Here's where you talk about your frustrations with whatever platforms you don't use.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.

Showing messages 1 through 85 of 85.

• The UI matters
  2007-05-06 18:34:33  tbuskey [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've been using computers as a sysadmin for awhile now. I've had DOS, MacOS 7, MacOSX 10.3, 10.4, MacOSX server, SunOS 4.1.x, Solaris 2.2->10, Gnome, KDE, FVWM, Windows 3.0 -> XP, Cygwin, RedHat, etc as my main desktop.
  
  The point is, I've had many different desktops as my main system. I've found a Unix system with virtual workspaces with a large screen or dual screens works best while I'm at work with > 50 application windows open. I prefer Linux because the tools I need are easily available as part of the distribution. If I'm adminning windows, I've used VMware in a pinch. A remote desktop to a 2nd system running windows is better. When MacOSX is involved, VNC over an SSH link to a Macintosh works well. Gigabit ethernet makes this very feasible.
  
  At home, my main machine is a Linux laptop. I tend not to use more then 1 workspace. I VNC to my MacOSX box and rdp to the family PC running Windows XP. My server runs Solaris 10 for ZFS. I have gigabit at home too. I've gotten so 802.11g feels slow. I think I could be happy enough with Linux, MacOSX or Windows with Cygwin at home.
  
  It really depends on what you're doing. Macintosh OS and Windows have extensive UI testing to match the standard user. When I'm at home, I'm a standard user. At work, I'm not and I can't change the UI on MacOSX or Windows.
  
  

• my two cents
  2007-01-19 22:00:46  martshal [Reply | View]
  
  
  I continue to use my iBook and macBookPro for Java dev, and try to tweak them to be as *nix tool friendly as possible... but your point is VERY WELL taken here:
  
  The system should adjust to the way I work, not the other way around.
  
  I recently tried to get fvwm to work on my ibook the way it does on my *BSD boxes, and discovered it would be a nearly infinite time-sink just for, what I would consider, basic functionality and configurability.
  
  Which brings up another *Jobsism*: the single menu crap. A single menu on your desktop is a TASK SWITCHING not a multitasking mechanism... get over it. And if you don't agree with me, then you should have the ability to use a single menu windowing manager just as easily as I

  should

  be able to use a

  working

  window manager.
  
  As the versions of os x go higher and higher in number the configurability gets lower and lower. Anybody try using UFS on 10.4?
  
  It sounds like our needs and usage for computers are very different, but our goals are almost identical: a configurable, adaptable tool that works the way I want it to work.

• right on
  2006-08-14 20:05:51  blackrim [Reply | View]
  
  
  i was in the same boat about 9 months ago.
  
  switched back to linux after a few years on the mac (right after the unix switch).
  
  don't imagine going back in the near future

• Hmm
  2006-06-23 06:28:18  JulesLt [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think getting uptight over having to install the developer toolset to get hold of gcc is getting a bit petty.
  
  You are talking about something that is designed as a consumer oriented OS. Why clutter up their installation with stuff they don't use?
  
  Note being able to diagnose app problems :
  You can sample messages from running apps, but if you didn't get far enough to work out how to do that, or use any of the diagnosis tools in the developer toolkit, then I imagine that the results would also be meaningless.
  
  As for any claim that apt-get is 'easier' than dragging an application bundle. Erm, no it's not.
  
  For the record, I spend most of my day in vi. Good old proper greenscreen vi, not even vim, because I find vim too slow to open. What I don't do is mistake my prowess and 18 years of vi usage for meaning vi is 'easier' in any way, or even 'more powerful'.
• Hmm
  2006-06-23 08:03:43  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  That's a very selective view of my argument. I can understand not having GCC installed by default, but deliberately removing parts of Perl and Ruby from the base installation and forcing the installation of XCode to get them back is a little silly.
  
  I mean, it's a desktop OS. Why install half of Perl and Ruby? Why install them at all?
  
  Likewise, claiming that dragging an application bundle to a folder is easier than typing <tt<apt-get install foo</tt> completely ignores all of the work you had to do to find, download, and extract that installation bundle. It's not a fair comparison to point to the last part of the process and jump up and down and claim that the easy part of the process is easier than the entirety of the other process.

• Amen brother
  2006-06-09 09:23:12  mchallis [Reply | View]
  
  
  A couple years ago, I needed to replace my aging Thinkpad. After lots of thought, I bought an nice 12" iBook. Beautiful hardware. Unfortunately, like you I found OSX to be mostly frustrating. I tried to like it for 9 months, even switched it to Ubuntu. The lack of support for the wireless (since rectified) and the dumb one button touch pad irritated me. I ended up buying a used X31 Thinkpad running Kubuntu. I gave the iBook to my middle kid (he like OSX, mostly for iTunes. Sorry fans, but for me, Linux is much better than the straight jacket of OSX. Different strokes ...

• Delete and backspace key
  2006-06-07 08:05:58  dinnouti [Reply | View]
  
  
  As the author said it's up to the user choose the OS, it could work for you or not.
  
  There is one thing that is not in the article that annoys me, the delete and backspace key being the same key.

• I want to try Linux
  2006-06-07 06:37:48  cboerger [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have been a Mac user since 1990 and, I really want to try Linux. The free software philosphy is appealing to me. I just can't get Linux out of the gate.
  
  1. I have a PowerBook with very little space left on it. No problem - just install on my firewire drive. Bzzt. Not without much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
  
  2. Wireless support. I don't blame Linux for not having drivers for my Airport card but I'm not buying some dorky PCMCIA wireless card hanging out of my PB like a tumor just to try Linux either.
  
  3. Sleep. Last time I tried Linux on my PowerBook, it would stay on when I closed the lid. Maybe that's changed (but hey - the author wasn't working with a recent release of OS X either).
  
  4. Multiple monitors. I just want to plug in a 2nd monitor and have it work. Didn't work for me.
  
  5. Software crippled. Couldn't play my media because I had to download everything separately. I think it's reasonable to assume I might want to play music and DVD's out of the box.
  
  Lord knows what other issues there are but if I can't have basic hardware support out of the box what does that say about the software? I honestly don't know since I never gave Linux a chance due to issues 1-5.
  
  If Linux could offer me a user experience like OS X (and even Windows in some cases) then I would use it in a heart beat. In my world, the above shortcomings are deal-breakers though because I would be forced to live without functionality and work around the OS instead of the OS working for me. I have a suspicion I would go back to Mac for innovation because, right now, all I see Linux doing is chasing Windows around and that's too bad. What a lousy target to chase. Hope remains vigilant that things will change.
  
  I respect the author's article. We all have ways of working and certain expectations on how our computers should work. I think that the big 3 OSes are there for that purpose. What works for you may not work for me for different reasons and that's great. Use what works for you. Thank God there isn't only one viable choice.
  
  Here's hoping a free desktop can offer me a great user experience someday soon.

• This article does not threaten your manhood
  2006-06-07 00:32:32  theonetwothree [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'm a MacOSX user, and one of the things that embarrass me most about using it is other MacOSX users and their ridiculous reactions any time anyone mentions that they prefer either Windows or Linux (or *BSD or whatever). One would think that the article is somehow attacking the OSX users' manhood and/or sexuality.
  
  Really, I administer a bunch of Mac OSX machines at work at the moment and most of the users are incredibly inept in all things technical (Why should they be? They're graphic designers) The coders almost all use Windows and Linux, out of choice, not because they must, simply because they find that it has tools and other features they like and need.
  
  MacOSX is a fantastic OS, but it isn't the only one.

• I thought it was a good article
  2006-06-06 21:05:03  erikschmidt [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've used Macs for years, and I suppose you could call me a Mac advocate, given that I run a Mac-related website. However, I thought chromatic's comments weren't delivered in a flame-baiting manner, nor were they out in left field.
  
  He was writing about his experience as a Linux user who liked Apple hardware but felt that OS X was not as effective for his needs as Linux. He detailed his particular reasons, then described what his experience with Linux on Apple hardware was like. He took pains to point out that his preferences were his own, and that he wasn't out to bash OS X or Mac users.
  
  It seems to me that it's useful to get feedback like this from time to time, particularly since so much discussion of OSes quickly degenerates into mindless bickering.
  
  I'll keep OS X on my PowerBook, but I certainly wouldn't want chromatic or anyone else to be forced to use an OS they don't enjoy using. I always thought one of the fun things about being a Mac user was standing up for freedom of choice.

• All you need is focus follows mouse in Terminal?
  2006-06-06 14:54:58  bioinfotools [Reply | View]
  
  
  Perhaps I'm wrong, but main thing the OP needs/wants given the features in OS X 10.4.x is focus follows mouse in Terminal? (Bear in mind I've only skimmed the article; too many out of date or easily resolved complaints to read it properly.)
  
  iTerm has a 'focus follows mouse' option in its preferences (off by default), try using that. It also has tabs if you prefer less clutter.
  
  My installation of Terminal on OS X 10.3.9 has focus follows mouse, but its gone in 10.4.x. I've asked Apple to add it as a preference; if others join in and give feedback it'll probably happen (the code to do it is obviously there).
  
  IMHO focus follows mouse has less value outside the command-line, although I can see some value for editors, etc., that dominantly work through keyboard input. It also introduces a nuisance; if you move the mouse to get the pointer out of the way of your typing, you have to be careful where you put it or you'll divert your typing someplace else (heaven knows I did this often enough in Terminal in OS X 10.3...!). The result is that a lot of time is spent "being careful" with placing the mouse. I'm not surprised Apple has avoided focus follows mouse as it'd rattle their main user base (old time Apple users, newbie consumer users; developers are only subset of their market). I'd still like to see it as a preference in Terminal, though.
  
  For domininatly GUI-based apps, there is much less value in focus follows mouse. E.g. in Finder the needed actions (dragging items, etc) already work between windows and for textboxes, etc., you want to select them first or you'd have be to incredibly picky about where you "left" your mouse pointer given GUIs are full of small input elements.
  
  Incidentally, setting 'Preferences>Windows>Select windows when mouse moves over them' in Fedora 3 doesn't change anything... what's with that? Personally, I'd rather pay a little and have my time dealing with my client's solutions, not fiddling around fixing in-house issues which are just another overhead. That said, Linux is an excellent server/developer platform.
• Single-app solutions not sufficient
  2006-06-06 20:59:11  kms-werk [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'm sufficiently accustomed to having events act on the window currently under the mouse that I'm constantly closing the wrong window or otherwise taking actions on the wrong place.
  
  Another massive benefit of FFM is the ability to type on a (largely obscured) window while reading data from an unobscured, but unfocused, foreground window. The desktop contortions you have to go through to do this without FFM pretty much suck.
• Single-app solutions not sufficient
  2006-06-08 18:54:37  bioinfotools [Reply | View]
  
  
  "I'm sufficiently accustomed to having events act on the window currently under the mouse that I'm constantly closing the wrong window or otherwise taking actions on the wrong place."
  
  By typing a keyboard shortcut while the mouse is above a background window?
  
  "Another massive benefit of FFM is the ability to type on a (largely obscured) window while reading data from an unobscured, but unfocused, foreground window. The desktop contortions you have to go through to do this without FFM pretty much suck."
  
  Good point, although I think you're slightly overstating the case ;-)
  
  One loose thought: both of these are "(moderately) advanced user" things if you think about it. In the first, you need to have memorised enough shortcuts that they are part of your daily routine. In the second you need to be familiar enough with the apps, etc., that a small portion of one poking out somewhere is enough for you to know what it is; you also need to be familiar enough with the behaviour of the application without clues from the rest of the GUI for the application.
  
  Apple has to look after newbie consumers first and advanced users second. I like FFM up to a point (and only up to a point), but it may not in Apple's interest unless they want to evoke yet another "transition" and much less likely as long as you could argue that its more suited to "advanced" users than beginners.
  
  What might be interesting is something that can work on top of the existing scheme so that its workable for both newcomers and experienced folk... I wonder if any of the old disability support keyboard stuff could be re-worked to acheive the same outcomes as the FFM approach but via the keyboard? (This way mouse behaviour remains the same. It'd also would have the advantage of not having to leave the keyboard for the mouse.) Idle thoughts...
  
  While this topic has been discussed, I noticed that out of habit I move the mouse away from a textbox, etc., once its selected so that I can cleanly view what I'm typing without the pointer getting in the way.
• Hotkeys over BG window....
  2006-06-08 21:02:31  kms-werk [Reply | View]
  
  

  Erm, what background window? I've usually got my desktop completely plastered.
  
  

  That said: under WindowMaker, my terminal, mail, root term, and browser are all hotkey activated. I'm in and out of all of these constantly.
  
  

  I'll absolutely grant you the newbie market. Problem is that the line in the sand is drawn and can't be moved for love or money (well, possibly sufficient amounts of either or both). I think the point both chromatic and I are making is that there are utterly valid reasons for finding OS X not to be your cup of tea.

• sounds good
  2006-06-06 10:56:10  ryan2004 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think techy people too easily fall into "geek pride" - "my OS is better than your OS," etc.
  
  It seems like Linux and OS X compliment each other nicely, and after all, as long as we can keep MS Windows from ruling the world, there's room for everyone to win.
  
  That said, in my experience Linux is kind of a nightmare for the average desktop user. I remember trying to get SuSE Linux downloaded, installed and participating in an Active Directory domain. Ha! Windows 2000 had been out for 5 years, and SuSE still didn't come with a version of Samba that supported AD. And it took me forever just to figure out what Samba version I had. Pain the butt.
  
  I understand that I was asking Linux to "pollute" itself and join a proprietary MS windows network, and if at least half the fault lay with MS, I wouldn't be surprised. Nevertheless, the "basics" (at least from an IT perspective) were just too hard.
  
  I'll let you know when I get one of the new MacBooks and try to join that to the AD domain here at work. ;-)
• sounds good
  2006-10-12 17:52:17  rms_zaphod [Reply | View]
  
  
  Wow where to begin here.
  
  You complain that your distro didn't come with an AD compatable version of samba. Hmmm... the article was about using linux as a workstation. Samba is a software suite to allow linux/unix OS's to be Windows file servers. It is NEVER used to join a linux workstation to a Win2000 domain.
  
  Firstly, samba was capabale of joining a Win 2000 domain as a member SERVER since 2000 came out, as long as the M$ server was running in mixed domain mode. As far as joining a non mixed domain, Samba has been able to be a member server in a M$/Kerberos/LDAP environment since version3.
  
  Certainly this is not the easiest thing to do, but it's not impossible, and SAMBA's documentation is some of the best open source software documentation around.
  
  This complaint only matters if you plan to share the drive on your WORKSTATION with windows users.
  Further, it is hardly a complaint against linux, as Samba is a completely seperate project.
  
  Secondly, if your complaint is that your linux WORKSTATION couldn't join the Win2000 domain for logging on to the linux box, there are a multitude of complexities here. One would need to set up Kerberos, an LDAP client and pam so that logins could bounce of M$ (in)Active Directory. Further, I'm not certain that that would be sufficient since linux/unix doesn't hash passwords like M$ does. I've not tried this yet. Time to head off to the server cave and give it a shot :).
  
  That said, what would be the benefit? I'm unaware of an exchange client for linux that would use your unix login and kerberos ticket to contact an exchange server (is there a linux exchange client-don't use exchange myself?). The only benefit to this is if the W2000 domain policy does not allow non domain member computers to access server shares (ie, a windows XP home computer). However, accessing Windows shares on linux is either through smbclient, which I don't use, or a mount command, which I do use. However, I'm not certain that, even if the user login was authenticated off AD, that the machine itself could join the domain (hmm...maybe one WOULD use samba here.....). And I'm not sure that either mount_smbfs or smbclient would use the login ticket either.
  
  As far as Samba version info, uh.... how about
  riv2# smbd -V
  Version 3.0.23
  
  Or try
  
  riv2# smbd --help
  Usage: smbd [OPTION...]
  -D, --daemon Become a daemon (default)
  -i, --interactive Run interactive (not a daemon)
  -F, --foreground Run daemon in foreground (for daemontools
  & etc)
  -S, --log-stdout Log to stdout
  -b, --build-options Print build options
  -p, --port=STRING Listen on the specified ports
  
  Help options:
  -?, --help Show this help message
  --usage Display brief usage message
  
  Common samba options:
  -d, --debuglevel=DEBUGLEVEL Set debug level
  -s, --configfile=CONFIGFILE Use alternative configuration file
  -l, --log-basename=LOGFILEBASE Basename for log/debug files
  -V, --version
  
  Or how about the old reliable RTFM...it's at <http://www.samba.org>
  
  or
  
  man samba
  SAMBA(7) SAMBA(7)
  
  
  
  NAME
  samba - A Windows SMB/CIFS fileserver for UNIX
  
  SYNOPSIS
  samba
  
  
  DESCRIPTION
  The Samba software suite is a collection of programs that implements
  the Server Message Block (commonly abbreviated as SMB) protocol for
  UNIX systems. This protocol is sometimes also referred to as the Common
  Internet File System (CIFS). For a more thorough description, see
  http://www.ubiqx.org/cifs/. Samba also implements the NetBIOS protocol
  in nmbd.
  
  Anyway, as a Windows and Samba domain admin, I just had to sound off on this little gem of a response. BTW I use linux rarely, I have a MASSIVE nvidia 7900 gtx sli'd dual core Windows gaiming PC, a really nice $1000 wide screen HP Windows laptop for travel (gotta play WoW at the hotel on the road you know) and another laptop running PCBSD for work in the office. I'm no eveagelist, and I enjoyed chronic's article. You use the OS you need to get the job done, end of story. But please don't confuse the OS with OSS that comes bundled with it. (BTW my servers are mostly FBSD but I have a Windows, Linux, and OSX server as well).
  

• Good idea for an article, bad article
  2006-06-06 00:03:56  e1000 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I respect your opinion, but you are unfortunately stuck in the past and unwilling to open your mind to different ways of computing.
  Linux is a good operating system in its own right. Don't stagnate it with your closed mindedness about what it is and what it should be. The same goes for Mac OSX. It may not be the right choice for somone like yourself, but anyone who lived through (and got over it) the days of command line only, and "mouse over selection" would be a little more open to what improvements in GUI can help me be more productive, even if I have to take the time to rethink how I work.
• Good idea for an article, bad article
  2006-06-12 15:26:36  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I find that fairly offensive. I used Mac OS X and it made me less productive.
  
  Not everyone works the way I do and that's fine... but any "improvement" that makes a common task such as switching between windows take twice as long adds up to a huge disimprovement very quickly.

• Never going back
  2006-06-05 17:25:03  toddhammer [Reply | View]
  
  
  I started using linux with Slackware in 1995 just before Windows 95 (wasn't it once called Windows '92?) was released. For the next ten years I used every single window manager under the sun. Window Maker was very nice and I used it for years. I never could get used to KDE with it's myriad of options (I used only 25% of them anyway). KDE had such a windows-is feel to everything.
  
  I eventually settled on Eazel's Helixcode which became Ximian Desktop. Ximian was the closest thing I could find to a 'best desktop environment'. Somebody was finally getting the desktop right. In spite of my wonderful new desktop, I *still* had to find and write custom scripts to get wireless to work on my Dell Inspiron. Something as simple as getting a USB drive to mount and then automatically appear someplace accessible was another aggravation. I was stuck in a hell of apt repositories whenever MPlayer wouldn't read this new movie format or when xmms couldn't understand that audio format. I almost always ended up compiling from source (just try compiling MPlayer from source sometime). I came to hate the endless tweaking to keep my ximian desktop running smoothly. I was getting less work done everyday maintaining my desktop.
  
  I switched to OS X on a Powerbook a little over a year ago in October 2005. It was the first time I ever even saw an Apple computer. I must say that I am completely and utterly happy with OS X. I primarily develop PHP apps with Zend IDE and having Apache preinstalled was a nice feature. MySQL was a breeze to install. There is even a nice GUI tool for starting/stopping mysqld. The networking features are stellar. I absolutely adore iTerm and it's tab/profile features. Wireless just works and the iLife apps are something I use everyday with my digital camera and Panasonic Mini-DV at home. Just plug them in and The Right Thing Happens! I use Expose and dashboard at least a hundred times a day. People complain about the Dock but I find it versatile and handy as hell. I missed focus-follows-mouse initially but I adapted. From linux I really miss sshfs, groundbreaking tool that it is but something will come along soon that fills the void in OS X. So many open source inspired tools are available in OS X that I used in linux. It's not really all that different. Bash is still there along with tcpdump and sed, awk and friends. It's the best of both worlds (for me).
  
  Although I was a linux zealot for ten years who heralded the flexibility and power of linux, I tired of incessantly tuning my desktop. I run linux only on my servers now. It is perfect for that. Mac OS X is a beautiful and functional desktop UNIX environment in my opinion. But that is just my personal opinion.
  
  I am no longer a linux zealot. I am not a Mac zealot. I have learned my lesson. Use what works for you. Use what makes you happy. I, for one, will use OS X as long as it is around and continue to enjoy using it.

• it looks like...
  2006-06-05 15:32:37  momoetomo [Reply | View]
  
  
  ...linux priests become fear of mac os x.
  
  i totaly agree - this is by far the worst articel i have ever read on the onet... :(

• Linux vs. OS X
  2006-06-05 11:54:29  JayBerringer [Reply | View]
  
  
  The deal breaker with Linux for me is the amount of time I have to spend to administer the thing: with every security update to the kernel I had to recompile both my wireless and VPN apps. Add to that dual monitor support sort of works if you're willing to tweak X settings (on a laptop), lack of decent APM support (again on a laptop running a 2.4 kernel), no Office (I need this for work and Open Office was a poor substitute, MS Office under Wine was unstable as a Jello mold. Then there are RPM's and dealing with dependencies (or not) when installing an app. I don't see paying $129 for an OS upgrade any different then suffering through myriad Fedora Core releases. Or worse, compiling my own kernel, taking half a day to download the latest KDE or Gnome and having to do that every 6-months or so.
  
  What do I miss from Linux on OS X? I really can't think of much. Focus-Follows-Mouse would be nice but given the OS X menu bar, I can't think of a way to make it work though apparently one software company has along with their virtual desktop product(CodeTek). (I'm using an open virtual desktop software that I build with XCode and works remarkably like my old Solaris CDE did.
  
  I am glad you found something that you can work with. I loaded Ubuntu onto my back up "just in case". While Ubuntu is nice, like Windows I only need to use it for an hour or two before I'm pining for OS X.
  
• Linux vs. OS X
  2006-06-05 12:52:31  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  That's a good point. If I had used kernel 2.4 and an RPM-based distribution, Linux would have been less interesting to me.
  
  I don't perceive an administration burden greater than I had with Mac OS X (especially when using a distribution that handles package management gracefully), but I am comfortable upgrading configuration files by hand if necessary, so what is acceptable to me might be too technical or complex or burdensome for plenty of other people.

• Thank you for taking the words out of my mouth
  2006-06-05 07:40:23  fak3r.com [Reply | View]
  
  
  This article almost echos ALL of my OS X vs Linux comparisons. Mac fanatics think I'm in denial, or lying, but after using my new iBook in OS X only for almost 9 months I came to the same conclusions as you, and first of all is speed; I can work much faster in Linux than in OS X, hands down. Beyond that the need to work within the 'system' as you say is right on, with Linux I can tweak everything to how *I* like it, no borders. Hell, when I used XFCE4 I didn't like that it had a top and bottom taskbar (don't get me started on Mac's top menu + it's Dock..please take more screen away from me), and learned how I could hack it out so it just wasn't started when XFCE4 started, try to do something like that in Mac. Also, like you, I find desk icons the biggest waste of time, unless you design the damn things in 4 different sizes, and in OS X -- within finder -- you can uncheck things so it won't show disk drives and the like on the desk, but still, icons will still appear there, all over the place. In Linux I dnld everything to ~/downloads, which I have a keyboard shortcut to pop open a term to, then some quick typing of GNU commands gets my app installed in likely 10% of the time the 'Unstuffing' 'Mounting drive image' 'clicking to open drive image' 'open finder' drag drive image app to finder -> applications...watch the animation... Seriously I do not feel more productive, I feel like I'm wasting my time. There are positives in OSX but again, as you, I lean more towards Linux for desktop productivity. OS X is likely fine for 95% of their audience, but for us that are not we're shouted down that OS X is Unix with a great UI -- when in fact it's truthfully neither. Thanks again for a great article.

• worst article ever
  2006-06-03 17:10:32  otto [Reply | View]
  
  
  This is the worst article I ever read on oreillynet.
• worst article ever
  2006-06-04 16:25:14  Alaninportland [Reply | View]
  
  
  I agree. I actually belly laughed and shot milk out my nose after reading it!
  
  This article seemed more like a sophomoric and pathetic cry for attention than an honest literary critique.
  
  Those who feel this strongly about an operating system should seek therapy or, at very least, a different hobby. The Linux vs. Windows vs. OS X vs. whatever OS argument nearly always breaks down into a "I'm smarter than you because I know a given OS" rant; and this is no exception.
  
  I urge you and anyone else to use the OS that you like. Vote for your favorite by using it and leave everyone alone. Lastly, remember, the operating system you use isn't indicative of how smart or l33+ you are. I and many of my colleagues run many different OSs and we view them as tools for getting things done. I assume that if author were to spend more time doing things with his OS rather than writing about petty annoyances I'm sure he would lose less sleep at night.
  
  At any rate, I'm surprised this slipped by O'Reilly. It must have been a slow news day. An article about the virtues of GLX would have been a far more interesting and fruitful read.
• ease up
  2006-06-09 18:58:24  barryhawkins [Reply | View]
  
  
  Reserving any conjecture about whatever personal insecurities this article must have triggered, I find your attack rather unfounded. As someone who used OS X for the majority of 2001 through mid 2005, I concur with all the author's issues. That doesn't mean I think any less of my wife or friends who still use OS X, and the author explicitly states that he doesn't either.
• worst article ever
  2006-06-05 11:30:44  sharumpe [Reply | View]
  
  
  I don't agree that it was "...a sophomoric and pathetic cry for attention".
  
  I personally prefer the Mac OS to Linux as a desktop OS (yes, I've used Linux as a desktop once or twice) but I found the arguments in the article to be well-reasoned, if somewhat limited to the author's particular preferences.
  
  Nowhere in the article did the author state that Macs and their users are dumb|useless|idiotic because of some feature (or lack of it). On the contrary, I thought that maybe there was a bit too much of the "for me, this is true" caveat in there.
  
  My only criticism of the article is that perhaps it is a bit out-of-date. The critiques of Mac OS X are from an OLD version (10.2), so I found myself constantly wondering if the author would have found more|fewer problems with the current version or hardware.
  
  My only suggestion to the author is to upgrade to an Intel-based Mac. Then you don't have to use a PPC version of Linux. ;)
• Old beef ages well
  2006-06-06 20:55:34  kms-werk [Reply | View]
  
  
  All I can say is that I've got no quibbles with any of the issues chromatic raises, running a OS X 10.4.6 on a MacBook Pro. I'd toss in a few other bits, among them the inherent limitations in not having independent window management. On OS X as with Windows, busy (or hung) applications' windows can't be managed.
  
  Another is that there are a number of assumptions which become visibly apparent in the Mac visual desktop metaphor which start to fail badly when they're stretched. Most notably are the "infinite hight" menu and distinctions between app and window cycling. You can cycle through apps, or through windows in an app, but not readily through all windows on your desktop, and particularly not through windows on seperate workspaces (as managed by Virtue). There are a few bolt-ons here (eg: Virtue) which I've tried, others which fail notably.
  
  There's a significant list of other gripes I may post later, but suffice it to say:
  
  

  
  
  • OS X is a significant win over Microsoft's products (though it's ironic that I've got a more Linux-like userland through Cygwin than I have under Darwin / Fink / Darwin Ports).
  
  
  • OS X is probably plenty good for a large class of users.
  
  
  • OS X isn't Linux, and exhibits numerous shortcomings relative to Linux, which a significant number of technical users may note.
  
  
  • A large part of this boils down to the inherent freedom of the system. Linux is open in ways which OS X isn't and likely never will be. I've built a career for myself in technology by steering away from encroaching walls, and I'm seeing them when I'm on a Mac. I prefer open skies.
  
  

  
  
  I'd say chromatic's nailed the issue very, very well. It's also interesting to note that his comparison point is Debian (my own Linux distro of choice), though I suspect Gentoo and/or Ubuntu/Kubuntu (and related) users might feel very similarly.
  
  It would be interesting to know the distros used by folks who've been nonplussed by Linux in the past.
• Old beef ages well
  2006-06-09 20:47:52  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I forgot independent window management. Reading your comment brought back how much it annoyed me. (Okay, using the help system in iMovie and waiting on the little spinner again on my mother's iBook annoyed me yesterday too, so it's a fresh gripe!)
• Newer Versions of Mac OS X
  2006-06-05 12:47:52  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's an interesting question how an upgrade would have worked for me. Certainly Mac OS X has improved since 10.2 -- I've used it a bit on the computers of friends and I've heard that some of my frustrations have gone away.
  
  I don't know how the hardware support would work though. I am fortunate that there is good Linux support for my model of PowerBook. Later PowerBooks seem less so, just by browsing Linux hardware support forums.
  
  I expect to know better how the MacBooks work out with Linux soon. It seems to take six months to get new hardware to the point of usable support, at least for what I need to do.

• Switch back and get a better accelerated desktop.
  2006-06-03 06:34:08  PatrickGemmell [Reply | View]
  
  
  I switched back recently too. A bonus was discovering xgl which gives me much better productivity than Aqua when working with multiple windows yet looks cooler too. And this is on a "cheap as chips" PC with a five year old 32 MB graphics card.
  
  It's a triumph.
• Switch back and get a better accelerated desktop.
  2006-06-03 17:29:55  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've seen the wobbly window videos, but I've never used Xgl. What does it do to improve your productivity?
• Switch back and get a better accelerated desktop.
  2006-06-05 07:45:19  fak3r.com [Reply | View]
  
  
  I was amazed at what XGL/compwiz could do with a 3 year old video card, truely the effects were on par, and in some cases BEYOND what you can do on OS X -- does this really matter? It matters when everyone who bashes Linux do so by stating that OS X 'looks' better, it does in some cases, and in others does not when compared with XGL stuff. The 'wobbly' windows are just more fun, or just more natural to use. Think about moving a piece of paper across your desk, it's not rigid; it bends when you move it - so does the windows in XGL. Sounds like a tiny thing, but I find it much more...I don't know, fun to use, and when I go to other UIs it feels just stiff and unreal in comparision.
• Switch back and get a better accelerated desktop.
  2006-06-04 13:45:42  PatrickGemmell [Reply | View]
  
  
  Personally I find Xgl + Compiz make it intuitive and quick to work with multiple applications and windows that are spread across virtual desktops. In addition, an aggregation of all the useful features of windowing managers on other operating systems are in there e.g. a show all windows (like 10.3+) and a alt-tab with preview (like Vista).
  
  Because the system is extensible I expect that over time talented developers will create additional useful functionality in a process analogous to that which has made Firefox a superior browser.
• Switch back and get a better accelerated desktop.
  2006-06-04 10:01:58  migueldeicaza [Reply | View]
  
  
  Xgl enables a few features that have been available on X but not supported, like the alpha-channel visuals which are only now being used by applications. These features fall in the "enabler" category. On top of these enabling features you might have seen a number of vute visual effects, candy, but what is most important is that these features are now available for application developers.
  
  X is no longer to be your bitmap-based, raster-operation grand father operating system. It is a modern windowing system that happens to run all of your old applications as well.
  
  Visually, Xgl will also render all the exposed regions of applications. If an application is not responding fast enough (or not responding at all) it does not miss-paint the screen. Applications that do not respond for a while are grayed out. Then there are all the other visual effects that you have learned to appreciate (like shadows, alpha blended menus).
  
  Learning wise, the cube is a virtual-desktop that people can understand because they can visualize where their applications are (as opposed to "why did everything go away?").
  
  And finally, the zoom-anywhere-at-a-click I find very useful.
  
  Miguel

• Read Page one and stopped - no research
  2006-06-03 03:18:44  keaggy220 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I don't consider myself technical and I figured out how to take all icons off my desktop and start using an app launcher pretty fast.

• Focus Follows Mouse
  2006-06-02 11:32:08  aaronbarlow [Reply | View]
  
  
  Your experience with OS X and Linux are similar to mine. I must be the only other person who misses focus follows mouse (though I do like expose).

• Linux is much more useable...
  2006-06-02 10:26:10  adam@devtty.net [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have trouble taking "usability" seriously from the majority of OSX (or Windows) users I've ever known.
  
  Their desktops are usually collections of warezd copies of Office, Photoshop and unpaid for shareware.
  
  Is it usable when you "have" to steal the software to make it work?
  
  
• Linux is much more useable...
  2006-06-04 20:55:17  sjk [Reply | View]
  
  
  I bet if Photoshop, Office, and other popular commercial software were available for Linux you'd find about the same percentage of pirated copies on Linux user's systems as on the others. Were you implying Linux users have moral standards about software pirating?
  
  My OS X systems are plenty usable without any stolen software. I don't need Photoshop and am quite satisfied using Elements, which I purchased. If I couldn't afford that I'd use something else, maybe Gimp if it came to that.
  
  If you intended to make a point I'm not sure what it is.

• Just a few points
  2006-06-02 08:58:16  germ65 [Reply | View]
  
  
  You ARE stubborn. It's clear Linux is better for you. You represent perhaps 0.01% of all computer users.
  Others have already rebutted some of your statements, but let me add a couple:
  1. I absolutely HATE X11. I refuse to use ANY software that has an X11 interface. X11 is an absolute aberration.
  
  2. You say you may never use GarageBand. I thought so, too. Then I saw how GarageBand can take an audio file and add pictures to it. That's perfect for a narrated presentation. And you have instant playback on iPods. Now I know I NEED GarageBand.
• Just a few points
  2006-06-05 02:59:09  newuser007 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I agree with the author, perhaps except of strace, for which ktrace is a solid alternative. I do think he has a point. I miss focus follows mouse. I miss _real_ X11.
  
  I still haven't switched back, for several reasons:
  - I absolutely depend on external monitor. X.org support is not as nice as on os x. You plug monitor in the port. System detects it and expands your desktop (according to remembered configuration). You disconnect it, all your applications are instantly moved back.
  
  I travel a lot, I come to my office, connect, work with display, then I go to visit client, I disconnect monitor while working and when I come back, I connect it again.
  
  There was also some problem with Wifi card having no real driver alternative for Linux. This is over. I have ordered new Macbook Pro, I hope I can make linux work on it easily...
• Just a few points
  2006-06-02 10:19:35  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I don't know about 0.01% of all computer users (certainly not desktop users), but I am comfortable acknowledging myself as a small market segment.
  
  I do find it frustrating when some people claim that there shouldn't be operating systems or working environments for people like me, or that a single way of working (usually the default Aqua interface) is clearly and scientifically the best operating environment invented so far.
• Just a few points
  2006-06-05 17:23:30  yogimind [Reply | View]
  
  
  1/10,000 - that's probably about right man . . . strace, gdb - not saying your criticisms aren't valid for your work style but how many folks do you think actually know of things like that? Developers on linux for sure, but what number do you think is realistic? I'd go with you as an extremely small market segment here :P

• (G)UIs are not about looks
  2006-06-02 08:33:52  saschabrossmann [Reply | View]
  
  
  just one remark on that user interface topic: something a large part of the FOSS crowd seems to constantly get wrong is the idea that (graphical) user interfaces would be mostly about looks. and that's what in most cases lands on the normal gnu/linux desktop. just (imitated) looks. unfortunately. because the looks are just one ingredient to good UI design (which is not a separate layer coating program logic, mind you). feel, consistency, system integration, ... huh? despite the late efforts by novell, ubuntu, etc. interface/interaction design in the FOSS world is still in a very pathetic state. and given the widespread lack of both competence and understanding it will propably stay much that way during the next years. <sigh>... it won't matter if you do most of your work consistently in the shell (one of the very few cases where gnu/linux really does excel in terms of usability). but then, that's not the average desktop user...

• strace is ktrace
  2006-06-02 07:30:13  axle [Reply | View]
  
  
  In macosx (and perhaps all BSDs?), the command you were looking for is ktrace. In Linux it's called strace, on Solaris it's called truss.
  
  A search on google for "unix rosetta stone" helps in these cases. :)
  
  Also, I suspect the reason you had trouble with the linker is because the mac uses Mach-O binaries, not ELF binaries. There are some significant differences.
  
  I don't think new features like "spotlight" should be dismissed so easily. It's increased my productivity and changed the way I use a computer for the better.
  
  
  
  
• strace is ktrace
  2006-06-04 10:04:40  migueldeicaza [Reply | View]
  
  
  I do find ktrace obnoxious to use.
  
  Because you first have to enable kernel tracing (ktrace application) and when you are done you process the output file with kdump.
  
  It is just mildly annoying.
• also, forgot
  2006-06-02 07:56:06  axle [Reply | View]
  
  
  lsof works fine for me with macosx 10.4.
  
  gdb works fine for me. personally, I've never noticed any differences between gdb on linux, solaris, and macosx.
  
  10.4 also now ships with a real korn shell. hallelujah.
  
  The best point in the article is the one about an uninstaller. Hopefully Apple will listen and work towards improving the installation (and particularly the uninstallation) procedure.
• lsof b0rken on MacIntel
  2006-06-06 21:12:10  kms-werk [Reply | View]
  
  

  
  
  [kself@holehawg:kself]$ lsof
  
  lsof: can't get vnode information (No such file or directory)
  
  

  
  
  Bug filed, returned as a "known issue".
  
  Oh yeah: I miss . (http://bugs.debian.org/)
• lsof b0rken on MacIntel
  2006-07-19 08:08:28  axle [Reply | View]
  
  
  hmm, on my system:
  
  
Welcome to Darwin!
sage:~ axle$ lsof | head
COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME
ATSServer 210 axle cwd VDIR 14,2 1496 2 /
ATSServer 210 axle 0r VCHR 3,2 0t0 40080260 /dev/null
sage:~ axle$ uname -a
Darwin sage.local 8.6.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.6.0: Tue Mar 7 16:58:48 PST 2006; root:xnu-792.6.70.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
sage:~ axle$ which lsof
/usr/sbin/lsof


• also, forgot
  2006-06-02 10:19:24  msporleder [Reply | View]
  
  
  To uninstall an app, you just drag it to the trash. Why is that difficult? Is it really easier to "find" the files on the filesystem and rm them?
  
  If you're talking about a registered pkg, then (I admit this isn't easy, but I'm sure the author knows enough perl to automate it) just lsbom|rm. I've done it before without any problems. (look in /Library/Receipts/)
  
  
• also, forgot
  2006-06-04 07:19:05  dnasthegreat [Reply | View]
  
  
  find files and rm them? I somehow doubt you've ever used a moderately recent Linux distribution. emerge -C package or apt-get remove package or whatever the command for rpm-based distros is. Plus there are graphical versions of those tools for the point-and-click croud.
• also, forgot
  2006-06-02 12:00:20  axle [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well, there are certain times when dragging the app to the trash doesn't cleanup everything, right?
  An example:
  
  My cisco vpn install (a GUI installer for an Aqua based app) wrote stuff into /System/Library/Startup Items
  and into
  /etc/CiscoVPN
  
  If I just drag my cisco vpn software application to the trash, does that stuff get cleaned up too?
  
  That said, I'm still a huge fan of the Mac.
  I will not return to Linux or Windows for my day to day desktop computing. I find myself more productive on a mac. To each his own...
  
• also, forgot
  2006-06-02 08:16:00  saschabrossmann [Reply | View]
  
  
  ksh? no, even better: chsh -s zsh B-)
• also, forgot
  2006-06-02 11:49:03  axle [Reply | View]
  
  
  yes, those shells are probably quite nice for every day use. I'm just glad they included ksh for my existing shell scripts and compatibility reasons.
  

• The UI matters
  2006-06-02 07:08:27  tbuskey [Reply | View]
  
  
  I had a similar experience w/ MacOSX. I used MacOS extensively around System 6 to 7 timeframe and liked it very much.
  
  I wish both MacOSX and Windows let me have a virtual desktop ala kde/gnome/fvwm2/olvwm. I live in an xterm world with up to 100 xterm/editor/browser/etc windows open. The standard Win/OSX desktops don't do that.
  
  This isn't a bash on the stock UI. It's great for the average office worker working in 1-2 applications. I'm not the target audience and it doesn't fit.
  
  Why don't cp/tar/mv etc desl with resource forks? Use those utilities on your user's classic mac data (quark?) and you lost data! Yes, there's another command that does it. Why not at least have a see also entry on the man page for cp/mv/tar to it?
• The UI matters
  2006-06-02 08:17:48  daviddennis [Reply | View]
  
  
  The command line applications now deal with resource forks just fine, starting in Tiger.
  
  It would be nice to see virtual desktops in MacOS X. Oddly enough, I first saw them on a SGI machine and think the interface was superior to what I've seen in Linux. They're definitely a boost for productivity, and that kept me using my SGI machine as a desktop until I switched virtually all my computing to MacOS X, where it remains today.
  
  That being said, what I really love about MacOS X is how it combines the best of the proprietary and open source worlds. I can do all the Unix-style development I want (mainly web server applications) and still use polished commercial email, photo editing and (the huge strength of the platform) video editing applications.
  
  When I started using MacOS X, the great looking fonts were an enormous part of the appeal. I gather now you have similar things in Linux (and even Windows, not that I want to go there). Now, I really love the designer look and feel of Apple's interface, the polished quality of the computers, and the great Apple applications like Final Cut Pro.
  
  I can see someone who doesn't need or care for those things preferring Linux.
  
  D
• The UI matters
  2006-06-06 22:53:36  Ronald_Pottol [Reply | View]
  
  
  http://virtuedesktops.info/ Does virtual desktops fairly well (I'll wait until I can replace my ibook to switch back, until I found Virtue, I was thinking I'd switch to a desktop running Linux).
  
  I'll switch back to Linux too, I'm tired of not having apt, of having to manually track and upgrade apps, let alone find them.
• resource forks, virtual desktops etc.
  2006-06-02 08:12:45  saschabrossmann [Reply | View]
  
  
  the resource fork awareness problem has been fixed with tiger. all of the shell tools now deal properly with resource forks. if they still have to, that is: most applications i know have not used the resource fork for any relevant(!) data since years (say hello to windows data exchange). the only exceptions i still encounter from time to time are internet shortcuts (.webloc) and classical postscript fonts. and that's it.
  
  concerning virtual desktops i have become quite happy with virtue (a fork from desktop manager). i still would like to see some improvements with the default terminal application, though (like window tabs, use of x11 bitmap fonts, fullscreen mode, a proper meta key, more speed, extended coluor support... for example -- otherwise i think it is quite nice)
  
  otherwise comparing the (G)UI to x11 plus gnome/kde/whatever and some other comparisons in the article make me faintly smile... oh no, i am not going to waste my time on that topic. >;->
• resource forks, virtual desktops etc.
  2006-06-04 19:13:24  sjk [Reply | View]
  
  
  all of the shell tools now deal properly with resource forks. if they still have to, that is: ...
  
  Well, that depends how you're defining "shell tools". :-)
  
  It's still very easy to accidentally zap resource forks if you're not careful manipulating files with many Unix commands. Any sort of stdout redirection can be troublesome, e.g. substitutions/replacements using traditional Unix commands like awk, sed, etc. since none of them (or any shells!) are resource fork-aware. Using language commands like perl, python, ruby (invoked directly or indirectly) can easily clobber resource forks. The BOMArchive GUI tool preserve resource forks but zip/unzip commands don't. Pick your poison.

• The best "review"
  2006-06-02 05:37:52  EGN [Reply | View]
  
  
  After reading the whole thing, what really made it worth the time were the comments by M.Elfstrand. That really sums it up.
  
  Many years ago I thought the same way Chromatic does. I thought people were just plain lazy not to build their own apps, used only FOSS although I never looked at the code or modded it or was particularly schidsoid about people putting backdoors, etc. I did that for over 20 years.
  
  I switched from Linux and FreeBSD to OS X this year and I am never going back! I still use FreeBSD on my servers but for productivity, running my business, programming in PHP and MySQL I will stay with OS X.
  
  In the past I had to waste time hacking the X Server and all those apps that would not compile because of dependencies or a port that had to go before another one. Now I just install whatever app I want and that is it! Multimedia, networking, wireless and all I need right out of the box. Even LAMP installs right away with very little tweaking on OS X.
  
  If OS X is not for you, don't use it. And I would never defile a Mac by installing Linux or any other OS on it. Get a PC for that plus you'll save a lot of money.
  
• The best "review"
  2006-06-05 09:23:29  fak3r.com [Reply | View]
  
  
  If OS X is not for you, don't use it. And I would never defile a Mac by installing Linux or any other OS on it. Get a PC for that plus you'll save a lot of money.
  
  This is the exact kind of crap I've heard whenever I tell ppl I like Linux on my iBook -- and why I appreciate this article so much. Save money, how? You get what you pay for, you've seen the reviews that list the new iMac Intel being the fastest Windows machine ever? So why would you not want your favorite OS on it as well? Personally I like parts of OS X, but my exper mirrors the author of this article. Apple fan(atics) could just say, "it takes different strokes to fill the world" but instead come up with this illusion that everything Apple is unbeatable, and if you disagree you're "defiling" the Mac! So funny...look, it's a computer, a tool, use it way it works best for you, and drop the zelotry.
• The best "review"
  2006-06-05 20:25:50  EGN [Reply | View]
  
  
  ...and drop the zelotry..
  
  Back to ya, chum.
  
  You must have meant: zealotry |-?tr?| noun. Not as bad as extremist or bigot. Sort of falls in between enthusiast, fanatic and the aforementioned two. Hey, not too bad. So...
  
  Yep. Looks like I'm turning into one. Must be the great "all works" experience. Real bad influence. Not the hack, hack, sweat to make it work; waste time getting it to work, untill finally, maybe it works, sort of, experience with desktop Linux. Yeah, I know it's a whole lot better now than 10 years ago, but still, not there yet. I´ve used it for over 10 years. So I should know kiddo. You write and sound like you were probably suckling on your mum's tit back when I was using Linux/UNIX/BSD. So you haven't got a clue! But I, on the other hand, can tell you from EXPERIENCE. See, that's what us OLD folk have plenty of. And no, OS X is not for seniors. Its' for people who want to get the job done and have time left over for other things.
  
  Though I must admit, better a Linux zealot than a Windoze one, eh? Cheers!

• The moral? Set expectations will sour you to any system
  2006-06-02 00:17:28  st_fnordius [Reply | View]
  
  
  My guess is after reading the entire article that the author has a very specific workflow, one that is shaped by past experience with Linux. Since Apple is driven by a different mentality, he doesn't feel quite at home there. Power-User ways of doing things are different, and don't accomodate his way of working.
  
  One thing I am slightly in the dark about is how much of chromatic's complaints deal with working in Aqua, how much deal with working with Darwin and BSD-based unix, and if it's possible to use Darwin without Aqua, using KDE or gnome instead.
  
  This article is good for current Linux aficionados, those who have intimate knowledge of the Linux ways of doing things and a set habit. The problem is that this is actually a tiny minority of users, and not one Apple is likely to embrace.
  
  I'm notgoing to say that chromatic is full of shit, as he's not. He's just going into detail about how he isn't as comfortable adapting to Mac OS X as he is in the Linux mould. I'm the other way, so used to Mac OS X and now Darwin's version of BSD that I don't feel all that comfortable in desktop Linux environments.
• The moral? Set expectations will sour you to any system
  2006-06-12 15:05:52  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  If I were to replace Aqua with Gnome, KDE, or XFCE, would there be any real advantage over using Linux or BSD? (I do admit to being much more comfortable with Linux administration than BSD, but that's just familiarity.)
  
  I'm not sure how Darwin's hardware support compares to Mac OS X and if the advantages there still apply when using a different GUI system. I expect they probably would, but I'm just not sure.
• The moral? Set expectations will sour you to any system
  2006-06-04 18:33:36  sjk [Reply | View]
  
  
  My guess is after reading the entire article that the author has a very specific workflow, one that is shaped by past experience with Linux.
  
  Reminds me of Mac users who "hate" OS X because of their experience with Classic Mac OS and workflow dependencies on it. One difference is that some of them were forced to switch while chromatic has the luxury of making a conscious choice to use Linux.
• The moral? Set expectations will sour you to any system
  2006-06-04 22:40:11  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  That's true. I'm pretty fortunate that there are plenty of good choices for a Unix and Unix-like desktop. Longtime Mac OS users weren't so lucky.

• OS X sucks?
  2006-06-01 23:21:19  mparlee [Reply | View]
  
  
  I don't see how this article helps Mac developers or users in any way. It doesn't offer useable workarounds for Linux users to adjust to OS X and it doesn't offer any real information for Mac users switching to Linux. It is purely a Linux advocacy piece.
  
  Personally I switched to Mac OS X from Linux for my desktop OS and never looked back. I still hold Linux and FOSS in high regard and use them regularly but I don't miss either KDE or GNOME as a desktop.
  
  chromatic has a right to his opinion and to use the OS that works best for him, but why the readers of MacDevCenter would want to hear about the fact that he finds OS X so bad that he would switch to Linux is beyond me. Oh wait... is it possible that Linux users buy more O'Reilly books than Mac users do? Hmm....
  
• Who Said Anything Sucks?
  2006-06-01 23:39:43  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Oh wait... is it possible that Linux users buy more O'Reilly books than Mac users do? Hmm....
  
  

  Oh no, you caught me! This was completely and transparently an advocacy sop to all of the people who've bought Linux books, because none of them might ever possibly contemplate considering the idea that Mac OS X could potentially be a usable Unix desktop!

  
  
  

  (I like bizarre conspiracy theories too, like why Steve Jobs always wears a turtleneck. I heard that that's because Apple decapitated him when he left and it hides the scar where they reattached his head.)

• 2006 article about a 2003 OS?
  2006-06-01 22:00:39  dpeach [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think it is poor timing for the article. This is talking about an older version of Mac OS X. How does it apply to a current version? I don't know what has changed, since I just purchased my first Mac about a month ago. But I am sure that comparing a state of the art Linux box to Widows 2000 or ME would not really be fair.
  
  What is the authors usage of Unix on the desktop? That is never stated in the article. It sounds like it is not your average person's interest in a computer.
  
  Macs are not for everyone, but neither is a dump truck good for every job.
  
  I do agree with the author that there are some frustrations. I come from a Linux background and my wife from Windows. She has had very few complaints and I have been frustrated when using the new Mac. Particularly with any command line tools. So I can sympathize with the author. But he makes it sound like the Mac is not good for people who want to get work done, just those who want to play. And that is far from the truth.

• I want these 8 minutes of my life back
  2006-06-01 16:59:56  chris_barker [Reply | View]
  
  
  I regret having read this article. I learned nothing except that some O'Reilly writers cant be bothered to do their research before publishing.
• I want these 8 minutes of my life back
  2006-06-02 07:47:35  sam_kass [Reply | View]
  
  
  The whole article can be summed up with this line:
  
  "$129 OS Upgrades ... Sure, I don't get the t-shirt, but I can hold off on installing things that I absolutely do not need."
  
  Since almost everything the author complained about seems to be better in 10.4, there's really no point to this entire article. The bottom line UNIXis that on 10.4 it's EASIER to figure out what's going wrong in MacOS X than linux. I'd love "fsusage" on linux, and Mail has a nice menu option to show everything it's trying to do.
  
  The remaining complains really boil down to virtual desktops and focus-follows-mouse. If you really REALLY require these features, then X Windows is your only choice.
  
• fsusage
  2006-06-06 21:09:04  kms-werk [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hell, I wouldn't mind it on my OS X Tiger 10.4 MacBook Pro (Intel):
  
  

  
  
  [kself@holehawg:kself]$ man fsusage
  
  No manual entry for fsusage
  
  [kself@holehawg:kself]$ fink apropos fsusage
  
  Information about 4977 packages read in 4 seconds.
  
  [kself@holehawg:kself]$ which fsusage
  
  [kself@holehawg:kself]$ locate fsusage
  
  [kself@holehawg:kself]$ md
  
  md             md5sum         mdcheckschema  mdimport       mdutil
  
  md5            mdatopbm       mdfind         mdls           
  
  [kself@holehawg:kself]$ mdfind fsusage
  
  [kself@holehawg:kself]$ 
  
  

  
  
  (You do know that Spotlight's a GUI wrapper around mdfind, right?
  
  Bonus points to anyone who knows where "holehawg" comes from.
  
  /me shuttles back to his yurt....
• fsusage
  2006-06-29 19:51:35  siracusa [Reply | View]
  
  
  The command is called fs_usage (note the underscore).
• I want these 8 minutes of my life back
  2006-06-02 10:26:33  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I considered upgrading to Tiger, suspecting that it might upgrade the CLI utilities to deal with resource forks and improve the Aqua/X11 integration.
  
  I knew it wouldn't add the windowing system features I wanted.
  
  I didn't care about the new features (Spotlight, uh... other stuff...?), as they would have little immediate effect on my productivity.
  
  I decided it wasn't worth buying a once-a-year ticket on the upgrade train to gamble that eventually Mac OS X would allow me to work the way I want to work. Maybe that makes me a fool and a crank and a puppy-hating jerk, but I run into frustrations maybe once a week with Linux and ran into frustrations a couple of times an hour with Mac OS X. It just didn't make sense to me.
• I want these 8 minutes of my life back
  2006-06-01 18:23:57  eric.rigsby [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think this comment sums up the "OS X vs. world" idea. Most Mac users get so emotionally attached to the OS. OS X and related apps can do no wrong.
  
  I agree with almost all of the points made in this article. Some of these complaints I have been making about OS X since it was released.
  
  I still use my iBook everyday but have FreeBSD installed on all of my other computers. Coming from FreeBSD, I was excited by the possibilities of having a FreeBSD-esque userland to play with in OS X. I have been disappointed so far. The rumors of moving away from the bloated and slow mach kernel are interesting. I still really like my iBook with OS X though. I really like the 12 inch (some people say the screen is to small but I don't want a pizza box in my lap). I have been able to find open source apps that run natively. I am using NeoOffice. I know word processing is always a question.
  
  It's not Windows too. :)

• Thoughts on some of the points...
  2006-06-01 16:34:52  M.Elfstrand [Reply | View]
  
  
  
  
  • 
    Icons on the desktop:
    Finder > Preferences > Show these items on the Desktop
    (Uncheck all)
    This is the first thing I do when setting up my user account on a new OS X system. I too like my desktop clean, and it's quite simple.
    
  
  
  • 
    Virtual desktops:
    I use Virtue. Probably didn't exist at the time you were making up your mind, though, from the sound of the article. Even if you were to try it today, it may not meet your expectations depending on what you're used to in Linux; I find it does exactly what I need.
    
  
  
  • 
    Focus follows mouse:
    Can't help you there. I personally hate focus follows mouse, so I've never gone looking for a way to implement it.
    
  
  
  • 
    Package manager:
    I use DarwinPorts. Works great for me. YMMV.
    
  
  
  • 
    First-class package manager:
    Though I use DarwinPorts for UNIX-based apps, I don't get how having a package manager put things in its own hardcoded locations (which vary from distro to distro) is supposed to be more flexible and user-adapting than letting me drag the app icon wherever I want. The most annoying apps on OS X to me are the ones that force a location on me. It seems strangely out of place with your philosophy of customization.
    
  
  
  • 
    Downloading files to the Desktop:
    The location for downloadable files can be set in the web browser, same as web browsers on any platform.
    
  
  
  • 
    Application logs:
    Most apps log errors/status to the console.log file. You can view this from the command line if you like, but /Applications/Console will show the log files on the system and has a rather handy filter box. As for more detailed information on what the app is doing, Apple includes tools like Shark and Spin Control that will provide that in a nice way.
    
  
  
  • 
    Lack of freedom:
    I don't see how you having to adapt to the system follows from being able to see the source code for Mail.app. I find Linux to require far more adapting than OS X (the old "...it's just picky about it's friends" line). Guess it just depends on what you're used to.
    
  
  
  • 
    Case-insensitive filesystem:
    Because having two files named Readme and README is just plain stupid. Still, a case-sensitive variant of HFS+ is now included in OS X as an option (but was probably added after you made up your mind). I have never run into a need for it, though, and I use quite a bit of open-source software.
    
  
  
  • 
    Classic UNIX utilities and resource forks:
    They do as of 10.4, which sounds like it came out after you'd already decided to switch back to Linux.
    
  
  
  • 
    OS upgrades:
    I don't mind paying people for work. Sometimes the open source apps are good enough, but I've seen many projects abandoned because people have to make a living somehow, and I don't have the time to write code for every single project that's useful to me. I do use Spotlight, and things like the Kerberos integration in 10.4 make it well worth paying someone to do for me. I'm not sure how GarageBand fits in here as it's not part of the OS.
    
  
  

  
  
  I think your main valid points here are:
  

  
  
  1. you like the fuzzy feeling of having access to the source code, even if you never use it
  
  
  2. you don't have any need for software that OS X does really well (e.g. media apps)
  
  
  3. you're used to the way Linux works and don't want to change
  
  

  
  
  These are all perfectly fair points, and valid reasons for you to use Linux instead of OS X. But I didn't find the rest of the article to be as informative. Some of it's due to advances that have been made since you switched back, so I can hardly fault you for those, but some of your complaints about lack of customization are simply due to not even looking (e.g. Desktop icons). I'm not sure I agree that you gave it a fair trial. But as I said, I still think you have valid reasons for switching back.
• An answer to thoughts
  2006-06-06 22:25:42  kms-werk [Reply | View]
  
  
  Icons on the desktop:
  
  

  Mostly works. If you've enabled show hidden files, you'll
  still get .DS_Store and occasionally another system file there. Also
  for some reason PDFs and a few other browser downloads (Firefox) though
  I've told it to use ~/MozDownloads.

  
  
  Virtual desktops: Virtue
  
  I've got Virtue running. I'm finding I use it less and less with
  time. Not because I no longer need virtual desktops, but because it's a
  really, really bad virtual desktop. Other than transition effects.
  
  Virtue's faults?
  
  It's slow. Particularly when the system's swapped out. My Linux
  desktops don't behave like this, even under stress.
  
  The OS X desktop really isn't designed for multiple workstations (or
  monitors). That "Infinite height" menu starts to get inconvenient when
  it's two monitors over from where I'm at. And neither application
  dragging nor app/windows circulation apply particularly well to Virtue.
  Plus its own hotkey combo (alt-tab) steals what's a highly ingrained
  shortcut to me.
  
  
  Focus follows mouse
  
  For those of us who want it, it sucks not to have it.
  
  I suspect it would suck just as much if it was on and you couldn't turn
  it off. The point here isn't the setting, it's choice.
  
  Throw in a number of other window management gripes...
  
  Max vertical. For a text term, the one thing I want to be able to do,
  really, really quickly, and really, really easily, is max
  just the vertical aspect of my
  terminal window. On Linux, I'll bind alt-space to this. No-can-do
  under OS X.
  
  Resize widget. There's just the nub on the lower right of a window.
  Look, we're grownups. Just let me grab any border and resize, OK?
  
  Edges-off-screen-now-what fallback. Under most Linux WMs, alt+left
  mouse allows you to grab and move a window that's got sized or
  positioned largely off-screen so you can reach its controls. Not
  possible on OS X, though selecting "Window -> Maximize" seems to be a
  general rescue move. Shouldn't happen, but does.
  
  Raise/lower windows. OS X, like Windows, operates on a raise-only
  model. I can't tell a window to drop to the bottom of the
  window stack (alt-downarrow generally on my Linux desktop). Plays along
  with focus-follows-mouse. While Expose is almost neat enough
  on its own, the lack of a lower-window capability really sucks.
  
  Window shading. Third-party, paid-for add-on, haven't shelled out for
  it.
  
  Inconsistent maximization. In some apps, the maximize button goes full
  screen, in others it just says "get pleasently plump". If I want a
  window larger but not full size, I'll just drag it. If I want it to
  fill the damned window, Just Do It[tm]. And be consistent.
  
  I could continue. The point isn't any specific list, it's that there
  are capabilities not presented in Aqua, for which any number of users
  have working habits honed over years, for which OS X denies any
  choice.
  
  The irony: my preferred desktop environment is a (slightly tweaked)
  WindowMaker configuration. That's right, the NeXT desktop. Not
  unghodly sexy to look at, but a breeze to use.
  
  
  Package manager: I use DarwinPorts. Works great for
  me. YMMV.
  
  I think you're missing the point of single-point-of-control management
  of all system packages, including config files, dependencies,
  and the rest of it. Sure, I've got fink and Darwin Ports. And within
  their own limited universes, they rule (but provide just over a quarter
  the 20,000 package choices of my Debian system). OS X very clearly
  lacks that. I've bumped into limits of packages not ported to OS X, or
  not running smoothly (the X11 Mozilla port, urlview, and mutt, to name
  three). If I want Debian ... well, I know where to find it.
  Duplicating that effort on a proprietary base seems ... silly.
  
  And yes, while it's possible to add proprietary apps under Liinux,
  experience suggests that it's not frequently done and there are some
  pretty compelling reasons to avoid doing so, ranging from quality of
  Free Software alternatives to maintenance and security headaches.
  Software under management is pretty painlessly managed.
  
  There's some fairly compelling reasons to suggest that such package
  management addressing proprietary packages on a proprietary OS is highly
  unlikely (http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Rants/spyware.html) .
  
  First-class package manager: Though I use
  DarwinPorts for UNIX-based apps, I don't get how having a package
  manager put things in its own hardcoded locations (which vary from
  distro to distro) is supposed to be more flexible and user-adapting than
  letting me drag the app icon wherever I want.
  
  Those who fail to
  understand Debian policy are doomed to repeat it...poorly (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/) . See also
  Manoj's
  musings (http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/talks/why_debian/talk.html) .
  
  Note that package management doesn't constrain you, the administrator.
  You're more than welcome to muck up your system any way you want to,
  and in general, suffer the consequences. Rather, package management is
  a constraint on what a package maintainer can to your system.
  
  Downloading files to the Desktop: The location for
  downloadable files can be set in the web browser
  
  Despite having done this, I end up with files on desktop.
  
  Additionally, limitations in file browsers / download management (some
  directories stay hidden regardless of settings) mean that a simple punt
  is to save or drag the item to my desktop, then deal with it.
  Seriously, wget -O filename URL is preferable, particularly
  with X copy/paste symantics (also lacking in OS X).
  
  Application logs: Most apps log errors/status to the
  console.log file. You can view this from the command line if you like,
  but /Applications/Console will show the log files on the system and has
  a rather handy filter box.
  
  Thanks, but less, grep, tail -f, etc., are my friends. Much faster than
  a GUI-heavy, idiosyncratic tool. Microsoft's log viewer sucks too
  (though granted OS X's manages to avoid several of the worse blunders).
  
  Lack of freedom: I don't see how you having to
  adapt to the system follows from being able to see the source code for
  Mail.app.
  
  Strawman. Among the first things I noted on OS X was the lack of /proc.
  Not crucially useful, but very, very useful when needed. Even for the
  nontechnical user, it's pretty straightforward to create a script to
  reap /proc for useful debugging information for use in technical
  support. A script I'd written first for my own use and later shared
  on a number of user groups was integrated in a prior employers'
  professional services support process.
  
  Later, buying OS X for Unix Geeks, there were the sections marked
  simply "undocumented". While there may be lacking
  documentation for bits of Linux, there are very few areas which are
  intentionally left obscured.
  
  I find Linux to require far more adapting than OS X (the old
  "...it's just picky about it's friends" line). Guess it just depends on
  what you're used to.
  
  As has been noted: Linux gives you the choice. I find my own tweakage
  for new systems tends to get accomplished pretty quickly (having the
  config files to port around helps a lot). I'm still trying to get my
  MacBook Pro to work as I'd like it too.
  
  Case-insensitive filesystem: Because having two
  files named Readme and README is just plain stupid.
  
  Like it or not it's 1). Unix (and Linux) standard, and can result in
  incorrect or undesireable behavior. I find it annoying much the way DOS
  / CPM's swap of '\' for '/' is.
  
  Classic UNIX utilities and resource forks:
  
  Resource forks and other metadata strike me as a really poor idea on
  multiuser or distributed (remote filesystme) systems. Rather than
  dumping user-specific data all over the system, it should be managed in
  a per-user, user-controled, database.
  
  OS upgrades: I don't mind paying people for work.
  Sometimes the open source apps are good enough, but I've seen many
  projects abandoned because people have to make a living somehow, and I
  don't have the time to write code for every single project that's useful
  to me.
  
  And I don't mind being paid for mine. SW economics are strange, most FS
  development is compensated one way or another, and I've seen any number
  of proprietary apps (and OSs) die, either for lack of market interest or
  anticompetitive behavior. BeOS, Netscape, WordStar, VMS, Wang,
  Ashton-Tate, Lotus... Even where still extant, most of these are mere
  shadows of their former selves.
  
  Main Points
  
  You like the fuzzy feeling of having access to the source code, even
  if you never use it
  
  There's a very strong dynamic to free software, and GPL'd free software
  in particular. Yes, other licenses have their place, and I'm quite
  familiar with strategic licensing. But a sufficiently established
  [L]GPL base is powerful stuff. I think they understand this in
  Redmond...
  
  you don't have any need for software that OS X does really well (e.g.
  media apps
  
  Multimedia is a special case for free software. Because of legal
  encumberances (many would say illegitimate encumberances), patent and
  copyright laws restrict what would appear to be reasonable uses of
  software. Panic and megolomania in the film and music industries have
  been particularly toxic, and I'm hoping we'll be able to look back on
  the present in the not too distant future with mild bemusement. That
  said, yes, iTunes and its ilk are well-done. But I can skip through the
  FBI blipvert using mplayer ;-)
  
  
  you're used to the way Linux works and don't want to change
  
  ... and this is a problem why?
  
  Think Different(ly).
  
• Preview?
  2006-06-07 13:01:35  kms-werk [Reply | View]
  
  
  Really, it would be nice to have here.
  
  Feh.
• Focus Follows Mouse...possible where most useful
  2006-06-02 11:34:03  Krioni [Reply | View]
  
  
  I don't use it myself, but you can enable this for Terminal windows and for X11. Read details at:<br/>
  http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20031029203936659
  
• Sorry about the formatting
  2006-06-01 16:39:40  M.Elfstrand [Reply | View]
  
  
  Blech...That got rather mangled. The interpretation of HTML in these comments is...unusual...
• Sorry about the formatting
  2006-06-05 08:15:06  fak3r.com [Reply | View]
  
  
  unusual, inconsistant, etc -- but all could be at least avoided with a 'preview' button.

• OS defines your thinking
  2006-06-01 15:45:26  SteveGeorge [Reply | View]
  
  
  Chromatic,
  
  Great post and I have to agree. I'm using OS X a lot at the moment as I need Office, but every day it's painful ... and that's after over a year.
  
  My number one problem is lack of virtual windows. Virtue tries it's best but OS X isn't centred around the window concept so it's a constant problem. I use Witch to try and make alt+tab work properly.
  
  I wonder if the OS defines how you think and act on your machine though. I am not into media that much, but the plethora of tools and their ease of use is an eye opener. I can really understand how the creative juices could be driven by OS X's applications.
  
  Number 1 thing that GNOME could learn from OS X is consistent, easy and seamless keyboard use. I _really_ miss that on Linux.
  
  Cheers,
  
  Steve

• Switching back to Linux...
  2006-06-01 14:37:33  blakbyrd [Reply | View]
  
  
  There are versions of AbiWord, OpenOffice, and VIm on OSX, and most work very similar on Linux.
• Switching back to Linux...
  2006-06-01 15:01:38  chromatic | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I used all of those. The console version of Vim was quite nice. Unfortunately, Apple's X11 implementation made AbiWord and especially OpenOffice.org nearly unusable.
  
  I don't care if my widget sets don't all match perfectly, but when the fonts are as bad as they were in OO.o, it wasn't worth using.
• Switching back to Linux...
  2006-06-05 08:27:37  fak3r.com [Reply | View]
  
  
  And will all the complaints of Linux widgets not matching I find it very irritating that OS X has UIs that vary from the one Finder uses, to iTunes, to Safari, etc...why don't they just standardize on the iTunes 'skin' and get rid of the horrid 'brushed' (read; brused) metal skin? Where is their consistancy? Don't get me started on all the 3rd party apps that break all the appl UI rules; give me Ubuntu's all in one Dapper look for the most consistant looking OS out there.