[Cialug] OT: mac-mini?
jweida at gmail.com
Fri Oct 21 08:25:23 CDT 2005
On 10/20/05, Stuart Thiessen <sthiessen at passitonservices.org> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2005, at 18:21, David Champion wrote:
> > I get functionality updates from MS to things like IE and Media
> > Player. I don't use either of those much because the suck, but I
> > didn't have to pay for an OS update to get them.
> Neither do MacOS X users. Same difference.
> > I pay for the MS OS at home because I want it to play games that are
> > only available on that platform. If I could get those games to run
> > reliably on Linux, I would. Other than that I have no reason to need
> > or want Windows at home. Hopefully either game developers will start
> > releasing more Linux versions, or WinXP will be sufficient for those
> > needs for a while, and I won't have to buy Vista.
> > p.s. Get your Quake 4 Linux Client :
> > http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/20/
> > 1831234&tid=112&tid=10
> > Either way, I have to pay for Windows, and you have to pay for MacOSX,
> > so the amount really just accounting.
> >>> MacOSX is a nifty / pretty *nix, but it's:
> >>> a. Proprietary (read today's comments on /. regarding OO.o and
> >>> Carbon)
> >> ooh, it's on slashdot so uh, it must be true.
> > Oh. So there's already a MacOSX native port of OO.o 2.0 that nobody
> > knows about? I don't know all of the semantics, but if I understand
> > correctly there's an ugly(?) X11 port, but the native OSX port is a
> > bit behind.
> There is OpenOffice.org on X11 or NeoOffice using a Java approach. Both
> are good. NeoOffice has a better interface with the OS.
> > I don't currently see the comment there, it may have gotten modded
> > down below my threshold. Anyone with an opinion on /. is obviously a
> > troll. ;)
> > Apple chose to use a proprietary WM / envirionment / whatever you want
> > to call Cocoa / Carbon... and Mac users have to wait for things like
> > OO.o to be ported to it. I'm sure there are benefits to it, but it's
> > no fun to point those out! :)
> True. But that is what they based their business model on ... the
> interface. The nuts and bolts of the OS is opensource (Darwin). Apple
> like any other vendor simply add its unique software and look on it.
> Maybe it's not pure open source, but so far, I have to say I prefer Mac
> OS X to most Linux desktops I have worked with so far. For a GUI
> interface to the operating system, Mac OS X is much more friendly than
> Linux right now. Yet at the same time, I can tinker with the works
> underneath using the same tools that a Linux/BSD person would use.
> >>> b. Not OSS (would follow a. then, wouldn't it?)
> >> uh, no. you loose, thanks for playing. there are elements of the OS
> >> that are totally proprietary (IIRC I think several Linux distros
> >> include some non-free tech) but there is a core of tech (OpenDarwin)
> >> that is roughly equivalent to a normal BSD/Linux that IS definitely
> >> OSS - by OSDL standards. You're just wrong there Dave.
> > You are correct that some Linux distros, including Mandriva, do
> > contain some closed code. For instance, they distribute the
> > proprietary nVidia drivers. However, I can use the free
> > OpenDarwin is the commodity part of the OS, that has little to
> > differentiate itself from BSD or Linux. Without the proprietary stuff,
> > there's no reason for me to want OSX.
> People could use OpenDarwin and build a better GUI on top of it if they
> wanted to. Or run it with KDE or Gnome.
> > MacOSX != OpenDarwin.
> I think it is a container relationship. Mac OS X contains OpenDarwin. I
> don't think anyone says it is the same thing.
> > Saying that MacOSX is a little bit proprietary is like saying someone
> > is a little bit dead.
> Uh, Oh, Black and white thinking. If we wanted to talk about a
> continuum from proprietary to open source, we could say that Microsoft
> is way over on the proprietary side, Apple is more in the middle, and
> Linux is on the open source side of things. Honestly, I don't mind them
> having something that pays their bills if they do a good job in making
> the computer work for me. I mean compared to Microsoft, all the
> development tools are included to build for MacOSX. That is something
> in their favor in my opinion.
> > Apple does a lot for OSS - like the Rendezvous / zeroconf thing. But
> > they also do a lot of proprietary and downright unfriendly things. Ask
> > any one of the many people who've been sued by them.
> What company is perfect? (aside from WordPerfect .... ha ha).
> >>> Uh, end rant.
> >> uh, end rant rant.
> > End? That's no fun!
> > I would argue that most of the useablity issues remaining with a Linux
> > desktop system relate to issues like what we were fighting at the
> > meeting last night with Dave Swagler's Gateway laptop... which ties
> > back to my comments earlier this week with hardware vendor support for
> > Linux drivers, or at least providing specifications for someone to
> > develop them. (BTW, Barry got the Broadcom wifi driver loaded, but
> > it's not connecting to the WAP yet).
> Not just hardware driver support, but just configuration issues too. I
> have to be honest ... I have tried to use Linux at home. The command
> line didn't faze me much, but the GUI interface leaves a lot to be
> desired in configuring the system. Ordinary users want to be able to
> set everything up easily without ever having to go to the command line.
> The challenge with Linux is that there is no clear indicator how to
> perform those tasks. That caused me to lose motivation to have Linux
> on my desktop before because my wife and kids want something they can
> follow. When I had to replace a stolen tower, I just decided that Mac
> OS X has what I was looking for in a user experience that still allows
> me to work with Unix based tools, etc. I really recommend that the LUG
> seriously consider how to educate the public on how to _use_ the
> desktop on Linux so they can get more comfortable.
> > Installing Linux on hardware that's a year or so old is usually fairly
> > simple. It's new / exotic cutting edge hardware that causes headaches,
> > unfortunately.
> > Once a Linux system is up and running, it's very user friendly. I have
> > had non-technical people using a Linux desktop for web browsing, word
> > processing and other common tasks, and they often don't even notice
> > that it's Linux until I point it out. My fairly non-technical parents
> > were using a Linux desktop system for about a year for web surfing and
> > word processing.
> This is true ... until they need to configure the system in some way.
> Then I don't consider it quite as user friendly. My experience so far.
> Maybe the new distros have improved some things since SuSE 9.3.
> > Using a USB drive, or my digital camera, or my MP3 player in Mandriva
> > Linux is just as easy as it is in Windows or I would assume a Mac. I
> > plug them in, and they work.
> > In the end, we all have the choice to use whatever OS we want (as long
> > as we can afford it)... and I personally think it's great that we have
> > so many choices. For instance if buying a Mac Mini will keep your wife
> > happy, then by all means, buy one. But this is ostensibly a Linux
> > F/OSS User Group, so I think it is our responsibility to support the
> > F/OSS alternatives to proprietary systems.
> Fortunately, many F/OSS work well in a Mac environment so it is a good
> place to promote it as a intermediate stage. Fink is another good tool
> to bring F/OSS to the Mac platform.
> I'm a fan of Linux in a server environment, but I'm not yet sold on
> Linux for the desktop. :) I will be happy to be convinced some day
> otherwise. :)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cialug mailing list
> > Cialug at cialug.org
> > http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cialug