makes you think your unsupported view represents the norm?

What makes him think his unsupported view is the norm? The fact that there
are many Mac users rejecting OS X in favor of Linux indicates that OS X is
*not* more reliable and less work.


In my experience, Linux was a very high maintenance system, with very
serious reliability problems.

What, exactly, do you do with OS X? While Linux may be considered 'high
maintenance', it pales in comparison to what OS X requires.

Such as?

Manual application updates, anyone? Dumb periodic scheduling, perhaps?


Of course, when Linux users hear me say that, they have a tendency to grip
their chests, gasp, and roll their eyes back in their heads. I know very well
the mentality and culture behind that, because I lived it myself. Living the
Linux culture means living in denial. You pretend that Linux is solid as a
rock, that it outperforms Windows and beats Windows for reliability and
stability, etc.

No, I came to Linux after Windows and OS X, because both of them sucked.
Both are unreliable, both require too much work, and both are too
difficult to work with. GNU/Linux, on the other hand, is much better in
all three respects. That's why I *stopped* using Windows and OS X.

So you say but offer no support.

You would probably dismiss most of my own concerns as irrelevant or not a
part of Apple's target market. That, of course, leaves the question of
just who Apple's target market is--whoever buys Macs?


You find ways to explain away every problem you have, and even
praise the system when, after googling and posting in newsgroups and
wasting hours fiddling, you find a patch or a work-around. But I no
longer have so much time for that and I've grown weary of living in
denial. The bottom line is that Linux is just a lot more work and a lot
less reliable than I want to deal with right now.

Perhaps *for you*, but that is by no means a universal assessment.

Much more likely to be true than your claims.

Well, if you support him, I'd consider that a sure sign that he's making
up garbage.


The other major advantage of OS X for me is that it is both a Unix
system and it also has good music/audio and mainstream apps.

It's 'Unix' in a loose sense of the term. On the surface it does act a lot
like a Unix, but when you start digging down into the guts, you find that
it is a wholly different beast. Apple has made some very fundamental
changes to the way OS X operates. The very existence of something like
Fink is a strong indication of just how non-*nix OS X really is.

I can do
everything on OS X that I could do on Windows and Linux together

It just takes half again as long, and costs twice as much.

In your unsupported opinion.

If my opinion is uninformed, what does that make yours? I've used both
platforms heavily, whereas you don't seem to demonstrate any knowledge of
GNU/Linux at all.


, so I need only one system now for everything, and that system is easier for
me to maintain than either Windows or Linux was. So it's been a pretty big
win for me.

'for me' being the operative term there. Do not assume that your
situation is normal.

Why don't you want him to be like you?

Having reading comprehension problems again, ***?
.

Quantcast