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

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:05:26 -0700, Snit wrote:

"TheLetterK" <non@xxxxxxxx> stated in post
pan.2006.07.16.03.55.22.780570@xxxxxxxx on 7/15/06 8:55 PM:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:05:46 -0700, Snit wrote:

"TheLetterK" <non@xxxxxxxx> stated in post
pan.2006.07.16.02.39.51.435295@xxxxxxxx on 7/15/06 7:39 PM:

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.

What specifically do you find wrong with OS X?

In order of most annoying to most severe:

1) Case-insensitive filesystem

You can choose to have it be case sensitive if you like:
<http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_fs.html>
<http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200502011939237>

Yeah, if I want to break a bunch of stuff. Many OS X applications and
utilities assume a case insensitive filesystem, and don't work properly if
using HFSX (just like many things break if you don't give administrators
write permission on /Applications).

There ares some things that do break. Now the real question: what task does
this limitation prevent you from doing? Not even just prevent - even make
harder? Sure, it is different, but there is value in *not* having Foo, FOO,
and foo all sitting in the same folder - too darn confusing. What
real-world downside is there to this?

A confusing UI. What does 'foo' stand for? Foo or FOO?


Keep in mind you claimed this was the most annoying. Why?

I'm coming from a *nix perspective--disallowing case sensitivity is
annoying. If I have two files of similar names (say, Foo and FOO), I
certainly don't want ambiguity when working with them. It is most annoying
to have no way of accessing FOO if there is also a file called Foo in the
same directory.


2) XML config files for many aspects of the system, rather than plaintext.

In what way does not adversely affect you?

Manually editing config files becomes a chore rather than a preferred
method of configuration. Even worse, it becomes almost painful to try to
do so from single-user mode.

Why on Earth would you *manually* edit a plist file?

When you wanted to quickly change some settings? I agree, it's somewhat
absurd to do so, considering how difficult it is to manually edit a plist
file. It is, however, very simple and easy to edit the analogous plaintext
config file on GNU/Linux. Easier than using a configuration dialog, at any
rate.

There are some cases of options (for applications on OS X) that can be
enabled only by manually editing an application's plist file.

Heck, there are rare,
rare times there is value in using the defaults command...

(Oh, and PS, you are not technically correct)

Even worse, it's a non-standard format.

Again: downside?

It's overly difficult to configure manually? It's much easier to work with
a plaintext config file than it is to work with a markup language like
Apple uses for plist files. Especially if you're in single-user mode.


So far, your complaints:

* File system makes things *easier* for many and it effects you adversely
in ways you cannot describe

It introduces ambiguity, which is a bad thing. 'foo' could mean either
'Foo' or 'FOO', and there's no way to specify which one I want (in OS X).

* Config files are in a format that you have a philosophical problem with...
but does not affect your work in any way you can articulate.

The hell I can't! Manually editing a plist file is a lot harder than
manually editing a plaintext config file. There's no formatting or markup
to read through with the plaintext file, but there is with the plist file.
Go ahead, open a plist file in pico and compare that with, say,
/etc/smb.conf. Which would *you* rather be manually editing?


And those are your top two!

From most annoying to most severe. Those are the problems that irritate me
the most, but they're also the ones that are easiest to work around.


3) Non-standard utilities

Such as?

Most of the userspace has been reworked so as to avoid upper-case options.
e.g 'ps -A' becomes 'ps -x'.

Yeah, much harder to type. LOL!

No, much harder to get in the habit of using.


On top of that, Apple forces users to make use of a large number of
undocumented utilities when working with Apple-developed technologies (despite
the existence of standard utilities that would work perfectly well).

Funny, that - they never forced me to do any such thing. Have an example of
a task that is done less-well on a Mac?

How about SetFile (setting mac-specific attributes to files) or
SplitForks (splitting resource and data forks for HFS files)? This is
particularly common when dealing with metadata and forks in HFS+. For
something a bit more common, what about Apple's switch from cron to
launchd?


So far you do not... not saying they do not exist, but, well, you seem to
not know of any (well, not of your top three):

No, I didn't bother to list any.


* File system makes things *easier* for many and it effects you adversely
in ways you cannot describe

Strange that I just described it... I was pretty succinct in my complaints
to begin with--though I should remember not to expect you to comprehend
written English.

* Config files are in a format that you have a philosophical problem with...
but does not affect your work in any way you can articulate.

No, config files are in a format that is difficult to read, modify, and
write. I was very clear on that--somehow you interpreted it to mean
'philosophical problems', when I clearly stated that my problems with
it were technical in nature. And yes it does impact my work--it takes
longer to edit the damn files. What used to be a simple method of
configuration has become an onerous chore.

* Apple has some utilities that are different but, as far as you can show,
in no way inferior to what Linux offers

They aren't as well documented--that was my original complaint. Apple has
a lot of strange utilities that are not the standard *nix tools for
performing relatively routine tasks (though they are certainly justified
in doing so when dealing with HFS+ forks)--but they don't bother to
clearly document these utilities. In many other cases, they have taken
long-standing *nix tools and modified them, so the syntax is different.
This, while not a severe problem, is very annoying.


So far you are describing *different*, maybe, but you have not listed a
single task OS X does less well.

Are you so focused on concrete tasks that you can't understand my
complaints? Simply because I do not provide specific instances where OS X
makes a task more difficult does not mean that it does not occur (I am,
instead, describing the problem itself).


4) Incompatible/incomplete set of libraries, and no easy way to add a
large portion of them.
5) Badly aging design

Apple focuses too much on UI glitz, and not enough on substance.

Can you name a task you do that OS X does not handle well?

How about a simple one: SMB file sharing over the local network. The Linux
boxes can talk just fine, and so could the Windows box back when I was
using it. OS X, OTOH, has been a royal pain in the ass since I first set
up Jaguar (I didn't even bother trying to setup samba before then). It has
recurring timeout problems, and performance has never been very good.

I do not do enough SMB File sharing to say, but at least by rumor you have a
point here. So your updated list:

* File system makes things *easier* for many and it effects you adversely
in ways you cannot describe
* Config files are in a format that you have a philosophical problem with...
but does not affect your work in any way you can articulate.
* Apple has some utilities that are different but, as far as you can show,
in no way inferior to what Linux offers
* SMB File sharing is harder to set up on a Mac

While I would like to get other's views on that last one, for now I will
grant that you have found *a* weakness of OS X. Oh my! OS X has *a*
weakness.

It has many weaknesses. The fact that you have reading comprehension
problems (as indicated by your gross misinterpretation of what has been
written) does not change this.


For something a bit less common, consider the extreme effort needed to
setup Apple's distcc in a manner that will allow it to work with anything
but other Macs.

Aha. So it does not have a development system you are used to.

No, it does have one. They've used distcc--which has been around for quite
awhile on many *nixes. Apple, however, uses a non-standard version of
distcc and requires people wanting to setup Macs on a distcc cluster to
move *all* distcc clients to versions compatible with Apple's. They have
taken something common, and made it something hard to use.

Again, not
a big deal for most, but if this effects you then so be it. I am not a
developer and will not speculate on which system is better.

It's a big deal for anyone trying to use Macs on a distcc cluster with
Linux or BSD machines.


I will say for the non-developer advanced user, OS X has AppleScript and
Automator - tools that are, as far as I know, without equal on Ubuntu.

You're joking, right? You can *not* be serious about that. And what does
this have to do with distcc? If Ubuntu lacks AppleScript's equal, it's
because AppleScript is so severely lacking.


For the most part you have listed things which are *different*, not better
or worse about either system (though I have granted you SMB file sharing
and, perhaps, some specific developer environments).

That's not 'some specific development environments', it's *every distcc
cluster with a Linux machine in it*. And the original problems I
mentioned are *still* problems, and they *do* impact my work. It doesn't
prevent anything, it just makes performing simple tasks more
difficult.


OK, now for my list of OS X strengths. I have not used Ubuntu for a bit, so
please let me know if you know of any areas where I am wrong...

* iLife: not a pro-tool, but for many uses the easier to use software of
its kind. I have seen nothing that is its equal, though admittedly it
has its annoying quirks.
* MS Office: sure, you can use OO.org or other such programs, but nothing
has yet caught up with the industry standard (ewww, did I just use MS
and "standard" in the same sentence?)

Office is a de-facto standard, which isn't quite the same thing. I,
personally, have a preference for OpenOffice, despite having ready access
to Microsoft Office. Just because OOo sucks on Macs does not mean it sucks
on everything else.

* Photoshop, Dreameaver, and other such pro-tools: sure, you might get
these to work on Linux with WINE or something, but you have to jump
through hoops or use something less than the top-of-the-class software

I have a preference for the GIMP despite having Photoshop already. I
prefer the GIMP because I got used to it's interface, and like having
script-fu. I don't do web development, so I'll pull one of your tricks--I
can't comment on Dreamweaver.

* Inconsistencies from application to application: menu items are in
different places, layouts are different, etc.

OS X is the quintessential schizophrenic UI. Even among Cocoa apps, there
is little consistency (Brushed Metal vs. Aqua vs. Tiger's theme). To say
nothing of what happens when you throw Classic or X11 apps into the
mix--or Java. Your typical Ubuntu desktop has a much greater level of UI
consistency than OS X does (this really isn't that hard--just don't use
applications with a different graphical toolkit if UI inconsistency
bothers you).

I will grant that OS X
is not perfect here

It's not even close!

*and* that Ubuntu has come a long way in working
with this. Ubuntu is rather impressive, but still not up to OS X
standards

Yes, it *exceeds* OS X's standard, in this regard. OS X is a platform with
*four separate UI paradigms* right out of the box. That's a lot more than
the slight inconsistency that can result from installing KDE apps on a
GNOME machine and using bad themes on both.

* Tax preparation software, DVD software (I think... have not played here
much), etc.

Yes--though this is hardly ideal on OS X either (in terms of tax
preparation software).

* Far, far less concern about incompatibilities - the OS is built for
the hardware

I have a much wider range of hardware options on my Linux box than you do
on your Mac. There's a lot more hardware support for Linux than there is
for OS X. And, strictly speaking, my EPIA box is using an 'OS built for
the hardware'. Likely to a greater degree than OS X was 'built for Mactel'.

* Ability to associate different files of the same type with different
programs

Why would I want to do this?

* Lack of annoying software dependencies

OS X has software dependencies, just like every other platform. Try
running a wxPython application on OS X sometime. The difference is that
dependencies on GNU/Linux get automatically resolved (in the large
majority of distributions--including all 'major' ones save Slackware).
Dependencies on OS X do not (unless using Fink). This is a complete
non-issue with modern Linux distributions.

* Far less need to learn and fiddle with arcane CLI tools.

I prefer 'learning and fiddling' with 'arcane CLI tools', because they get
the job done faster.

* Application switcher includes ability to hide/close applications
(I don't *think* this is true for Ubuntu but I could be wrong)

Why would you think this?

* Color selection tools
* Colorsync
* Column view

Why is this an advantage? It's only really useful for file managers using
a browser metaphor. That would be completely out of place in something
like spatial Nautilus.

* Folder Actions

While it sounds like there is a use for this feature, I'm having
trouble thinking of a situation where I would need to run a script
when I access a folder rather than on a schedule.

* Ability to move installed programs

That's as much a disadvantage as it is an advantage. All that does is
introduce the possibility for applications to be placed somewhere other
than where one would expect.

* Application packages (single icons)

Which is better than a launcher... how?

* Post processing from print dialog
* Better screen capture built in

Than GNOME or KDE? You're insane if you think that.

* Program resources easily altered

Not sure what you're referring to, and why you think this is easier on OS
X.

* Voice over

Text-to-speech? KDE has this, you know.


There may be some "fixes" for some of the above... but that is just a short
list... I likely could go on and others could add to it.

Well, considering that most of those were pretty limited advantages,
perhaps you should go on.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: advice for a mac laptop, please
    ... generally speaking the Mac just works out of the box. ... i need Linux for my Phd. ... Mac way of doing what you did on a Windows PC. ... operating systems, you may need a generous amount of disk space, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.misc)
  • Re: 10.4.10: system components to safely delete?
    ... Mac first, Mac only: ... Are you worried about disk space or RAM? ... Still, the functionality of the OS was amazing, as everything responded so quickly, and it was all about stability and functionality. ... Whenever I'd ask about the relative merits of running Linux on a Mac, everyone would respond to me that I really shouldn't go there unless I enjoy programming. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: OT - I ran....
    ... the `Linux community' decided that because it included ... (Mandriva Free is a 'pure' distro which can easily have non-FOSS stuff ... have such things as "MP3" support and proprietary hardware support built ... I consider Mac OS X to be an excellent example of what a good Unix-type ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: War on the Wintrolls
    ... Trying to meld the Nextstep UI with the Mac OS UI, ... then Apple's pricing doesn't mean too much. ... Then figured out it was a waste of money and switched to Linux. ... really isn't so "free", anyway, when one factors in the download time to ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: ext3 corruption
    ... manners to kvetch that volunteers have done all of this free work for them haven't done $FOO will be gently reminded that patches to implement $FOO are always welcome. ... This is all really easy for _me_ to manage with Linux on good server hardware, but that's not something I'd think a non-admin could handle on their own. ... Ubuntu and such are paving the way for future even-better-than-mac vertical UI integration but we have a lot of UI infrastructure (especially 3d support in X) that needs fixing first. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)