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

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:03:55 -0700, Snit wrote:

"TheLetterK" <non@xxxxxxxx> stated in post
pan.2006.07.17.01.32.29.606840@xxxxxxxx on 7/16/06 6:32 PM:

Then one has to question if it's really a failing.

Simply making something more difficult than it needs to be is a failing.
Especially if it is done for no substantial technical reason.

I don't see that you've listed anything that's more difficult. Just
different.

Having to slog through markup language rather than plaintext?

While there *may* be times you would do this, you have yet to talk about a
single time you would need to. Remember the "defaults" command? If you are
comfortable with man pages this should help you:

<http://snipurl.com/tcvh>

That's a bit like editing a config file with sed. Possible? Yes. Fun? No.


Hopefully that helps you

Not in the least ( I was already aware of it--that's *not* a text
editor). I'd rather use pico.

, but users unfamiliar with Unix-style man pages may
be overwhelmed by that.

Having to relearn the syntax for basic commands?

Relearn? Well, moving from OS X to Linux I would also have to relearn...
so? That does not imply one is better or worse than the other. You keep
pointing to different and insisting this means "worse".

It *does* mean worse, when we're talking about GNU/Linux users moving to
OS X because Apple claimed they had a *nix. It's a disingenuous claim,
since Apple seems to be trying to divorce themselves from that heritage.


Having to manually install a bunch of libraries in order to compile
traditional *nix software that Apple leaves out? All of these transcend simple
difference, and are easily considered deficiencies.

Linux requires the same libraries.

The difference is that I can apt-get the vast majority of them on
GNU/Linux. On OS X, I have to install a lot more by hand.

I suspect you knew that, though. I will
grant that with OS X, if this is important to you, it would be wise to
install a package management system such as Fink. If you are an apt-get
lover, it is there for you on the Mac, too.

Except the package selection is horribly limited compared to Debian or
Ubuntu--even just the default repos.


Keep in mind, though, that the type of applications you are talking about
are not the norm for OS X. While OS X handles them well

No, it doesn't. I've *got* Fink installed. It still doesn't act correctly,
though it's certainly an improvement.

, it is really
designed around the easier to use, more intuitive, and more discoverable
GUI

Easier to learn, harder to use.

, as any modern general consumer desktop system *should* be.

There's absolutely no reason for Apple to sacrifice the CLI for the GUI.


It's also interesting that you're willing to list the
"difficulties" of OS X while ignoring the difficulties of Linux.

Like? I consider it pretty easy to use.

How do you get color management to work, something like ColorSync?

How do you get your preferences to show up in the same place in all GUI
apps?

How do you set up folder actions?

How do you set up post processing via printing?

How do you set file associations per file?

How do you run a top-of-the-line image editor with such useful things as
layer groups, smart objects, vector layers, adjustment layers, etc.?

Are you getting the point?

While you're entitled to your preferences they do represent
what's wrong with Linux: They are not in alignment with what the
majority of computer users are concerned about. Until they are Linux
will never become a significant number of desktop installations.

If Linux is insignificant, what does that make OS X? After all, GNU/Linux
*does* have a (slightly) higher desktop marketshare, and it has for a few
years now.

Can you provide some facts to support this assertion?

Not without paying Gartner or IDC for the data. There were several
magazines talking about it though. Googling for "IDC Linux desktop market
share" should come up with something.

Then you should find it easy to support your claim. Excellent!

The summary of our conversation on this follows:

This is a summary of your straw men, Snit.



----------
* OS X is (generally) case preserving but not case sensitive: examples have
been given where the ambiguity of having multiple files with essentially the
same name but different capitalization leads to confusion. You have offered
no counter-example.

I was busy writing one up, until I realized that it was a waste of time
arguing with you.


* Plist files are edited in a way you do not like but only rarely if ever
would offer any downside... perhaps similar to how often their XML format
holds an upside? With OS X preference files are organized in a well thought
out way and can be deleted in almost all cases without hurting to program.

But *modifying them* by hand is a chore.


* Apple does things *differently* than Linux such as having different
options for similar programs and using different programs that do similar
things. Um, OK. You have not given any real reason that *either* OS has a
benefit here.

They changed things from the traditional methods for no clear reason.

Chances are they each have some strengths and weaknesses
compared to each other.

Apple's utilities generally provide no advantage over the traditional
alternatives. In some cases, they're much worse.

In the context of general users, however, this is a
complete and total non-issue. Some of Apple's utilities could (and should)
be better documented, and this is a weakness for OS X.

* In some mixed environments with OS X, Linux, and Unix it is true that OS X
is the "odd man out".

Include Windows to that list. Windows played nicely on the network that OS
X did not.


* We disagree as to which OS, OS X or Ubuntu, has a more consistent UI. You
focus on such differences as Aqua vs. metal vs. unified and, to some extent,
that standard Apple look (or looks) compared to Classic and X11. I focus
more on general usage and look more to things such as menus and menu item
and other such things. I have agreed Ubuntu has come a long way in this
area.

I focus on both areas. OS X is highly inconsistent--it is consistent only
when you ignore the parts that aren't, by your own admission.


* Ubuntu does not come with anything similar to either AppleScript or
Automator, though both come with development tools for focused for more
advanced users. You believe these tools (AS and Automator) are lacking but
have not stated why.

Applescript is a difficult language to use. It requires a lot more work to
perform even simple tasks. It's long syntax makes it easy to learn, but
also renders it a remarkably ineffective scripting language for power
users. Keep in mind that even the worst of scripting languages is
'amazing' compared to nothing. Most of the people having an orgasm when
AppleScript gets mentioned are either long-time Mac users, or 'average'
Windows switchers--neither of which have had any real alternative that is
within their technical capabilities.


* OS X offers more access to tools such as Photoshop, MS Office,
Dreamweaver, and other professional level tools. There are similar
programs, in some cases, to these on Linux but they are not the de-facto
standards, do not work with the de-facto standard file types as well, and,
at least in the case of Gimp, are lacking a number of key features (unless
they have been added recently?)

Many of them have been. Vector graphics and CMYK support are at
rudimentary levels. Of course, the GIMP has some features that Photoshop
does not, like robust scripting capabilities, some minor video editing
capabilities, and animation.

. XP is better here than either OS X or
Ubuntu.

* OS X allows you to move programs around - this is helpful for testing
purposes and moving apps from one place to another. You worry people would
move the application and not find it... a problem that would likely be much
more severe for data files. Do you want those to be immobile as well?

Applications are, by their nature, system-wide files. Josie and Mike
should both be able to run Photoshop. If Mike were to move Photoshop into
his home folder, no one would then be able to use it but Mike. Forcing
applications to remain in the same place, but allowing the *shortcuts* to
those applications to be moved solves both conditions.


* OS X has the ability to associate different files of the same type with
different programs.

Which is a fairly minor feature. One that could be solved by using
launchers.


* Standard OS X software packages have no dependency issues. Ubuntu does
have tools to minimize this.

OS X software has dependency issues like software on all platforms. It's
simply less pronounced that it is on Linxu, when Linux has no package
manager. With a distro like Ubuntu or Debian, the issue of dependency
virtually disappears. OS X has more dependency problems than Ubuntu does,
by far. Not only do you have problems with *nix applications outside of
Fink, but you also have many regular OS X applications requiring
dependencies to be installed (I cited applications using wxPython, but
there are others. This is particularly common when dealing with open
source software).


* OS X has better color selection tools and has ColorSync.

* OS X has column view, but there is some question if this is needed given
that Ubuntu has a different model for browsing files.

Not 'some question', there's a 'lot of question'. Column view makes
absolutely no sense in a spatial file manager. It's not even important for
a browser. That's like docking points from OS X because it doesn't display
large previews in icon view.


* OS X has Folder Actions.

Which don't seem to have any particularly useful function, other than
creating additional interface inconsistencies.


* OS X has Application Packages.

Ubuntu has packages as well, though we're talking about two different
things. Application Packages like OS X has have no place on a multi-user
system.


* OS X has built in post processing for printing

* OS X, likely, has been screen capture capabilities by default, but you
question this. You have not been able to show what Ubuntu does that is on
par.

ksnapshot does everything grab does, and the built-in GNOME screenshot
utility does everything OS X's keyboard shortcuts will.


* OS X has Voice Over. Ubuntu has "text-to-speech"

It also does screen magnification, and better 'keyboard control' than
VoiceOver offers.


We each struggle to understand why the others "pet" features are important
to the other - I am looking at it more from a general user or even a power
user, you seem to be looking at things from the view of... a developer? Not
sure.

A power user who dabbles in development, I suppose. I'm not a developer by
trade, and generally only write scripts and simple applications when I
have no choice in the matter.

We were, however, talking about general users at the start of this
discussion.

I wasn't.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honestly Curious
    ... Apple does things *differently* than Linux such as having different ... We disagree as to which OS, OS X or Ubuntu, has a more consistent UI. ... Standard OS X software packages have no dependency issues. ... We were, however, talking about general users at the start of this ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Seven Percent
    ... is a Linux expert's Linux. ... I personally find having the packages installed in their ... in my family) and the fact that it's 5 CD's or a DVD to install. ... Ubuntu has a DVD version, but a good standard install is still only one ...
    (Fedora)
  • Suggestion for Common Third Party Install system
    ... I have been working over strategies for Linux on the desktop. ... Third party applications are tricky. ... they currently have two options - to include packages for all the ... Perhaps on the install CD, or in the /etc/ directory, or with the ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: OReilly Radar: some switching from Mac to Ubuntu
    ... Ubuntu has impressed me as the most polished and feature-rich Linux ... require a kernel recompile every time a new version of the Linux kernel ... necessity of compiling the kernel in order to use the applications I ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: The future of Ubuntu Linux.... Will it make Micro$oft go bankrupt?
    ... Using Ubuntu is not easy at all, and yes you need to be a geek to use it. ... Half-yearly upgrade every time breaks a number of applications. ... Linux suffers from license issues, which seems to be the whole reason ... Linux community seems fragmented. ...
    (Ubuntu)